[Serious] An Argument For Ethical Egoism

[vulcanlogician]

@Rev. Rye


I think what's being done here, Rev. is that you are considering two separate examples and treating them as one.

The "first" race is one that the runner ought to be able to win (presumably because he is more fit than his rivals). But then when it's time to run the race-- SURPRISE!-- now, you're running against Usain Bolt. There is no way that the runner can win now. But the race against Usain Bolt is actually a "second" example.

We can solve this problem by considering if Usain Bolt is going to be in the race BEFORE we determine if our runner ought to be able to win the race.

[SenseMaker007]

As someone who's read Hume, this looks like someone doesn't know about the is-ought problem:

I've known of it for years ... and this doesn't contradict it.

Not to mention that many people often misunderstand the is-ought problem anyway. Hume never said you can't get an ought from an is (in fact, it could be argued that he offered arguments for doing that very thing in his moral philosophy) ... he just objected to many people who jumped from descriptive premises to prescriptive conclusions without any justification whatsoever.

---

@Rev. Rye


I think what's being done here, Rev. is that you are considering two separate examples and treating them as one.

The "first" race is one that the runner ought to be able to win (presumably because he is more fit than his rivals). But then when it's time to run the race-- SURPRISE!-- now, you're running against Usain Bolt. There is no way that the runner can win now. But the race against Usain Bolt is actually a "second" example.

We can solve this problem by considering if Usain Bolt is going to be in the race BEFORE we determine if our runner ought to be able to win the race.

The runner doesn't think "I can't do this but I should.". Even if they think they can't win, or can't come second, they may just want to do the best they can. They don't aim for goals they think they can't possibly achieve and tell themselves they should achieve what they believe they can't.

Ambitious people may aim for a big goal that they think they have an extremely low chance of achieving ... but no rational person aims for something they think is utterly impossible.

Besides, I don't think the 'ought' with regards to competitive sports quite applies to moral philosophy. "I aspire to do X" is not quite the same as "I am morally obligated to do X".

I find it odd that anybody can object to the idea that telling somebody that they are morally obligated to do something that you know they can't possibly do is an unreasonable command.

[The Grand Nudger]

No rational person thinks that they are morally obligated to do something that is impossible for them to do.

Many of we marginally rational people think exactly that. There is no ought-can rule.

Most of us will seek to improve either our abilities or our situation seeking to fulfill those obligations that may be beyond us, and in the end..they may well prove to be - but it doesn't genuinely diminish the obligation, even if it provides us with some desert modification for failure.

[vulcanlogician]

Many of we marginally rational people think exactly that.  There is no ought-can rule.

Most of us will seek to improve either our abilities or our situation seeking to fulfill those obligations that may be beyond us, and in the end..they may well prove to be - but it doesn't genuinely diminish the obligation, even if it provides us with some desert modification for failure.

Then, Gae, you ought to use fairy magic to cure HIV/AIDS in sub saharan Africa.

In a perfect world, you could cure HIV with the snap of a finger. But aiming to do so would be a dereliction of one's real moral duty... which (realistically) might be something like contributing to the wellbeing of children in sub saharan Africa via charity -OR- contributing to efforts that seek a cure to HIV/AIDS.

It makes much more sense to have oughts that are also cans.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's certainly more practical, but we do hold a great multitude of oughts simultaneously and work towards their fulfillment the same.  There are a good number of us doing this, not at all about the same set of things, either. There's nothing preventing me or you from getting the sunday shopping done and, at least attempting, to do what would be wonderful if it could be done, but may not ultimately be possible.

Consider the limitations we're placing (and the short shrift human experience is recieving) whenever we contend that we "ought not" whatever we presently can't, or any other such rejection of the possibility that obligation can exceed a persons abilities.

[Rev. Rye]

Looking at Khem’s reply, I think I probably should have gone for the jugular and pointed out how many of the larger scale problems of the world are perfect counterexamples to the “ought implies can” idea.

AIDS in Africa is going out of control, police brutality in America is based on so many complicated issues that it’s likely virtually impossible to solve, and any attempts at keeping global warming at bay hang like a Sword of Damocles with the world’s plutocrats, knives in hand, cutting at the thread.

These are even clearer examples of an ought that can’t than a runner going up against Usain Bolt. They can’t be bypassed by just deciding to not go up against someone who holds 19 world records. These are serious issues happening right now, particularly the last one, that we ought to take care of, and it’s not likely they can be solved.

[vulcanlogician]

Looking at Khem’s reply, I think I probably should have gone for the jugular and pointed out how many of the larger scale problems of the world are perfect counterexamples to the “ought implies can” idea.

AIDS in Africa is going out of control, police brutality in America is based on so many complicated issues that it’s likely virtually impossible to solve, and any attempts at keeping global warming at bay hang like a Sword of Damocles with the world’s plutocrats, knives in hand, cutting at the thread.

These are even clearer examples of an ought that can’t than a runner going up against Usain Bolt. They can’t be bypassed by just deciding to not go up against someone who holds 19 world records. These are serious issues happening right now, particularly the last one, that we ought to take care of, and it’s not likely they can be solved.

I think it is possible to work toward improving the problems you listed. And our moral duty is therefore to do what we can to make an impact. Not to fling ourselves against a wall and achieve nothing.


Thought experiment: Let's say you had a choice to do one of two things:

1. Win a hundred meter dash against Usain Bolt and cure HIV the world over.

or

2. Win a hundred meter dash against a high school track and fielder and make the lives of people suffering from AIDS more comfortable.

Since it is impossible to win a race against Usain Bolt, why bother trying? With a little effort, option 2 is possible and it creates a real change in the world. Option 1, if you CAN manage to do it, produces a better outcome, but how is this outcome relevant if it is not achievable?

I suppose what we are getting at with the "ought implies can" issue is the importance of consequentialism in ethics.

[SenseMaker007]

No rational person thinks that they are morally obligated to do something that is impossible for them to do.

Many of we marginally rational people think exactly that.  There is no ought-can rule.

You sure like disagreeing for the sake of it.

P.S. The key word there is 'marginally'.

Although, what you'd see as marginally rational I'd probably see as completely idiotic.

[Mister Agenda]

It's unfalsifiable to anyone but me that all of my actions are based on my perceived self-interest. There's no benevolent act that I can perform that can't be surmised to be ego-driven; because my internal motivations are only accessible to me. That said, I always get something out of my benevolence, even if it's only avoiding guilt or enjoying a warm fuzzy feeling.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think it's possible to work towards one set of problems, but not the other, vulcan (or this much is stated in the comments regarding bolt and hiv).  It stands to reason that a competitive runner might imagine winning the race to be the more legitimate possibility between the two.  It may be that you're both wrong, that no one ever takes bolts records (or the next guys) and that no one ever solves some significant health problem in africa.  It may also be that both are possible.

It's not clear from your assessment that you were really doing any calculus as to which one were more possible than the other, more like moralizing over which is the nobler effort to work towards. Which set of potentially impossible options would, if it were possible, produce the better outcome, the one with "real change". It's unclear why it would be any more possible for a person to win against high school stars than bolt, in any case. I know that I couldn't, but if I felt the obligation to try, what modification would there be on the obligation? It may in fact -be- a high school star that cracks every one of his records. Any of our goals may be improbable, or impossible. Does that change our obligations (if any) or is it just some comment on relative chances of success in fulfilling them?

It may be true that our noblest goals are beyond our abilities, and that some relatively less meaningful endeavor is more attainable. Here again, though, we see that there is no ought-can rule. We do maintain that there are things we should do, that for one reason or another, we may not be able to do. It doesn't seem to lesson our obligations towards their fulfillment. Why do you think we have this intuition?

As another poster asked, why do we think we should try to save this rock, even though we're not certain that it would be possible?