There’s really no downside to letting people use the bathroom more often. It doesn’t harm me at all if my neighbor decides to violate the stricture.
If the punishment for murder is removed, or the belief that murder will be punished ceases to be generally retained, then it is entirely likely that my neighbor may wish to murder me, and that decision has lots of consequences that concern me greatly.
People who believe that societal indoctrination is necessary to get people to accept certain principles, and that religion is an essential part of that indoctrination, will object to the removal of the threat of god-punishment. Without that threat, they believe societal habit alone won’t be enough to keep them safe.
They may be right—when societal controls are relaxed, people act pretty nastily towards each other. Primates are nasty beings.
If your neighbor uses the bathroom more often, they use more water (not only by flushing, which may be considered inevitable), but by washing their hands perhaps more than necessary (going to the bathroom twice instead of once) and using anti-bacterial soap, which could lead to stronger, resistant bacteria. Of course, the use of said soap might result a long-term difficulty and the results would not be immediately apparent. So not only must an act have consequences, but those consequences must be reasonably immediate and apparent (and, as stated in Eliezer’s main post, necessarily negative). A current human morality system could not track the actions and the consequences.
An omniscient god (or being) would be able to measure the harm. Further it would be able to track the consequences of ones actions. My use of anti-bacterial soap could cause a MRSA infection in someone else and kill them.
I do not think anyone (except aforementioned omniscient being) would be able to say I caused that infection on purpose. And yet, that person is still dead. A key here is intention. But unfortunately, we can harm and even kill others without intending to and yet we are held responsible. I would rarely think, say, a drunk driver would intend to get into an accident, but we punish them anyway because they intentionally increased the risk we all experience on the road.
But that risk (one that includes drunk drivers) is something we all assume, anyway. So wouldn’t an accident victim also be culpable. That seems distasteful.
So, an immoral action must have a negative consequence that is reasonably immediate and apparent and must have been done intentionally, or at least without an undue amount of risk outside normally applicable ranges.
But that’s probably not right. Does it exclude god? No, because that belief isn’t necessary. It doesn’t exclude unicorns, either.
I guess the gist of what I’m saying is that you need to be careful with your soap.
There’s really no downside to letting people use the bathroom more often. It doesn’t harm me at all if my neighbor decides to violate the stricture.
If the punishment for murder is removed, or the belief that murder will be punished ceases to be generally retained, then it is entirely likely that my neighbor may wish to murder me, and that decision has lots of consequences that concern me greatly.
People who believe that societal indoctrination is necessary to get people to accept certain principles, and that religion is an essential part of that indoctrination, will object to the removal of the threat of god-punishment. Without that threat, they believe societal habit alone won’t be enough to keep them safe.
They may be right—when societal controls are relaxed, people act pretty nastily towards each other. Primates are nasty beings.
If your neighbor uses the bathroom more often, they use more water (not only by flushing, which may be considered inevitable), but by washing their hands perhaps more than necessary (going to the bathroom twice instead of once) and using anti-bacterial soap, which could lead to stronger, resistant bacteria. Of course, the use of said soap might result a long-term difficulty and the results would not be immediately apparent. So not only must an act have consequences, but those consequences must be reasonably immediate and apparent (and, as stated in Eliezer’s main post, necessarily negative). A current human morality system could not track the actions and the consequences.
An omniscient god (or being) would be able to measure the harm. Further it would be able to track the consequences of ones actions. My use of anti-bacterial soap could cause a MRSA infection in someone else and kill them.
I do not think anyone (except aforementioned omniscient being) would be able to say I caused that infection on purpose. And yet, that person is still dead. A key here is intention. But unfortunately, we can harm and even kill others without intending to and yet we are held responsible. I would rarely think, say, a drunk driver would intend to get into an accident, but we punish them anyway because they intentionally increased the risk we all experience on the road.
But that risk (one that includes drunk drivers) is something we all assume, anyway. So wouldn’t an accident victim also be culpable. That seems distasteful.
So, an immoral action must have a negative consequence that is reasonably immediate and apparent and must have been done intentionally, or at least without an undue amount of risk outside normally applicable ranges.
But that’s probably not right. Does it exclude god? No, because that belief isn’t necessary. It doesn’t exclude unicorns, either.
I guess the gist of what I’m saying is that you need to be careful with your soap.
God punishment isn’t needed, just punishment is. It’s simply that God-punishment is more difficult to challenge in the courts.