No. THis a hypothetical and in no way involves a crime. Just a moral wrong.

Why is A worse than B?

BTW, much of what is touted as hypocrisy is actually compromise, often a political compromise. Political compromises certainly occur even in small one-on-one situations like marriages and friendships. You could even argue that individuals reach political compromises to resolve internal conflicts. The very nature of political compromises can make cries of hypocrisy more acute, since part of the compromise often is to not expound one's deepest beliefs about why the other fellow's position is dead wrong, but to be less blunt.

We have a description of liberals, conservatives and what have you who successfully implement their entire program without compromise.

Bloody tyrannical dictators.

Yours,
Wince

Are we really debating the merits of honesty being the best policy?

Yes, we are. I find it interesting how many varied viewpoints there are on the subject.

I take it you can't argue with the sentiment, merely the grammar. Whatever, Wince.

Anyone who is a member of a country's military either kills or supports killing. Being honest and open about this behavior does not make them amoral -- rather quite honorable because they do an amoral act in a moral manner, thus transforming the nature of the underlying act.

Killing in and of itself is not an immoral act. It's murder that is immoral and not every act of killing is murder. Ignoring boundary cases like manslaughter for brevities sake.

Being in the military does not mean you kill or support killing. One can be drafted but let's ignore that. Even volunteering for the army doesn't mean you "support killing". That's just too loaded a way of putting things. Makes it sound like army volunteers want to go out and kill. In fact, they may just understand that being able to show a credible deterent is likely to result in less killing. That is their reason for joining may be because they don't support killing.

If the military was all about murdering people then it wouldn't matter how openly it was done. In fact the openness of it would make it even more morally offensive. Some military organizations were all about murder, like the Nazi military machine. Gassing Jews openly would not have transformed it into moral theater.

I take it you can't argue with the sentiment, merely the grammar.

I did argue with the sentiment and I did not argue with the grammar. Turgid and awkward are not synonomous with ungrammatical. Normally you write some of the best prose around this place, Mark. That sentence was out of character.

Yours,
Wince

Got here late to the discussion.

We've talked about adultery and war, but how about if we apply this construct to state-sanctioned torture?

Does anyone's opinion change?

OK, let me try.

In all three cases, you work for the US government.

(A) You torture a captive during interrogation. You know it's wrong. You keep it secret.

(B) You torture a captive during interrogation. You know it's wrong. But later, in an interview with a newspaper reporter, you provide explicit details about time, place, commanding officers, etc.

(C) You torture a captive during interrogation. You see nothing wrong with it. Later, in an interview with a newspaper reporter, you say so.

Which do you think is worse?

"If you are heterosexual it would certainly be wrong for you to have a homosexual relationship..."

WTF?! What does sex have to do with morality?

Assuming, of course, that you mean morally wrong and not illegal.

I'll have to agree - C is the worst (We'll call that the Hollywood answer). Then B - (The "I'm about to be exposed better make this look sincere" answer. Or the "Jimmy Swaggart" if you prefer.) Lastly A, which, in the case of marital infidelity, is actually immoral, IMHO, to admit to if you don't want to end the marriage. (the BJ Honeycut, if you catch that reference.) I know I'm gonna catch holy hell for that last answer, but why destroy an entire family just because you fucked the pool man?

OK, perhaps I misunderstood “(C)”. When you say, “…but does not acknowledge it is wrong,” do you mean only to others or also, possibly, to himself?

"OK, perhaps I misunderstood '(C)'."

Nope. Because in "(B)" you differentiated by saying, "[t]he person who does something morally wrong, and knows it is wrong."

So I'm sticking with my answer: it is worse to (A) know you've done wrong and cover it up than to (B) know that you've done wrong and admit to it or (C) be (consciously) clueless that you've done wrong.

"Not clueless more like sociopathic. Someone that habitually cheats on his/her spouse but doesn't see anything wrong with it."

That is exactly like a sociopath. They have no sense of moral behavior, which is why they must be segregated from the rest of us.

I submit that almost anyone who wasn't a sociopath would know that cheating on a spouse was wrong. They may pretend otherwise but they would know.

Anyway, you can conclude that socio or psychopathic personalities are the most morally bankrupt but I'm not sure that it's right to say that their behavior is the most immoral. It would be like holding Mrs. O'Leary's cow morally culpable for starting the Chicago fire.

"Morality involves doing that which is in your enlightened self interest."

"Only by an extremely limited (I would say misguided) definition of morality."

That depends on the depth of your understanding of reality. That one sentence summary does not capture all the subtleties anymore than saying that Darwin’s theory of natural selection is about differential transmission of inherited variation. What do you expect from a single sentence? I'm sorry but I didn't really have much time to explain further.

"For those of us who believe in objective morality, self-interest has almost nothing to do with it, except by way of doing right by others."

That you are unaware of the basis of morality in self-interest does not mean that is not the way it is. Nor does it mean you cannot behave morally. Animals don’t understand genetic reproduction and yet they breed. You can stay off the volcano because of a belief in angry gods or because you understand the science. I however think the latter is a better approach.

Sometimes things at one level are structured upon things at another. If you've read Dawkins you'll understand that certain altruistic behavior from the point of view of the individual is fully explained by self-interested (or even selfish) behavior from the point of view of the gene.

There are several factors that play into this that allow one to see that moral principle is based on principles of self interest. I will talk about two that are not commonly discussed, replicators and human nature. I will refrain from a discussion of the fact that the moral calculators within our brains are evolved structures and are thus completely dependent upon the process of natural selection, an engine that runs on self-interest. I will not discuss the issue of religions being cultural replicators to any depth. There are other topics and angles that I have not specifically noted that I am not discussing which also tie in to show morality is based in self-interest.

Replicators and a broader concept of the self

Under an unenlightened and narrow definition of the individual even our own children are competitors for our interests. This is why some women get abortions; people neglect their children; etc. That is truly selfish behavior. However sacrificing for ones children when seen from the perspective of your wider self, your shared genetic inheritance, is also self-interested.

This idea of self-interest and enlightenment has great explanatory power. The interests of our current selves even compete with our future selves. Some people are so unenlightened that they do not even see this and it results in behavior like not saving for old age or being party animals.

There are certain empirical facts about humans that result in ones enlightened self-interest being tied in with the interests of other individuals. You as an individual are a bundle of replicators, and not merely genetic ones. You serve as unit or facilitator in the duplication of genetic, cultural replicators. That includes replicators such as books, technology, philosophy, customs, learning techniques, and religion.

What I am telling you here is what underlies moral systems and not necessarily what immediately motivates people. We don’t love our children more than other peoples because we know they share our genes. It is however the direct result of this fact that leads us to be preprogrammed with a tendency to love our own children and children in general (again with variation in the population at large).

The degree of morality of an action is intimately tied up with the impact on the survival of all these replicators. Since not all these replicators are duplicated via the same event it is possible for them to have contrary interests. What may be a sacrificial at one level or for one set may not be so taken from a different viewpoint. The celibacy of Priests may be a sacrifice to the genetic makeup of an individual but may on the other hand be self interested from the viewpoint of the replicators that make up the religion. Priests with no children have more resources (and time is a resource) to spend on promulgating the faith.

Again none of this requires that the participants are aware of the actual mechanics of what is going on anymore than plants and animals need to understand genetics in order to breed, or dancers need to understand physics or medicine to dance. If one is a dancer however one may benefit from the physicists understanding of friction when that understanding results in better dance flooring materials, musical technology, etc. or one hurt ones body and needs to go to a doctor.

One insight from biology that applies to religion is that if the mechanism of replication for the different aspects of the individual are out of alignment that can result in strife. I did not list all the replicators that make up the human individual. I left out the microorganisms that are symbiotic with our bodies. The way that we have grown to be symbiotic is through shared replication interests. Replicators that reproduce together tend to evolve cooperation strategies. Ones that have contrary mechanisms tend to compete. A good example of this is that there are sexually transmitted organisms that are passed on to the offspring and have become benign, or even necessary to reproduction in some animals. Several of the internal organelles of our cells have to the best of our knowledge originated in this fashion.

The long and the short of it is that religions that tend to be spread via offspring instead of via conversions will tend to have the interests of the religion in alignment with the interest of the individual on a more narrow basis, such as the individuals genetic and cultural interests. Even for religions that start off as cults (and most do) over time it will be necessary for them to make the transition to replication via the offspring of it’s adherents. A failure to do so can result in the extinction of the religion. In the process the religion will tend to evolve means to suppress it’s anti-family and anti-genetic aspects. Some religions don’t make it out of this stage like the Jim Jones cult. See Dawkin’s discussion on the Shakers in “The Selfish Gene” for an example of the explanatory power of this way of thinking.

Enlightened self interest, human nature, and “doing right by others”

From an unenlightened viewpoint it would seem that self-interested behavior is incompatible with “doing right by others”. I suggest for people that hold such views that they read the “The Origin of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation” by Matt Ridley. He’s done a lot of work in showing why virtue is a good survival strategy. Reading this book will be an eye opener for you. I am going to expound on this theme in ways he hasn’t. I’m not getting paid like him so I hope you understand my brevity and failure to fully expound on this theme.

Human nature is bound up in our existence as collections of replicators. We have evolved certain mechanisms for dealing with social interaction. There are also other aspects of our behavior that are biologically economical which we have to take into account. Examples of the former are things like reputation, grudges, ability to recognize individuals, friendship, retribution, moral instinct and the like. Examples of the latter are habit, fallibility, bad days, infantile naivety (babies are naïve), variability in competence between individuals, specialization, cooperation, and the like. It is beyond the capabilities of evolution to construct beings that lack these later characteristics. Because of these aspects of human nature the interests of the self are intimately tied up with the interests of others.

Since I am starting to feel lazy I am going to make you think up examples and draw the proper conclusions (I am writing this section last and the response on sexual orientation below was actually written first).

Do you see how the fact that we are habitual creatures will tend to make it so that a strategy of dishonest and criminal behavior will tend to lead you your exposure? Then the other factors of human nature such as reputation will lead to you paying a price for such actions? Thus it is in your self-interest not to go around doing such things.

Acting in a criminal fashion takes quite an amount of stupidity and hubris and this is precisely why the word “enlightened” is an adjective to “self interest” when I discuss this in regards to morality.

So things like shoplifting are bad for you because of human nature.
1) Habit. You are likely to get caught because who stops after just one incident, it will likely become a habit with you.
2) Fallibility. There is no way you can be absolutely sure you will not be caught
3) Bad days. You do not always perform up to optimum. You might get caught due to a “bad day”.
4) Infantile naivety: We are born stupid and gain knowledge. You must take this into account when deciding whether a life as a criminal is workable. It’s a factor that works against you. The guys trying to catch you may have more experience in catching you merely due to being longer in tooth.
5) Variability of competence: Some people are just naturally better at certain things. They have talent. Behave criminally long enough and you are likely to run into someone more talented at catching people than average. You are likely to lose.
6) Specialization: People specialize in their occupations precisely because the concentration gives them the ability to out compete dabblers. No matter how talented you are if you are not specialized you can be beat by someone less talented. So behaving criminally just this one time is a recipe for disaster. You will be out of your league if you only dabble in shoplifting, on the other hand if you concentrate the repetition in it the repetition increases the chances of getting caught on other human factors like habit, fallibility, and bad days.
7) Cooperation: Humans are animals that are very dependent in their success upon cooperation. You have far more too lose via others failing to cooperate with you than you stand to gain by cheating others. Humans have evolved mechanisms to deal with cheaters like reputation, grudges, and the like. These are effective.

In other words not “doing right by others” will cause you to incur costs to the self that are not in your interest.

I could go on. This is only at the first level of understanding. I could go into why principles are an important solution to these problems, and how to judge principles at a meta-level, etc. I could discuss why it is better to internalize such values. In other words I can back this position up and do so in a much better fashion than many prior philosophical opponents of objective and subjective morality.

The fact that ethical principles can be backed up objectively does not mean they are objective in the sense of being unary (only having a single instantiation), inflexible, and complete. I view ethical systems as organically competing strategies. This means that there is not one single correct way, that they need to be flexible to fit the situations of reality, and that they can never be complete but are evolving to model reality with the usual biological cost constraints. Moral systems are collections of principles that model reality to a certain extent. Staying off the volcano because of an angry god is a lot easier for humans to process than learning the intricacies of geology and volcanism. It is costly to have a more detailed understanding of reality and sometimes it just isn’t worth it on a biological basis. If it is beneficial not to eat pork due to trichinosis then an imaginary father figure telling you not to eat pork may be sufficient.

Reading what I just wrote is costly even if it does give you a better understanding. Having such knowledge is not guaranteed to make things better. However, I think in the complexity of the modern world we need some people thinking at this level, if not everyone. I want a more scientifically based religious ethic precisely because science is better at uncovering error and building better models than faith based religion.

Again it’s specialization. I think the traditional actors in this arena, priests and mullahs, have been slacking. Most of the progress has been via philosophers and scientists. There was a time when priest were active in this regard like the economic study that went on in Spain prior to Adam Smith. However you don’t see that as much now.

One bit of important bit of understanding you can get from what I’ve explained is that ideologies that are spread politically and by force (I’m being redundant) will not have the kinds of replication constraints on them that will tend to tailor them to balancing the full interests of the individual. One then gets into the business of wholesale slaughter and sacrifice for the sake of replicating the ideology.

There is so much more I would like to say but I think I’ve gone on too long already. In short I don’t think there is anything “limited” or “short sighted” in my viewpoint of ethics. In fact from my perspective it is the traditional religions like Christianity and Islam that are suffering from such problems. I don’t think basing ethics on “god says so” is the best means to reduce ethical error. I have respect for religion on certain grounds but not ones that would please the faithful. Furthermore, they are not grounds unique to faith based ideologies and in fact are exhibited by non-faith based ones.

The other topic: sexual orientation

In any event, you seem to see sexual orientation as a switch that sits in one possition or another. It's not. It is not uncommon for either men or women to have married the opposite sex and had children and later adopted a completely homosexual orientation or vice versa.

I will clarify what I actually believe. I don't believe that we fully understand homosexuality and that even your characterization above is incomplete.

Based on my experience and knowledge what I actually believe is that there is variation in the population with regard to this.

Some people are just wired mentally as the opposite sex. Understanding biology it is quite possible for this to occur with minor genetic changes on general principle. There is also no reason to assume that there is only one genetic pathway that would result in such a switch. Furthermore genetic traits can be environmentally triggered and ameliorated.

There is no reason for a homosexual to be held morally responsible for his or her unchosen genetic makeup than we do a blind person. There is no reason to punish them over it. The same would be true if we found out that some forms of psychopathy were genetically based. Punishment serves as a corrective to behavior but under the assumptions it wouldn't work. That doesn't mean you couldn't lock such psychopaths up on preventative grounds.

Also, there is a big difference between the moral issues involved in what psychopaths do, harm others, and what homosexuals do. There really is no reason for society to punish homosexuals at all on mere issues of sexual orientation. Any true grounds for punishing them would also apply to heterosexuals. Such grounds as spreading STDs, harming children, or violating fidelity contracts all apply to heterosexuals also.

I'm talking about governmental activities here with regard to punishment and not necessarily individual action. Since it is possible that to a certain extent homosexuality may be influenced by environmental factors it is perfectly acceptable for a parent to punish or attempt to influence they child with regards to sexual orientation. It isn't however as straightforward as sanctioning your child for homosexual behavior.

Parents need to keep in mind that if the reality is that their particular child is attracted to the same sex for genetic reasons then forcing them into a heterosexual or asexual lifestyle may do the child more harm than good. They need to balance their own needs against those of their child. In particular needs like having grandchildren, respect in the community, etc.

"If you've read Dawkins you'll understand that certain altruistic behavior from the point of view of the individual is fully explained by self-interested (or even selfish) behavior from the point of view of the gene."

Certain altruistic behavior but certainly not all (or even most) of it.

I’m very happy that people who have rejected religion and objective morality beyond direct self-interest have developed a rationale for why altruism is still good. I really am. But (even with the typical verboseness) you still haven’t made the case that it isn’t very limited (and misguided) understanding of morality.

What good is your understanding of morality when enlightened self-interests collide? Is it morally wrong when people choose altruism over their self-interest, even the perpetuation of the gene or social group?

"Certain altruistic behavior but certainly not all (or even most) of it."

What kind do you think it doesn't explain and then why is that kind important? Many kinds of "altruism" can be explained by direct self interest at the same level. If you "obey gods rules" in order to avoid hell and get into heaven that is directly explained by acting in your own self interest according to your beliefs.

Certainly altruistic behavior that is totally distructive of all aspects of the self cannot be explained. The question is, "Is that kind of altrism important and if so is it ethical?"

I’m very happy that people who have rejected religion and objective morality beyond direct self-interest have developed a rationale for why altruism is still good. I really am. But (even with the typical verboseness) you still haven’t made the case that it isn’t very limited (and misguided) understanding of morality.

Actually you haven't made the case that you have a moral system that isn't based in self interest. You seem to think you have a system of morality that makes no appeals to self interest that is supportable yet I know of no such system.

Kantian ethics, Christian ethics, Buddist ethics all either appeal to some form of self interest or can be defeated by merely asking "Why should I act the way you say". Telling me it's "My duty" just doesn't cut it. If you tell me "To get into heaven" then you are making an appeal from self interest.

So why don't you give the name of and the cliff notes version of the morality you ascribe to?

Keep in mind the question is going to be, "Why should I do that?" Appealing to my self interest by saying "So you don't go to hell" is reasonable since I am an organism. Organisms have evolved to be motivated by self interest. What other possible basis would your appeal sway me? I've evolved interest in family and friends for self-interested reasons. Humans also have an natural evolved interest in their own culture.

Specifically what possible basis could you give me that would motivate me to sacrific, say scientific understanding for the sake of say Christian culture? What could you say that would make me value the loss of the scientific method over say the tradition of celebrating Easter? Or better (worse) yet the entire Christian tradition?

More easily. Why shouldn't I steal under your belief system?

"What good is your understanding of morality when enlightened self-interests collide?"

I don't know of any specific situation where any other moral system results in a better result.

"Is it morally wrong when people choose altruism over their self-interest, even the perpetuation of the gene or social group?"

I'm not sure I understood your question but I'll try to answer.

I don't see as much of a deep ethical conflict between altruism and self interest that you seem to.

Yes altruistic acts can be immoral but they tend to be self limiting since natural selection will tend to winnow them out. People who die diving into burning buildings to save goldfish tend not to pass on their proclivities either genetically or socially. Certainly someone who swerves to avoid a squirrel in the road (an altruistic act towards the squirrel) and ends up wrapped around a telephone pole or worse another human has done somehting that is not morally advisable.

When people make bad ethical choices that effect others badly we need to punish such acts to remove any incentive to do them and reduce the likelyhood of repetition. Since an altruistic act is self punishing there really is no need for this. It's similar but not as extreme as trying to punish someone for a successful act of suicide.

I classify ethical actions into broad categories that partially define how "immoral" they are. Actions that effect others are considered more unethical because the harm they do to your reputation is often of more import than the actual harm inflicted. Stealing a stick of bubblegum is far worse than wasting one. Murdering someone far worse than suicide. Suicide removes any concern of bad reputation for oneself but could effect the reputation of your family. So someone with no familiy or social ties committing suicide is a lesser evil on that account.

Some unethical actions are also criminal. Like murder, theft and fraud. I don't believe that most self destructive behavior is criminal in so far as it does not harm others. One might be civily liable for self destructive behavior if we had more explicit social contracts. For instance, if the marriage contract was made with the understanding that parties involved were not going to gamble then doing so would be grounds for damages. So you can sort of get to the point where prostitution is "illegal" for those who are married, those who are minors, and the like. I don't think every bad ethical decision should be legally actionable.

I can get to the point of outlawing child abuse, animal abuse and the like also.

Shep,

Such altruism isn't altruistic at the level of culture. For example if we are in Iraq to "establish democracy" then from the point of view of that meme there is nothing sacrificial about it. Soldiers don't join the army nor fight for purely altruistic reasons. I'm afraid you don't understand the dynamics. I was in the army and it wasn't for the purpose of sacrificing myself for others. It was about standing up for my values.

As for defending Israel ... I don't view fighting for an ally as a total sacrific on the level of values.

"I didn't ask why they joined. I asked why they went out to the bad streets of Baghdad with their buddies and what self-service they were serving by putting their lives at risk."

Actually you didn't ask that question but now that you have I will answer it. The reason they are out on the streets of Bagdad is because they joined the military. LOL!

"You claim that the only moral way is to serve your own self-interest."

Nonsense, but I at least now understand where your problem lies. Your brain is apparently incapable of processing information outside the confines of it's own narrow viewpoint.

Your recent behavior on this and the other thread indicates to me that you don't have any ethical sense with regards to even the simple process of having a discussion. You like to engage in mischaracterizations and name calling. I'm not interested in wasting my time with you anymore.