Utilitarians unite

That's not at all the question.

Yes really. In the trolly scenario you also don't directly cause the deaths of the larger number of people. You fail to act in a way that would interfere and save them which requires actively killing someone else. But the circumstance which was going to kill them already existed, and not by your hand, just like the homeless guy's suffering.



The arguments you are using are basic utilitarian arguments that have been around for centuries, whether you're aware of that or not.



Not necessarily, no.

I say biology equips us with a basic capacity for morality which is then shaped specifically by culture. That doesn't contradict anything I've said here.

you yourself declared your views as simple when you said it all boils down to what harms/helps.

Archie >>> meathead

Technically the most utilitarian thing would be to plug us all into the Matrix and give us perfect lives.

They probably won't bother with any of that though since they won't have our same biological inclination towards morality.

Alright I've had this tab open since I passed out two days ago but then I had a hangover yesterday and didn't feel like discussing anything in any depth at all and now it's been two days and ehhhh but I can't just leave this hanging so here's my halfassed response:

Yeah I'm not a utopian who thinks that if we just do this one really awesome thing or enact this one really great system of government that we can enact meaningful change. Really we're talking about an empathy problem with the human race. It's hard to feel empathy for people we're doing things to or other people are doing things to half a world away and that's not going to change without taking a lot of time (centuries probably at least) training human instinct to process far away problems differently than we currently do. But while we're not doing that there are a lot of people dying simply because it's hard to care about Syria or the Congo or where ever from all the way here in American comfy chairs. That's not good and should change.

The only step in the right direction I can honestly think of is a total revamp of the UN so that it's not a few powerful countries stonewalling anything that doesn't benefit them while all the smaller countries just deal with issues that don't step on Security Council toes. Aside from that I'd say just on a personal level don't internalize cutthroat pragmatism. You can accept that it's inevitable and that the world is a nasty place but that doesn't mean you have to accept that your own thought processes have to follow that model. You can give that **** the finger even while accepting that there is currently no workable alternative. Maybe a few centuries of people doing that will be part of an honest change in how people deal with the world at large. I agree that morality is probably largely instinctual but instinct isn't written in stone, it's formed by generations doing things over and over.

@ Batlord

I would argue it's not just an empathy problem. We actually have more empathy for countries we're at war with than we did previously.

But it's easy to oppose something you see as egregious when the consequences for your opposition are nil. It's easy to oppose interventionist wars that you view as having a negative affect on us anyway. It's not so easy to ignore Hitler when you fear you will have to deal with his empire in the post war environment.

Which brings us back the conversation on collateral damage. You say if we went to war with another serious world power like China, we would go back to the strategy of total war; maximum chaos and destruction.

In a post 1945 world, that would mean nuclear war. Which risks destroying the planet for humans. Hence why we didn't end up going to war with the Soviets. Where as historically, when the stakes were large, the cold war would've almost certainly turned hot.

Which brings us back to the global US empire. If the stakes of abandoning it are that we live under the heel of China or anyone else, I sorta prefer the current set up. And I think most Americans would feel the same.

Most citizens of any country would probably rather be on the winning side of that sort of arrangement. So that's why the pragmatic concerns are inescapable. Because the alternative could have an actual impact on us that most of us would rather avoid.

Half a world away?

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45442596

I'm honestly curious what Hong Kong protesters think they're going to accomplish. I'm sure they know a million times better than I do the situation they're in and the date of Hong Kong becoming 100% under Chinese law so what do they think the government that ran over protesters with tanks will do to accommodate them?

That's similar to asking what did the people in tiananmen square expect to accomplish

When you are faced with an impending tyranny there's only 2 options: resist and risk it all or bend over like a bitch