The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As I see it killing is not miraculously moral because its self defense, it is however justified because self defense is a good reason.

Lets say in this scenario you have two choices: kill or dont kill.

You can be justified in not killing because you think killing is immoral.
You can also be justified in killing them because you value your life more than theirs.

Im confused how you come to the conclusion that killing and not killing are both moral in that scenario, since they are in direct conflict.

Edit: ill check out the video on my lunch break.

Karma just comes down to stats. If you're doing bad ****, you're probably going to surround yourself with other people who do bad **** which increases the likelihood of bad **** happening to you.

So can any of the moral subjectivists on here explain to me how you deal with this dilemma? Feel free to insert your own justifications for the actions if you think I gave bad ones, I'm more concerned with the bolded.

If you define moral as any action that can be reasonably justified you’re clear.

If not you need a clear list of dos and don’ts. Just in the general betterment of mankind positions won’t work.

I guess I just don't understand what the point of morality is at that point.. If you're going to dumb down morality to any action which is justifiable you run into all sorts of problems that are counterproductive to society. That makes 0 sense to me. Lots of BAD things can be reasonably justified, unless you plan on redefining reason to fit your argument as well.

This all sounds very circular..
"I'm justified in my position because it's moral to me, which makes it justified"

Self driving cars have to be programmed to make those kinds of “trolley problems” as they’re known

DWV - I think you’re the one being circular with your logic.

You also keep asking for very broad stances but so far you haven’t dealt with the minutiae

Frankly, it’s starting to feel like you don’t even know exactly what it is you’re asking

The reason it isn’t circular is that the onus is on the person who takes action (or chooses not to take action) to make an acceptable case on why the action is justifiable

I’ve been avoiding saying this because the “semantics” argument gets tiresome but all you’re really asking is if justifiable and moral are synonyms. And yes, the meanings overlap.

Like elph pointed toward the trolley problem I too think it’s time for you to think about specifics. Tell us how your position is applicable.

No, but it's justified because one action is objectively less harmful to well-being than the other.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how you justify something with morality if you believe there is no foundation to morality itself.

@OH - I'm not asking, I'm arguing they are not synonymous. How am I being circular exactly?

And yes, the onus is on the acting agent. And if we agree that death is in conflict with well-being than any action that intentionally causes death is, by definition, immoral. Again, that doesn't mean it's not justified, because there may be good reason, as with the train example.

Did you even bother to watch the short portion of the video I provided?

Aren’t you an atheist?

Yes, and?