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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyonTNn1FWk






https://boxden.com/smilies/2umMvfa.png

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.

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.

hey jwb, cool new avy :beer:

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.