What do female readers think of Hilgya Firehelm?

[martianmister]

Thing is, Omelas isn't really a constructive example to base any real-world discussions on. It's a false binary, in which a single, unwilling victim is sacrificed eternally, for the eternal happiness of everyone else. It's a village the protagonist stumbles into during an episode of The Twilight Zone. Omelas can't be compared to an infantry platoon being ordered to hold a position while the rest of the company retreats, or... well, it can't be compared to anything that might happen in the real world, any more than Cinderella is a valid illustration of how to find your mate. It's a fairy tale.

How about slavery? Was that a fairy tale?

[Liquor Box]

Thought so.
[*]I... actually think it is possible to argue that, since I think it's reasonable for utility to have some pretty severely decreasing marginal... utility. YKWIM. Then again, I also think morality is based on beauty, so I might be insane.

An interesting way to think of Omelas is to imagine yourself as a person who has a choice between being a citizen of Omelas, or a citizen of an ordinary city. If you choose to be a citizen of Omelas there is a chance (1/100,000 if the population is 100,000) that you will be the tortured child. If you choose Omelas, that might suggest Omelas is justified. Which would you choose?

[Liquor Box]

How about slavery? Was that a fairy tale?

I think slavery is pretty different from Omelas, because with slavery I think it is very likely that the negative utility to slaves arising out of the slavery outweighs the positive utility to the slave-owners arising out of the slavery.

[The Extinguisher]

What do you mean by "working together we can figure out the answer together."? Do you mean discussing the issues openly and frankly to try and gain as close to a consensus as to what the issue, ideal we are aiming for, and how to get there? Because I thought I saw you suggesting earlier in this thread that discussing the issue of when (if ever) forced marriage may be justified disgusted you.

youre right maybe i was too hasty. we should discuss whether a forced marriage would be justified. i think it would go something like this

"should we ever force someone to marry someone they do not want to"
"absolutely not"
"okay"

look we had a discussion about this

[martianmister]

I think slavery is pretty different from Omelas, because with slavery I think it is very likely that the negative utility to slaves arising out of the slavery outweighs the positive utility to the slave-owners arising out of the slavery.

I highly doubt that.

[georgie_leech]

I highly doubt that.

You think slavery on the whole makes slaveowners better off than it makes slaves miserable?

[Jasdoif]

What do you mean by "working together we can figure out the answer together."? Do you mean discussing the issues openly and frankly to try and gain as close to a consensus as to what the issue, ideal we are aiming for, and how to get there?

Personally, I kinda thought ethical codes were supposed to reflect a particular group's consensus in how to achieve their ideals.

[The Extinguisher]

You think slavery on the whole makes slaveowners better off than it makes slaves miserable?

From a strict utilitarian outlook, probably. There needs to be a significant majority of slaves to not slaves for the system to function, so net happiness is probably increased. Which is an argument against utilitarianism and not for slavery



you know what, The_Weirdo was right, its much better that this thread is discussing things other than whether or not Hilgya deserved to be forced into marriage

[martianmister]

You think slavery on the whole makes slaveowners better off than it makes slaves miserable?

They're property, shouldn't count as persons. Masters are too liberal about them.

[georgie_leech]

They're property, shouldn't count as persons. Masters are too liberal about them.

Part of utilitarianism is that you don't get to call humans not-persons. For that matter, if we were to discover sentient aliens , the utilitarian position is that they deserve moral consideration the same as a human would. Utilitarianism doesn't say "that doesn't count" when it comes to the suffering of sapient beings, but that good can outweigh the harm. And the negatives for huge populations of thinking people means it seems extremely unlikely that the positives of slavery (slave owners get richer) outweigh the harms.

From a strict utilitarian outlook, probably. There needs to be a significant majority of slaves to not slaves for the system to function, so net happiness is probably increased. Which is an argument against utilitarianism and not for slavery

Er, that's the exact opposite of the utilitarian position. Many people being adversely affected for the benefit of the few is, like, the exact opposite of what they argue should be done.

[Darth Paul]

How about slavery? Was that a fairy tale?

Slavery is loss of freedom, forced labor, corporal punishment, and forced marriage. (And occasional death by mistreatment or beating.) It is not the eternal and constant physical torture which is described in Omelas. Nor is it a guaranteed utopia for the non-slave class. Slavery is morally and ethically wrong, but not the binary extreme depicted in Omelas.

I forgot separation of families. Another reason for my moral disapproval.

Note that I don't refer to it in the past tense. Slavery is still practiced in many parts of the world.

[Liquor Box]

youre right maybe i was too hasty. we should discuss whether a forced marriage would be justified. i think it would go something like this

"should we ever force someone to marry someone they do not want to"
"absolutely not"
"okay"

look we had a discussion about this

Yes, that's pretty much where I thought you stood - when you say work together to find the answer, you meant that you would impose your answer and everyone should work together to adhere to that without ever expressing disagreement.

I mean it's fine, lots of people don't like to have to justify their beliefs against people they think are just fundamentally wrong (which leads to polarisation, and is not ideal, but is another issue). But the fact that you then say you want to work together to figure out the answer to what is moral (or ethical or should happen, or however you want to express it) is kind of inconsistent with that.

[The Extinguisher]

Er, that's the exact opposite of the utilitarian position. Many people being adversely affected for the benefit of the few is, like, the exact opposite of what they argue should be done.

Sorry majority of non slaves to slaves is what i meant to say.

still im gonna pass on this line of argument its super gross and i want no part of it im sorry to anyone who might have been hurt by this line

Yes, that's pretty much where I thought you stood - when you say work together to find the answer, you meant that you would impose your answer and everyone should work together to adhere to that without ever expressing disagreement.

I mean it's fine, lots of people don't like to have to justify their beliefs against people they think are just fundamentally wrong (which leads to polarisation, and is not ideal, but is another issue). But the fact that you then say you want to work together to figure out the answer to what is moral (or ethical or should happen, or however you want to express it) is kind of inconsistent with that.

actually, its just that anyone working together to do whats best for people who realize that forced marriage is gross and not something that communities should do.

[Liquor Box]

Personally, I kinda thought ethical codes were supposed to reflect a particular group's consensus in how to achieve their ideals.

That's what I think, or at least as near of a consensus as possible.

Does something I am saying suggest I think differently to you?

[georgie_leech]

Sorry majority of non slaves to slaves is what i meant to say.

still im gonna pass on this line of argument its super gross and i want no part of it im sorry to anyone who might have been hurt by this line

On the contrary, in slaveholding societies, the majority of people don't own slaves. Slaves primarily benefit their masters, not so much the populace at large. So no, I don't think the idea that slaveholding societies as a whole are improved in such a way that it outweighs the suffering of the slaves is in any way a compelling one.

[Fyraltari]

I think slavery is pretty different from Omelas, because with slavery I think it is very likely that the negative utility to slaves arising out of the slavery outweighs the positive utility to the slave-owners arising out of the slavery.

I don't understand this post.
Could you clarify what you call positive and negative utilities and "arising out of the slavery" in this context please?

[The Extinguisher]

On the contrary, in slaveholding societies, the majority of people don't own slaves. Slaves primarily benefit their masters, not so much the populace at large. So no, I don't think the idea that slaveholding societies as a whole are improved in such a way that it outweighs the suffering of the slaves is in any way a compelling one.

Whether or not the majority of people have slaves or not doesn't mean that the majority of people are not or will never be slaves. For slavery to be successful there needs to be a class of people above them, and having a class of people below them keeps that class, labourers who are exploited by the ruling class, from turning against the higher classes cause at least they aren't at the bottom

[Liquor Box]

On the contrary, in slaveholding societies, the majority of people don't own slaves. Slaves primarily benefit their masters, not so much the populace at large. So no, I don't think the idea that slaveholding societies as a whole are improved in such a way that it outweighs the suffering of the slaves is in any way a compelling one.

I imagine slavery could benefit the populace as a whole - for example by making the local cotton industry viable, thus improving the economy (not sure this is how it happened in reality).

But I still think it is a very long bow to draw to say that slavery has net positive utility. I regard the lack of liberty of the slaves as a large negative utility, which would far outweigh the few dollars extra a day that the owner would have had to have paid a person to have done the work the slave did. Even if slaves made up only a small proportion of the population (which I understand was not the case in some parts of USA), I think their collective negative utility would outweigh the positive utility of the general populous (which would be many times smaller per person).

[Liquor Box]

I don't understand this post.
Could you clarify what you call positive and negative utilities and "arising out of the slavery" in this context please?

Well the negative utility arising out of slavery would primarily be the slave's lack of liberty. In addition there would also be the particular suffering individual slaves endured, if any (which might include death on a slave ship, beating or rape, or merely being worked harder than they would have liked). Cumulatively that is the negative utility arising out of slavery.

The positive utility arising out of slavery is primarily the use the slave owner got out of the slave - for example the utility of having cotton picked more cheaply than if the owner had employed someone to do the task.

I'm sure there are many more pluses and minuses but those are the obvious ones that occur to me. It appears intuitively obvious to me that, from a utilitarian perspective the negative utility from slavery outweighs the positive by some margin.

[Fyraltari]

Well the negative utility arising out of slavery would primarily be the slave's lack of liberty. In addition there would also be the particular suffering individual slaves endured, if any (which might include death on a slave ship, beating or rape, or merely being worked harder than they would have liked). Cumulatively that is the negative utility arising out of slavery.

The positive utility arising out of slavery is primarily the use the slave owner got out of the slave - for example the utility of having cotton picked more cheaply than if the owner had employed someone to do the task.

I'm sure there are many more pluses and minuses but those are the obvious ones that occur to me. It appears intuitively obvious to me that, from a utilitarian perspective the negative utility from slavery outweighs the positive by some margin.

Oh you meant the utility was arising from slavery not the slaves/slave-owners. Okay I got it now. My bad.

[Liquor Box]

actually, its just that anyone working together to do whats best for people who realize that forced marriage is gross and not something that communities should do.

Which is fine when we are talking about forced marriage, because almost everyone would agree (in the context of the contemporary developed world) that it is a bad thing - so the issue is not contentious.

But do you think discussion should encouraged on issues that are contentious (lots of people disagree about what the right answer is) even if each group finds the others views disgusting (even moreso in that case)? Or do you think each group should "work together" to achieve what they think is best, contrary to what those that disagree with them think best? To me, open discussion seems best.

[azaph]

and how do we determine now whats right and whats wrong?

Well I think we do it the same way we determine what a painting is of - experience, combined with natural perception, refined by logic. It's not that convincing, which is why I'm open to changing my mind.

ultimately, like i said before, i dont actually care about ethical philosophy. i think theres a fundamental disconnect between talking about we should and shouldn't do, and actually making the world a better place for people to live. The answer to the utilitarian problem of Omelas isnt "let the child suffer" or "let the city turn to dust" its actually "this is terrible lets work together to find another solution"

Well I mean, sure. The third solution is to let the city turn to dust and torture the child anyway for giggles.
Why should there be another solution? Reality, in my experience, doesn't tend to work that way.
And what, are we going to just let that child sit around being tortured until we find a better way that probably doesn't exist? If you want to talk about 'justifications for atrocities', the nirvana fallacy has got to be up there.
Plus, you know, a lot of moral problems are time-sensitive. So when we have the choice between giving our one lifesaving pill to the rich young doctor who will save millions of lives, or the terminally ill old man, you're what, going to give it to neither of them and hope a third option magically appears? I suppose one of them will die first.
Because that's a real problem that actually happens, in fiction and out, and I can't wait to see how people respond to the 'don't feed anyone' approach to dividing too little food amongst starving people.

i actually dont think we need a rigid system of ethics to make things better for people. I think that foundational systems will always lead to abuse of that system, but that people will generally work together to make their community better. I dont have the answer on whats best for people, but I believe that working together we can figure out the answer together.

...So do I. I call it 'ethical philosophy'. The practice of people who have dedicated their lives to the subject working together to figure out what the aims of society, and of the individual, should be. How exactly do you expect to figure out the answer?

What should we call it then? Because as a concept it is worth talking about.

Call what? I think Paul's talking about legitimacy (the right of a government to tell its citizens what to do), and attempting to justify it on the basis of a contract that doesn't exist.
You could call it a form of the Theory of Fair Play, but said theory also allows random people to force you to work on a community radio station, and is therefore really stupid.

Thing is, Omelas isn't really a constructive example to base any real-world discussions on. It's a false binary, in which a single, unwilling victim is sacrificed eternally, for the eternal happiness of everyone else. It's a village the protagonist stumbles into during an episode of The Twilight Zone. Omelas can't be compared to an infantry platoon being ordered to hold a position while the rest of the company retreats, or... well, it can't be compared to anything that might happen in the real world, any more than Cinderella is a valid illustration of how to find your mate. It's a fairy tale.

Two things:
1. A chemist mixes hydrogen and oxygen with heat for an experiment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in the real world because pure hydrogen and oxygen is not a Thing that Happens. Nevertheless, the experiment is helpful. Because by isolating pure elements from the impurities of the real world allows us to see what's happening more clearly. The principles at play are the same, so we can then apply what we've learned to the real world. I trust you see the metaphor?
2. If anything, if the company retreating is OK, Omelas should be a slam dunk - one person for a whole population? In pure utilitarian terms, no way you get anything that clear cut in the real world. The fairy tale should make your point stronger.
(Oh and 3, it's not eternal - I'm pretty sure it says somewhere they replace the child, but it definitely doesn't say the child is immortal, and in the original version in Brothers Karamazov, the child explicitly dies.)

youre right maybe i was too hasty. we should discuss whether a forced marriage would be justified. i think it would go something like this

"should we ever force someone to marry someone they do not want to"
"absolutely not"
"okay"

look we had a discussion about this

It's not really much of a discussion if you ignore everyone who disagrees with you (which people obviously do).
Especially since this is the discussion to determine what is best, which means that excluding viewpoints before you start is begging the question a bit.

EDIT: Wow I got behind there.

[Kantaki]

The_Weirdo.

Well from what I understand of The_Weirdo's position they would advocate the kids should do that to their teacher.
And everyone else in their class school way.

Unless I severely misunderstands D&D alignment system I'd say that CN don't preach mass murder.

True. That's less a slippery slope and more jumping headfirst into the abyss.

[Jasdoif]

That's what I think, or at least as near of a consensus as possible.

Does something I am saying suggest I think differently to you?

No; your question was just easy to parse and respond to.

Well the negative utility arising out of slavery would primarily be the slave's lack of liberty. In addition there would also be the particular suffering individual slaves endured, if any (which might include death on a slave ship, beating or rape, or merely being worked harder than they would have liked). Cumulatively that is the negative utility arising out of slavery.

The positive utility arising out of slavery is primarily the use the slave owner got out of the slave - for example the utility of having cotton picked more cheaply than if the owner had employed someone to do the task.

Something else to consider: An employee would theoretically use their wages for food/medicine/housing, something a slave owner would have to provide for slaves on their behalf (morals and ethics aside, slaves are an investment; dead slaves are a loss). Between the costs and overhead of that, guarding against escapes, and a slave's lack of incentive to do more than the bare minimum; willing employees may very well have more positive utility than slavery. (I seem to have picked a good time to do a binge re-read of Freefall.)

[azaph]

Thing is, Omelas isn't really a constructive example to base any real-world discussions on. It's a false binary, in which a single, unwilling victim is sacrificed eternally, for the eternal happiness of everyone else. It's a village the protagonist stumbles into during an episode of The Twilight Zone. Omelas can't be compared to an infantry platoon being ordered to hold a position while the rest of the company retreats, or... well, it can't be compared to anything that might happen in the real world, any more than Cinderella is a valid illustration of how to find your mate. It's a fairy tale.

Two things:
1. A chemist mixes hydrogen and oxygen with heat for an experiment. This has nothing whatsoever to do with what happens in the real world because pure hydrogen and oxygen is not a Thing that Happens. Nevertheless, the experiment is helpful. Because by isolating pure elements from the impurities of the real world allows us to see what's happening more clearly. The principles at play are the same, so we can then apply what we've learned to the real world. I trust you see the metaphor?
2. If anything, if the company retreating is OK, Omelas should be a slam dunk - one person for a whole population? In pure utilitarian terms, no way you get anything that clear cut in the real world. The fairy tale should make your point stronger.
(Oh and 3, it's not eternal - I'm pretty sure it says somewhere they replace the child)

An interesting way to think of Omelas is to imagine yourself as a person who has a choice between being a citizen of Omelas, or a citizen of an ordinary city. If you choose to be a citizen of Omelas there is a chance (1/100,000 if the population is 100,000) that you will be the tortured child. If you choose Omelas, that might suggest Omelas is justified. Which would you choose?

Veil of ignorance theory?
I'm not quite convinced. I might choose to be in Omelas because it's in my self-interest. Because my choosing to live in the normal city doesn't stop Omelas from existing in this scenario, or make fewer children suffer - so self-interest is all I need to be concerned about. I have three issues:
1. I consented to the risk. The child is a child partly so it can't consent (Karamazov makes this explicit).
2. I'm not sure that saying that living in Omelas is in my self interest translates to saying that Omelas existing at all is justified.
3. I am (relative to the population as a whole), very risk-loving. If we assume the child is worse off than any other single person you could possibly be, I'm not entirely convinced most people would be willing to give informed consent to that kind of risk.

actually, its just that anyone working together to do whats best for people who realize that forced marriage is gross and not something that communities should do.

I actually tend to think that the people like Paul who think it might be justified in certain circumstances are indeed arguing in good faith, and really do belive that it might be something communities should do sometimes.
I don't agree with them at all, but I do know someone who legitimately belives the best possible form of national government is one where you literally buy stocks in the country, and then people get votes based on how many they own...
Thinking people can't really disagree with you is usually a trap.

[Darth Paul]

If anything, if the company retreating is OK, Omelas should be a slam dunk - one person for a whole population? In pure utilitarian terms, no way you get anything that clear cut in the real world. The fairy tale should make your point stronger.

But it doesn't, because for the child in the fractured fairy tale, it's a certainty of torture (OK, torture unto death, thanks for the correction). Whereas for soldiers, who have the means to defend themselves against the enemy, there is no certainty that they will die on their mission. The odds may be poor, they may feel they face certain death, but there's always hope. They have agency in their situation. They're required to follow orders, but they also have a certain latitude within the scope of those orders.

If the situation were sending a single pilot on a kamikaze run that were guaranteed to end a war... then, that would be an equivalent scenario.

EDIT: Wait a minute, wait a minute. I just noticed something for the first time in your post.

NEVER did I say that I found forced marriage justified, EVER.

I gave examples where, historically, societies forced people to marry (the origin of the phrase "shotgun wedding"), and hypothesized how that might have been a situation a fictional character found themselves in. YOU implied my personal approval, where it was absent.

[The_Weirdo]

Well from what I understand of The_Weirdo's position they would advocate the kids should do that to their teacher.
And everyone else in their class school way.

Yeah, you misunderstood. There's a decent reason for kids to be in school, one that will benefit them in the long run.

Not the same for forced marriage.

The_Weirdo.

HEY!!! How DARE you???

I would never, EVER say Maybe it's violence.

How DARE you attack my reputation this way?

[azaph]

But it doesn't, because for the child in the fractured fairy tale, it's a certainty of torture (OK, torture unto death, thanks for the correction). Whereas for soldiers, who have the means to defend themselves against the enemy, there is no certainty that they will die on their mission. The odds may be poor, they may feel they face certain death, but there's always hope. They have agency in their situation. They're required to follow orders, but they also have a certain latitude within the scope of those orders.

If the situation were sending a single pilot on a kamikaze run that were guaranteed to end a war... then, that would be an equivalent scenario.

Certainty in utilitariansim isn't usually that special. You just multiply the utility by the probability - a 60% chance of two people dying is worse than a 100% chance of one person dying. If you leave a hundred soldiers behind and they only have an 80% chance of dying, you just imagine there were only eighty soldiers. Expected utility is the same.
Otherwise, you'd never be able to compare things in the real world, since certainty (as you say) doesn't really exist, and you have to be able to compare a 70% chance of three people dying to a 40% chance of eleven people dying.
Agency, meanwhile, just isn't a utilitarian concept at all. Utilitarianism is numbers - whose fault the consequences are doesn't change what those consequences are.
Do you have alternate takes on either issue?

Alternate thought experiment - there are six dying people in hospital who need different organs. I could, in secret, kill someone (instantly and painlessly) who is compatible with all of them, steal that person's organs, and give them to the six people. Six lives for one is a great deal, and even if some of them don't take, we're probably saving three or four lives. Expected utility is almost certainly positive. This is something we could actually really do, but if anything people probably hate the idea more than Omelas.
Now, let's make the situation even better - suppose we can actually keep the healthy patient alive after they lose their organs. Their quality of life will plummet, but it won't quite be a fate worse than death. So expected utility is even more positive, but I'm betting you're still not going to get many doctors stealing a healthy patient's liver.
That situation parallels your 'justified' forced marriage really well - one person's quality of life, in exchange for several lives. If you allow one exchange, you must be fine with the other, right?

[Darth Paul]

Once again: I NEVER said that a forced marriage was "justified". Giving historical examples is not the same as agreeing with the historical examples. Even applying historical examples to a fictional scenario, is not the same as agreeing with the fictional scenario. Saying that the dwarves may have felt justified, doesn't make me a dwarf. Is that cleared up now?

And no, the hospital example isn't morally the same, because you're committing murder, in a situation where it's not guaranteed that someone will die. Donors could turn up tomorrow. A cure for one or more patients could be discovered. Treatment could prolong their lives indefinitely. That's not the equivalent of the trolley question, in which it's guaranteed that someone is going to get hit with a trolley, the only question is who.

I don't know as I'm a utilitarian at all. I make some arguments that seem utilitarian, but really, I just argue for the greater good. It's not a matter of calculating percentages, because in the real world, that is notoriously difficult to do, no matter how hard we try.

[azaph]

I may or may not have confused you with Dragonus, apologies if so. So you do think a forced marriage is wrong, even if it prevents war, yes?

However, no. Donors might indeed turn up tomorrow. But there is simply not going to be a situation where every compatible person has a donor or a cure (especially since I left this to the last second - the donor who turns up tomorrow will be too late).
Meanwhile, I didn't actually mention the trolley problem, but the chances of being killed if you get hit by a high-speed train are 'only' about 90%.
Exactly how much is 'guaranteed' worth to you anyway? Is a 99% chance of two hundred deaths better than a certainty of one? Because if your criterion is that you can only commit murder when certainty is involved, that is functionally the same as saying you can never do it at all, because there is no real situation in which certainty actually exists.
That doesn't sound like the greater good to me.