Freedomain Radio

Id like to bring up some thoughts ive been having after listening again to stefs podcasts about whether a moral theory can be judged by its effects. It seems to me that all arguments from principle/morality are also arguments from effect in that they are judged or measured as either positive or negative by their effects and that all the exceptions to the rule are created due to the effects. For example killing is wrong except in self defence is the same as saying that the effect of saving ones own life is a preferrable course of action to letting youself be killed.
Saying murder is wrong is saying that the effect of murder is not prefferable compared to not murdering. Respecting property rights is good not simply because it is logically consistant according to UPB but because not doing so results in the effect of it not being able to be applied universally. Also take the example that killing is wrong except if a friend asked you to kill him because he was in extreme pain and dying slowly and couldnt do it himself. You would kill him because the effect of abiding by the principle would produce a more negative result than not abiding by it. There is the classic consequentialist arguments such as if 10 people would die a horrible painful death if you did not shoot someone dead then you could abide by the principle however the effect would be judged to be worse than if you had chosen to act based on the consequences rather than the principle. So regardless of the fact that not killing is compliant with UPB it is still going to result in a greater moral evil to not kill in these circumstances. I guess you could say this is an example of the end justifying the means in the same way that lying to some nazi officers about some jews hiding in your attic is prefferble to telling the truth even though the truth is prefferable to falsehood.

One more example and then ill leave it to you to thin about and to slam me if im wrong.

Invading another country is wrong but if there is a brutal dictator who is taking over and is going to start slaughtering his people then its right because the effect of not doing it is worse than abiding by the principle. Again the end justifies the means.

What are your thoughts about this?

Anyone?

sven:

For example killing is wrong except in self defence is the same as saying that the effect of saving ones own life is a preferrable course of action to letting youself be killed.

I'd like to start by saying that there are numerous ways to argue for something called X. But just because you agree with X, that does not indicate what argument you are using. In this case, the X is "killing is wrong except in self defence".

So no, that is not the same. Self defence can be argued using UPB. The attacker has expressed a preference for violence against you, so he/she should logically extend that principle to himself.

Invading another country is wrong but if there is a brutal dictator who is taking over and is going to start slaughtering his people then its right because the effect of not doing it is worse than abiding by the principle. Again the end justifies the means.

What are the ends and why is that end preferable to another end?

Morality itself is not just a measure of the relative "goodness" or "badness" of the effects caused by one's actions.  It's also, and perhaps more importantly, an evaluation of the *potential* effects of a *potential* action yet to be taken.  And further still, an evaluation of the effects of everyone acting in such a manner.  More of an argument from potential effect.  After all, a moral theory is not very useful if it can only be applied in hindsight, i.e. if it only tells us what we did, not what to do..