
A Short Course in Ethics - twampss
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/ethics
======
defen
The intellectual arrogance in this post is nauseating. It is extremely rare
that a 22 year-old is qualified to speak so authoritatively on such a deep
topic as ethics, and this post demonstrates that Aaron Swartz is not one of
them.

1) I've never seen a more clear example of Nietzsche's "inversion of values."
I'm not a libertarian, but this is straight out of Ayn Rand - the good, the
strong, the responsible, owe a _moral debt_ to the weakest, poorest, least
able people _in the world_ \-- regardless of how they came to find themselves
in such a parlous state.

2) Like any totalitarian ideology, it complete ignores the reality of human
nature. Instead, it attempts to conform reality to simple, preconceived
theories and assumptions. In this case, the assumption is that all humans are
equal autonomous individuals, and the theory is that disparate individual or
national outcomes are caused by the strong oppressing the weak. It ignores
that a community's, society's, or nation's character is an expression of the
collective nature of the people who compose it. It ignores the interlocking
responsibilities - both wanted and unwanted, asked and unasked - that enable
society to work.

3) His entire system of "ethics" is based upon making oneself feel superior to
others. It completely ignores the problem of incentives, as Tichy mentioned -
what happens when you apply Kant's Categorical Imperative to these
prescriptions? There is literally no incentive to do anything productive,
because a more-moral person is probably going to unilaterally decide that you,
as a filthy kulak, are not morally worthy of possessing the fruits of your
labor.

Truly a repugnant philosophy.

~~~
rw
Appeal to age? Really? Where's your reliance on _merit_?

The "behind the veil of ignorance" argument from Rawls has a solid basis. The
premise is merely that if you were born with a higher _a priori_ chance of
living a fulfilled life, why not assist those who didn't get that chance? At
the very least, you'll feel good while you're doing it.

There are basic human needs that we all share. It's possible to do _anything_
in a totalitarian way, so just avoid doing things in that manner.

You can say all you want that helping others causes them to be lazy or weak
(after all, you said "There is literally no incentive to do anything
productive"), but--let's be frank about the world situation--I'd rather have
the problem of widespread abundance, than that of terrifying, indefensible
scarcity. I lose sleep worrying about the hundreds of millions of malnourished
and undereducated people who are getting completely _fucked_ just because of
where, and to whom, they were born. I'm sitting here trying to pay off my
student loans, so I can get _moving_ , solving some real problems. Like you, I
enjoy the latest and greatest O(log n) distributed social marketplace, but we
have to have priorities in life--what is wrong with an egalitarian, humanist
priority? Actually, what could be a _better_ priority? _That_ is the ethic I
want to strive for, that's my damn _imperative_.

If you're a causal determinist (which is a very defensible position), you can
ascribe _everything_ to luck, or _nothing_ , depending on your mood. But
nothing inbetween. I don't want to see the word _blame_ or _responsibility_
thrown around without some serious reason to back it up. You want to talk
about _choice_ and _empowerment_ and I'll show you a dozen people who have
_never_ had reason to believe in their own agency.

"Human nature" is a semantic stop sign [1]. What does that phrase even mean?
We're sapient apes with tendencies toward the ugly when things get scary, and
the beautiful when things get nice. We respond to our environment (this
includes other people); in fact, we are merely another part of our
environment. There are a few sciences dedicated to studying this phenomenon,
e.g. sociology, economics and psychology.

The reason you even have a high horse upon which to sit is because you got
_lucky_. You're smart, or well-fed, or connected, or whatever--that's _all_
luck. Good luck or bad luck, that's all it is--probability. And I say: when it
comes to living a fulfilled life, _fuck probability_.

[1] <http://lesswrong.com/lw/it/semantic_stopsigns/>

EDIT: Obviously, if you disagree, reply.

~~~
Tichy
"I'm sitting here trying to pay off my student loans, so I can get moving,
solving some real problems."

It appears as if you deemed it necessary to study to be able to make a
difference, which also kinds of means you needed the advanced infrastructure
that can support a society. Yet you have the problem of having to pay your
student loans.

Are those not real problems?

Sure, you are not starving, and I agree it is important to end starving. But I
don't think it is that easy.

I guess if you think it is easy you subscribe to the world view that people
are starving at the other end of the world only because of our lavish
lifestyle. I am not convinced that is true. And maybe "helping" for example by
giving food only helps the dictators in bad countries to exploit their people
even more.

Also, while I think it is important to help, it is also a bit of a cop out. It
makes your life depend on there being people that need helping. So it avoids
the real issue to find a meaning of life. In that sense I think our "advanced"
problems are also worthy, in a sense. The girls from "Sex And The City" figure
out how to date in New York - it might seem absurd from the perspective from a
starving person somewhere. But what if we rescue that person and make her rich
- suddenly she might be thankful that other people worked on the problem of
choosing the right mate or buying shoes before her.

I would be interested to hear what you think causes the worlds problems. Why
is there scarcity, you think it is only because people are not educated enough
about modern farming methodologies? I find that hard to believe.

~~~
jongraehl
The idea that my not paying to feed the poor in broken African countries is
really in their best interests is far too convenient for my liking.

I prefer to acknowledge that I care less about their plight than my own
values.

~~~
Tichy
How would you pay for them then?

Maybe/probably you are right, there are more direct actions one could take.
But I don't think it is so obvious as to what actions promise the most
success. Maybe if you really care you have to become a politician or an
activist, but what if that is not what you do best?

------
mattchew
_Our rule demands one do everything they can to help the poorest -- not just
spending one’s wealth and selling one’s possessions, but breaking the law if
that will help._

Sounds simply dreadful. Not an attractive way to live and not an attractive
society to live in.

Not that normal people would ever try to live this way. I suppose you could
terrorize them into _saying_ they were trying to live this way.

By the way, breaking into buildings, stealing food, and then donating some
money to a fashionable cause is thrill seeking and attention whoring, not
philanthropy.

------
Tichy
Unfortunately that is far too simplistic.

For example eating meat: if you don't eat meat because you love cows, becoming
a vegetarian might actually hurt cows. If people weren't eating meat, there
would certainly be a lot less cows around than are now.

I am all in favor of feeding all hungry people, but once again it is not so
simple (note: not trying to pass off hardcore opinions, just thinking and
playing devil's advocate). The problem are always the incentives. If you know
your children will always be fed, maybe you'll worry less about having kids -
you'll just have them. Eventually because of overpopulation it might become
impossible to feed everyone. If people worry about having to feed their kids,
maybe on average they'll only have kids when they know they can be fed. (I
don't know a good solution to this).

It get's really bad when he claims that "people who don't want what they
should want are usually just deluded".

The incentive problem goes further - if people are only allowed to get "equal"
things, competition is eliminated, and hence also progress. In former eastern
Germany, there was only one kind of car, made from plastic. It is a bit like
with the cows - you think you are helping everybody, but suddenly people are
forced to drive in shoddy vehicles endangering their health.

As I said, it is a dilemma, I don't know the answer. But I suspect that
ultimately there will always have to be some competition and struggle.
Unfortunately.

~~~
aaronsw
How does having less cows being born hurt actual cows? It might "hurt" the cow
species, but that's a metaphorical point -- surely you don't consider the cow
species actually capable of pain.

The evidence (look up "demographic transition") shows that the only reliable
way to decrease birth rates is to decrease death rates. In practice, people
seem to have more kids when they expect some of their kids to die. That's how
societies keep from dying out.

I don't say people are just deluded, I say they're often confused.

I never said people are only allowed to get equal things, so I have no idea
what you're talking about.

Nobody disputes that things are sometimes complicated. But that just means you
need to work a little harder to find out the truth -- not just spout random
ideas you have.

~~~
Tichy
Hurting cows - I just wanted to point out that if you love having cows around,
you might be in for a surprise. Without a judgment, just that it might be an
unexpected consequence - just as a lot of other actions that seem ethical
might actually backfire.

"The evidence (look up "demographic transition") shows that the only reliable
way to decrease birth rates is to decrease death rates."

I don't know about that, but I know that in my country (which has a very good
welfare system) there is a lot of discussion about the poor and uneducated
having more kids than other parts or society. And their kids tend to go the
same route, that is, they tend to end up on welfare. That might be
sensationalist reporting of our newspapers, though. Also not saying that the
solution would be to "curb" the birth rates - you might find a twist to make
the kids fare better than their parents or whatever. I don't know - but it
makes me wary about incentives and treating everybody equally. People are not
equal - I wish for everybody to have a good live and a fair chance (and that
includes if you are born dumb - which might mean you can't take advantage of
chances, and it is not your fault - but then what if suddenly a lot of people
are dumb - a ka idiocracy?).

Also, about the demographic curve - how come human history is a history of
war, struggle and genocide? So people had kids because they were afraid their
kids might die, but then they didn't die so they had to exterminate their
neighbors to get more room to live?

From my experience, not everybody is friends with everybody. I trust your
friends from MIT would feed me if I ended up under a bridge, even if in my
previous life I had been a drug dealer?

"I don't say people are just deluded, I say they're often confused."

Sure, but how can you make sure that you are right? The cookies example seems
like a no-brainer, but maybe it isn't. Maybe the world would be a worse place
without cookies.

"not just spout random ideas you have."

That sounds as if you are entitled to an opinion and I am not. Why - because
you read more books on the subject than I did?

For what it's worth, I suspect trying to create value is probably the best way
to make the world a better place. If there is enough food, people don't need
to fight over it. Thanks to technology, normal people can live today as kings
used to live in former times. So it seems to me advancing technology helps the
most.

~~~
dionidium
_Hurting cows - I just wanted to point out that if you love having cows
around, you might be in for a surprise._

I suppose that might be a useful thing to point out if there were _anyone on
the planet_ who became a vegetarian to maximize the cow population, regardless
of the consequences.

Who are you arguing against?

~~~
Tichy
I think a lot of people become vegetarians out of love for animals. Not sure
if fading them out of existence is what they have in mind.

Anyway, it was just an example for naive ethics, because meat eating was
mentioned in the original article. I sympathize with wanting to do good, but
the approach stated falls apart on all accounts in my opinion.

~~~
dionidium
_I think a lot of people become vegetarians out of love for animals._

I think you're tricking yourself with words. When I say "I love brownies" I
don't mean that I desire the existence of as many brownies as possible, even
if I can't eat them.

~~~
Tichy
I think the vegetarians who say "I love animals" mean something entirely
different from what you mean when you say "I love brownies"...

~~~
dionidium
Of course, the "eating" in my analogy isn't the point, which was merely to
demonstrate that you're confusing different uses of the word "love."

But, yeah, I obviously should have chosen a different example :)

------
astine
John Rawls attempts to create an ethical system based on a uiversal sense of
fairness. The problem is that such a system is inherently arbitrary. Who
decides what's fair? Treating everyone equally isn't necessarily fair: Forcing
everyone to live in the same housing regardless of health issues certainly
isn't fair but neither is creating a system that tries to balance individual
needs into a sort of universal scale a such a thing doesn't exist.

Furthermore it misses the point that ethics is ultimately an individual issue
as it's individuals who make ethical decisions. The moment that you have a
bunch of people in clouds planning what the world should be like you've missed
the whole point, which is 'what is justice?' which is an entirely different
question, but 'How should I behave?' That is, Ethics is not so much the search
for a universal code of action, but the search for a principles in human
behavior. With this realize that the search is not for a better means of
wealth distribution but for the best set of virtues that a man can embody.

Thus the question is not whether Larry Ellison should buy another Yacht or
immitate Mother Theresa, but whether he should practice is fortitude or his
charity, his temperance or his, decisiveness.

Of course such things as universal codes of ethics come into play here, but
they are tangential to the key issues.

------
jgfoot
I like Aaron, but this "accomplish the most overall good" philosophy does not
go far beyond what Jeremy Bentham and the utilitarians gave us in the 18th
century. Utilitarianism was thoughtful, but it left a lot unanswered (like,
how do you decide what accomplishes the most good?), and there's been a lot of
ethical thought in the intervening 100+ years that Aaron doesn't really
reflect here. Imagine if a well-respected philosopher were to start blogging
about how awesome ProDOS is...

------
teyc
Sometimes it is better not to consider ethics, but instead consider
consequences. Sometimes, there are short term bad consequences, then there are
consequences that benefits certain groups in the short term, but harm them in
the long term. We cannot deny how complex the world is by reducing it to a
single ethical axis.

For instance, we can examine the ethics of various religions when faced with
peril. You have Christendom, who chose to win through losing; then you have
Buddhism with it's history of non-violence, even when faced with the prospect
of annihiliation of the religion in Tibet; then you have Islam, where the
faithful chose to fight and defend their religion. Each of these approaches
have short term and long term consequences. In the short run, violence
provides for survival, but in the long run, it justifies further violence.

We have to recognize also that sometimes there are no good choices. Just the
mere fact of our existence requires soil to be tilled, destruction of forests
for agriculture, altering the environment.

It's always hard to be good.

------
gcv
Read Mill, for an introduction to the basics of consequentialism.

Read Kant, for an introduction to the basics of deontology.

Read up some more recent work which tries to fix the problems of both. I don't
off-hand remember anyone recent who tried to convincingly fix either system,
so I don't have any handy references, but:

Here's a much better overall introduction to morality:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/>

After going through that, I recommend the author's book:
[http://www.amazon.com/Common-Morality-Deciding-What-
Do/dp/01...](http://www.amazon.com/Common-Morality-Deciding-What-
Do/dp/0195173716)

------
Radix
I'll just address this bit since it seems fundamental: _So how do we decide
what good things are? Doesn’t everyone have their own idea of what’s good?
Instead of trying to promote one particular person’s notion of what’s good, it
seems like we should balance everyone’s good. In most cases, it’s impossible
for us to know what’s actually good for a person, so this usually means taking
their word for it and trying to give them what they want._

How can one balance everyone's good? In order to do so you would need to be
able to take the world in its entirety as those in the thought experiment do.
We can't do this, so the suggestion is that we trust what people want. The
problem is not only do people not have the foresight to know what they want
their wants change relative to their haves. 'Need' would have been a better
choice with a given definition. Because we can not balance everyone's good I
suggest everyone must be chiefly responsible for themselves and their charges.
They should be expected to be honest about their desires and, to be fair to
others, they should be as little burden as possible. Such that the greatest
good is caring for ones own needs first while avoiding hindering others from
acquiring their own base needs. The only thing needed now is a definition of
'need', but I would probably just choose a level on Maslow's hierarchy.

I probably communicated as poorly as the author, so my point is: communication
is an interesting problem, and these are week assumptions and poorly
communicated as it is too easy for an alternate, though in my case similar,
theory of ethics to be built.

 _I have friends who, to save money, break into buildings on the MIT campus to
steal food and drink and naps and showers. They use the money they save to
promote the public good. It seems like these criminals, not the average
workaday law-abiding citizen, should be our moral exemplars_

What if every student, faculty member, staff member, alumnus, and donor _want_
food, drink, and grounds to be used in an ordered way. How are their
collective wants less important than some few "poor" people? I don't see how
that jump was made.

------
amalcon
We mathematically-inclined folk like elegant systems. We like systems that
have a few set of consistent rules. We don't like exceptions.

The problem is that we can't make a system like that for ethics. There are too
many variables, they don't always fit well together, and often the "correct"
ethical decision depends on what ethics others are using. Some ethical systems
only work if everyone uses them; others cease to work if everyone uses them;
others only work if nobody tries to game the system. It's a messy topic, and
not one that can be easily reduced to an elegant ruleset.

Not that this should stop anyone from trying. Just do it for the exercise
itself. Don't expect a particularly useful result.

