Moral equivalence?

  • 12 Replies
  • 1237 Views
*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Moral equivalence?
« on: November 25, 2010, 10:12:00 PM »
I was making scrambled eggs, when a thought popped into my head.

If we can agree that inflicting pain on someone is immoral, and assuming we could accurately measure pain, would dispersing it amongst multiple people to dilute the pain per person be more, less, or equal on a 'morality scale'? Let's create a theoretical unit of pain P.
Does one person experiencing pain of 10 P morally equate to 10 people experiencing of pain of 1P?
...Of 1000 people experiencing .01P?

My initial inclination is to think that it would be slightly more moral, which would appear to be at odds with the basic math (assuming addition/multiplication actually does apply without alternate variables.)

Just curious what other people think.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2010, 10:19:48 PM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Beorn

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 6543
  • If I can't trust my eyes, what can I trust?
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2010, 11:52:01 PM »
I was making scrambled eggs, when a thought popped into my head.

If we can agree that inflicting pain on someone is immoral, and assuming we could accurately measure pain, would dispersing it amongst multiple people to dilute the pain per person be more, less, or equal on a 'morality scale'? Let's create a theoretical unit of pain P.
Does one person experiencing pain of 10 P morally equate to 10 people experiencing of pain of 1P?
...Of 1000 people experiencing .01P?

My initial inclination is to think that it would be slightly more moral, which would appear to be at odds with the basic math (assuming addition/multiplication actually does apply without alternate variables.)

Just curious what other people think.

I think you should include time in there too.
I feel that up to a certain amount of pain it would be morally better to have it divided over 1000 people, where the limit is that I think that at some point you just hit a pain maximum and it doesn't matter if you get more pain above that point, so if you already reached that point it's morally better to put it on one person.
Quote
Only one thing can save our future. Give Thork a BanHammer for Th*rksakes!

Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2010, 12:26:07 AM »
Out of random here...are you talking about physical pain (as in torture, no food, sanitary etc) or mental/emotional pain like a family member dying. If it were the latter, I think it's that one person should experience it.

*

spanner34.5

  • 4635
  • feck arse drink
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2010, 02:55:28 AM »
Is withholding pain from a masochist in fact, inflicting pain?
My I.Q. is 85. Or was it 58?

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #4 on: November 26, 2010, 05:48:00 AM »
if you can theoretically divide it amongst as many people as possible then I would say spread it was wide and thin as possible, after so many divisions it will no longer be considered pain, therefore no suffering will come from it, therefore it is moral.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36114
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #5 on: November 26, 2010, 06:31:49 AM »
Morality is too complex and subjective to be measured quantitatively.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #6 on: November 26, 2010, 11:12:57 AM »
Out of random here...are you talking about physical pain (as in torture, no food, sanitary etc) or mental/emotional pain like a family member dying. If it were the latter, I think it's that one person should experience it.
Any pain without physical damage. I am discounting insignificant damages like harm induced by stress.

Morality is too complex and subjective to be measured quantitatively.
Do you consider pain to be the same way?

I'd like to clarify that I'm not trying to classify moral acts into objective or universal terms, just relative terms on a subjective moral scale. Kinda like an indifference curve in economics. It's subjective, but can be compared (in >, <, and = forms) to other subjective morals.

if you can theoretically divide it amongst as many people as possible then I would say spread it was wide and thin as possible, after so many divisions it will no longer be considered pain, therefore no suffering will come from it, therefore it is moral.

I am inclined to agree. Does this imply that steps toward this end are also moral to some degree?

I think you should include time in there too.
I feel that up to a certain amount of pain it would be morally better to have it divided over 1000 people, where the limit is that I think that at some point you just hit a pain maximum and it doesn't matter if you get more pain above that point, so if you already reached that point it's morally better to put it on one person.
Interesting.
Presuming that there is a maximum amount of pain that can be perceived by a person (in a fixed amount of time), both extreme ends of the spectrum appear to potential be more moral than the middle.

This time element also begs the question, does some fixed amount of pain become better or worse when it spread out over time to insignificant discomfort, or shortened to an instant of agony?
« Last Edit: November 26, 2010, 11:15:12 AM by ﮎingulaЯiτy »
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Benocrates

  • 3077
  • Canadian Philosopher
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #7 on: November 26, 2010, 01:40:22 PM »
What parsifal said. I suppose this thought experiment could hold some kind of importance in terms of social and political justice...but only as some kind of abstract criteria. But ultimately, I think the nature of pain/suffering, etc., is far too complex a concept, in theoretical and practical terms, to be analyzed in this way.
Quote from: President Barack Obama
Pot had helped
Get the fuck over it.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2010, 06:51:42 PM »
Utilitarianism is a crock of shit.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

ﮎingulaЯiτy

  • Arbitrator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 9074
  • Resident atheist.
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2010, 08:02:42 PM »
Utilitarianism is a crock of shit.
If total pain was always held constant, do you think that utilitarianism would apply?
If I was asked to imagine a perfect deity, I would never invent one that suffers from a multiple personality disorder. Christians get points for originality there.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #10 on: November 28, 2010, 01:42:08 AM »
I think that the entire point in this discussion is flawed in that we can't really agree that inflicting pain on someone is always immoral.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

James

  • Flat Earther
  • The Elder Ones
  • 5613
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #11 on: November 28, 2010, 09:42:00 AM »
Utilitarianism simply fails to map the spectrum of conditions and behaviours on which ethics prescribes or proscribes. Many evils have absolutely no relation to pain, happiness or pleasure, as do many goods. Many value-laden targets offer prescriptions in the opposite direction to that which Utilitarianism predicts.
"For your own sake, as well as for that of our beloved country, be bold and firm against error and evil of every kind." - David Wardlaw Scott, Terra Firma 1901

*

Lord Wilmore

  • Vice President
  • Administrator
  • 12089
Re: Moral equivalence?
« Reply #12 on: November 28, 2010, 04:02:11 PM »
In my opinion, utilitarianism is wrong about as many things as it is right about. The theory contains too many arbitrary notions and unjustifiable consequences (no pun intended).
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord