The Protagorian Solution To Moral Dilemmas
Everybody knows the story of a rather interesting dilemma involving Protagoras (the sophist?) and a student of his by then name of Euathlus. Google will take you to the relevant webpages. Here's a good reference :point: Protagoras Paradox
Come now to two important dilemmas involving consequentialism and Kantian ethics.
The dilemma of consequentialism (the trolley problem): If you pull the lever, you kill one innocent person (bad) and if you don't pull the lever, you let many innocent people die (bad). No matter what you do, it's bad.
The Protagorian solution: If you pull the lever, you save many innocent people (good) and if you don't pull the lever, you don't kill one innocent person (good). Do what you want, it's all good.
The dilemma of Kantian ethics (The murderer who wants to know the whereabouts of your friend): If you tell the truth, your friend dies (bad) and if you lie (bad). Either choice is bad.
The Protagorian solution: If you tell the truth (good) and if you lie, your friend survives (good). Either choice is good.
The Protagorian technique is, if memory serves, called the counterdilemma and it seems to, in a sense, "solve" the classic moral dilemmas crafted to attack the two major ethical theories around viz. consequentialism and Kantian ethics. It might even be good for other dilemmas, especially of the ethical kind because the usual deal is there's moral ambiguity, the perfect conditions to set up counterdilemmas.
What say you?
Come now to two important dilemmas involving consequentialism and Kantian ethics.
The dilemma of consequentialism (the trolley problem): If you pull the lever, you kill one innocent person (bad) and if you don't pull the lever, you let many innocent people die (bad). No matter what you do, it's bad.
The Protagorian solution: If you pull the lever, you save many innocent people (good) and if you don't pull the lever, you don't kill one innocent person (good). Do what you want, it's all good.
The dilemma of Kantian ethics (The murderer who wants to know the whereabouts of your friend): If you tell the truth, your friend dies (bad) and if you lie (bad). Either choice is bad.
The Protagorian solution: If you tell the truth (good) and if you lie, your friend survives (good). Either choice is good.
The Protagorian technique is, if memory serves, called the counterdilemma and it seems to, in a sense, "solve" the classic moral dilemmas crafted to attack the two major ethical theories around viz. consequentialism and Kantian ethics. It might even be good for other dilemmas, especially of the ethical kind because the usual deal is there's moral ambiguity, the perfect conditions to set up counterdilemmas.
What say you?
Comments (32)
Quoting Protagoras Paradox
Protagoras never said that anything goes, or all choices are the same, or even that morality is relative. Protagoras was a moral subjectivist. Expanding spherically starting with myself, first, morality is what is good for me, second, morality is what is good for us, third, morality is what is good for our culture. (i.e. screw all others.)
I think this sums up about 99% of the practical world. Naturally, Socrates had something more ethereal in mind. Socrates, against repeated protestations, twists the argument away from anything sensible to his own unattainable binary ideal Good.
I humby disagree. You know the heart of the issues is dilemmas of moral ambiguity, perfect settings for counterdilemmas of the Protagorain kind.
Quoting magritte
Ignoratio elenchi. Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) is my focus; nothing about his moral views is relevant.
No. What Protagoras really said, and what he was accused of having said by contemporary and later pundits becomes relevant when you repeat or emphasize certain unimaginable conclusions in his name to support either an argument, or in this case, the format of an argument.
For example, in the Protagoras, Plato's Socrates forces poor dead Protagoras to adopt a dialectical form of argumentation which suits a middle-period semantic Plato (or later Aristotle] but is a method inappropriate and inapplicable to any part of Protagorean ethics. Either-or dialectic questioning or setting up binary dilemmas and paradoxes avoids the crux of real-world problems. (The problems of becoming were considered unmanageable exactly because Parmenidean logic was inapplicable to continua. Plato, as great as he was, was fully aware of what his Socrates was up to and specifically implies so, but unfortunately, thanks to Aristotle and followers, we are not.
The upshot is, or so I imagine, is in the setup of your dilemma. Take the trolley problem. According to Protagoras, in the real world, the identity and closeness of that one person as against who the others are makes all the difference. Are these real people or just numbers? If they are just numbers then ethics is for computers.
No?
Quoting magritte
Again, you're barking up the wrong tree. As you should've already noticed, I'm talking about the trolley problem in consequentialism and the murderer at the door in Kantian deontological ethics. Protagoras' views on ethics is irrelevant.
Where he comes in though is his ingenious method of responding to dilemmas, here moral ones, with counterdilemmas. That's the extent of Protagoras' involvement in this thread about moral conundrums.
Quoting magritte
If you mean to say there's an asymmetry in the choices, there are none. That's why they're dilemmas in the first place.
All that I know and you haven't been able to refute it is there's moral ambiguity - telling the truth is good but letting a murderer know where faer next victim is is bad (good and bad). On the flip side, lying is bad but concealing your friend from a murderer is good (good and bad). This peculiar state of affairs is just the kind of situations where Protagoras' counterdilemma techinque is cut out for. That's all there is to my argument.
You're missing your point. If you read an analysis of the dilemma it points to logical argumentation of the kind that was taught to would-be lawyers by Prodicus, Protagoras and other ancient rhetorician, and by Plato too, and is still taught in law schools. Proficiently arguing either side of a case is essential in today's legal profession. There is no ethical point made there by either side, it's just formal argumentation. Therefore your Protagorean ethical conclusions are just your own inventions.
Prior to addressing the ethical problems of the trolley and the murderer at the door the pretense to pure logical argumentation from both sides of issues should be clarified and removed.
First off, thanks for filling me in in the details of Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) - I didn't know Protagoras was part of the legal curriculum back then.
Secondly, yes, you seem to be right about the Protagorian counterdilemma being applied to ethical issues as "...your (my) own inventions" - I've never encountered it before.
That, however, doesn't make it wrong!
Quoting tim wood
:chin: You're kidding, right?
So rephrasing the problem as choosing between two good options as opposed to two bad ones does nothing to tell us which we should actually choose. It doesn't make it not a dilemma.
Quoting TheMadFool
Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help.
Quoting TheMadFool
This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad".
That's exactly why we don't know what to do - moral ambiguity. Two options are provided and both seem equally bad and good.
Quoting khaled
Protagoras paradox makes it a clear as crystal. Please read through my previous posts.
Quoting khaled
Exactly!
Ok so we don't know what to do.
Quoting khaled
So I ask what we should do.
Quoting TheMadFool
And now we know what do do "as clear as crystal"
I'm confused.
Quoting TheMadFool
I read the whole thread.
Quoting TheMadFool
Resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad" makes no sense. That's the point. So saying:
Quoting TheMadFool
Makes no sense either.
That's part of the process.
Quoting khaled
It does and that's why I don't believe you,
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
Try harder. Reread what I said and it should become clearer.
For your benefit, I'll repeat what I said.
The Trolley problem:
Pull the lever, one innocent dies (bad). Don't pull the lever, many die (bad). This is the meat and potatoes of the trolley problem.
It's both bad.
The Protagorian solution: Pull the lever, many are saved (good). Don't pull the lever, one innocent survives (good).
It's both good.
A similar argument applies to Kantian ethic in re the murderer at the door thought experiment.
Pretty sure this is one of the most misunderstood talking points regarding Kant. Kant wouldn't suggest you have a duty to honesty with a murderer. The point is you aren't legally liable for telling the truth.
Quoting TheMadFool
Sure. And when they're both bad which should I do? Dilemma! When they're both good which would I do? Dilemma!
Quoting TheMadFool
No it doesn't but others are explaining why so I don't have to.
The murderer at the door gedanken experiment wouldn't make sense if you don't know where your friend is. A lie is lie only if you know the truth and attempt to conceal it.
Quoting khaled
If they're both good, it doesn't matter which one you choose. That's the point. Remember the objective here - to be good!
In the original formulation of moral problems both choices are presented as bad and that's what dilemmas are at their core. That's why we hesitate, we're reluctant, to make a decision. Once Protagoras has finished with such dilemmas by offering the corresponding counterdilemma, we experience an aha moment! Both choices are bad but if the problem is wholly based on that, Protagoras shows us that both can be treated as good too. Voila tout! The problem disappears.
It all depends on perspective - so many forum members have mentioned this that I feel I'm wasting my time preaching to choir - and here's something that might make you grasp the gist of my argument :point: Is The Glass Half Empty Or Half Full?
Really? A quick thought experiment. Say someone had these two choices in front of them:
1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity.
Both are good clearly, so is one then justified in picking option 2?
My point is precisely that the quote above is not accurate. It does matter much, even if both options are good.
Good point Khaled. I appreciate you bringing this up. We're now in the domain of Jeremy Bentham's felicific calculus.
Let's examine the utilitarian trolley problem in more detail. From Bentham's and Mill's point of view, you should pull the lever just as I suspect you believe the choice 1 in your thought experiment is the right one. However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. In other words, there's no better/worse in the moral dimension; all that counts is being good and in that respect all deeds are either good/bad not better/worse as you seem to be implying.
That said, I'd very much prefer it if you do save my life from a car crash and also donate 100 dollars to charity.
You do catch my drift right? If the issue were about a better (moral) deal, there would be no dilemma in the first place.
I think it’s the clearest most unequivocal sign of a non sequitor.
Quoting TheMadFool
False. The point of the trolley problem is that we can’t tell which is better. Because although swapping tracks results in a better outcome, it also means you are killing someone innocent. Now it’s not clear which is better. Clearly morality is about better/worse not just good/bad or else people would just say to the trolley problem “Both options are bad, do whichever”
Let’s look at another thought experiment:
1- Kill 10 innocent people.
2- Kill 100 innocent people.
Do you think this is a moral dilemma here? Both options are bad you know. But apparently there is no such thing as better/worse for you so you must think this is a moral dilemma since both options are bad. Do you think that picking 2 is just as good as picking 1? (Again, both bad)
Quoting TheMadFool
Ah so it’s just a preference. In terms of morality you truly think picking 2 as opposed to 1 is perfectly ok?
Yea…. Good conversation. But I can’t help if you think letting someone die in a car crash when you can save them is acceptable.
:up:
Many folks get this wrong about Gorgias too.
You have accused me but you haven't made your case yet.
Quoting khaled
In other words, they're equally good or we could drop the quantification ("equally") and simply say they're both good and only that, no better, no worse.
Quoting khaled
You're contradicting yourself Khaled.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
I was upfront about how I felt. Choose 1 rather than 2 but this isn't a dilemma unlike the one below,
Quoting khaled
but as you already know or should know you've only increased the number of people without affecting the essence of the moral dilemma encapsulated by the trolley problem. I don't need to provide a separate solution for it is what I mean.
Calling a non sequitor a non sequitor is making a case. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from any of your premises
Quoting TheMadFool
Does not lead to.
Quoting TheMadFool
If you think it does make it a clear syllogism and explain each step.
Quoting TheMadFool
False. Since the start I’ve given countless examples of cases where the two choices are bad, yet it’s not a dilemma.
Quoting TheMadFool
No one asked how you feel. What was asked is whether or not you think it’s morally permissible to choose 2 in that situation (just donating to charity). So, do you? Give a straight answer so I know if this conversation is worth continuing.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is not the trolley problem. It is assumed that both cases involve you murdering people in exactly the same way (as I already gave the example before). In that case there is no dilemma, clearly killing 10 is better than killing 100.
The reason the trolley problem is a dilemma is that you have a choice of directly causing a death, to prevent 5 deaths that you didn’t directly cause.
If in the trolley problem, the trolley was going to hit 1 person, and you could switch the track to make it hit 5 people instead, do you still think that’s a dilemma? It isn’t, is it? Despite the fact that both options involve someone dying.
Quoting TheMadFool
No. That would be like you trying to solve a math problem, failing to do so, and then concluding: “So the answer must be as negative as it is positive, so it’s 0”
It appears we're merely talking past each other. I'm sorry but I don't have the energy nor the patience to keep repeating what is at heart a very simple idea, Protagoras' counterdilemma vis-à-vis the moral dilemmas in consequentialism (the trolley problem) and in Kantian deontology (murderer at the door problem).
Quoting khaled
You've lost the plot Khaled.
Quoting khaled
I've given due respect to how you feel/think and I was under the impression that this would be reciprocated. I was wrong and here you are debating morality. Something's off Khaled - you're in dire need of some soul-searching.
Quoting khaled
I've been honest with my answers but it's obvious that you're set in your ways. See below:
Quoting khaled
You're blinded by mathematics, under its spell as it were. That's my explanation for why you would hold such a preposterous idea.
[quote=Albert Einstein]Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted[/quote]
Quoting khaled
Self-critique is a good thing I hear. Carry on Khaled.
Don’t conflate. I’ve given due respect about how you think despite thinking it’s completely crazy. I just never asked how you feel about the matter. Maybe the way I worded it was too assholish, sorry about that. I think some Bartricks is rubbing off on me. Conversations with it have changed the way I converse with others it seems.
I asked what you think people should do not what you would like them to do.
Quoting TheMadFool
?????
I was refuting one of your arguments on the basis that it’s a non sequitor. Quoting TheMadFool
This is a non sequitor.
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
“He doesn’t agree with me, quick characterize him as a cold hearted uncaring robot so I don’t have to deal with his critique!”
One last time and if you dodge it again then this is a waste of time no offense:
In a situation where you can:
1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity
Do you think it’s morally acceptable to pick option 2? Direct answer please. Not “I would prefer you picked 1”.
Quoting TheMadFool
It’s hard to tell what your answers were precisely because you refuse to give a direct yes or no answer to a direct yes or no question. You instead talk about which option you would prefer, which wasn’t asked for.
Quoting TheMadFool
You know what’s better than self critique? Actually critiquing the argument of the guy you’re talking to. Or else why have conversations at all if self critique was enough?
Look who's talking.
I'm done here Khaled. Frankly speaking, I'm glad that you don't buy into my arguments. You're a diehard utilitarian and that's far better than being morally bankrupt.
And no I’m not a diehard utilitarian and I don’t know how you could have reached that conclusion.
But I’m not interested in continuing this anymore either.
G'day Khaled. See ya around. Nice talking to you. Sorry I misjudged your moral leanings.
A little bit of folk wisdom mixed in:
Two man go to the village judge. "Your honour, Smith here does not want to pay me back the five bucks I lent him last Tuesday. He owes me that money!" "You're right", says the judge. Smith pipes up: "Yeah, but last year 'e borrowed me 'at, and 'e never give me back. I should keep the five bucks." "Son, you're right." Then the first complainer says: "But judge! We both can't be right!" The judge gets surprised, and then almost immediately, in delight: "You're right!"
Those who attacked the OP on Protagoras' terms, they failed to see that the solution to the dilemma works because the subjectivity can be flip-flopped. That's all. It's a simple as a hat.
Those who attacked the OP charging that he misunderstood Kant's dilemma are in fact plain wrong. Kant's dilemma is very simple. What Kant derives from it is completely and wholly unrelated to the Protagorian solution. Kant's treatment of his dilemma comes AFTER the presentation of the dilemma; and the Protagorian solution comes BEFORE the Kantian treatment, but AFTER the presentation of the dilemma. The critics are swashbuckling in the dark, fighting demons, not the insight of the Opening Post.