(This thread has nothing to do with sex).

Back in 1983 I was asked to give a talk about morality. For this talk, I invented the morality triangle.

There are two other facets to morality that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere:

• the distinction between secondary effects and reactions.
• (one I’ve included in Good Scientist cartoons 222 to 223 that I don’t need to discuss right now).

I assume that you’re all familiar with the work of Jeremy Bentham. If not, just follow along. The Australian legal system is heavily based on the British legal system, which is heavily based on the work of John Stuart Mills, which is heavily based on the work of Jeremy Bentham. So you see that this is not just airy fairy moralising, this is a very practical system of morality. Bentham removed a lot of the whimsy of the legal good and bad. His work is known as “moral calculus” and is best known by its summary “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

The two main contemporary criticisms of Bentham’s work are that it is hedonistic (based on happiness) and that it doesn’t always work on the dichotomy of guilty/innocent. It may be right to convict an innocent person in order to avoid the harm caused by a riot.

On to “the distinction between secondary effects and reactions”. I’ll start with reactions. The Port Arthur Massacre sent shock waves around the world. The massacre itself was bad, but it led directly to the gun buyback scheme which is good. So can I say that overall the actions of Martin Bryant were good because the gun buyback scheme has saved more lives than the massacre itself took? No. The gun buyback scheme was a reaction, not a secondary effect. Reactions don’t count in measuring morality. To take another example, the Great Pyramid in Giza. Khufu bankrupted his country and caused untold hardship by his construction which in itself is bad. But it led directly to tourism which has greatly enriched Cairo between then and now. The tourism has enriched Egypt more than the Great Pyramid has impoverished it but, because the tourism is a reaction not a secondary effect, Khufu’s actions remain morally bad.

Secondary effects are different. Every action has good and harmful components. Every surgery requires an incision or other harmful process (such as burning) in order to do good by removing disease. Let’s use civil engineering as a guide to secondary effects. Construction is good, but … Each construction requires some destruction to start with, that’s a bad secondary effect. Another secondary effect is the probability of failure, which is also bad. And then there’s a third aspect of how happy (or how less unhappy) the construction makes its users, which includes aesthetics. Bad aesthetics would count as a third harmful side effect. Using Bentham’s methods, sum up the good primary effects and harmful secondary effects and get ready to plot both on what I’m calling the Morality Triangle.

The triangle plot is widely used in geology. It’s based on the geometric principle that for every point in an equilateral triangle of side 1, the sum of the distances from that point to all three sides is a constant, 100%. Here’s a typical example from geology:

And here’s how it applies in morality, plotting primary good (or bad) effect in terms of gross happiness, and secondary bad (or good) effect in the same terms. “Doing nothing” includes rejection, delay and procrastination.

To be continued.

mollwollfumble said:

(This thread has nothing to do with sex).

Back in 1983 I was asked to give a talk about morality. For this talk, I invented the morality triangle.

There are two other facets to morality that I haven’t seen discussed elsewhere:

• the distinction between secondary effects and reactions.
• (one I’ve included in Good Scientist cartoons 222 to 223 that I don’t need to discuss right now).

I assume that you’re all familiar with the work of Jeremy Bentham. If not, just follow along. The Australian legal system is heavily based on the British legal system, which is heavily based on the work of John Stuart Mills, which is heavily based on the work of Jeremy Bentham. So you see that this is not just airy fairy moralising, this is a very practical system of morality. Bentham removed a lot of the whimsy of the legal good and bad. His work is known as “moral calculus” and is best known by its summary “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

The two main contemporary criticisms of Bentham’s work are that it is hedonistic (based on happiness) and that it doesn’t always work on the dichotomy of guilty/innocent. It may be right to convict an innocent person in order to avoid the harm caused by a riot.

On to “the distinction between secondary effects and reactions”. I’ll start with reactions. The Port Arthur Massacre sent shock waves around the world. The massacre itself was bad, but it led directly to the gun buyback scheme which is good. So can I say that overall the actions of Martin Bryant were good because the gun buyback scheme has saved more lives than the massacre itself took? No. The gun buyback scheme was a reaction, not a secondary effect. Reactions don’t count in measuring morality. To take another example, the Great Pyramid in Giza. Khufu bankrupted his country and caused untold hardship by his construction which in itself is bad. But it led directly to tourism which has greatly enriched Cairo between then and now. The tourism has enriched Egypt more than the Great Pyramid has impoverished it but, because the tourism is a reaction not a secondary effect, Khufu’s actions remain morally bad.

Secondary effects are different. Every action has good and harmful components. Every surgery requires an incision or other harmful process (such as burning) in order to do good by removing disease. Let’s use civil engineering as a guide to secondary effects. Construction is good, but … Each construction requires some destruction to start with, that’s a bad secondary effect. Another secondary effect is the probability of failure, which is also bad. And then there’s a third aspect of how happy (or how less unhappy) the construction makes its users, which includes aesthetics. Bad aesthetics would count as a third harmful side effect. Using Bentham’s methods, sum up the good primary effects and harmful secondary effects and get ready to plot both on what I’m calling the Morality Triangle.

The triangle plot is widely used in geology. It’s based on the geometric principle that for every point in an equilateral triangle of side 1, the sum of the distances from that point to all three sides is a constant, 100%. Here’s a typical example from geology:

And here’s how it applies in morality, plotting primary good (or bad) effect in terms of gross happiness, and secondary bad (or good) effect in the same terms. “Doing nothing” includes rejection, delay and procrastination.

To be continued.

At this stage you should be saying “so what?”

Well, the first stage in using this is to plot different moral systems on the triangle. The allowable range of actions is marked in orange.

The first thing to notice is the size of the orange regions. The smaller the orange region, the more challenging it is to follow that moral system. But the closer you get to “do nothing”, the less challenging it is to follow the moral system. So “do most good” and “do most net good” are by far the most difficult moral systems to follow.

Also, because doing nothing is easy, both “do no harm” and “I solemnly swear that I am up to no good” both gravitate towards “do nothing”. Applied strictly, because every good action has harmful side effects, the medical morality of “do no harm” becomes synonymous with “do nothing”.

At this stage you should be thinking “well, that’s all very pretty, but it doesn’t help”.

The potential for doing good and doing harm are not always equal. In wartime it is far easier to do a lot of harm than in peace time. So in wartime and peace time the triangles get rotated to reflect this. The following triangles reflect the application of “do more good than harm” in wartime and in peace time. It is far easier to do more good than harm in peace time than it is in wartime.

Exercise for the student. See how “do as much as you can” is a good morality in peace time and a bad morality in wartime.

For some activities such as the manufacture, distribution and sale of antidepressants it is hardly possible to go wrong.

Exercise for the student. Using Bentham’s “moral calculus”, discuss the moral implications of thalidomide, first prescribed as an anti-anxiety drug. Hint, compare thalidomide to other anxiolytic medicines. Note that it is now used as an anti-cancer and anti-leprosy drug.

interesting subject, because to some extent humans do moral calculus, i’d call it algebra, though appreciate the triangle thing, putting it into a picture like that, with areas, might hint at territorial elements there displayed in shaded areas etc, anyway it appeals to native geometry I guess, though morality has at least three dimensions, probably more

possibly underrepresented are variously compartmentalization, which mostly everyone employs, so that things might free-run individually, some independence, which reduces complexity in ways and computational requirements for analyzing, aids predictive power also

>For some activities such as the manufacture, distribution and sale of antidepressants it is hardly possible to go wrong

not sure about that above, there are possibly arguments that up-regulating the brain’s chemical reward system, such interventions, large scale also, reliance, is not an entirely good thing, and although a happy medicalization, it is a core feature of modern medicalization, possibly with distortions

other thing underrepresented is most people do not much most of the time, it generally lowers risk, most people retreating to their beds at night for example, to sleep

transition said:

interesting subject, because to some extent humans do moral calculus, i’d call it algebra, though appreciate the triangle thing, putting it into a picture like that, with areas, might hint at territorial elements there displayed in shaded areas etc, anyway it appeals to native geometry I guess, though morality has at least three dimensions, probably more

possibly underrepresented are variously compartmentalization, which mostly everyone employs, so that things might free-run individually, some independence, which reduces complexity in ways and computational requirements for analyzing, aids predictive power also

>For some activities such as the manufacture, distribution and sale of antidepressants it is hardly possible to go wrong

not sure about that above, there are possibly arguments that up-regulating the brain’s chemical reward system, such interventions, large scale also, reliance, is not an entirely good thing, and although a happy medicalization, it is a core feature of modern medicalization, possibly with distortions

other thing underrepresented is most people do not much most of the time, it generally lowers risk, most people retreating to their beds at night for example, to sleep

Thanks for feedback.

Some morality cartoons from “Good Scientist Cartoon”. The first four tie in with what I’ve said above.

Vaccine trials are immoral because they’re based on the combination of “guilty until proved innocent” and “do no harm”. Release the damn thing into the public domain as fast as you can manufacture it.

The final two are different.

From least moral to most moral it gives the sequence: Papillon (multiple murderer), Mafia, Racist, Soldier, Humanitarian, Environmentalist.

mollwollfumble said:

Ants also have a greater biomass than homo sapiens.

Dark Orange said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ants also have a greater biomass than homo sapiens.

Not sure about that?

Homo sapiens has a quite huge biomass. More than all wild mammals combined.

Greater than human biomass includes domestic stock biomass, crustacean biomass, and tree biomass.

crossed my mind, how does greatest happiness for greatest number reconcile troubles of overpopulation, given it would seem to accommodate overpopulation, perhaps endless human expansion, I mean it sort of almost sounds like something out of the bible, and it lends to an expansionist view of reality (all humans do) as social construction, potentially

I could see tyranny emerging, if it were to become core of social and political philosophy, applied

as a rough objective, a soft objective, seems alright

mollwollfumble said:

Dark Orange said:

mollwollfumble said:

Ants also have a greater biomass than homo sapiens.

Not sure about that?

Homo sapiens has a quite huge biomass. More than all wild mammals combined.

Greater than human biomass includes domestic stock biomass, crustacean biomass, and tree biomass.

I am sure – if you class “termites” as ants.

transition said:

crossed my mind, how does greatest happiness for greatest number reconcile troubles of overpopulation, given it would seem to accommodate overpopulation, perhaps endless human expansion, I mean it sort of almost sounds like something out of the bible, and it lends to an expansionist view of reality (all humans do) as social construction, potentially

I could see tyranny emerging, if it were to become core of social and political philosophy, applied

as a rough objective, a soft objective, seems alright

> how does greatest happiness for greatest number reconcile troubles of overpopulation

It does in part because it encourages contraception. Too many children means poverty which decreases happiness.

It does in part through the problems of pollution resulting from overpopulation. Pollution decreases happiness.

It does in part from a wildlife viewpoint. More people decreases the happiness of wildlife.

Dark Orange said:

mollwollfumble said:

Dark Orange said:

Ants also have a greater biomass than homo sapiens.

Not sure about that?

Homo sapiens has a quite huge biomass. More than all wild mammals combined.

Greater than human biomass includes domestic stock biomass, crustacean biomass, and tree biomass.

I am sure – if you class “termites” as ants.

Let’s see what Mr Google kicks up. From https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-29281253

“There are 7.2 billion humans on the planet today – if we take everyone over the age of 15, they weigh a combined total of about 332bn kg. If we imagine there are 10,000 trillion ants in the world, weighing an average of 4mg, their total weight comes to just 40bn kg.”

But on the other hand, Google also unearths: https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7602/is-the-total-biomass-of-ants-roughly-equal-to-the-total-biomass-of-humans

“Ants are arguably the greatest success story in the history of terrestrial metazoa. On average, ants monopolize 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass, and in tropical regions where ants are especially abundant, they monopolize 25% or more.” from “

“the biomass of termites ≈0.05 Gt C is on par with that of humans”. That and the figure below are from https://www.pnas.org/content/115/25/6506

>It does in part from a wildlife viewpoint. More people decreases the happiness of wildlife.

the more fauna there is, the more humans there are, the more misery

wouldn’t it reduce the misery by humans going extinct, voluntary extinction, at least then, well, I wouldn’t be here to see (or imagine, more so) all the suffering that happens in nature, a lot of eating each other, death by disease, and age, yeah don’t forget age, aging.

my only point really there, is that looking for happiness (seeing the world, through such an idealized objective) is likely to result in people blocking out (denying) the massive array of examples across the planet (nature) that are absolutely nothing to do with that, the entire thing mostly functions on something that the primary concern is not happiness

people often idealize nature

transition said:

>It does in part from a wildlife viewpoint. More people decreases the happiness of wildlife.

the more fauna there is, the more humans there are, the more misery

wouldn’t it reduce the misery by humans going extinct, voluntary extinction, at least then, well, I wouldn’t be here to see (or imagine, more so) all the suffering that happens in nature, a lot of eating each other, death by disease, and age, yeah don’t forget age, aging.

my only point really there, is that looking for happiness (seeing the world, through such an idealized objective) is likely to result in people blocking out (denying) the massive array of examples across the planet (nature) that are absolutely nothing to do with that, the entire thing mostly functions on something that the primary concern is not happiness

people often idealize nature

Noted.

to put the idea simply, by way of proposition

is there one example of happiness in this world, of which the happiness didn’t involve, or isn’t a consequence of, in some substantial part, indifference, or the capacity for

I guess there’s an argument for optimizing indifference, allowing certain types of indifference (at certain times), that it’s the reward for optimizing happiness of the greatest number, reducing worries

i’m more of the view, maybe it was from that well known psychoanalyst Freud, that an absence of persistent debilitating misery or debilitating discontent is probably a more practical (soft) objective

I should use indifferences in the plural I guess

anyway, my view is, right of the bat, with this consciousness business, and conscience, that things weren’t ideal at the beginning, evolution and all that, basically requiring a Lie to make it all work, the business is essentially and necessarily patched, cradle to grave, and before conception, for every generation, requires bullshit to make it work, shared bullshit a lot of it

i’d guess the only honest human is one that hasn’t been born, the rest don’t have, or didn’t have much choice

and it’s not ignorance that made it so, no amount of enlightenment or intelligence can make good much of reality, much as anyone wants reality, wants to maximize it, optimize perhaps, yeah