PFH Ethics System 8/11/2013

Progress takes precedence, then freedom, and then we focus our attention on happiness. This
system of ethics is freedom maximizing, but will take exception when progress for society needs to be
made. Self-improvement is what is most important, and is necessary before freedom or happiness. This
is why children are forced to go to school, because they can develop their freedom and happiness with
the tools provided by self-improvement. Why do we focus on happiness last? Despite happiness truly
being the most important goal for all of society, we need to put it on a stronger foundation. If we just
aim at happiness for happiness sake, we will fail.
Freedom is very important, but you must not act with malice in your decisions. If you hurt
someone indirectly or psychologically, this is not immoral, even if you know they will hurt because of it.
However, it is immoral if you do an action simply to bring pain to someone else. Again, we cant focus
on happiness first, because if we did, certain minorities or independent types would be harmed, and this
would hurt progress and freedom. For example, many people in the United States are offended by
homosexuals. It may be possible that psychologically more happiness could be brought about by
shutting down the hopes and dreams of homosexuals. However, since freedom takes precedence over
happiness, then homosexuals are free to do as they choose. Happiness may not lead to freedom, but
freedom will lead to a better foundation for happiness.
Lying will also be permitted in most cases that are one-on-one. Lying maximizes freedom.
However, putting false facts into books and non-fiction documents wont be tolerated, because that
halts progress. Progress overrides Freedom. I think we would also all agree that if a Nazi were to ask
where we were hiding the jews, it would be the moral thing to do to lie to them. Some parents also
seem to be okay with lying to their children using myths about Santa Clause. It also seems that lying has
become somewhat necessary in our society just look at job interviews. However, it also maximizes
your privacy, which is an important aspect of freedom. Your truth belongs to you, unless it belongs to
society so that it may progress technologically or intellectually. I am not a slave to someones question!
I may answer as freely as I want, and I am not obliged to follow the pre-determined path of truth for
someone if I do not wish to. If lying is done with intended malice, however, it is immoral.
Jealousy is as bad a human problem as homophobia, thus we may use lying to get around it until
society has progressed to the point where it is unnecessary. Why is violating sexual exclusivity in a
loving relationship inherently wrong? Surely the burden should be on the person who feels the sting of
jealousy to conquer this pain, this human weakness, rather than forcing the other to suppress a little
harmless pleasure. Why choose to let pain dictate over pleasure? When you cheat on your partner only
mutable psychological pain is involved and not immutable physical pain. There is only real physical
pleasure being shared between two (or more) people. Cheating is morally okay as long as it isnt done
with the intention of malice. It allows for freedom, and a happiness derived from freedom is a more
progressed happiness than a happiness without it. And guilt should also be eradicated like the by-
product of slave virtue that it is. It achieves neither P, F, or H, and only means self-suffering with only
some cruel person deriving some mutable psychological pleasure from it. However, this kind of slave
happiness is a lesser form of happiness.
Be friendly to everyone you meet, but not at a sacrifice. Say hello to people, greet them, and
wish them a good way. When it doesnt interfere with progress or your freedom, you should always be
promoting happiness. Happiness is also best shared and is sort of like an Indras Net. When you inspire
happiness in another person you will start to feel happier about your own condition.
Progress means health, medical, and technological advancement. It means more knowledge for
more people in general. Because of this, file sharing is moral. The more information that is available for
everyone, the more society benefits from this. Downloading music and movies leads to a more cultured
society that is well educated.
For freedoms sake all drugs and forms of prostitution should be legalized. I believe this will lead
to better happiness any way, but even if it doesnt, freedom must take precedence. There is no point in
living without the freedom to actually live. There should also be no hate crime laws. Politically correct
speech is not necessary to adhere to. If you want to question the holocaust or if you want to tell a racist
joke, go ahead, because it maximizes freedom just as long as what is said is not done with mal-intent.
If you call someone a racist name as a way of being aggressive and hateful, then what you have done is
immoral. However, if you are speaking with a buddy and you use a racial epithet not aimed at hurting
anyones feelings this is completely moral. Even if someone overhears it, your freedom to use language
how you choose comes first over concerns about collateral damage. Though it may be debatable that
despite having no bad intentions, it is wise (though not necessarily a moral aspect) to consider that what
you say or do could lead to collateral damage, and to not be reckless.
Experimenting that intrudes on humans is only acceptable if it is the only way to further
progress instead of an alternative that maximizes PFH. Self-improvement and survival of our species
(and thus survival of our information) comes first. For example, take the trolley car problem the moral
decision needs more context. It is immoral to throw someone off of a bridge to save five others in a
large developed society. In fact, there may be problems with overpopulation, and more people
surviving could make everyone worse off. Maybe there is a serial killer on the tracks! However, if it was
a very small tribal society then progress would demand you throw over the one so that the whole village
avoids extinction. This is the only time this exception is allowed, but only if it is to save the species and
information that has been accumulated.
How about the terrorist bomb scenario? What if someone is threatening to destroy a city and
you must endanger innocents for utilitarian purposes? No. Freedom of the minority takes precedence
over happiness of the majority. Progress is not at peril if a single city is destroyed. If the world was in
jeopardy, or information was to be lost, then we may make an exception. Besides, as I have argued
before, it is possible a little depopulation even leads to better happiness. Of course, I would never argue
that it is a good thing to bring about the depopulation of society as a positive outcome, because this
certainly would interfere with the freedom of these people to live. It doesnt violate this principle if it is
the bad guy who is doing damage to the freedom of our society by causing this depopulation, but it is us
that does damage to freedom by hurting a few innocents to stop this madman from following through
with his immoral attack on the city.
Stealing seems to be mostly always a bad idea. It invades our freedom to keep what we earn
and it also does damage to psychological happiness. Does the progress of one family come into the
picture if they require the stealing of food? Is the specific well-being more important than freedom?
This may be debatable within this moral framework.
Government regulation is allowed only if it is for progress. They should not regulate on matters
that puts psychological happiness over freedom, however. Government should have the power to
protect the environment and stop important plants and animals from going extinct. This is the
difference between personal and public freedom. Public freedom is more likely to run into problems of
invading the march of progress that private freedom doesnt have to worry about. Thus, job freedom
isnt going to be as lax as personal freedom. However, what you say on your own time away from your
job should (usually) not be held against you. Freedom of speech should be held up in all public areas. If
man in a private is free, he should not be everywhere public in chains.
Again, these are the morals that override. Moral choices of progress take precedence over
choices of freedom and/or happiness. Moral decisions of freedom are more ethical than decisions of
happiness. And morals of happiness are only focused on if they do not interfere with either progress
and/or freedom. The decision that combines progress with freedom takes precedence over the
decision that only focuses on progress alone. However, freedom and happiness combined do not take
precedence over progress alone.
-Greg dratsab Huffman

(8/18/2013) UPDATE DUE TO DISCUSSION ON GAMEFAQS
conduit posted...
the conventional notion of "progress" is largely illusory. firstly how does one go about measuring
"progress"? secondly, "progress" is a very linear contruct that is a gross simplification of complex
dynamical processes, and is heavily rooted in our own bias.
Emerson wrote "Society never advances. It recedes as fast on one side as it gains on the other. It
undergoes continual changes; it is barbarous, it is civilised, it is christianised, it is rich, it is scientific; but
this change is not amelioration."
My own view is that progress comes from creativity and ingenuity. That means that the freedom to
create is essential to progress. So freedom should come first, without it progress is contunually slowed
and blocked from advancing.
Freedom and Happiness are vital to self-improvement, progress is the result. But if progress is merely a
bi-product of our freedom and happiness, then to say that progess takes precedence is like saying
victory comes before war, or that in battle the winning is more important than the fighting itself.
Coercive educational practices are designed specifically to constrict peoples freedom and opportunity,
and happiness comes second to material profit. Which is why the purpose of school is to give the
children the basic tools they need to become productive members of society by contributing to the
growth of the economy (which they themselves do not necessarily benefit from).
Happiness again is just another bi-product of function, purpose, and conflict. ("to seek happiness by
itself is to seek victory without war").
MY RESPONSE
Hmm, this is just a rough draft idea I wanted to write down, so I didn't really get a chance to specify
what I meant by progress. In fact, I'm still not sure exactly what I mean, but I do know it would
incorporate the collection of knowledge and technological advancement. This would be used to justify
animal testing. In a way, this would also be used to justify some of the horrible things psychologists have
done (such as scaring children), the human testing government has done, and I suppose even the
Tuskegee syphilis experiments. I'm not saying we restrict freedom, as the point of my philosophy is to
maximize freedom more than anything, but that we should make exceptions for "progress".

What I am saying is, we develop the tools at any cost first, before we hand them over to be used
however society would like. Freedom is very important, but not if it gets in the way of experiments that
lead to better technology and knowledge. Now, you may say this is a horrible choice for a moral system
to follow, but I'm not arguing that it is a great one in its current form. The idea just popped into my head
and I thought it would be interesting to write down. If anyone wants to add onto or extract bad ideas
from my system to improve it, feel free to do so.
I believe I would like my idea of progress to have some sort of permanence to it. Not that anything is
perfectly permanent, but just that it wouldn't be progress that would be turned around. For example,
collection of information and knowledge that can be shared world wide has more permanence than
some court decisions to expand gay rights or religious tolerance. These things can be fought back
against.
BigRedRacer posted
well, i like that you are trying to sort out how to prioritize your values.

Conduit has a problem with the ambiguity of progress, but I have a similar problem with the ambiguity
of freedom and happiness. I think that we should strive to limit poverty, since wealth is freedom.

I have been thinking about what poverty really is. We like to measure poverty so we come up with an
income number based on the cost of living. But I realized that this isn't really a good way to do it. In my
mind poverty is an inability to secure your ability to live. Wealth is having your way of life secure.

The specifics of people lives change through time. the poor in the US today have more material wealth
than most rich people did 200 years ago, and certainly 2000 years ago. But what hasn't changed is that
some people have security and other people's lively hoods are held in others hands.

the people with security will use their wealth to further secure themselves. Our education system is an
example of this.
What is freedom if you are perpetually constrained by the needs of your life?
MY RESPONSE
Yes, I'm trying to sort that out as well. The only thing I could come up with is that the negative freedom
of the majority (because being poverty leads to limits on one's freedom) takes precedence over the
positive freedom of the minority.