The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

Yes it's his choice. I agree. That's why I don't think it's simply down to what "harms or helps."

That's just an ad hoc rationalization for morality, not the driving force. Morality is largely instinctual. You just feel it's wrong to kill an innocent man against his will regardless of any calculation regarding suffering or harm.

Except I did calculate it and you just didn't like that answer because it contradicts your narrative.

Morality is born from empathy and sympathy. We don't like seeing others suffer. We wouldn't want to kill somebody else who is suffering because we know that they might not want to die. Which would be causing suffering.

[Chula Vista]

Is it moral to kill 1 baby in order to save 100 people?
Didn't we already answer that question?

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Except I did calculate it and you just didn't like that answer because it contradicts your narrative.

Morality is born from empathy and sympathy. We don't like seeing others suffer. We wouldn't want to kill somebody else who is suffering because we know that they might not want to die. Which would be causing suffering.

... You're all over the place.

First I'm straw manning you by bringing it back to suffering vs happiness and next you basically confirm that framework with this post.

You can't say "you did the calculation" as the entire premise of the scenario was that somehow we know for a fact that killing him will be a net positive in terms of suffering caused vs suffering alleviated. It's an unrealistic hypothetical scenario, but then again so is the trolly problem and every other utilitarian thought experiment.

You had a problem with killing him not just based on suffering but on robbing him of the choice of whether to live. The same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply if he was considering suicide. Yet you wouldn't see that as wrong, because it's his choice. So already we're introducing elements other than pure suffering vs happiness into the moral equation.

Which is my point. Not that empathy doesn't inform morality, but it's not the only source that we draw from when making moral decisions.

It's not that I don't see the basic appeal of utilitarian thinking. It's just too simplistic to capture morality in its entirety.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Is it moral to kill 1 baby in order to save 100 people?
Didn't we already answer that question?

Yeah, and that question has tons of nuances to explore to really make it an easy decision.

But the most dishonest thing about that question is that it acts like morality is a dichotomy between either right or wrong when there is tons of grey area. Shouldn't be "Is it good to kill a child to save 100 people?" but instead "Is it better to kill a child to save 100 people?" because killing the child is always going to be immoral on a certain level simply because it will cause suffering.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Yeah, and that question has tons of nuances to explore to really make it an easy decision.

But the most dishonest thing about that question is that it acts like morality is a dichotomy between either right or wrong when there is tons of grey area. Shouldn't be "Is it good to kill a child to save 100 people?" but instead "Is it better to kill a child to save 100 people?" because killing the child is always going to be immoral on a certain level simply because it will cause suffering.

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

You can't say "you did the calculation" as the entire premise of the scenario was that somehow we know for a fact that killing him will be a net positive in terms of suffering caused vs suffering alleviated. It's an unrealistic hypothetical scenario, but then again so is the trolly problem and every other utilitarian thought experiment.

I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You had a problem with killing him not just based on suffering but on robbing him of the choice of whether to live. The same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply if he was considering suffice. Yet you wouldn't see that as wrong, because it's his choice. So already we're introducing elements other than pure suffering vs happiness into the moral equation.

I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Which is my point. Not that empathy doesn't inform morality, but it's not the only source that we draw from when making moral decisions.

Of course not, people like to use cultural norms, faux science, religion and etc. to justify the harm they do rather than face themselves. Just because people use outside things to inform their moral decisions doesn't make it moral.

It's not that I don't see the basic appeal of utilitarian thinking. It's just too simplistic to capture morality in its entirety.

No, you're just over simplifying human suffering to push that narrative while I, who holds this belief, am not.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by jwb

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

Lesser of two evils.

Ha, got it in early!

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

It's immoral on a certain level to fart on an elevator but that doesn't make you blatantly evil because I don't think human suffering is as simple as you make it therefor neither is morality.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.



I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

maybe you're just misunderstanding the actual scenario. It's literally built into the scenario that in this case we somehow know for a fact that with this man, more suffering will be alleviated than caused by his death.

So responding "maybe it won't" is just rejecting the scenario entirely, not answering it.

You did prove my point that there's more to it than just a calculation on suffering by bringing up the problem that you are infringing on his right to choose whether to live or die. This is something that tends to bother us regardless of any suffering vs happiness calculation.

As I mentioned, if the man were to contemplate suicide, the same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply. Yet we wouldn't see that as wrong because it's his choice. So there is another element at play beyond that calculation.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

It's immoral on a certain level to fart on an elevator but that doesn't make you blatantly evil because I don't think human suffering is as simple as you make it therefor neither is morality.

I don't think either of those are immoral. In fact I think the shot thing is actually the right thing to do.