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.
The premise is that “good” is an innate, unchangeable, absolute quality of god and existence providing the basis of a natural law morality where an objectively existent moral landscape can be sensed by the conscience. Self-evidently true moral statements can be recognized via the conscience, such as “gratuitous child torture is wrong”. From such self-evidently true moral statements, necessarily true moral statements, conditionally true moral statements, and generally true moral statements can be rationally derived. One such derived moral statement is “using people for your own personal gain is immoral”.
Under my premise and moral worldview, that statement is held as objectively true – meaning, absolutely true, for all people in all times and circumstances whether they agree or not, whether society agrees or not.
keiths,
How would I know what I was worth to the company?
William J. Murray,
“gratuitous child torture is wrong” – okay. What other ones are there? As they’re instantly recognizable and all…
You’re avoiding my question, William.
Blas,
Good grief! I post only to say that I am speechless!
keiths,
No, keiths, I’m not. I’m pointing out that “what I’m worth” is a subjective commodity, not an objective one. Your question improperly frames value as if it is some objective commodity I can know. There’s what I think my services are worth, and there’s what the owner/employer thinks my services are worth. If he pays me less than what he thinks I’m worth (given that he shouldn’t bankrupt the company), he’s being immoral; there is no moral rule against him paying me more than he thinks I’m worth to the company.
And, under normal circumstances, there’s nothing wrong with me taking more money from an employer than I might think I’m worth, because I don’t know what I’m worth to the company from their perspective. What is the value of a football player in to a team in the NFL? Depends on the team. One team may offer 20 million over 4 years, another may offer twice that. Is there some point where the player should say “no, I’m not worth that much”?
The football player is rightfully trying to make as much money as possible for his services – like anyone has a right to do. If someone will pay me far more than I thought I could ever get, obviously they think I’m worth that value. What moral purpose, under any normal circumstance, can it serve for me to turn it down?
Now, under a certain circumstance, like being paid far more than anyone else doing the same job for the company for no apparent reason, I might question them why that is the case, and any further action on my part would depend on their answer. If it was because I was the only white guy, I’d report them to someone or quit. If they said it was because they value my attitude and work ethic and that seemed to be true to me, I’d be fine making far more money than I might think I’m worth to the company.
Richardthughes,
Gleaned from recent discussions:
“using people for your own personal gain is immoral”.
(I paraphrase) “dissuading other people from behaviour one finds undesirable is immoral if one is a subjective moralist”
Who determines the objective nature of these ‘ought not’s? WJM primarily, ISTM. But apparently not. They ‘really are’ objectively immoral according to his personal belief system!
eta correction – they don’t need to ‘really be’ immoral.
So you think Jesus was wrong, then, Blas? To tell us to “Love your neighbour as yourself”?
Christian morality is not based on the golden rule. The “Love your neighbour as yourself” was told in a context and to people that has an idea of what means Love, and what is his own purpose. EL you have studied catholic moral and you know that is more complex that the golden rule.
Blas,
Subtle elision from ‘Christian’ to ‘catholic’. Do we really want to go there? 🙂
So, Blas, to repeat my question: Do you think Jesus made a mistake about the Greatest Commandment? That it wasn’t the greatest commandment after all?
Off course not, because He didn’t base on it the gospel. And no, it is not the greatest commandament, there isnone bigger ‘Love God with all your soul and your heart”.
William:
I’m treating ‘value’ the same way you were treating it yesterday:
William,
It’s obvious why you are avoiding my question. If you answered it consistently, you’d be admitting that your own morality reduces to the Golden Rule as I have expressed it, at least in this particular case.
Blas,
Sure you can. Look at my statement again:
If Lizzie were in the man’s place and applying the Golden Rule, she would willingly accept an answer of ‘no’. Therefore she can give that answer without violating the Rule.
No, it could simply be because the guy’s obnoxious and reeks of alcohol.
So according to you a smart lady asks for sex just to not have sex.
Now I understand why you think irrational the wage.
Blas,
How you managed to get that from anything I’ve written is a complete mystery to me.
This. My “moral rules” re sex also boil down to the Golden Rule: treat others as you would be treated; those others, of course, include my partner, and the partners of the importunate men.
wtf?
.p
“If Lizzie were in the man’s place” asking for sex.
“she would willingly accept an answer of ‘no’” happy of not having sex.
Well, then your golden ruule is more complicated from treat the others as were you, you started to add consideration for “all others” and I suspect you will favour some others over others.
BLas:
“If Lizzie were in the man’s place” asking for sex.
“she would willingly accept an answer of ‘no’” happy of not having sex.
Whether she was happy or not is irrelevant. If she wouldn’t want someone to force her to do something against her will, she reciprocates. If you don’t want people to be rude to you, don’t be rude to other people.
That sounds talion law not golden rule.
Blas:
‘Willing’ does not mean ‘happy’, Blas. She might be disappointed, but she wouldn’t want to have sex if the desire weren’t mutual.
Following the Golden Rule does not mean saying ‘yes’ to every request, just as it doesn’t mean expecting others to say ‘yes’ all the time.
I don’t understand why you and William are having so much trouble with such a simple idea.
keith the words of the golden rule led to that. As I said you have to use the golden rule in a context, that is what you and EL were trying to do to explain her answer to my example. Jesus did, His golden rule is in the context of the gospel. You need more than a golden rule for build a moral. I willsay it again, to build a moral you need a goal a purpose to order your actions. Then you can say “in order to” reach the purpose I “ought to”. And that is why the wager is rational, gives you a goal and that is why as EL said “moral codes works when enforced or base on taboos”.
Because they’re both exploitative pigs in their own different ways.
I’m not sure why being a theist / non-atheist turns people into such pigs. Maybe the causality works the other way: Maybe piggy people naturally gravitate towards theism to give them cover for their unrestrained selfishness (for which, paradoxically, they usually demand to be rewarded in heaven!)
In either case, even as prejudiced as I usually am against christians, I’m truly gobsmacked to witness how filthy Blas is willing to advocate that his fellow men should behave. Disgusting. I wouldn’t want to find myself standing next to him in a bar anytime.
Blas:
That sounds talion law not golden rule.
What is talion law,Blas?
Eye for eye, teeth for teeth. It is supposed to be the opposte to the golden rule, in fact Jesus abolished it “You were said eye for eye I told you…”
Blas,
You and William have been claiming that following the Golden Rule means acceding to every request. That is absurd, and it relies on an overly literal interpretation of “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
I’ve tacked a proviso onto Lizzie’s formulation to arrive at this working definition which captures what people really mean by the Golden Rule:
If you apply my definition of the Golden Rule, you can see that it does not obligate Lizzie to sleep with every lecher who approaches her.
Why? Why is not the guy aplying the rule? He does to EL what he wants others do to him ask for sex.
I agree and told you many times, ot is the litteral interpretation of the rule. But, if there is no context in wich other form you can interpret it?
I also told you EL and you are adding other moral codes to explain your answer. So EL is not following the golden rule are following a group of moral codes she believe that allow her apply in what he believe is the right use of the golden rule.
Can anyone unscramble this mess?
Sorry, I’ll try again.
So EL is not following the golden rule. She is following a group of moral codes she believe, That believes allows her apply the golden rule not literally but in a way she believes is the right use of the golden rule.
Hope is more understandable now.
Blas:
Oh, really? You think he wants this guy to ask him for sex? And to refuse to take ‘no’ for an answer?
Thatnis the problem of applying the golden rule indpendant of morality believe.
keiths said:
I’ve made no such argument.
keiths,
If your question is, what does my morality say I should do if my employer is paying me, or offers to pay me, far above market value? The answer is: nothing, if there are no other special circumstances. I can take it or leave it. There is no moral aspect to consider.
Yes, thanks.
I am applying it in the way I meant it when I invoked it.
I do not think “accede to every request” is a sensible or rational rule of behaviour.
No, that’s not the problem, cerdo.
You know that YOU do not want THAT GUY coming to you and asking you for a night of sex, and especially YOU do not want him to tell you that you MUST have sex with him because of “golden rule”.
Now, because you know that YOU would never want that to happen, you should apply the golden rule to your own behavior and you should treat the other person the same way you would want to be treated. and you won’t impose your short-term sexual desire upon them. You know that you would never want to be forced into sex for someone else’s short-term pleasure, so you would never want to force someone else, either.
The golden rule works just fine. The only problem is when diots like you, Blas, imagine that you would love to be accosted for sex and that it would be fun and easy to say yes (and that anyone who says no is not acting by the golden rule). In reality, you would hate it if some cute teenage guy or some ugly old woman or some smelly drunk person told you that you must have sex with them because “golden rule”.
Use your heart to figure this out, Blas, not your dick.
And just to be clear, that scary bloody guy, THAT GUY, that one Blas would never ever want to have sex with? Yeah, he also doesn’t want to have sex with some people in reality. HE knows that he doesn’t want some hyped-up Jesus-freak coming to HIM and telling HIM that they must have sex because of “golden rule”. So, THAT GUY puts the golden rule into action in his own life, and refrains from imposing on others the way he would not want to be imposd upon — and that’s why he’s not in your neighborhood hitting YOU up for sex which YOU don’t want, Blas.
FFS, if keiths can get this concept straight, and he’s an atheist, you would think a supposedly decent christian like Blas could get this straight.
No, you are adding considerations about your and his partner that the golden rule do not requires taken it literally.
Elizabeth
I do not think “accede to every request” is a sensible or rational rule of behaviour.
Then the golden rule is not a rationale rule of behaviour.
By the way How do you determine the rationality of a rule of behaviour?
Oh, Blas, querido, keep showing that you have no understanding of empathy, golden rule, or any morality other than what your chota wants. Please please don’t stand too close to anyone decent. They won’t like it, and you might not like the consequences.
keiths:
Hilarious. keiths believes he’s been wired for empathy.
Are you? Or aren’t you?
What else has keiths been hardwired to believe?
Perhaps keiths was hardwired to believe that Pascal’s Wager is irrational.
Keiths has made it quite clear that he believes that Pascal’s Wager is irrational.
But if keiths was hardwired to believe that Pascal’s Wager is irrational, why should it follow that Pascal’s Wager is irrational?
Nice dodge, Mung.
Are YOU hardwired for empathy? Or are YOU not?
I would say person X suggesting sex to person Y is not a _moral_ dilemma. It’s a question about preferences. If person Y declines, it’s not a moral decision, but one of stating one’s fancy.
However, what happens after that becomes the moral issue. I’d like to repeat what I said in my first comment above, under the name “mur”:
“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.”
Also, from person Y’s point of view, they probably would not want _others_ to have sex with them if those others don’t really want to. So by not having sex with X against their will, person Y is applying the Golden Rule also from that perspective.
William,
Yet you already told us that by your moral standards, employers are morally obligated to pay their employees according to the value they bring to the company.
So let’s take two symmetric situations:
1. You are hiring an employee and negotiate a salary that is far below what the employee is worth to the company. The employee, not knowing any better, accepts the job.
2. You are interviewing and negotiate a salary that is far above your worth to the company. Your employer, not knowing any better, agrees to your demand.
In each case:
a) Is your action moral, according to your standards?
b) Why or why not?
mur2: I would say person X suggesting sex to person Y is not a _moral_ dilemma. It’s a question about preferences. If person Y declines, it’s not a moral decision, but one of stating one’s fancy.
So, a reason such as “I am already married” is not a moral reason to refuse sex with another? It’s just a matter of personal dislike?