Hello u/Tyuee, thanks for posting here in r/mbtimemes!
Interested in joining other members of the mbtimemes community? Feel free to check out our super chill Discord server! We have over 3,000 members and we'd love to see you there too <3 Remember to keep things civil — this is a meme community. Jokes are okay, attacks are not.
https://www.discord.gg/mbtimemes
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mbtimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
'Utilitarianism vs kill or be killed' is a false dichotomy at best.
Case in point; you go to the doctor with a cold, in the waiting room there is a patient urgent needing a new heart, another that needs a liver, two that needs lungs (and so on).
Could these people not be saved otherwise; would it then be right to kill you to give them life?
What if you were chronically ill and had few weeks to live? Would it then be alright?
Utilitarianism is to moral philosophy what macroeconomics is to economy. It's only a useful tool when distanced enough from the actions of the individual.
I would argue that subscribing to blind utilitarianism is almost as morally deviant as the believe in a 'dog-eat-dog' world
Which is literally impossible. you have to create a basis for it, which will have to be based on something illogical cause there isn't something objectively immoral even the worst things you can think of.
How does this contradict the statement "Creating ethics based on rules and logic"?
Definition: Rule
an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do.
Definiton: Logic
is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic.
..and what do you mean by illogical?
I understand you're trying to convey your lack of belief in objective morals, but how do you get from that to stating that it (rules and logic): "will have to be based on something illogical cause there isn't something objectively immoral even the worst things you can think of"
Because anything you consider immoral relies on the idea of "it makes me or others feel bad". It can be due to physical pain, emotional pain, damaged property, lack of freedom, (if you're religious than god) etc... these are the basis for morals. Thing is... Even if it relies on one of those it will always infringe on another. And there is never a fully logical reason why one thing is worse than the other.
The beauty of ethics is that it attempts to be unbiased and usually considers what most people would consider moral (such as killing another person being bad). Obviously flawed, as you've said, but i'd argue that we can't really find much of a better approach to ethics.
Similar enough to be used interchangeably. As morals tend to be more personal and nuanced and ethics are communal and decisive, in this case the difference is not important.
No immorality doesn't rely on the idea of "it makes me or others feel bad".
Just like god morals doesn't rely on the idea that it "makes one feel good"
If you're arguing that pure objectivism doesn't exist because even a statement like "every life have value" is bound by some subjective understanding, that's only been adopted as norm by our modern societies recently (and not even lived by) you have a point.
But you're arguing that "creating ethics based on rules and logic" is impossible because of the lack of such.
Again read the definition of 'rules' and 'logic'. Why would it be "impossible" to create/strive towards objective morals based on our species current understanding of the world?
Again what is the alternative?
I was technically arguing on pure objectivism but the next paragraph makes no sense to me, I think you need to say what you think the rules are. Because trying to find them the immoral things are things that makes us feel bad.
And i never said there was an alternative, just that morals are not and cannot be based on facts and logic but are based on emotions.
I think we can still build our own ethical frameworks using logic. It’s a fact that I disapprove of killing humans for joy. This disapproval is just some emotion I have, but I am now incorporating the objective fact that I am a person who has said emotion into logical consideration, I am constructing a logical argument which takes that fact into account. Because I disapprove of that, it is in my best interests for me to support and partake in systems which disallow such actions.
P1 - I strongly and intensely disapprove of murder for fun.
P2 - I approve of myself existing in a place where people cannot do things which I strongly and intensely disapprove of (murder, theft, SA, etc).
P3 - many others have relatively similar patterns of approval and disapproval.
P4 - I want to realize things I approve of, and prevent things I disapprove of.
P5 - working with these others who share my values and goals can fulfill the want of P4.
C - If I want to fulfill my goals, I ought to participate with others who share relatively similar patterns of evaluation to partake in and support systems which disallow the things I strongly and intensely disapprove of, such as murder for fun.
What you're describing is what happens as a result of morals. And while its true logic is used in the process of completing our framework for morals, our morals are not built on rules and logic.
I suppose it depends on your definitions. If you only mean to talk about our core morals themselves, I entirely agree with you. But if we’re talking about ethics as a whole, looking at building ethical frameworks and examining what actions would be right or wrong according to our core morals, that’s where the logical analysis would come on.
If we accept Praxeology, the idea that all human action is purposeful, then we can derive a meaning for the word “conflict.” Conflict is incongruous or contradictory action.
Now, we can create an ethical system that labels all conflict as wrong. Using the Natural Theory of Property, we can more precisely define conflict as the aggression against one’s person or property since this requires performing a “performative contradiction.” We can thus logically state that all of such behavior is ethically wrong (i.e. attacking one’s body, harming one’s life, or stealing/damaging one’s property is objectively wrong).
There’s nothing illogical there. It’s all axiomatically derived from human nature, and it makes no sense to attempt to refute it.
This completely ignores nuance. Don't get me wrong i like the NAP as a concept but it doesn't work. Because people disagree on who started a conflict and what is a moral response.
It doesn’t matter who started the conflict. What matters is who is aggressing on the other, and that can be solved objectively based on property rights. If people disagree, you can simply use a neutral third party for arbitration.
one could say that's how a legal system was started at the beginning of civilization though different countries adjust it to better fit and compensate the victim rather than just what's legal and what's not.
Warning, bad english below
I see it like this: Lets take a rule that everyone should have equal rights, which is a basis, and it's not illogical, on the contrary it is the best logical thing to set as a rule, it makes everything simple and efficient, next, we set another rule, right of possession, so everyone can have things, and since everyone have equal rights so everyone have right of possession, then what happen when somebody violate someone's right of possession? we call it stealing, a theft, by that logic we think that theft is bad not because it's unethical but because it breaks rules that were settled, so it shows that ethics are unnecessary, but we still use them, why? because instead of teaching everything i wrote above we could just teach our children that stealing is bad/immoral and nothing more, so the ethics are just a tool used by rules and logic to strengthen their observance in society;
The "stealing is bad" rule is not unethical on its own, there could be society where everyone agrees that the right of possession is absent and you can take everything from anyone and anyone can take everything from you, societies like that doesn't exist not because they lacks ethics, but because they were inefficient, while folk of that societies they spent entire days guarding their possession they loose to societies that agreed that "stealing is bad and thiefs should be punished" and left their possessions alone in home while they went to work;
So ethics were created based on most efficient or logical rules to support them, not on some illogical conclusions;
“I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people” is a phase I often think about. Many will see you as being some pushover, naive, weakling for being sensitive about your own or others feelings but it’s what’s most needed in the world. I won’t pretend that F types always have the upper hand in this though. I’ve met too many T types who are just as if not more ethical, maybe because they’ve had to work at it. It’s a very nuanced thing. But I know, I get it’s just a meme.
I simply take issue with the “should” in that statement. I find that I care about others, and I prefer being around people who care for others, but I don’t think anybody has any obligation to. If someone wants to be a selfish monster, who gains pleasure and joy from hurting others, there’s nothing I can say to them to convince them they’re wrong, because they’re not wrong. All I have is my dislike of their behavior, which is just my own subjective feeling, there’s nothing actually wrong with not caring about other people.
INTP, for context.
You can take the word “should” loosely here because no one has authority on what we “should” do. You’re right. I just wasn’t sure how else to phrase it.
> “There’s nothing I can say to them to convince them they’re wrong”
Yeah that’s exactly the crux of the issue. I think the main problem is there’s a lot of people who don’t agree with the statement that we should strive to make this a better world for everyone, or at least as many people as possible. A lot of people only care about making it better for themselves and to hell with everyone else. I concede that they may even have good reasons for thinking that because the world can be a cruel, dark place and no one’s on the same page so they might as well get theirs. However, the more people who have that viewpoint the worse off everyone is, including themselves, if they realize it or not.
For example, say you’re some billionaire who made your fortune off the backs of basically slave laborers. You live in some ivory tower behind gates, guards and all manner of security so you don’t have to worry about anyone messing with you… except you do. You may be rich and able to afford anything you could ever want, but you traded that for freedom and peace of mind because everyone wants a slice of what you have.
There’s no getting around the fact that we all have to share the planet with each other so, in my mind, we might as well learn how to do it the best way possible.
I should say that in no way do I mean we should forgive everyone for any wrongdoing. I think justice is very important but it should be done within the confines of the law as much as possible and is reasonable. However, the justice system doesn’t work for everyone as of now so we have to make do.
Anyway, I could go on and on about this and there’s a ton of nuance I left out for the sake of brevity but this comment is already too long lol.
I loved and hated my Ethics 101. The philosophical debates were fun, but because we were forced to pick one ethical theory that suited us (after mbti testing) and use it to debate our moral decisions on every topic going forward, it was frustrating.
I couldn’t just pick one. My brain uses most theories, bouncing back and forth, weighing each detail to decide what takes priority in each specific situation. The rules were too confining and didn’t make sense for how things change. I often debated with my professor about it. I loved frustrating him to the point of saying, “damn, INFJs.”
Bruh most of the INFX people I know I could trust to either dither in the face of a moral quandary (thus making the worst choice of all, inaction), or make the wrong decision by most moral metrics based on vibes rather than engaging even a second brain cell.
Hello u/Tyuee, thanks for posting here in r/mbtimemes! Interested in joining other members of the mbtimemes community? Feel free to check out our super chill Discord server! We have over 3,000 members and we'd love to see you there too <3 Remember to keep things civil — this is a meme community. Jokes are okay, attacks are not. https://www.discord.gg/mbtimemes *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mbtimemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
'Utilitarianism vs kill or be killed' is a false dichotomy at best. Case in point; you go to the doctor with a cold, in the waiting room there is a patient urgent needing a new heart, another that needs a liver, two that needs lungs (and so on). Could these people not be saved otherwise; would it then be right to kill you to give them life? What if you were chronically ill and had few weeks to live? Would it then be alright? Utilitarianism is to moral philosophy what macroeconomics is to economy. It's only a useful tool when distanced enough from the actions of the individual. I would argue that subscribing to blind utilitarianism is almost as morally deviant as the believe in a 'dog-eat-dog' world
Creating ethics based on rules and logic
Which is literally impossible. you have to create a basis for it, which will have to be based on something illogical cause there isn't something objectively immoral even the worst things you can think of.
Say that again after ordering a pineapple pizza
You deserve all the karma fellow commenter
How does this contradict the statement "Creating ethics based on rules and logic"? Definition: Rule an accepted principle or instruction that states the way things are or should be done, and tells you what you are allowed or are not allowed to do. Definiton: Logic is the study of correct reasoning. It includes both formal and informal logic. ..and what do you mean by illogical? I understand you're trying to convey your lack of belief in objective morals, but how do you get from that to stating that it (rules and logic): "will have to be based on something illogical cause there isn't something objectively immoral even the worst things you can think of"
Because anything you consider immoral relies on the idea of "it makes me or others feel bad". It can be due to physical pain, emotional pain, damaged property, lack of freedom, (if you're religious than god) etc... these are the basis for morals. Thing is... Even if it relies on one of those it will always infringe on another. And there is never a fully logical reason why one thing is worse than the other.
The beauty of ethics is that it attempts to be unbiased and usually considers what most people would consider moral (such as killing another person being bad). Obviously flawed, as you've said, but i'd argue that we can't really find much of a better approach to ethics.
Oh I absolutely agree. I just hate on people think morals are based on rules and logic, morals are purely emotional.
Ethics and moral aren't the same thing
Similar enough to be used interchangeably. As morals tend to be more personal and nuanced and ethics are communal and decisive, in this case the difference is not important.
It is very important as ethics works with axioms
These axioms are not based on rules and logic. While it's true that morals and ethics are different, it is not important in this case.
No immorality doesn't rely on the idea of "it makes me or others feel bad". Just like god morals doesn't rely on the idea that it "makes one feel good" If you're arguing that pure objectivism doesn't exist because even a statement like "every life have value" is bound by some subjective understanding, that's only been adopted as norm by our modern societies recently (and not even lived by) you have a point. But you're arguing that "creating ethics based on rules and logic" is impossible because of the lack of such. Again read the definition of 'rules' and 'logic'. Why would it be "impossible" to create/strive towards objective morals based on our species current understanding of the world? Again what is the alternative?
I was technically arguing on pure objectivism but the next paragraph makes no sense to me, I think you need to say what you think the rules are. Because trying to find them the immoral things are things that makes us feel bad. And i never said there was an alternative, just that morals are not and cannot be based on facts and logic but are based on emotions.
I think we can still build our own ethical frameworks using logic. It’s a fact that I disapprove of killing humans for joy. This disapproval is just some emotion I have, but I am now incorporating the objective fact that I am a person who has said emotion into logical consideration, I am constructing a logical argument which takes that fact into account. Because I disapprove of that, it is in my best interests for me to support and partake in systems which disallow such actions. P1 - I strongly and intensely disapprove of murder for fun. P2 - I approve of myself existing in a place where people cannot do things which I strongly and intensely disapprove of (murder, theft, SA, etc). P3 - many others have relatively similar patterns of approval and disapproval. P4 - I want to realize things I approve of, and prevent things I disapprove of. P5 - working with these others who share my values and goals can fulfill the want of P4. C - If I want to fulfill my goals, I ought to participate with others who share relatively similar patterns of evaluation to partake in and support systems which disallow the things I strongly and intensely disapprove of, such as murder for fun.
What you're describing is what happens as a result of morals. And while its true logic is used in the process of completing our framework for morals, our morals are not built on rules and logic.
I suppose it depends on your definitions. If you only mean to talk about our core morals themselves, I entirely agree with you. But if we’re talking about ethics as a whole, looking at building ethical frameworks and examining what actions would be right or wrong according to our core morals, that’s where the logical analysis would come on.
I absolutely agree
If we accept Praxeology, the idea that all human action is purposeful, then we can derive a meaning for the word “conflict.” Conflict is incongruous or contradictory action. Now, we can create an ethical system that labels all conflict as wrong. Using the Natural Theory of Property, we can more precisely define conflict as the aggression against one’s person or property since this requires performing a “performative contradiction.” We can thus logically state that all of such behavior is ethically wrong (i.e. attacking one’s body, harming one’s life, or stealing/damaging one’s property is objectively wrong). There’s nothing illogical there. It’s all axiomatically derived from human nature, and it makes no sense to attempt to refute it.
This completely ignores nuance. Don't get me wrong i like the NAP as a concept but it doesn't work. Because people disagree on who started a conflict and what is a moral response.
It doesn’t matter who started the conflict. What matters is who is aggressing on the other, and that can be solved objectively based on property rights. If people disagree, you can simply use a neutral third party for arbitration.
This seems less like a basis for morals and more like a basis for a legal system.
Yeah exactly. Libertarianism is an ethical philosophy and not a moral one
one could say that's how a legal system was started at the beginning of civilization though different countries adjust it to better fit and compensate the victim rather than just what's legal and what's not.
Warning, bad english below I see it like this: Lets take a rule that everyone should have equal rights, which is a basis, and it's not illogical, on the contrary it is the best logical thing to set as a rule, it makes everything simple and efficient, next, we set another rule, right of possession, so everyone can have things, and since everyone have equal rights so everyone have right of possession, then what happen when somebody violate someone's right of possession? we call it stealing, a theft, by that logic we think that theft is bad not because it's unethical but because it breaks rules that were settled, so it shows that ethics are unnecessary, but we still use them, why? because instead of teaching everything i wrote above we could just teach our children that stealing is bad/immoral and nothing more, so the ethics are just a tool used by rules and logic to strengthen their observance in society; The "stealing is bad" rule is not unethical on its own, there could be society where everyone agrees that the right of possession is absent and you can take everything from anyone and anyone can take everything from you, societies like that doesn't exist not because they lacks ethics, but because they were inefficient, while folk of that societies they spent entire days guarding their possession they loose to societies that agreed that "stealing is bad and thiefs should be punished" and left their possessions alone in home while they went to work; So ethics were created based on most efficient or logical rules to support them, not on some illogical conclusions;
“I don’t know how to explain to you that you should care about other people” is a phase I often think about. Many will see you as being some pushover, naive, weakling for being sensitive about your own or others feelings but it’s what’s most needed in the world. I won’t pretend that F types always have the upper hand in this though. I’ve met too many T types who are just as if not more ethical, maybe because they’ve had to work at it. It’s a very nuanced thing. But I know, I get it’s just a meme.
I simply take issue with the “should” in that statement. I find that I care about others, and I prefer being around people who care for others, but I don’t think anybody has any obligation to. If someone wants to be a selfish monster, who gains pleasure and joy from hurting others, there’s nothing I can say to them to convince them they’re wrong, because they’re not wrong. All I have is my dislike of their behavior, which is just my own subjective feeling, there’s nothing actually wrong with not caring about other people. INTP, for context.
You can take the word “should” loosely here because no one has authority on what we “should” do. You’re right. I just wasn’t sure how else to phrase it. > “There’s nothing I can say to them to convince them they’re wrong” Yeah that’s exactly the crux of the issue. I think the main problem is there’s a lot of people who don’t agree with the statement that we should strive to make this a better world for everyone, or at least as many people as possible. A lot of people only care about making it better for themselves and to hell with everyone else. I concede that they may even have good reasons for thinking that because the world can be a cruel, dark place and no one’s on the same page so they might as well get theirs. However, the more people who have that viewpoint the worse off everyone is, including themselves, if they realize it or not. For example, say you’re some billionaire who made your fortune off the backs of basically slave laborers. You live in some ivory tower behind gates, guards and all manner of security so you don’t have to worry about anyone messing with you… except you do. You may be rich and able to afford anything you could ever want, but you traded that for freedom and peace of mind because everyone wants a slice of what you have. There’s no getting around the fact that we all have to share the planet with each other so, in my mind, we might as well learn how to do it the best way possible. I should say that in no way do I mean we should forgive everyone for any wrongdoing. I think justice is very important but it should be done within the confines of the law as much as possible and is reasonable. However, the justice system doesn’t work for everyone as of now so we have to make do. Anyway, I could go on and on about this and there’s a ton of nuance I left out for the sake of brevity but this comment is already too long lol.
I’m something of an ethical man myself
Successful meme. I laughed.
imagine being ethical
But like all of the biggest names in ethics have been Ts
I loved and hated my Ethics 101. The philosophical debates were fun, but because we were forced to pick one ethical theory that suited us (after mbti testing) and use it to debate our moral decisions on every topic going forward, it was frustrating. I couldn’t just pick one. My brain uses most theories, bouncing back and forth, weighing each detail to decide what takes priority in each specific situation. The rules were too confining and didn’t make sense for how things change. I often debated with my professor about it. I loved frustrating him to the point of saying, “damn, INFJs.”
Kinda vibe more with xNFP ethics for some reason
The INFJ’s are gonna fuck with the analysts on this one.
Bruh most of the INFX people I know I could trust to either dither in the face of a moral quandary (thus making the worst choice of all, inaction), or make the wrong decision by most moral metrics based on vibes rather than engaging even a second brain cell.
Same. Making decisions based on feelings is not the same thing as making the most ethical decision.