The CAWTBER Test

Live and let live.

The CAWTBER Test is a logical morality test which combines The Conflict Avoidance Axiom with The Bumping Elbows Rule.  It is an acronym for Conflict Avoidance With The Bumping Elbows Rule and is pronounced kawt-bur.  It designates a standard for what is—and is not—acceptable behavior based on an axiom, a statement, and logical reasoning.

As background, see The Conflict Avoidance Axiom and The Bumping Elbows Rule.

The CAWTBER Test Explained

 For the purpose of coordinating The Conflict Avoidance Axiom with The Bumping Elbows Rule, the following two phrases are defined as being equivalent:

Conflict avoidance ≡ You don’t bump elbows with somebody else

The ≡ symbol means “is equivalent to.”  The next two phrases are also defined as being equivalent:

Likes conflict ≡ You bump elbows with somebody else

These equivalencies allow incorporating the Conflict Avoidance Axiom into the truth table from The Bumping Elbows Rule.  Here is that truth table:

Fig. A, The Bumping Elbows Truth Table

The false statement in the Fig. A truth table, above, is already highlighted in red, as it was in The Bumping Elbows Rule (link), indicating that the scenario on that line fails the Bumping Elbows Rule (and thus fail the CAWTBER Test).  The next step is to also highlight in red what is prohibited by the Conflict Avoidance Axiom:

Fig. B, Conflict Avoidance in the Truth Table

The two “conflict” phrases (“you bump elbows with somebody else”) are also highlighted in red in Fig. B, above, indicating that the scenarios on those lines fail the Conflict Avoidance Axiom (and thus fail the CAWTBER Test).  The next step is to line out all of the scenarios (three of them) that fail the CAWTBER Test.  The remaining scenario, which is the only scenario in the truth table which passes the CAWTBER Test, is highlighted in green for emphasis:

Fig. C, Pass/Fail CAWTBER Scenarios

Fig. C, above, shows the passing and failing scenarios for the CAWTBER Test.  The three red scenarios are lined out in Fig. C in order to indicate that those scenarios fail the CAWTBER Test.  The remaining scenario has a green background in Fig. C in order to indicate that it is the only scenario that passes the CAWTBER Test.  This passing scenario is “you don’t bump elbows with somebody else” and “you can do anything you want.”

Applying The CAWTBER Test

The CAWTBER Test can be applied to other moralities, such as the Golden Rule:  “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.  Does the Golden Rule pass the CAWTBER Test?  No, it does not.  The Golden Rule fails the CAWTBER Test because of diversity:  not all people like the same things.  Suppose that you like smoking cigars, so you smoke cigars around other people because you would like other people to smoke cigars around you.  That example passes the Golden Rule, but it does not pass the CAWTBER Test so long as any of the other people do not like cigar smoke—because then it becomes “bumping elbows.”

Another “Golden Rule” is, “he who has the gold makes the rules.”  This “Golden Rule” also fails the CAWTBER Test because he who has the gold is “bumping elbows” with others when he makes the rules.

The Silver Rule is like the Golden Rule except that it is expressed with negative phrases:  “do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”  Does this rule pass the CAWTBER Test?  Yes, it does, because neither the Silver Rule nor the CAWTBER Test requires anyone to do anything.  The Silver Rule has been criticized because it does not require altruism, although the Silver Rule does not *forbid* altruism.  The CAWTBER Test also does not require altruism, although the CAWTBER Test does allow altruism as long as the altruism does not “bump elbows.”  (When does altruism “bump elbows”?  When one tries to help somebody who do not want to be helped.)

The Iron Rule is “might makes right.”  This obviously “bumps elbows” and fails the CAWTBER Test.

The Platinum Rule is “do unto others as they want done unto themselves.”  While this admirably takes diversity into account, it fails the CAWTBER Test because it violates the “do anything you want” condition.  (If you want to pleasure other people, go ahead, but don’t tell *me* that *I* have to pleasure other people.)

Conclusion

Although the CAWTBER Test is logical morality, it is not the only kind of logical morality that can exist.  Logic depends on axioms and statements, and the morality derived from logic depends therefore on the axioms and statements used to deduce that morality.  The CAWTBER Test is based on The Conflict Avoidance Axiom and The Bumping Elbows Rule, from which a logical morality can be derived.

CAWTBER is a test;

Acceptable behavior

Can be judged by it.

Suggested Comments:

What other kinds of logical morality tests exist?