Truth Here, Utility There

From: Ian Goddard (igoddard@netkonnect.net)
Date: Sat May 16 1998 - 14:09:53 MDT


At 05:43 PM 5/15/98 -0400, Daniel Fabulich wrote:

>Compare this example to a thought-experiment. If the pursuit of truth is
>more important than human utility, then we should pursue truth even to the
>expense of human utility. So even if further studies in, say, science are
>miserable to us, and where TECHNOLOGY would serve us better than further
>studies of astronomical bodies, we would still be morally obligated to
>pursue truth.

   IAN: This point Dan raises is the best case
   for utility first. So is it truth or utility?
   I think it's a false delima resolved by seeing
   that utility-first applies to one set of cases
   and truth-first applies to another set of cases.

   In the case above, the issue pertains to the
   scarcity of funding, in which case scientific
   research should put utility first, however,
   and this gets to the heart of the matter,
   NEVER can "truth first" not be a prime
   directive of research. So we must have
   two sets here and no contradiction.

   First, observe that truth-first must always
   be a directive in the research to which a
   utility-first directive also applies since
   any research into improved technologies
   that is based on not truths will be even
   MORE wasteful than research on the stars,
   which could bump into a real gold mine!

   So I think that "truth first" applies to
   the set of "all inquiry," and "utility
   first" applies to the set of "all expen-
   ditures below ideal levels of resources."

   By making this observation that truth-first
   applies to X set and utility-first applies
   to Y set, I believe that I have removed the
   basis of confusion as to which ethic is best.

********************************************************
Visit Ian W Goddard ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard
________________________________________________________
Statements T r u t h A defines -A
                a -A defines A
 A: x is A b A -A
                l T F A set is defined
-A: x is -A e F T by its members, thus
                    ? ? A & -A contain each other.
--------------------------------------------------------
H O L I S M ---> http://www.erols.com/igoddard/meta.htm
________________________________________________________

 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:49:05 MST