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

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.

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.

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

Lesser of two evils.

Ha, got it in early!

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.

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.

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

I never said "maybe it won't". I said maybe the homeless person is happier enduring that suffering. I also said that it's not causing suffering to let him live while killing him is.

No, I actually didn't you're just rejecting my explanations. It bothers us because it's harmful to take someone's choice away. Also, because I already mentioned, just killing him is already immoral on a level no matter the suffering.

Because causing suffering to yourself is different from causing suffering to somebody else. You're also leaving out, again, how he could be happier enduring suffering than dying.

The scenario is unrealistically over simplified in an attempt to paint my belief as overly simplified. The only realistic example you can give is if I support assisted suicide or euthanasia and I do. It's not overwhelmingly 'good' it's a morally grey area because suffering and happiness is in no way nearly as simple as you are making it out to be in an attempt to paint this belief as simple.

Of course because the amount of harm it prevents compared to how much it does is disparate.

Edit: And you seem to be treating morality as a complete dichotomy when I don't.

that is again rejecting the scenario. In this case we know for a fact there will be more suffering than happiness produced by him continuing to live. That's literally the entire point of the scenario... To see if killing him would still seem wrong even if the calculation of suffering vs happiness leans that way in this case.

you could then say that for instance by not killing the 1 child to save 100 people, you're not responsible for those 100 deaths. Because you didn't directly cause them. You just failed to act.

The utilitarian calculus typically analyzes results above all else. Inaction can lead to more harm than action.



That's exactly what I've been saying. Not that suffering doesn't factor into morality. But there's more to it than that. There are ideas of rights, fairness, autonomy, purity, etc.


all of the thought experiments that are typically used to argue about utilitarian ethics are typically unrealistic and over simplified. The reason for this is that it helps isolate variables as to why we find something wrong. That's all I was doing.

Lucem needs Michael.
https://videos.files.wordpress.com/F...d.original.jpg

Then he could kill himself, it's not my burden to carry.

Not really. His suffering already existed and you didn't cause it.

This is an event you have the ability to prevent where people are completely dependent on you. The other situation he's not. Unless we're talking assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Yeah, but I never said I was a utilitarian. That's just what you used to describe me.

All of those things account for causing suffering and happiness.

Even then, that's kind of a lie. You were saying that morality is cultural.

No, you were over simplifying things to fit the narrative that my views are overly simple and rejecting any possible nuance I throw at it.

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

First time I went to Hong Kong it was still under British rule.
Stayed at this place. Pool was on a roof of one level and topless
was totally cool at that time.

https://newworldmillenniumhotel.com/...kaAuPAEALw_wcB

Oh, and it was like 120 degrees with 110% humidity the whole 3 days. Like dangerous stuff.

But when you have the example of Tienanmen Square to work off of what do you think is going to happen differently? I mean either you think the Chinese government has changed, you think you have something to bargain with that can't be run over, or you start picking up weapons. I haven't seen anything to make me think that the Hong Kongers aren't just assuming that because their rules are different right now that they'll always be different for no smart reason.

It's even more cynical than that

The people in tiananmen square likely also knew the risk they were taking

But compliance only buys you some time... chances are unless you completely embrace the regime and defend them against all attacks, they will ultimately take you down.

I imagine the people in Tienanmen Square did not actually realize the level of reprisals they would face. Or if they did they thought the rest of the country would rise up with them in horror and start a chain reaction. That did not happen. So what are the Hong Kongers banking on? I mean if this is all "**** you kill us we don't care we're sick of you" then hell ****ing yeah but I don't think most people are as nihilistic as that.

You just wish life felt as real as living in Hong Kong. Life in America doesn't even feel real.

given the history of the Chinese regime, I'm guessing they were well aware of the risks.

Especially since they just stood there as a tank was approaching

But to what end? And to what end now? Are people protesting just to be heard and aren't willing to imagine that they won't be? I don't think most people who do this **** honestly are sacrificing themselves, they probably just aren't willing to admit that they won't be heard.

I thought that was just N. Korea.

I think you need a "re-edication" camp yourself. Hopefully they have an English class.

Not really because 'harm' and 'help' in the context of humanity is more complicated than you make it to be. I'm not willing to die on the hill of those two things being the only things but you really have done a **** job of convincing me otherwise. Really, I'm just rejecting the idea that morality is a purely subjective idea built by culture when I think it's more than just what we've been taught.

Just remember he's trying to bring this back to a traditionalist American view where it's okay to be a neoliberal watching CNN on TV. He hates Hillary Clinton but he really is Hillary Clinton.

JWB killed Epstein?

I'm sure he'd justify it while never having the balls to do it himself.

^ I think that was true in the era of Chairman Mau, but things have changed a lot since then haven't they? TBH, my knowledge of life in China is very outdated; basically, it stops where this amazing book stops, with 1992:-

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...qhVomT2QPJ8A&s
__________________________________________________ ________________________

As well as being a joke at Trump's expense, this is a feel-good story about how democracy still works. Ordinary people for the win :tramp:

Virginia Elects Woman Who Gave President The Finger: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50315490

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...lMVjkvm9bk6A&s

Wild Swans is great read. Insanely engrossing.

From what I’ve been reading the Chinese government is just as brutal today though. It’s not as chaotic but you better not make a squeak or they’ll go after your whole family. They got cameras and drones everywhere and they give you a public rating number. They got Big Brother, Hitler (Uighurs), and Stalin rolling at the same time.

The world is in a very bad time. Everybody who predicts the end is wrong. Except the last guy. We’re gettting there, hopefully. I’d rather we had a new global common persons revolution though. Probably the best play is mostly pacifistic with targeted assassinations and executions on billionaires and politicians. I want to call it the Anarchist Hope Brigade.

I don't think they're banking on anything, other than maybe trying to invoke the US/ international community to intervene. Which isn't going to happen. They're doing the only thing they can that has the slightest chance of working visa resistance.

It's like asking what are the people in Palestine banking on by attacking Israel. They have to know they're out matched. But what else is there to do?

Extreme scenarios like this will bring out an extreme amount of resilience in human beings that you and I can't even begin to comprehend.

Live peacefully in the more than generous territory they’ve been given and stop blowing up busses and markets and constantly aggressively trying to expand and inflict genocide on Israel.

The American government has been more than generous with you. You have access to food, water, shelter, healthcare, and you have the audacity to spit on them just cause you're too big of a nutjob to take advantage of everything that's been provided for you.

That’s cute.