A Puzzle About Ought's and If's

Over at PEA Soup, Janice Dowell discusses an interesting argument for a moral paradox. This is how she presents it:

10 miners are trapped in a flooding mine; they are either all in shaft A or all in shaft B. Given our information, each location is equally likely. We have just enough sandbags to block one shaft, saving all the miners, if they are in the blocked shaft, but killing them all if they are in the other. If we do nothing, the water will distribute between the two shafts, killing only the one miner positioned lowest. On the basis of these considerations, (1) seems true:
(1) We ought to block neither shaft.

While deliberating, though, we accept both

(2) If the miners are in A, we ought to block A

and

(3) If the miners are in B, we ought to block B.

We also accept

(4) Either the miners are in A or they are in B.

And (2)-(4) seems to entail

(5) Either we ought to block A or we ought to block B.

Paradox!

She mentions a paper in which some philosophers respond by rejecting modus ponens. That seems much too severe and unattractive. Dowell suggests another line of attack which is quite sophisticated--it involves semantic theory, which is not something I want to get into right now. I think a simpler solution can be found. In a nutshell, I think the paradox argument requires the false assumption that ought's can be unprincipled.

Consider what principle would have to be applied to block one of the shafts. It couldn't be a principle based on one's knowledge of where the miners are. It would have to be a haphazard principle akin to flipping a coin. Such a "principle" (if we can even call it that) would only minimize harm in those worlds where the coin happened to come up the right way every time. I think we'd do less harm in more possible worlds by applying a different principle.

The point is, what one ought to do is a matter of what principle one ought apply in cases of a particular type, and not merely a matter of the consequences of applying that principle in any particular case. Thus, there are possible worlds in which all the miners are in A, but in which one ought not block A. Similarly for B, of course. So we should reject (2) and (3), and thereby resolve the paradox.

Update (July 15, 2010, 14:09 GMT): A moral noncognitivist (such as myself) would not let the paradox argument get off the ground, as stated, because it supposes that "we ought to X" can be either true or false. Yet, I think the paradox argument can proceed without that supposition. While the subjects in the scenario may say, "If the miners are in A, we ought to block A," what they mean (truth functionally) is this: If the miners are in A, we are justified in blocking A. The difference is subtle enough to not really matter, but it preserves the argument without offending the noncognitivist.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Argument For Compatibilism

Compatibilism is the idea that there is no conflict between determinism and free will.  Incompatibilism is the idea that free will cannot exist in a deterministic universe.  There's been a lot of discussion over which view is correct.  What's remarkable about the debate isn't so much the stubbornness or passion which has been exhibited by this or that party, but the fact that the very terms of the debate are controversial.  There is a great deal of confusion about what the key issues in the debate are and how we should be talking about them.  As a result, there is a meta-debate within the debate itself.  You cannot engage in the debate without also engaging in a debate about the debate--about what issues are at stake and about how the issues should be framed.  So here's what I want to do:  I want to explain why I think incompatibilists are doing a very bad job of framing the debate, and also why compatibilism is the most reasonable option on the table.  It's an ambi
Read more

Sam Harris and the Moral Realism/Moral Relativism Myth

There is a popular misconception that, if you are not a moral realist, you are a moral relativist. Yet, most non-theistic professional philosophers may be neither. As I'll explain, I prefer a variety of anti-realism called moral noncognitivism. First, I want to discuss the moral realism/moral relativism myth. Moral realists believe in objective truths about right and wrong, whereas moral relativists believe that moral truths are subjective, or limited by the beliefs and values of particular communities and cultures. Moral relativists are people who say, for example, that genital mutilation isn't absolutely or universally wrong--it's just wrong for some people. Moral realists respond, "No, genital mutilation really is [or, perhaps, really isn't] wrong, for all people and all times--all things being equal." This is usually how the issue is framed in popular culture, particularly in debates over atheism and the role of religion in society. It is not uncommo
Read more

Luke Skywalker and Rey: Comparing Character Arcs

My second viewing of The Force Awakens only reinforced my admiration.  I'm very impressed by Rey as a character, and so I want to respond to the prevalent criticism that she does not have a satisfying character arc.  I think she stands up better than many people think.  To prove it, let's compare her arc to Luke's in the original Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope.   Luke and Rey each have two inner conflicts dealing with the themes of loyalty and trust, but in Rey's case, the conflicts converge and are developed in a more dramatic and I think satisfying way. At the start of Episode IV: A New Hope , Luke wants to be loyal to his aunt and uncle, but also wants to follow his own dreams.  This is his first inner conflict.  His dreams are somewhat vague at first: He wants to get off Tatooine, join the academy, be heroic, etc.  When Ben Kenobi tells him his father was a Jedi Knight killed by Darth Vader, his motivation becomes more focused: He wants to join Kenobi and the r
Read more