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?

****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.

Traditions, dictatorships, desperation, etc. Various reasons.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

Postmodernism is a ****ty faux philosophy that nobody can even agree on as a thing.

Edit: And who ever said that we're evolving in every way? We're evolving in some ways, perhaps devolving in other ways. But realizing that we shouldn't enslave or dehumanize other people based on their race is definitely an evolution.

No, because you're assuming that he'll always be suffering. You're likely preventing any chance of him to feel something that isn't suffering. It's also a very very lazy way to end his suffering.

No, it's absolutely a faux philosophy. Meaning it's not really a philosophy it's a movement made up of several philosophies which is why nobody can agree on what postmodernism is which is actually the most postmodern thing ever.

Our fetish with childhood is kind of weird. I get that it's huge in impacting your life as an adult put pretending a happy childhood isn't as important as a happy adulthood is bizarre. It's such a small piece of our lives. For a lot of us it might even be the worst part of our lives.

So sticking that in my face is meaningless to me.

Who did that?

There's variables in everything. How ever you have no clue of the ages of any of the 100.

Or if the kid will even make it to adulthood even if you save him.

so your objection is that I can't accurately predict the suffering that will be caused/prevented

I would argue that is also true of most of the thought experiments meant to argue in favor of utilitarianism.

E.G. your example of killing one child to save 100 people. That 1 person you kill might end up doing more to alleviate suffering than the other 100 combined. Or they might be a monster. Or somewhere in between. There is no way of knowing.

Let's say for the sake of argument (since all of this is already based on unrealistic hypothetical situations) that you somehow know for a fact that if you kill him you will alleviate more suffering than you cause. Is it still wrong?

Was there even a train to wreck?

How is that an argument? That's something I was saying in the other experiments.

I acknowledged the differing variables already.

I'm going to assume that you're talking about the homeless person.

If the homeless person didn't want to die then it's going to be immoral. It's not your choice to make and thinking you have that authority is immoral. If the homeless person wants to endure their suffering let them. If the homeless person wants to end it I assume they have all the ability to do that them self.

At least it's something much more interesting than the redundant arguments of free will or defeatism vs optimism where nobody respects that not everything is a dichotomy.

Nah this is definitely as redundant and pointless as those discussions.

Is there some sort of end point, or does the philosophical circle jerk just keep going and going?

In plain and simple terms, what are each of your main points?

20 words MAX.
GO!

Lucem and elphenor: morality shouldn't be solely dictated by societal norms

Jwb: if morality exists outside of society then show us the one true moral code that cures all ills across the globe or you're wrong

.

I don't think you actually followed the conversation.

Now it's just people trying to challenge it with stupid scenarios.

Oh, I have. I have the headache to prove it.
I'm just waiting for one of you to have a Frank Ricard slam dunk so it'll be over.

https://img.wonderhowto.com/img/91/3...bate.w1456.jpg

It's not going to be an epic game winning slam dunk. It's just going to be running out the clock and preventing the other team from scoring while I'm in the lead.

Ahhhhh. It'll be more fun following now that I know your strategy.

Linda and I are both rooting for you!

https://media3.giphy.com/media/3oz8x...jN3W/giphy.gif

I agree and that's basically my point. There is something to morality more than just causing the least amount of suffering.

...I didn't say there was.

It's almost like my post was an intentionally facetious misreading of the discussion.

That choice would be harmful though. Maybe suffering is as complicated as morality. Maybe the complications of human suffering is why morality is complicated.

Why is it harmful if it leads to less suffering?

By literally causing harm.

You understand that when utilitarians talk about the least amount of harm they are basically referring to suffering vs happiness?

Because human suffering isn't as simple as you're making it out to be?

And mostly because it's his choice if he wants to end his own suffering.

To him dying might out weigh the suffering of life.

Also, it's just a very lazy way to end somebody's suffering that doesn't actually stop the event that causes the suffering.

You never considered that he may be happier enduring his suffering than he is with giving up.

Or maybe you're trying to straw man me with that because it makes it easier for you to argue against that frame even though you basically lack the understanding of how nuanced and complicated human suffering is.

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.

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

https://www.originalsources.com/Imag...or.ashx?ID=258

... 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.

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.