The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Letting you maintain control of what you do with your body even if it's self harm is less harm than taking your freedom which would have a huge negative impact on your mental health.

Other than the 'Live Free or Die' state, seat belts are the law in the US. Too many people flying through windshields raises my health care costs and auto insurance rates.

**** those people's 'self harm' instincts.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

So our morality is more evolved?

In context of our history, yes, but we still tend to use ****ty justifications and cultural norms to hide us from uncomfortable truths about our own morality in this country.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

youre making the hypothetical pointless by introducing a 3rd option

everything being as it is, would it not be a net benefit to kill drunk drivers?

No, you're just presenting a false dichotomy to prove a point. My third option is exactly why your point is bull****.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

In context of our history, yes, but we still tend to use ****ty justifications and cultural norms to hide us from uncomfortable truths about our own morality in this country.

So given that we've had the same amount of time to evolve

And as you say we naturally evolve towards promoting less suffering

Why are we more evolved? Why is stoning adulterers still prevalent? Burning witches? Genital mutilation? What is the purpose for these rules?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

well it's a thought exp to express where morality is subjective

****ty example.

Let's say we had the option to kill a child to save a hundred people, is that better?

If we can't find a way to save all then it's the child. It's morally grey, because nothing in life is simple, but it still does more help than harm.

Well, depending on who the hundred people are.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

So given that we've had the same amount of time to evolve

And as you say we naturally evolve towards promoting less suffering

Why are we more evolved? Why is stoning adulterers still prevalent? Burning witches? Genital mutilation? What is the purpose for these rules?

Traditions, dictatorships, desperation, etc. Various reasons.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

****ty example.

Let's say we had the option to kill a child to save a hundred people, is that better?

If we can't find a way to save all then it's the child. It's morally grey, because nothing in life is simple, but it still does more help than harm.

Well, depending on who the hundred people are.

if I see a homeless person walking down the street who is clearly suffering, and he has no family or friends to speak of, is it not a good thing for me to kill him swiftly and painlessly as possible?

I would be ending a lot of suffering, and causing little if no new suffering. So is it the right thing to do?

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Traditions, dictatorships, desperation, etc. Various reasons.

so then there are other factors that influence morality beyond utilitarianism. So what exactly makes it the defining influence?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

I disagree that you just kill the child

Nah, **** this idea that children are more valuable humans.

if we assume the 100 people are going to naturally die if we don't

It'd most likely be a terrorist situation where we're given a choice. If it's naturally, then maybe that's different but you really should consider killing the kid. The argument is the kid doesn't get the chance to live while the people do. We don't know the age of the people and just because you're an adult doesn't mean you don't still have life to live. The kid won't know what he's missing and there's a high chance that he doesn't like his life when he finally gets to live it.

Then again, of course we need to consider the wants of those affected. Lets say majority of the 100 people would rather die to keep the kid alive. Then lets kill the 100 people. Vice versa as well.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

so then there are other factors that influence morality beyond utilitarianism. So what exactly makes it the defining influence?

Just because it's a social norm or it's a rule doesn't mean it's moral even if they use that word to describe it.