Accountant's Utopia Philosophy

[Accountant]

Is murder always bad under every circumstance? What if someone was someone was suffering a great deal and ultimately would die anyways. Would murdering them (euthanasia) not be the greater good under that circumstance?

What if you gave someone candy everyday, both of you not realizing that it was contributing to a disease (diabetes) that would ultimately kill them? Was that kindness not bad?

The mathematics is as follows.

Euthanasia eases suffering. That ease of suffering generates, let us say, 30 goodness points.

Murder generates [breaking of the law]. That generates -500 goodness points.

30-500 = -470. So we end up losing 470 goodness pointd total even though euthanasia is a "good" deed that generates 30 points. Due to this, we may say that the bad outweighs the good, hence it is overall bad to murder someone in euthanasia if the law does not allow it.

Now, for the second point. Actually, under my moral system, it would be seen as him making the choice to eat the candy means he is willingly taking on the burden of the consequences of eating candy, including diabetes, and his willingness to obtain diabetes is what caused him to have diabetes, not your actions.

However! I can see the point you are trying to get at. In other words, what happens when an act is committed that is bad but that the person does not realize is bad? Well, in my view, ignorance of the law or of morality isb't a defense. Even if you do not know it is bad, the fact is that "a bad thing has happened", and the blame lies at your feet. You will thus pay back the debt by being punished thoroughly(in the case of legal badness, by legal sanctions, in the case of minor badness like cutting queues, social sanctions).

So is our candy-pushing protagonist going to jail for poison? No. The key to the chain of logic outlined above is that the blame must lie at your feet. If the badness is not your fault, there's no way you can be punished, and it's clear that if the "badness" is "diabetes", then there's a lot of factors leading up to it, like a previously unhealthy lifestyle, a tendency to gobble up every sweet given to him, and so on. Someone who merely supplies sweets cannot be seen as a person who is to blame any more than the person who sells a book of matches is to blame for a house burning down.

In the case of diabetes, the only one who can be said to "be at fault" is the diabetes person himself; however, there is a rule that if the culprit and the victim are the same person, no real crime has occurred. Hence, we end up with this conclusion.

"The diabetes was not due to the fault of the sweets supplier, but due to the choices of the person who ate the sweets. The diabetes is bad, but since it was a badness that only caused the culprit to suffer, this is not a crime, just an elaborate form of suicide or self harm. Seeing as this is the case, no crime has occurred and there is no badness performed by anyone."

[Accountant]

(you might be tempted to ask: if no badness was performed, how did the badness of diabetes magically appear? Who is responsible? And I would classify it as a "tragic accident" caused by the laws of nature.)

[Kublai Khan]

The mathematics is as follows.

Euthanasia eases suffering. That ease of suffering generates, let us say, 30 goodness points.

Murder generates [breaking of the law]. That generates -500 goodness points.

30-500 = -470. So we end up losing 470 goodness pointd total even though euthanasia is a "good" deed that generates 30 points. Due to this, we may say that the bad outweighs the good, hence it is overall bad to murder someone in euthanasia if the law does not allow it.

You're arguing that it's better for people to suffer then for a law to be broken. I'm assuming that you think people turning to marijuana to ease the pain and nausea of chemotherapy treatments are immoral. To use Jean Valjean as a case study, is it immoral to steal a piece of bread to survive? If so, what use does your morality serve if people can't survive? And they do survive, they are in unbearable pain? Can you explain how your morality is more important than someone else's health or happiness?

"The diabetes was not due to the fault of the sweets supplier, but due to the choices of the person who ate the sweets. The diabetes is bad, but since it was a badness that only caused the culprit to suffer, this is not a crime, just an elaborate form of suicide or self harm. Seeing as this is the case, no crime has occurred and there is no badness performed by anyone."

Why is it not the fault of the sweets supplier? They supply products that they know (through scientific research) that causes a disease that kills. Surely if they didn't produce sweets, incidents of diabetes would decrease exponentially. Shouldn't they be considered at fault?

[Accountant]

You're arguing that it's better for people to suffer then for a law to be broken. I'm assuming that you think people turning to marijuana to ease the pain and nausea of chemotherapy treatments are immoral.

Only in states where marijuana is illegal. But in those states, yes. Going for chemotherapy does not give you a license to ignores the laws that bind you.

You're goddamn right it's better for people to suffer than for a law to be broken. The suffering of mere individuals cannot compete against the keeping of the order of the universe.

[Accountant]

To use Jean Valjean as a case study, is it immoral to steal a piece of bread to survive?

Yes.

[Accountant]

If so, what use does your morality serve if people can't survive? And they do survive, they are in unbearable pain? Can you explain how your morality is more important than someone else's health or happiness?

What use is my morality? Simple. It enforces the order of the universe. Better to be in orderly pain than disorderly ecstacy - therefore, under this principle, it creates the best outcome for the world.

How is it more important than some people's health and happiness? Everything in this world that is a value is ranked in order of importance. For example, someone has the chance to cheat in mafia but does not, because the value of "integrity" outranks the value of "winning". Thus, we may simply say that the value of "order", a universal good, outranks the value of "happiness", which is merely an ephemeral human preference. After all, there's no way a God can be placed at a lower importance than mortals.

[Davsto]

Kublai just remember that Accountant considers those who helped rescue Jews in Germany during the Holocaust to be cowardly because they broke the law and disobeyed orders to save those lives

[Accountant]

Why is it not the fault of the sweets supplier? They supply products that they know (through scientific research) that causes a disease that kills. Surely if they didn't produce sweets, incidents of diabetes would decrease exponentially. Shouldn't they be considered at fault?

Cause and effect is different from fault. To use an analogy: you are being robbed. You read in a scientific study that those who fight back while being robbed have a higher chance of getting shot. You fight back and get shot. That does not mean you are at fault.

Here, fault is about personal responsibility. Whose finger is on the trigger? Who was closest to the issue? Certainly not the supplier. After all, the closest person was the person who chose to ate the sweets. By making a choice, the responsibilities and consequences of that choice fall upon you.

[Accountant]

Kublai just remember that Accountant considers those who helped rescue Jews in Germany during the Holocaust to be cowardly because they broke the law and disobeyed orders to save those lives

What is more important? Making the universe right and orderly, turning it from a barbaric soup to a gleaming civilization of real people, OR saving the lives of a couple hundred people that are going to die in a few decades anyway?

You cannot put material values and emotional kneejerk reactions over the analysis of long-term moral principles.

[Kublai Khan]

Is the universe a living entity?

[Kublai Khan]

Kublai just remember that Accountant considers those who helped rescue Jews in Germany during the Holocaust to be cowardly because they broke the law and disobeyed orders to save those lives

No worries. I know.

[Accountant]

Is the universe a living entity?

No.

[Kublai Khan]

Is the universe a living entity?

No.

So what does the universe care if something is ordered or disordered?

If your philosophy of assigning "order" the highest possible value doesn't lead to a happier, better existence for people subjected to that order, what use is it?

[Sesq]

damb...

kk presenting the real shit over here

much better at this than any of us

[Accountant]

Is the universe a living entity?

No.

So what does the universe care if something is ordered or disordered?

If your philosophy of assigning "order" the highest possible value doesn't lead to a happier, better existence for people subjected to that order, what use is it?

It's not the "universe" which cares if something is ordered or disordered. The "universe" cannot care about anything. It is the "sentient beings" that recognize that disorder is evil and must be stopped.

I think that your second question makes a false assumption. The assumption hidden inside the question is that order is supposed to lead to something else. That's why you ask "if order doesn't lead to happiness, what's the point of it? What use is a philosophy that does not lead to happiness?" To answer this question, first think of why you value happiness. It must be 1 of 2 answers.

1) Happiness leads to something else, just like the philosophy of it being fine to steal to feed yourself is reputed as something that will lead to happiness. So we have stealing -> happiness -> some other good thing, and we value happiness because it leads to that thing.

2) Happiness is itself something that is good. Once you have happiness, you've already won - you're seeking happiness for the sake of happiness.

Thus, to ask the question "what use is order?" is like implying that it is 1). Let me therefore answer your question in full. It does not lead to anything. Its "use" is to create order. Order exists for the sake of order, and must be advanced for itself, without thinking about any external benefits. Order is intrinsically good and must be advanced - to ask what it leads to is to be mistaken about the point of pursuing order.

[Accountant]

It's this inability to see at a glance that "order must be preserved" that is toxic to the human capability to comprehend morality. That is why the re-education centers are necessary in order to drill it into your skulls.

[rb]

Kublai just remember that Accountant considers those who helped rescue Jews in Germany during the Holocaust to be cowardly because they broke the law and disobeyed orders to save those lives

....

[rb]

The universe itself tends towards entropy by nature. Lol @ the idea of 'order' being of universal importance.

You in da wrong universe my man

[rb]

Although life itself is anti-entropic and tends towards order, this is relative only to thermodynamics and not, "law and order" - and neither does the first bit.

It's just very asinine and childish to assert that 'order' should be considered the highest or most important aspect of morality in all cases.

It requires the assertion that morality must be concrete, all-encompassing, and not subject to flexibility under particular contexts. This kind of assertion is not the product of advanced empathy, thinking or creativity - but the lack thereof.

[Accountant]

The universe itself tends towards entropy by nature. Lol @ the idea of 'order' being of universal importance.

You in da wrong universe my man

I agree that it tends towards entropy. It is our job to change that.

[Accountant]

It requires the assertion that morality must be concrete, all-encompassing, and not subject to flexibility under particular contexts. This kind of assertion is not the product of advanced empathy, thinking or creativity - but the lack thereof.

I assert such things because they are true; self-evidently true, in fact.

I thoroughly agree. Empathy, critical thinking and creativity have no place in morality. The only important thing when it comes to the correct path is to

obey

.

[Kublai Khan]

It's not the "universe" which cares if something is ordered or disordered. The "universe" cannot care about anything. It is the "sentient beings" that recognize that disorder is evil and must be stopped.

Who are you talking about when you refer to "sentient beings"?

I think that your second question makes a false assumption. The assumption hidden inside the question is that order is supposed to lead to something else. That's why you ask "if order doesn't lead to happiness, what's the point of it? What use is a philosophy that does not lead to happiness?" To answer this question, first think of why you value happiness.

You've misunderstood my question. Let me reverse it.

What is the penalty for not being orderly?

You're mentioned that people should be willing to be in unbearable pain or even starve to death to preserve order (since it is good), so how is disorder worse than unbearable pain, starvation, and/or death?

[Accountant]

What is the penalty for not being orderly?

Being disorderly is itself a penalty. Not only that, it's a horrible penalty. I'd gladly suffer pain rather than disorderly. Pain goes away, but disorderliness is like a shame I will bear for the rest of my life.

[Accountant]

Who are you talking about when you refer to "sentient beings"?

Beings. That are sentient. Humans are a good example of this.

[Kublai Khan]

Who are you talking about when you refer to "sentient beings"?

Beings. That are sentient. Humans are a good example of this.

If human beings already recognized that order was the ultimate good, then there would be no need to educate (or re-educate) and nobody in the thread would be arguing with you.

What is the penalty for not being orderly?

Being disorderly is itself a penalty. Not only that, it's a horrible penalty. I'd gladly suffer pain rather than disorderly. Pain goes away, but disorderliness is like a shame I will bear for the rest of my life.

So this is about your personal preferences. Not a global truth.

I get the impression that you are a brilliant person, but your biggest frustration is that you can't understand why other people act the way that they do. People don't act rationally or even in their best interests at times which makes them incredibly tough to predict and that really bothers you. You want them (and everyone) to behave in a more orderly fashion to give you a chance to feel less anxious and more in control of your own life. That's understandable.