Sal Cordova mentioned Pascal’s Wager on the Randi thread, and I was surprised to find that there has never been a thread on that topic here at TSZ. Hence this OP.
Pascal was a brilliant guy, but his famous Wager is an irrational mess. (Religion can have that effect on otherwise bright people.) In the comments, let’s explain the Wager’s shortcomings to Sal.
To start things off, here is Wikipedia’s statement of the argument, using Pascal’s words:
The wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):
1. God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
2. A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
3. You must wager (it is not optional).
4. Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
5. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
6. But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.
Have at it.
Then your guiding principle is not “treat others as you would prefer to be treated”, but rather “treat others in a way that makes me happy”. Which is the same principle behind any serial killer and psychopath. Your feelings (empathy) guide your behavior towards others. The psychopath’s feelings guides his behavior towards others.
It just depends on what makes each of us happy – or, whatever our goal is. It may not even be “happiness”, per se.
I have to say the mathematics of faith gets a 10 on my silly meter.
Exist or not, I have no desire to spend time with a malicious deity.
The primary reason to believe gods are made up is they act and think just like the priests and warlords of the periods in which they were invented.
EL asks:
Collecting as many imprisoned girls in your basement as possible to use for your personal pleasure. Being feared, wealthy and powerful, such as being the head of a mafia-type organization, or having political power.
The concept of “treating others as you would wish to be treated” is just not a good concept. If I worked for a company, would I want to b paid (1) minimum wage, (2) my market value, or (3) a lot more than my market value?
Well, of course I would want to be paid a lot more than my market value; if I own a company and my long-term goal is to make a lot of profit for my personal happiness, should I treat them as I wish to be treated and pay them (3), or should I pay them (2)? Or, should I pay them as little as I can but still maintain the business and profitability of the company?
It’s not risky at all, if you’re reasonably smart. Politics, business and the criminal underground is chock full of “might makes right” morality that makes perfect rational sense for their long-term goals.
William:
William,
You’re taking “treat others as you would wish to be treated” a bit too literally. Lizzie may wish to be called “Lizzie”, but I suspect she doesn’t go around addressing everyone else as “Lizzie”.
William, I asked you to suggest some examples of this:
You responded:
Do you think Ariel Castro’s “long-term interests” were served by his actions? Do you think Colonel Gadafy’s were?
Perhaps you do. I’d have said, at the very most, that their “medium term” interests were so served, and even then, much less effectively than a more altruistic range of actions would have. They both of course died hideous and ignomineous deaths.
Well, as I said, it can work in the absence of rules, or, in this case, effective rules, and, as you say, if you are “reasonably smart”, and, I’d add, pretty lucky. The reason societies set up systems to ensure that crime does not pay is precisely so that those who think that they can benefit from an altruistic society without contributing to it don’t actually benefit, or at least run a big risk in not benefiting.
And I’d say, that is the key point. That’ is why we have moral precepts – either socially or legally enshrined or both: to ensure that people promote a society that benefits everyone. Such societies clearly do – but they only work if those who “cheat” have a high probability of being detected and punished in some way (deprived of the benefits of that society, or ostracised from it, for instance).
That’s where “oughts” or “thou shalts” come from – not Divine Command but from the rules that make societies work and maximise mean welfare.
Sal:
Christ was never resurrected. Nope. Never happened.
There, that was easy.
Now that you’re rid of the burden of believing the foolish religious lie of “miracle resurrection”, you are free to make an unbiased decision whether to believe that OoL was a “miracle” created by god, or perhaps just a very-unlikely outcome of undirected 2nd-law-obeying physical/chemical processes on one particular (lucky) planet.
And even if you conclude that OoL requires a godly “miracle’ there is still zero justification for linking it to your belief in the odious christian god. Pick a god, any god, any creative god other than the crazy tyrant of Abrahamic scriptures, Yeshua’s supposed heavenly father.
It will make you a genuinely better person to renounce your worship of that monster.
Indeed. The Golden Rule, to make sense, has to mean that you treat other people as you would want to be treated if you were they, or in their position. That’s how it’s normally intended, and it’s how I intended it when I refer to it. For instance, if I were gay (I’m not) I’d want my partner to be treated, legally and socially, in the same way as my actual heterosexual partner is treated. Therefore it is right to treat gay marriage as equal to heterosexual marriage.
EL asks:
Absolutely. I think their long-term self-interests were indeed served (for the most part) by their actions. Just because their actions didn’t serve what would be in your best interest, doesn’t mean their behavior didn’t serve their interest.
If Areil Castro’s long-term interest was to have as many slaves as possible in his basement, how would you advise him to proceed? If Gadafy’s goal is to be supreme ruler of a country with an iron fist so he can do whatever he pleased, how would you advise him? He succeeded for a long, long time in realizing his long-term interests. Probably more so than a lot of us do. Do you think Vladimir Putin’s long-term interests are served by his actions? Do you think any fundamentalist muslim’s suicide bombing serves their long-term interest? Of course it does – whether or not their long-term interest is a real thing or not.
Just because your examples failed to realize their long-term interests for a longer period of time than they actually did doesn’t mean their actions did not serve those long-term interests. Their long-term interests were not “I want to be a relatively happy, productive member of a society where the most happiness of the most people is what matters”.
An altruistic society? What society are you talking about? I’m talking about real societies that actually exist on the earth, not some idealistic, socialist concept of utopia where everyone has drunk the same kool-aid.
Benefit? Who gets to decide what “benefit” means, and what kind of society any law should “benefit”? Benefits a totalitarian society? Benefits a fundamentalist religion society? Benefits a monarch or oligarchy ruled society? Benefits a socialist or communist society? Benefits a free market society? Benefits a secular society? Benefits a slavery-based society?
You seem to often talk about these things from some assumed personal concept of an ideal society as if society actually functions that way, and as if most people would prefer to live in your particular ideal society.
While I’m sure your logic beginning from your premises is fine, the problem is that there is no real reason to begin with your premises in the first place if one’s personal long-term interests are not facilitated by “treating others as one would like to be treated”.
Thus, other principles than the golden rule, such as “might makes right”, are perfect rational moral principles given the premise of a long-term interest that can reasonably be considered best served by such behavior.
IOW, if your goal is to have slaves chained up in the basement serving your every whim, there’s no getting around the fact that at some time, you’re going to have to treat someone (assumedly) in a manner you don’t want to be treated, abducting someone and chaining them up in your basement, even if there is no socially-acceptable plan of action to achieve that end-goal.
Lizzie,
Yes, with one added proviso:
That proviso is implied when people invoke the Golden Rule, but I’m making it explicit here just to forestall William’s finicky objection. Namely, that an employer following the Golden Rule would pay his employees much more than the going rate, since he himself would prefer to be overpaid if he were in their position.
These responses are incomprehensible wrt what I wrote.
If I am the employer, I think it’s safe to assume that my employees want to make as much money as possible. So, as the employer, under the golden rule, if I was them, I’d want my employer to pay me as much as possible without bankrutpting or ruining the company. So I should pay them as much as possible.
However, what if my long-term goal, as an employer, is to make as much money and profit as possible? Well, then, the golden rule no longer serves my long-term interests because what I should do is pay my employees as little as possible while still maintaining the highest profit I can. At some point, sure, the lowering the pay will harm profitability (turnover, training costs, loss of productivity, employee theft, etc.), but there is certainly a sweet spot where the pay keeps your employees happy enough that it doesn’t harm the bottom line, but is not nearly as much as you could pay them.
Now, let’s look at it from an employee’s perspective; if the employee was the employer, let’s say they’d want their employees to work for as little as possible and as hard as possible. As per the golden rule, should the employee ask for a pay cut down to the minimum he needs to survive, and bust his butt every day for his boss?
No. The golden rule works as a kind of feel-good, vague general rule, but it doesn’t really stack up as a significant moral principle or ethical principle. People don’t really think it through, and don’t really act according to it, and it’s really not that useful in determining a proper course of action towards achieving one’s self-interested goals.
So, William, on what basis do you decide what is the right moral decision? For instance, in deciding how much to pay your employees?
Elizabeth, morality is about what we ought to do. We ought to do something to achieve a goal, no goal nothing that we ougth to do. If God doesn’t exist there is no puose, no goal, no morality.
I know, you have goals. But that are your personal goals.You choosed them yesterday and you can change them tomorrow. So the ought to is your election, not a really ought to.
Please Elizabeth can you explain how do you apply the rule when anybody asks for sex with you?
Blas and William,
See my proviso.
So? How should EL apply that rule when a man ask her for sex?
And wich rule do you apply when the other guy do not applies it? How do you know if the other guy applies the gplden rulw?
If I didn’t want sex with them, I would say no. If they also applied the rule, they would accept that. If not, then they are not treating me as they would want to be treated. The point, Blas, is that the Golden Rule is one which, when enforced by society, tends to ensure that all benefit. However, if those that don’t observe it are not censured, it ceases to be a rule. That’s why it’s a moral code – it tells people what they ought to do.
Another, possibly better, version of the rule is: “act to maximise the autonomy of others”. Although the Jesus version is pretty good, and more beautiful: “Love your neighbour as you love yourself“.
Blas:
Please Elizabeth can you explain how do you apply the rule when anybody asks for sex with you?
Jesus wept.
EL asks:
Under my premise and moral worldview (added to prevent keith from taking the following out of context), using people for your own personal gain is objectively immoral, so paying them as little as possible for my own personal gain would be immoral. I must pay them according to the value they bring to the company (and they can bring value in several different ways; I pay a premium for good attitude), as best I can, without bankrupting the company or undermining its viability (since it lets me and others make a living). If they bring more value to the company than I do, I should pay them more than I make, even if they are willing to work for far less.
William,
What about a scenario in which you are employed by someone else who is paying you far more than you are worth to the company? What does your moral system tell you to do in that situation?
velikovskys:
🙂
Blas, I thought you were a Christian. Is the Golden Rule really so alien to you?
No EL, the rule is your rule. You have to answer the demand of sex according the rule. Then you have to answer as you were asking for sex to other person.
But an optative ought to do is not ought. Also the “all benefit” inclides the night of heavy sex with you?
Could you remind me of that premise? And also remind me what is objective about it?
No, it doesn’t.
Blas to Lizzie:
Yes, Blas. That’s what Jesus meant when he said “love thy neighbor as thyself.” 🙄
But EL is not giving the heavy sex night to the guy, then she is not following the Golden rule.
Blas,
I think you need a refresher.
No to both?
So you have found the fatal flaw in Christian ethics. Good job.
Why no a clear explanation of how apply the golden rule to my question?
Bias, does the Golden Rule require that a person agree to perform any and every task asked of them by other people?
Blas, your question boils down to:
Someone asks me for something. If I were asking for something, I would want to get it. Therefore, if I am to treat the other person as I would want to be treated, I have to give the other person what he asks for.
Does this sound like your argument?
There isn’t a flaw. It works just fine, which is why it isn’t specifically Christian, and pops up all over the world at various times and places. It essentially falls out of game theory. But it works as a societal rule – in other words as a moral code that is enforced by laws or cultural taboos, otherwise you end up with the Tragedy of the Commons.
My argument is that that is what you oight to do according the golden rule.
My argument is that, that is what you oight to do according the golden rule.
Anyone making a demand of another person is not following the rule. In the jargon ethics, such demands are cheating.
On a less derogatory note, children make unreasonable demands, which would not benefit them if granted.
All moral and ethical rules — particularly those found in scripture — lend themselves to conundrums.
I have had friends make unreasonable requests (so far none for sex) and my response has been to reason that granting the request would end the friendship, as would having the request become a demand. If I were the one making an unwelcome request, I would not like to have the friendship ended. I would want my friend to make a polite refusal and let it go.
Blas,
I guess you didn’t get past the first few sentences in the Wikipedia article, or you would have seen this:
You mean that who follow the golden rulenshouldn’t ask for anything? You mean that El never asked for sex? or she not always follows the goldennrule?
I do not see the limitation of asking or demanding in the golden rule.
petrushka:
All moral and ethical rules — particularly those found in scripture — lend themselves to conundrums.
Then following moral rules should be as irrational as taling the wager.
That is big limitation of the golden rule, I think that shpuld be included in the enunciation. You are applying it only reciprocally, you give him if him give to you and in mutual fashion, so you apply it whit whom you are in mutual fashion. That sounds to me I apply the rule when I want, that is not an ought to.
By the way, that is not the “christian” golden rule, Jesus comandment is love everybody.
“Moral codes” works only taking the wager. We have to act as if God exists and will enforce the law.
QED
Pascal, Kant, Scordova and I were right 😉
Blas,
No, you can apply the Golden Rule even when the other person doesn’t.
Please reread my proviso. I really need you to concentrate this time.
Nothing about that depends on what the other people actually do.
This is in contradiction with this:
Not by my interpretation.
The Golden Rule isn’t tit for tat — it’s “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Blas,
Are you really a Christian? I’ve never met a Christian who was so confused about the Golden Rule.
You’ve obviously never been in politics.
All beliefs pay if you win.
Jayzuz. What is it with the sudden influx of stalkers and sexists who think it’s appropriate to impose personal/sexual questions/somments on our host?
Here’s a tip. guys:
Don’t do that.
keith said:
It would depend on the situation, but generally, if the owners really thought my services were worth that much to the company, and I was providing those services to the best of my ability and working conscientiously, I’d accept the pay.
Otherwise, I’d be asking them to behave immorally by asking them to pay me less than what they believed my value to be.
William,
You didn’t answer my question, which was about a scenario in which you were being paid more than what you were worth to the company:
No, the point is that expecting non-consensual sex from others is not “treating others as you would like to be treated”. It comes down to consent. Under the Golden Rule, you would need to respect consent. “No” should mean “no” when you ask for sex, because you want your own “no” to mean “no” to others as well.