Formulation of the Pillars of Morality and Law, [Serious thread is serious][Philosophy] Options

[TheGhostAgent]

Just a word of warning.

This probably WILL BE the absolutely LONGEST post I'll ever make here in RC history, so if you've zoned out from my previous past posts, don't continue reading. Just leave. If you have continued reading, you're either a masochist or you're quite interested. I hope the later. I will do my best in summarizing and be as terse as possible in my paragraphs, but it won't be easy. I will also try to break down my entire formulation into parts easy to follow and scan through if you wish to come back to finish reading. Before I even do get deep into my formulation, I'll have to explain the structure so people don't complain and become confused.

It will mainly consist of six parts with each part broken down into more specific sections. The parts themselves will contain the more straight forward arrived conclusions, so you may not necessarily have to worry about my long rants of my rational in arriving to it. I will though, put in my rant/logic/rational in later which will be put into quotation boxes. If you do not wish to read through the mass rant, you can easily skip it. If you're confused some where and are unsure as to how I arrived to a point so rapidly or as to why I pick such a point, wording, etc. It would be nice to read what I have to say in the quotation boxes to better understand it. If you're still confused, please quote from it and ask for more elaboration. I will be MORE than happy to help.

Now that I have worked my ass off in breaking them all into cogent parts and for ease of reading, I ask of you to at least put in a little effort to read before posting. It would also be nice if a mod or two posted something here to warn all other forumers that they will be warned should there be tl;dr/flame/getlife posts around so they all have a heads up, and know that this is SERIOUS BUSINESS. Now for the sections.

Part I: The Motivation for the Formulation
Part II: The Thesis
-Explanation of the Infinitum Law
--Definition of Humanity
--Definition of Interest, Good, and Bad
Part III: Enforcing the Thesis
-Definition of Harm
-Explanation of the Zeroth Law
-Explanation of the First Law
-Explanation of the Second Law
-Explanation of the Third Law
-Explanation of the Fourth Law
Part IV: The 5 Pillars
-Pillar 1: Aristotle - The Biological Imperative
-Pillar 2: Kant - The Categorical Imperative
-Pillar 3: Mill - The Hypothetical Imperative
-Pillar 4: Feinberg - The Rights Imperative
-Pillar 5: Shockley - The Institutional Imperative
Part V: The Hypothetical Tests
-The Surgery/Trolley Test
-The Military Doctor Scenario
Part VI: The Conclusion and After words




Part 1: The Motivation for the Formulation
To still ward off possible "Why even bother making such a long post?" or "Go get a life" flame posts and to answer the possible questions of "What made you do this?", this part will answer all of that. If you don't care for it, skip onto part II.

Unlike my theistic/religious counterparts, us atheists or perhaps just me, are lacking a sound foundation for justification of our own morality and law. Following the school of legal positivism, natural law, or any other school of thought does not necessarily bring out the maximum good as they all have flaws. So I will have to concede to the religious rivals that yes, you've got it made and easy as you've got a reference book to refer to and point out, "Hah! That is my rational!", where as us atheists don't exactly have something to physically grasp on to.

That is not to say those without a book or source to refer to, are immediately immoral beings. We just haven't quite found our niche yet. Yet, our instinctual rationality to ethical questions are nothing more than just intuition mongering. What happens when it is pushed to the extremes? Will our very intuition betray us? Most likely very much so. That is simply not the rational way to carry on with our belief and we should do our darness to correct that.

So clearly, I cannot keep going through life confused and lost without anything I can solidly reference to. Philosophers and other atheists can point at their ideal spokesperson for morality(other historic philosophers) for their rationality, but they're not without flaws. Perhaps it is this very aspect of abstractness itself that is the best choice? It would appear a systemless system would be best? Would that not be anarchy? Or orderly chaos? If you're interested still at what got me here, watch the movie "Children of Men" and then the extra features of philosophers talking about the movie. Anyways, I believe you get the idea as to why I went through all this work now, so without further adieu, the thesis!



Part II: The Thesis

The Infinitum Law or Law Infinitum
The only thing constant is change. By this Law, all other Laws preceding this Law shall be subject to revision.

-Explanation of the Infinitum Law

Returning back to the movie of "The Children of Men", I was stuck on Kant's philosophy of values and goodness having intrinsic values, but that was until I watched the movie. The solution the philosophers presented was the boat. Metaphorically of course which was represented in the movie. Why? Because the boat is rootless! Simple as that. Unlike other laws such as religious ones, they remain stagnant, stubborn, and are unfit to change. The boat is the perfect solution because it flows with the current, can be directed, and can easily shift its position and adapt. Even if everything we do, we realized we were wrong in the end and our entire foundation collapsed before us, we can still rely without a doubt on one thing. Change. The ability to change is itself intrinsically good and virtuous.

Some would argue and believe that those who believe strongly in faith, possessing an indomitable and unshakable predictability and consistency is something to be admired and virtuous. I beg to differ. I ask any of you, would you admire or see virtue in a fool who repeats their mistake repeatedly? Would you admire or see virtue in one who stubbornly holds onto their delusions and reject truth and reality? Surely I hope none of us would! Then should someone who changes their positions on a daily basis or even on a secondly basis be considered virtuous? Certainly not the case!

The question then comes in, what makes my view on change better than the unchangeable? Quite easy, look about you. Do you believe all the luxuries which you enjoy now, can be done so without any change? For those of you who believe in evolution, do you think we have come to our current status without change? For those technologically savvy, do you think we have come to our current status without change? Now of course one would beg to differ and accuse me of using change as a substitute word for improvement, but alas that is exactly what change brings! Does all changes bring improvement? Not always so!

Would changing back into the stone age become an improvement? Your immediate reaction should be appalled or even offended for me to have asked such a childish question and rightly so! Now we should look at the alternatives. Should we change at all, or remain stubborn and stagnant? Clearly, I believe the choice would be obvious. Why is this change so great then? So good and something to even be held as virtue? The very capacity for progress and improvement, that is what.

How can change itself be intrinsically good and virtuous then? Clearly there must be some reason as to why we welcome progress and improvement so readily. Simply enough, we are beings that are the very product of progress and improvement. We cannot help ourselves feeling the need for progress, no less different as not being able to help ourselves to feel companionship, survival, and understanding. To deny this fact and declare change as something negative or to be ashamed of, we are in essence denying and insulting ourselves. I have formed this Law so that all other Laws may be revised in the future when circumstance calls for it. It can always be improved and will not stagnate, which is why this Law is held at the highest esteem. As to why I choose the word "all other preceding Laws" when there are clearly no other Laws before this one, is the structure in which I have designed it.



If you'd look at the structure here, it would appear all the Laws are before the Infinitum Law if you would read from the top down. In reality, it is the Infinitum Law holding up the entire structure, but for visualization sake, the laws you see will be preceding the Infinitum.

Criteria(s) for revising a Law:
If the Law in question interferes with the operation and implementation of the Infinitum Law.
OR
If the Law in question fails in serving the best interest of humanity.


--Definition of Humanity
Humanity: Any and all persons with the capacity of rational thought, capacity of exercising free will, and with the ability to acknowledge one's own existence,

Why these criteria?
Rationality: Required for beings to be capable of thought, understanding, and capability to follow the law.
Free Will: Capacity to choose and overcome instinct with the utility of rationality or even to go against rationality.
Acknowledgment of One's own existence: Possessing consciousness and ability to make claims for rights.

Now to elaborate more on the selective wording and why these where chosen to be part of the criteria of humanity. Rationality itself, may simply be self explanatory. Morality and Law cannot be enforced let alone understood be by irrational beings. Rationality is needed to root out beings that are enslaved to their instincts and lack the capacity to be other wise. This answers the question of non-human rights, such as animals and trees. That is not to say we can go out and start kicking puppies and burning down forests, but in the realm of Law they simply are not part of humanity.

As for free will, one would debate and argue that such a concept does not exist. I agree, but I so too agree only partially with determinism. What determinism dictates is the probability of our actions becoming said actions by the actions of the past which affects us. It may not necessarily be the true out come in the end, because these probabilities all collapse into one decision the moment the choice and action is made. Beings that lack rationality, lack the capacity for free will for they are entrapped in their animal instincts. As we possess rationality, it becomes a utility for our free will to do other wise what our animal instincts would say. What is even more critical, is the ability to go against rationality should we choose to. This is exercising the power of a true free person.

Does free will then give humanity free reign to do what ever it wants? Yes, but should humanity? Ought it do what ever it wishes no matter the consequences? It has the capacity, but along with it brings responsibility. The only reason which I did not attach the ability of taking responsibility as a separate criteria, is because responsibility comes along immediately with free will. When a being lacks free will, it simply cannot be responsible. It is bounded to its natural instincts, no less than a computer bounded to the commands it is given to operate. How are we to punish a dog for barking or a bird for disturbing the public when it sings in the early morning? We would be a maddening society if we did!

But a free being, a free being can break free from their instincts and immediately be responsible for all their actions. It is crucial and necessary for all free bearing persons to take responsibility, for then how else may law and morality apply if it did not? Do not take responsibility as a form of a the blame game only, granted it may point out the ones responsible for events. It is required for all human beings and society to be able to even function and survive by the act of taking responsibility. You recognize your impact on all other humans, making you capable to do considerable good or harm. That very capacity, is a crucial step in becoming human.

One would then ask, why the need for one to be able to acknowledge one's own existence? Would not rationality and free will be more than enough? Simply not so! We may have answered in finality of the question of animal rights, what about robotics? What if should we come to a day and age in which robotics and computers have become so advanced, they are able to be as rational and free willed as we are? Should they immediately qualify as part of humanity?

I'm afraid not, for they lack the consciousness to be part of humanity! What is this consciousness? The combination of rationality, free will, and ability to recognize one's own existence! How odd would it be for a society to operate like automatons without even recognizing itself! It would be no different than a floor or servers or a forest of animals. It is this very consciousness and acknowledgment of one's own existence that also contains the potential to give cyborgs the ability to join among humanity. How so? Should in the future we be able to upload the human consciousness into machines or become part of one, are we any less human then? Surely humanity is not trapped in our body, but be transferable as a package of intelligence in rationality, capacity of free will, and that critical aspect of consciousness. The very consciousness to make claims to a right, is the final path to humanity. It is these three criteria that defines humanity.

--Definition of Interest, Good, and Bad

Interest of Humanity: Improving the quality of life of humanity.

How does one improve the quality of life and by what means? How can it be measured?

Actions that are certainly bad and detrimental to humanity's quality of life
Any and all actions which impedes the development and process of rationality of any other persons.
Any and all actions which impedes the capacity of free will of any other persons.
Any and all actions which impedes the capability of acknowledging one's own existence of any other persons.

Actions that are certainly good and beneficial to humanity's quality of life
Any and all actions which does not impede the development and process of rationality of any other persons.
Any and all actions which does not impede the capacity of free will of any other persons.
Any and all actions which does not impede the capability of acknowledging one's own existence of any other persons.

The explanation ought to be self-explanatory, but I will break it down further into how I came about the wording if you wish to know about my rational in doing so. The first and easiest step, was to deduce what is bad and harmful to improving the quality of life of humanity. How might one go about and impede another person's development and process of rationality? Denying the people the ability to educate themselves or any others. Burning books, shutting down schools and teachers, prohibiting libraries from carrying certain books, limiting freedom of speech and political discourse. Now, one would immediately say this limits free will as well! Very much so!

But then what good can rationality be to us if we lack free will? If we are imprisoned without just cause, free speech forbidden, unable to act onto the contrary. We would lose our responsibility and revert back to becoming animals and automatons. Causing the loss of someone's free will dehumanizes them and that certainly cannot be improving the quality of any life!

How can then one go about and impede another's ability to acknowledge their own existence? Torture of any kind over a long period of time can break even the strongest will. When one's will and rationality is sapped away, so too do their consciousness. Or through the method of brain washing and propaganda, taking the individuality away from the individual, stripping them of their consciousness and being molded into an automaton with and advanced artificial intelligence. What an Orwellian nightmare it would be for our society if this came true!

Surely then, anything which results in the opposite effect would be positive and improve the quality of life would it not? Not always so, I selected not impede rather than any other word for a reason. So long as the action does not impede any of the criteria of humanity, then your action can be justified as being acceptable. But why not take a step further and say all acts that promotes these traits become good and an improvement to quality of life? That is a dangerous slope for which I will not venture forth, for then any action can in turn be argued for an improvement of life in some sick form or another and will open up infinite absurd scenarios.

How exactly can we enforced and promote rationality for others? Would that not be a contradiction to free will? Promoting free will? Does not the being itself need to want free will and exercise it, not be interfered by any other influence? So clearly we cannot go about preaching and enforcing these aspects of humanity on others, for that very act itself would be counter-productive to rationality, free will, and acknowledgment of self. I know many of you may have come up with many hypothetical scenarios, so I conveniently made a whole section devoted to answering such scenarios. Don't worry, you will be addressed. If not, please post and I will address it and update the post.

Part 3: Enforcing the Thesis

That's nice and all now that we know your measurement and definition of good/bad/foundation of morality, how do we then go about enforcing it? This section will address that very matter, but before we do that, I will need to clarify the word "harm" which will be used plenty throughout the Laws.


-Definition of Harm

==Harm==
Action or result in which is detrimental to improving humanity's quality of life as outlined in Part II.
AND
Action or result which is unacceptable to the 5 Pillars by majority ruling. (I will explain the 5 Pillars later on)

This incredibly simple definition should be self explanatory. It will probably be one of the most simplest rules you'll see me type up in RC, so enjoy it.

The Zeroth Law: One shall not by action or inaction allow the Infinitum Law be impeded. The Infinitum Law shall be upheld even at the possible cost of the Zeroth Law becoming revised or loss in the process.

This law too should be self explanatory. One might ask, is not the Infinitum Law itself good enough? Maybe, but is it clear enough? Is it direct enough? Could it be abused or misconstrued into stagnation? Even a small possibility is not acceptable if it would damage the Infinitum Law! This Law stresses the importance and severity of the Infinitum Law to its finality, even at its own cost. No law or legislation that violates or impedes the Infinitum Law will pass through the Zeroth, making any such law or legislation invalid.

The First Law: One shall not by action or inaction do harm to humanity.

Should be self explanatory as well. Harm is well defined and so is humanity, so that saves all the verbosity that may inundate the rules here.

The Second Law: One may omit the First Law if such action or inaction may result in harm to oneself.

Why give one the ability to omit the First Law?! How would that even be moral for them to do that? It would be okay for one to not safe someone falling off a cliff when they're only a hand grasp away?! Sadly, I am saying just that. We cannot forget, this is now the Legal and Law part of the thesis. Enforcing morality into people is itself, immoral. Granted someone can choose not to easily save another, but we would all be appalled by their moral bankruptcy. That still does not give us the right to force them into endangering themselves or anyone else.

The Third Law: One may omit the First Law and Second Law if such action or inaction upholds the Infinitum and Zeroth Law.

A reiteration and re-enforcement of the Infinitum Law. We need to be able to understand that we cannot enforce someone to uphold or not uphold something, but we are able to give them the choice to. Remember the definition of humanity, free will is required to continue treating them as humans.

The Fourth Law: One does not violate or relinquish their protection under the Laws by action or inaction when harm is done to oneself by the result of upholding the Laws.

This Law provides additional protection to those who choose to willingly to sacrifice or allow harm to come to themselves to uphold the other Laws. Such as a protection to whistle blowers, police and firemen injured in service, etc.

Now onto the Pillars!



Part 4: The Five Pillars

Why? Why five? Why pillars?
My rational into including only THOSE five pillars will be explained in the Pillars themselves. As to why only five, why cannot be any other? It must be five (as for the time being) in order to have a majority ruling when going through cases. Why does the majority take precedent over the minority then? Because if the majority of the Pillars agree with the action, that means it best represents the interest of humanity. Each Pillar represents a different school of thought and judge. So should this be the Supreme Court of Law, there would be 5 judges, each with a different school of thought. The pillars are used as a metaphor to uphold the rest of all other laws and legislation that comes by. All pillars are equal in rank, so the numbering of the pillars does not represent any importance, but merely arbitrarily placed in that order.

**NOTE: The summary/quotation boxes are left out simply due to the complexity in the subject. Trying to summarize any of the philosophers in a sentence or two would be an insult and not to mention, an nigh impossible feat to accomplish. The imperatives are there as a generalization, but does not fully explain the rational behind each different school of thought. So I apologize now in advance for not being able to shrink it as much as some would like.


The First Pillar - Aristotle - The Biological Imperative

The way Aristotle sees and defines good, is the way in which the creature is designed to do. An example would be the scorpion. What would be the defining goodness of the life of a scorpion? Well, a life of snappiness with claws, poisoning with the tail, and scurrying around like a good scorpion! Then what would be the good life of humans? He observed human beings in an empirical fashion. We are social, rational, and productive beings. How so?

If we were to match in a one versus one fight with any other animal even of the same weight class, we would ultimately get our faced pounded in and have the beast be eating our liver. We are biologically weak with our senses, reflexes, strength, almost everything physical against that of nature's beasts. We are then forced to group together to fair better against nature. We are then socializing animals and use the advantage of our intellect, our rationality to out smart and out number the beasts. We also have opposable thumbs which allow us to produce and make things, increasing our survival and improving our quality of life. That is the good life of a human.

Aristotle also preached about virtues being the Golden Mean. The rational average between the two vices. He argues strongly against the over use of emotions and instinct, but use one's rationality because it is human doing so. The virtue can be as simple as courage. It is virtuous to be courageous, but not virtuous to be cowardly or rash. Cowardliness and being rash are the two opposite ends of the spectrum in the emotional reaction to danger or event, but the virtue of courage lies between the two. The Golden Mean, according to Aristotle, can slide back and forth depending on the circumstance and oneself. It would be rash to go into battle as a civilian, but courageous to stand one's ground as a soldier. It would be cowardly to run away from a shooting taking place as a police, but courageous to find safety as a civilian.

In the end, this pillar looks upon the biological purpose of the action in question. Does the action achieve virtue and succeed in being biologically purposeful?


The Second Pillar - Kant - The Categorical Imperative

With Kant, he believes ever strongly in rationality and duty to do good. He believes in the intrinsic value of actions and values. We do things because it itself is good, not for any other gain. Being honest and not lying to people is itself good without the requirement of any other cause. An example he gives is that of a shop keeper and whether he should cheat the change of a little girl who purchased something in his shop. Should he give the proper change? After all, the little girl would not know the proper change, what harm can be done? She gets what she wants anyway and he get a little more change!

Should the reason be that the shopkeeper gives her the proper change because he doesn't want the little girl's father to come in and beat him up for cheating the little girl? Or because he might lose customers when rumors gets out he cheats little girls? Kant would beg to differ and say, why would he even CONTEMPLATE the loss and gains to begin with? He should not cheat the change of anyone let alone a little girl! He should give the proper change simply because it is his duty to do so, any other reason is not needed.

How does one know whether an action is party of duty? After all, according to Kant, a duty is an action which one must be compelled to due. Such as a debt that can be sucked or extracted out of us to do. He provides a Universalization test, if it passes, it is a part of duty.

Quoted from wikipedia:

1. Find the agent's maxim. The maxim is an action paired with its motivation. Example: "I will lie for personal benefit." Lying is the action, the motivation is to get what you desire. Paired together they form the maxim.
2. Imagine a possible world in which everyone in a similar position to the real-world agent followed that maxim.
3. Decide whether any contradictions or irrationalities arise in the possible world as a result of following the maxim.
4. If a contradiction or irrationality arises, acting on that maxim is not allowed in the real world.
5. If there is no contradiction, then acting on that maxim is permissible, and in some instances required.

That is his first formulation of duty, his second is that we must treat each other as such as we would treat ourselves. To respect all other rational beings as ourselves and never to use one another as a utility or a means to an ends of a maxim. It would be utterly unacceptable to Kant for someone to be used for an ends.

Wikipedia:
The second formulation

The second formulation (Formula of the End in Itself) "says that the rational being, as by its nature as an end and thus as an end in itself, must serve in every maxim as the condition restricting all merely relative and arbitrary ends." The principle is "Act with reference to every rational being (whether yourself or another) so that it is an end in itself in your maxim…", meaning the rational being is "the basis of all maxims of action" and "must be treated never as a mere means but as the supreme limiting condition in the use of all means, i.e., as an end at the same time."

The third formulation

The third formulation (Formula of Autonomy) is a synthesis of the first two and is the basis for the "complete determination of all maxims". It says "that all maxims which stem from autonomous legislation ought to harmonize with a possible realm of ends as with a realm of nature" In principle, "So act as if your maxims should serve at the same time as the universal law (of all rational beings)", meaning that we should so act that we may think of ourselves as "a member in the universal realm of ends", legislating universal laws through our maxims, in a "possible realm of ends"

Summarizing Kant, this pillar looks into the universaliability of an action, its maxim, and whether it respects all other rational persons as well.


The Third Pillar - John Stuart Mill - The Hypothetical Imperative

Mill's Utilitarianism is quite simple. Do which produces the maximum happiness for the maximum amount of people! It is his Greatest Happiness Principle that rules this pillar. How can one defend happiness as a virtue then? Would that not collapse into using emotions? Would it not be a contradiction to my OWN belief in not using emotions, but rely heavily on logic when making critical decisions? It may not necessarily be so!

Mill's ultimate pillar that holds his entire Greatest Happiness Principle together would be that all actions people do, are in turn something beneficial to themselves regardless of how intrinsic a value is. All actions are done to achieve some happiness or satisfaction and to avoid pain and suffering. To even deny such an argument by hitting yourself or running into a wall, is itself bringing satisfaction to yourself by trying to prove it wrong. Alas, that very action is proving Mill's premise ever more true! It is as natural of humanity to seek companionship as much as that of humanity which seeks happiness. To even deny such a fact would be to deny oneself of being human. So clearly, a moral structure based around the natural state and happiness of humanity would be a solid pillar for Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle. It is logical then to use this structure as one of the pillars.

Why would it be called Utilitarianism instead of the Greatest Happiness Principle then? Because the Greatest Happiness Principle is achieved by the utilization of actions to produce happiness. All means and actions are justified to the ends in which the maximum happiness possible is achieved. Does this mean we can start throwing people into gladiator stadiums to sacrifice a few for the happiness and amusement of everyone? Certainly not for Mill!

Mill argues fiercely against slavery or any forms of inducing fear for that produces greater harm. How so? Should there be slavery, then the greatest maximum happiness simply cannot be achieved! How can one possible say one is maximizing the greatest happiness produced when a group of people are deprived of that very happiness? That would be a contradiction and hypocrisy! It would also generate uneasiness throughout the population into paranoia, wondering whether they will be next to be sent into the lion's den! In the long term, this certainly does not generate the greatest happiness possible.

This pillar then measures the trade off, would the greatest happiness possible be maximized?


The Fourth Pillar - Joel Feinberg - The Rights Imperative

Feinberg argued staunchly in the rights of the Individual, not about the numbers or intrinsic values or anything else. When one acts and the result of that action affects others, the transaction is not between one and then a large number of people. It is a different transaction between one and each of the individuals in the number of people. It is to one another, not to a third party involved and the third party is simply not needed.

The example he gives would be marriage for some. In a marriage, the pledge is not only to one another, but for some to God or another higher being. Should one cheat or commit a sin, it is not to the one they pledged they offended, but to God or higher third party which they broke the contract with. Instead of a murderer being responsible for committing the sin against the murdered, but instead the murderer committed the sin against God. What kind of morality and justice is this system? There is no need for a third party or transaction! The responsibility lies within the transaction between each individual, not to a third party which one needs to answer to.

In order for one to have rights, one needs to be able to make a claim against another for a right that is violated. In order for all that to happen, one needs to have the capacity to make that claim. Rationality, free will, and consciousness satisfies it. If one does not recognize one's self existence, how can they make any claim to a right? Rights are an exchange between two persons, not between one person and a non-person. The numbers brought out by Mill, intrinsic value by Kant, and biological purpose by Aristotle, are nullified by Feinberg's focus on the individual.

This pillar then looks upon the action in where the offense is committed in the transaction. Would the transaction between the two be acceptable to all other persons? Is there any rights violated? Feinberg focuses more on the individual than all other pillars.


The Fifth Pillar - Ken Shockley - The Institutional Imperative

This pillar was named after my philosophy ethics Professor as he helped spark the idea and made me rename moral relativism. Before getting into the Institutional Imperative, I will have to talk about moral relativism, its infant form of the I.I.

According to moral relativism, almost everything is gray and can be seen as something acceptable and understandable for its actions. An example would be the Inuits who would commit infanticide only on female babies. At first, our intuition immediately gawks at the cruelty and immorality of killing babies and then the sexism in place. But before we are so quick to judge, moral relativism looks into the reasons in which the babies are killed and its purpose.

To the Inuits, the death rate for males are significantly higher than that of females due to the fact that the males would go out and hunt for food for the tribe while the females would stay at camp and tend to the place. If they were to allow all female infants to grow up as well, there would be a significant disproportion in the demographics of gender and significantly tax the food supply as well. There simply won't be enough hunters to feed everyone. So by moral relativism, it would be an acceptable practice. The problem is accepting any reasoning or understand brings about absurd consequences.

In my discussion with my professor, if it was accepted to meet an ends and everyone does it, would it not be acceptable to cheat on tests? His answer came with the purpose of the institution. If the purpose of the institution was to grant credible degrees to all students, then you are in essence violating the purpose of the institution by cheating. It would apply the same for the Inuits. If you kill female babies, you are in line with your institution is due to the need to survive and being an Inuit. This pillar will be critical in determining some gray areas when question of jurisdiction and institution comes into play.

The pillar would then look upon whether the action falls in line with the accepted institution and purpose.


Part 5: The Hypothetical Tests

This section will be devoted to answering hypothetical circumstances to test the strength of the system.

One of the circumstances which I know will be brought up, would be Mill's G.H.P. Before I go into that and use the trolley or surgery hypothetical, I'll address one that my house mate presented which caused a slight stir to my previous primitive form of moral laws. This scenario was based on a show I believe it was Bablylon 5, a race of alien beings saw it as incredibly damning to have any sort of surgery. Operation of anywhere on the body would immediately cause them to shun and excommunicate the member of their species. The problem then comes when an infant is wounded and a very simple procedure was all that was required to nurse them back to health. Without the simple procedure, the infant would most surely die, but the parents refuses to let the operation take place due to their racial beliefs. Should we operate or not?

Aristotle: Where is the virtue here? To save or not save an infant. The two emotional extremes would be to either let the infant die without surgery, or do the surgery which may in essence kill the infant for it will be excommunicated. Fortunately, life is a virtue by default, that is unless the racial purpose of the infant is to die in the way it is meant to die. Is allowing nature take its course without interference to save a life a virtuous thing to do? Aristotle would probably be forced to say no unless some biological proof can show other wise.

Kant: Can this even be universalized? By all means NO! Is this infant being used as a utility to uphold an end? That is the end for which the race will excommunicate the child if operated on, why yes! Kant would immediately and vehemently disagree to allow the infant to die, it is your DUTY to save the infant!

Mill: Will the bring about the greatest happiness possible? Clearly, allowing infants to die off would immediately send a ripple effect through our society. How can we maximize happiness by allowing such atrocity to happen? The parents might not be happy, but alas we are giving the infant a potential to maximize happiness, rather than taking it away permanently.

Feinberg: Individual rights. The infant has a right to not be killed and the surgeon has the right to save the child. The right to life and liberty, according to Feinberg, trumps all other rights.

Shockley: If it some how is purposeful to the race, then let the infant die. Very much the same way Inuits kill off their infant females in order for the survival of the rest of the tribe.

4 Yes to operate vs 1 No to operate. Operate away!

The Surgery/Trolley Test: The first scenario is simple. You are a doctor and there are five patients which requires five organs as soon as possible or they will die. A delivery man comes in and similarly have all the organs required and are a perfect match to all five patients. Would you chop him up to save the five? Many would say no instinctively. What would the pillars say?

Aristotle: No! You are failing your virtue and that is to do no harm as a doctor. Killing for another is simply not justified.
Kant: Certainly not! You cannot utilize any other human being as a means to an end!
Mill: No, there simply will be greater harm resulting from this action. None will go to the hospital as they will be in fear that they may next be chopped up.
Feinberg: No, individual rights protects the delivery man from being chopped up. His right to claim to life without being harmed is greater than the five who is already dying.
Shockley: No, your institution as a doctor forbids you from doing such an act.


What happens when we switch to a trolley situation though?
As the conductor of a trolley, you see five workmen up ahead in the way of your rail. You do your best to brake and try to stop the trolley, but the brake fails and the trolley continues surging forward! You look to the side and notice there is only one workman at the side. All that is required for you to do is flip a switch to direct the trolley to kill off the one worker over the five. Would you do it? Many would instinctively say yes, but why not for the doctor case? Both are essentially the same concept, but with a different scenario. You're still sacrificing one for five, are you not? What makes it any different? The action of killing to harvest organs and the action of flipping a switch to run over one rather than five, ends with the same result! How would the pillars solve this dilemma?

Aristotle: Same as before.
Kant: Kant will always say no, using anyone as an means to an end is barbaric!
Mill: It is acceptable due to a greater happiness is resulted. Would people no longer go to trolleys? May not necessarily be so as the people cannot blame the conductor for his act. Would all people do the same thing? Most likely.
Feinberg: Like Kant, will always say not due to the right of the individual being violated.
Shockley: Depends on the institution and law. If there is a law that compels the conductor to deal the least harm, then he should flip the switch.

Then where does the gray line stop? What if we upped the numbers? What if we replace five with one hundred people in the hospital? Or even a city populace, but the delivery man contains the only body with antibodies to fight off a deadly infection. It requires his death to save the city populace, should the doctor kill him? Or if we upped the costs of five workers on that trail and add on a city populace as well. The trolley is strapped with a nuke heading toward a bustling metropolis which will blow the entire place up. Or send it off course and blow up a desolate area and kill off the one unlucky man there. Luckily, the Pillars won't be forced into the corner as the Laws upholding the Pillars overrides.

Recall that the Second Law in which one may choose to opt out of action or inaction should such action or inaction bring personal harm to themselves. By Law, no matter how immoral that person may be in not doing anything to save someone, we cannot force them to action. They ought to and are compelled to do so morally, but to compel them by force is no longer voluntary action. They have loss their free will and have in essence loss their humanity, and we are the sole cause of that. Rather than the person becoming immoral, we have become no less moral than they are! Now should they voluntarily sacrifice themselves for the greater good, they are protected under the Fourth Law. They are what we would call, heroes or heroines. Does this mean we should not flip the switch? That we should not stop the train from blowing up a city? It would appear we are at the mercy of a volunteer. Alas fret not for the Pillars can resolve it when situations becomes so dire.

If the survivability of the human race is threatened (such as colossal damage and nuclear warfare)
Aristotle: It would not be prudent then to allow one overcome the death of so many. What biological purpose would be left if everyone died? The biological purpose here is rationality, sociality, and productivity. Where would either of the three be if the entire human race died out? Unfortunately, I'm afraid for the sake of humanity's existence, one must be lost.

Kant: I am simply unmoved due to the utility of another rational being. If we are to protect humanity, then what are we protecting if we sacrifice the very humanity we protect? It is unacceptable to perform any sacrifice unless it is voluntary.

Mill: What form of happiness would be generated if we allow almost all of humanity be wiped out for the sake of one? Where is the maximization of happiness? Would the one even be able to be happy and live with themselves for knowing their are the cause of death and suffering of so many? I would think allowing the death of so many for one, would be the very opposite of maximizing happiness. There simply won't be anyone left to maximize.

Feinberg: The right of the individual stands sacrosanct and shall not be violated for no matter what the number. The exchange once again, is not between one and everyone, but one and every other one. To justify the sacrifice of one by force is blasphemous to any being with even a slight knowledge of individual rights.

Shockley: We are left at a crossroads where the institution dictates where one subscribes to, to be doing the right thing. If at special circumstances, the person's purpose and duty is to minimize the loss as much as possible. Such as the medical triage system in times of great crisis and war, then that person must execute to satisfy the purpose of their institution lest they fail their own duties in which they voluntarily subscribed to. If this was a civilian making the decision, they are simply not fit for the position and in turn, can do no wrong for they are not subscribed to any special organization that would force them to act either way.

2: kill
2: don't kill
1: depending on circumstance, but the person would not be blamed for it if they're not subscribed into any institution.



The Military Doctor Scenario: Presented by Paul_V

I see. Well, I have another case for you, attacking Shockley's Pillar again:

You are an american doctor. In the event of a great War, you've been sent overseas to provide healthcare for the wounded soldiers. While performing your duty, you come across a disarmed wounded enemy. He will die if you do not help him, and he's too far away from any enemy outpost. Would you help him?

What would Shockley say? I think it would depend on the Institution we pick.

As a member of the institution that is Humanity: Yes! It is your duty to aid another human being in danger. That man is just like you, probably has a wife and kids, and he's just a victim of this war as you are.

As a doctor (and member of the institution of medicine): Yes! It is your duty as a doctor to heal the wounded, regardless of the side they're fighting for.

As an american: No! He's an enemy of the nation! By helping him, you're helping those who wish to destroy your country!

As a member of the army: Same as above.

I believe that, in order for Shockley's Pillar to be of any use, a classification of the Institutions must exist. I could propose one, but I want to see your opinion on whether it's necessary or not.

Nope, not necessarily so. Despite being in the member of the army, the Hippocratic oath taken by doctors apply even in the military. The doctors in the field at Iraq and Afghan treats even enemy combatants IN the military bases. Shockley would just answer, treat away. Even if Shockley answers no, he would be overruled.

Aristotle: Would it serve a biological purpose in aiding the enemy which seeks to exterminate you? No. But would it serve a greater purpose by being as morally bankrupt simply because the enemy may do it as well? The act of letting each other die off is far from being the rational and social aspects of human kind.
Kant: Duty itself, a given. Do not use others as a utility but treat them as rational respectable persons. It wouldn't pass the universailization test either.
Mill: Letting him die may lower the overall quality of happiness for all, because then no one would save any other's combatants and takes out the whole aspect of PoWs. Creating an even more crueler vision of war (if thats even possible) and make the combatants on your side, question whether what they're fighting for is the right cause. If they retaliate and allow your soldiers to die off, the utility of a short gain for a greater long term cost is not a good trade of in maximizing the greatest happiness possible.
Feinberg: His right is to be saved by medical practitioners bounded by the Hippocratic oath. What right do you have to let him die when you could save him?

It wouldn't matter what Shockley rule at this point then.


Part 6: The Conclusion and After words

If you've read up to all the way here, then wow. Congratulations and thank you for actually reading through the whole thing. I hope that you've had as much fun or some enlightening experience as I did when I formulated this structure and began writing it down. The question then lies, is this structure it? Will it be able to solve all of our moral and legal issues? It may not necessarily, but its crucial form is in its formlessness. Its ability to change, progress, and improve is the greatest virtue out of all the other laws. I can only hope some positive discussion can arrive from this work. Positive in not that there be only praise or being a sycophant involved, but productive discussion of the philosophy and structure itself.

In the end, is this my final work? Absolutely not! I ask of everyone who have actually read through everything and digested it, to help revise and critique it even further! Remember, it is subject to change and progress, this is after all, a life long project. Present more hypothetical scenarios if you like! Anything that can help with the evolution of this project. I eagerly await from certain posters to post their comments.

This post has been edited by TheGhostAgent: Dec 9 2007, 12:28 PM