Wrong and Bad - Same thing?

[MSC]

My claim;

All bads are wrongs.

Not all wrongs are bads.

 

A 5 year old claims; 12+50=71

Wrong, but bad? Clearly mixed up the tens and units column in 12. 

5 year old child hits his sister. Wrong, but bad?

I have attached a simple logic puzzle, image in attachment. 

Quote

While you know all four types of food are inside and each box only contains one type of food, you also know that only one of the boxes is labeled correctly. What's the minimum number of boxes that you need to open to be guaranteed (regardless of luck) to find out which one is labeled correctly?

This logic puzzle is a good example of where we are also being asked; How many times do you need to be wrong, before you can be right?

Let's add the ethical spin;

Let's imagine that each time an incorrect choice is made, a bomb will go off, killing a nearby person standing a safe distance away from the boxes. 

Now imagine two individuals, they have both been told $1,000,000 is in the box under the produce. One of them has been told that each incorrect box is wired to deadly explosives within killing distance of the people nearby. Let's call them the FI for the forewarned individual and II for the Ignorant individual. They are both told they can walk away at any point and are undergoing the same set up separately.

II opens one incorrect box. Is absolutely shocked and just runs away crying tears of shame and guilt. 

FI opens the minimum number of boxes needed to figure out where the money is, takes the money and leaves the other boxes.

Both clearly did something wrong by most objectivist and group-relative standards.

Did they both do something bad?

 

A shiny new donkey to anyone who wants to answer the puzzle btw. Don't worry, it won't blow up.

Edited October 6, 2020 by MSC
Changed from fruit to produce, made a mistake. Not ironically, just standard stupidly.

[koti]

3 hours ago, MSC said:

My claim;

All bads are wrongs.

What if something is bad for you but good for someone else? Like avocado for example, its really bad for me and I’m probably allergic to it but my wife loves it. Is avocado wrong or right?

Edited October 6, 2020 by koti

[MSC]

2 hours ago, koti said:

What if something is bad for you but good for someone else? Like avocado for example, its really bad for me and I’m probably allergic to it but my wife loves it. Is avocado wrong or right?

This is all very context-sensitive. 

I'd say that the avocado cannot be the thing that makes a moralistic determination.

If I had fed you avocado five minutes before you told me you were allergic, I'd have done something bad. Because I've worked in kitchens and know better than to prepare a meal for someone without asking about allergens or dietary requirements. Even if it is just a mistake, my knowing better makes it negligent.

An amateur to food safety rules and procedures would have made an honest moral mistake which would be wrong, not bad.

It would be bad for you to self-harm by eating avocado knowing of your allergy, it would be bad for your wife to feed you avocado, since she should know of your allergy.

The avocado is blameless in that it has zero choice in whether it gets eaten, it's an avocado. It's literally poison to most other animals on the planet, I think it might even be something only we have evolved to eat. It's an evolutionary defence mechanism to give the seed it's best chance to germinate and grow. 

I'm of the belief that behaviours and actions can be bad. However causal responsibility, and moral responsibility aren't the same thing. 

If I cause some kind of unintentional harm to some else, where I couldn't have been reasonably expected to know any better, I'm causally responsible but not morally. If I did know better then I'd be morally responsible. 

I think people, can be sick, they can be wrong. I think the things we should be morally judging the most are behaviours and actions, including certain kinds of speech. A society is something that is probably deserving of moral responsibility and judgement for how it impacts peoples lives. It's part of the environment after all. 

 

[dimreepr]

6 hours ago, MSC said:

My claim;

All bads are wrongs.

Not all wrongs are bads.

 

A 5 year old claims; 12+50=71

Wrong, but bad? Clearly mixed up the tens and units column in 12. 

5 year old child hits his sister. Wrong, but bad?

I have attached a simple logic puzzle, image in attachment. 

This logic puzzle is a good example of where we are also being asked; How many times do you need to be wrong, before you can be right?

Let's add the ethical spin;

Let's imagine that each time an incorrect choice is made, a bomb will go off, killing a nearby person standing a safe distance away from the boxes. 

Now imagine two individuals, they have both been told $1,000,000 is in the box under the produce. One of them has been told that each incorrect box is wired to deadly explosives within killing distance of the people nearby. Let's call them the FI for the forewarned individual and II for the Ignorant individual. They are both told they can walk away at any point and are undergoing the same set up separately.

II opens one incorrect box. Is absolutely shocked and just runs away crying tears of shame and guilt. 

FI opens the minimum number of boxes needed to figure out where the money is, takes the money and leaves the other boxes.

Both clearly did something wrong by most objectivist and group-relative standards.

Did they both do something bad?

 

A shiny new donkey to anyone who wants to answer the puzzle btw. Don't worry, it won't blow up.

In your example the ethical choice is, don't make a decision; so in answer to the topic title, wrong and bad are equal. 

However in real life, being wrong generally leads to better information and greater knowledge and therefore good decisions, and bad decisions are often due to a lack of information and knowledge; so being wrong is a good thing and being bad is only ethically wrong when the information/knowledge is available but ignored.

 

[studiot]

One problem with the presentation I see is that both 'wrong / not wrong'  and 'bad/not bad' are presented as one half of a binary choice.

Presenting these as a scale would allow better analysis.

[MSC]

20 minutes ago, studiot said:

One problem with the presentation I see is that both 'wrong / not wrong'  and 'bad/not bad' are presented as one half of a binary choice.

Presenting these as a scale would allow better analysis.

I do so appreciate people who reject binaries!

However, is it a case of delineation through scaling or categorising? Should we be quantitative or qualitative when we think of things being good or bad? Right or wrong?

What sounds better to you;

A given action could be said to be 60% wrong?

A given action could be said to be a type of wrong?

Or a joint application of both?

 

 

[dimreepr]

1 minute ago, MSC said:

However, is it a case of delineation through scaling or categorising? Should we be quantitative or qualitative when we think of things being good or bad? Right or wrong?

This isn't an ethical question, nor the one posed in the OP.

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

This isn't an ethical question, nor the one posed in the OP.

It is a meta-ethical question actually, what are your grounds for claiming it isn't? I wrote the OP and gave ground to Studiots excellent point, that the OP forces binary choices. So now we've moved onto delineation to escape the binary and carry on a collaborative discussion, instead of me wasting peoples times by defending a point not worth defending, and getting upset by it like I believe, if my idea is attacked, I am attacked. I don't believe that.

Do you have an answer to those questions?

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by MSC
Correction

[studiot]

17 minutes ago, MSC said:

I do so appreciate people who reject binaries!

However, is it a case of delineation through scaling or categorising? Should we be quantitative or qualitative when we think of things being good or bad? Right or wrong?

What sounds better to you;

A given action could be said to be 60% wrong?

A given action could be said to be a type of wrong?

Or a joint application of both?

 

 

I'm glad you could follow my rather terse note.  +1

The point about binary choice is that right is then the same as good or it is not and wrong is then the same as bad or it is not.

There is no partway.

Another binary choice.

 

The point about scales is that measurement on the scale can be reported as a range, it does not have to be a specific point.
Ranges in turn permit a measure of overlap between two scales and two meaudring ranges on those scales from full to partial to zero.
You can draw Venn type diagrams.
The whole subject become infinitely richer.

[dimreepr]

13 minutes ago, MSC said:

It is a meta-ethical question actually

14 minutes ago, MSC said:

what are your grounds for claiming it isn't?

That...

 

20 minutes ago, MSC said:

Do you have an answer to those questions?

Did you miss this?

59 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In your example the ethical choice is, don't make a decision; so in answer to the topic title, wrong and bad are equal. 

However in real life, being wrong generally leads to better information and greater knowledge and therefore good decisions, and bad decisions are often due to a lack of information and knowledge; so being wrong is a good thing and being bad is only ethically wrong when the information/knowledge is available but ignored.

 

 

My point is, with the correct information and the knowledge to interpret that information ethics is binary; and meta-ethics along with this topic belongs in general philosophy. 

[MSC]

38 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That...

 

Did you miss this?

 

Actually yes! I can't see the original comment you made for some reason? Can screenshot if you need proof of that. No matter, I can see it now that you've shared it and agree with everything you said. Unfortunately, there isn't a subsection in philosophy for meta-ethics There probably should be though, you can ask the admins about that maybe? I'm a bit new to the forum to be asking for structural context changes. 

I do apologise if it felt like I was just straight up ignoring you! Will retract the comment reaction. That was unfair and I'm sorry if it justifiably upset you.. Although also a lucky coincidence for your point. I made an incorrect conclusion based on a lack of knowledge that was outside of my control. 

Incorrect is a lovely term I think, really helps us separate mistake from intent. 

Do you think those who lacked intent for harm should be punished or is apology always sufficient? Would you agree if I said, "we are greater than the sum of our intentions"?(Guess which tv show that is from anyone? One of the greatest Sci-Fi shows of the last decade at least!) For example, could we say that people who conform to the binary and reject the reading of books on ethics even though they know they exist? Or is it enough that they are watching Morally centred narratives in tv, cinema and music? What about those who completely reject engaging with art that they know us out there? 

 

Sorry, your comment that I can't see on the thread wss actually really good and got me thinking a lot! Sorry for writing so much.

42 minutes ago, studiot said:

I'm glad you could follow my rather terse note.  +1

The point about binary choice is that right is then the same as good or it is not and wrong is then the same as bad or it is not.

There is no partway.

Another binary choice.

 

The point about scales is that measurement on the scale can be reported as a range, it does not have to be a specific point.
Ranges in turn permit a measure of overlap between two scales and two meaudring ranges on those scales from full to partial to zero.
You can draw Venn type diagrams.
The whole subject become infinitely richer.

You did not come across as terse at all. None of your word choices expressed that tone and I did not try to imagine a voice saying the words. Well, actually I suppose some generic AI voice (like microsoft Sam) works because you didn't send a voice recording along with the message to convey your true spoken tone. 

What about individuals whom have been diagnosed with 40/40 points for anti-social personality disorder whom have been found to be completely lacking their amygdala? Are they 100% psychologically bad but also free of moral responsibility, due to a brain abnormality beyond their control? I still agree with keeping them out of the general population but only out of pragmatic ethics. Or should we believe these individuals are in some way reformable and therefore morally responsible?

Edit: I don't sympathise with these people, I do empathise but they aren't the same thing. Their actions make me just as angry as they do for most people.

Edited October 6, 2020 by MSC
Additional

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, MSC said:

Do you think those who lacked intent for harm should be punished or is apology always sufficient?

That strikes at the heart of justice.

A philosophical question. Ethics draws the line.

[MSC]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That strikes at the heart of justice.

New post will be needed soon. I appreciate your artistically and linguistically expressive short responses. I genuinely wish I was capable of that, I made a point to study stoicism but I took temperance to mean only speak when it is required, so what do you do if you feel a lot is required? Unfortunately making myself clear isn't always easy and I can't seem to get away from excessive detail. Oh well, my later publications will require a heavy hand with the highlighter!

[dimreepr]

6 minutes ago, MSC said:

New post will be needed soon. I appreciate your artistically and linguistically expressive short responses. I genuinely wish I was capable of that, I made a point to study stoicism but I took temperance to mean only speak when it is required, so what do you do if you feel a lot is required? Unfortunately making myself clear isn't always easy and I can't seem to get away from excessive detail. Oh well, my later publications will require a heavy hand with the highlighter!

An impressionist isn't a better artist than a realist...

[MSC]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

An impressionist isn't a better artist than a realist...

Can you not give me an impression of realism? Maybe that's why I was openly and sincerely appreciative.

Any psychologist will tell you that word choice can convey potent and relevant emotional meaning. I think you'd enjoy reading into the concept of "Philosophical feeling" and Philosophy of non-verbal emotive language. If you haven't already, if you have then you are welcome on a future post about that

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, MSC said:

Can you not give me an impression of realism?

Nope sorry, when I paint I include all the detail; I have no idea how an artist can capture a moment in just three line's.  

[MSC]

Just now, dimreepr said:

Nope sorry, when I paint I include all the detail; I have no idea how an artist can capture a moment in just three line's.  

Is reality just three lines? Is that what you're equating realism to or am I just misinterpreting what you're trying to paint? Would you be able to rephrase what you mean?

I bet you enjoy structuralism too. I agree with your sentiment toward modern minimalism. Just lazy contrarianism if you ask me. 

[dimreepr]

“To convey one’s mood
in seventeen syllables
is very diffic”

― John Cooper Clarke

[swansont]

2 hours ago, MSC said:

This is all very context-sensitive. 

As is your original question, no?

[MSC]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

As is your original question, no?

Absolutely! I wouldn't be a contextualist if I didn't already believe that.

I think an underlying theme in my OP, is an unasked question; Is the binary a good tool for moral education? If so, at what stage of cognitive development, in regards to moral psychology?

 

[swansont]

Just now, MSC said:

Absolutely! I wouldn't be a contextualist if I didn't already believe that.

I think an underlying theme in my OP, is an unasked question; Is the binary a good tool for moral education? If so, at what stage of cognitive development, in regards to moral psychology?

 

!

Moderator Note

Then how about clarifying and narrowing the topic, so we aren’t all over the place.

 

[MSC]

7 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Then how about clarifying and narrowing the topic, so we aren’t all over the place.

 

I believe in a more critical and interdisciplinary approach with freer use of language. As I would in certain types of lectures in a classroom. The only difference is we are all teachers and students here.

Ethics and Meta-ethics is broad, trying to answer within too narrow constraints only diminishes the nuance and detail it requires and it's not wrong to write in an interdisciplinary fashion these days. 

If you think this is bad, try having this conversation in German at Goethe. 

Quote

Detail und Kontext sind erhaben und in ihrer Komplexität weitreichend

Even so, you're the moderator. I've made my case. Decision is entirely yours. Thank you for your time.

9 hours ago, MSC said:

A 5 year old claims; 12+50=71

Wrong, but bad? Clearly mixed up the tens and units column in 12. 

5 year old child hits his sister. Wrong, but bad?

In adherence with the moderators note:

The first claim of the five year old, should we say it is 75% mathematically accurate but 25% percent incorrect? To the 5 year old at least?

The five year old wrote 75% of the full formula correctly, the percentage of the answer is 25% as the child is also being graded on showing his working and handwriting for single line sums. 

Should we say of the second non-verbal claim: It's okay to hit my sister is behaviorally 100% wrong? I suppose if it is 100% why even bother with the percentage?

 

Note to moderator: I do apologise for this getting a little out there quickly before. I hope this makes up for that somewhat and shows I am listening to you. Moral contextualism is somewhat unheard of outside certain circles because the terminology is relatively new. I can dig up some readings (not mine) to send you if you'd like? Riveting stuff but it has a high demand for learning as it is pretty complex and some of the writers are at times, near incomprehensible without a lot of background explanation.

[studiot]

On 10/6/2020 at 2:06 PM, MSC said:

What about individuals whom have been diagnosed with 40/40 points for anti-social personality disorder whom have been found to be completely lacking their amygdala? Are they 100% psychologically bad but also free of moral responsibility, due to a brain abnormality beyond their control? I still agree with keeping them out of the general population but only out of pragmatic ethics. Or should we believe these individuals are in some way reformable and therefore morally responsible?

Edit: I don't sympathise with these people, I do empathise but they aren't the same thing. Their actions make me just as angry as they do for most people.

 

Sorry I can't answer this question as I have no idea what 40/40 points etc means.

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Sorry I can't answer this question as I have no idea what 40/40 points etc means.

It means they are psychopaths according to a specific checklist of traits and characteristics

[MSC]

6 minutes ago, iNow said:

It means they are psychopaths according to a specific checklist of traits and characteristics

Yes, although some of those traits being psychopaths or sociopaths (Anti-Social personality disorder tends to be the clincal terms) psychopath and sociopath are more like pop criminology terms.

Not every clinician agrees on all the traits on that list. Fear dominance for example is heavily debated as being a true anti-social trait.