Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Gailbraithe wrote:A device envisioned as a flying machine that does not fly is not a flying machine. Your attempts to deny what is a clearly evident fact are humorous, but you're still wrong. There is a reason that the Wright Brothers are credited as being the inventors of the first flying machine: they built the first (popularly documented) machine intended to be a flying machine that was, in fact, a machine that flew.
Contrary to popular belief the Wright Brothers did not create the first machine capable of flight. The Wright brothers are credited with the first powered (human) flight, even though all they really did was glide using power to keep their machine in the air long enough to call it gliding. Other people had achieved gliding before them. See kites.
You made an analogy that was false as to my intention (what I actually said may well be in line with the analogy) which is why I attempted to clarify with an analogy of my own.
That failure is by definition not success because failure is defined as the absence of success, thus a thing that fails to be what it is intended to be is not what it intends to be, as if it were what it was intended to be then it would be a success, and that is a logical paradox. Thus the reasoning is wrong, and it is not reasonable to continue to argue as if the point were true.
Flawed is not synonymous with failure.
To make an analogy (or law of contradiction as you put it) of my own, by your description Newton's laws were a failure because we now know them to be flawed. But most scientists won't call Newton's Laws failures, because when you're not dealing with speeds approach light speed, the error produced by the calculations is so miniscule that it's negligible. They can't be universally applied but they still have use and hold true on a macro scale.
Taboos.
Taboos exist within a moral system.
I don't know anything of substance about the Aztecs, and have no idea how developed their society was. My understanding is that they lived under a religious authority and were motivated by superstition. In which case they would not have a moral code, they would have taboos. Taboos are arbitrary rules and customs of pre-rational societies. Only a society that has discovered reason can have a rational moral code, and an irrational moral code is arbitrary and mutable (as you note), thus flawed, thus not actually a moral code. It is taboos.
The Aztecs were more advanced than hunter-gatherers, less advanced than Western Europeans and civilizations on other civilizations in the middle east and central asia. It can be a bit confusing because like the Mayan's, a lot of what the Aztecs had was directly picked up from the civilization before them. Mayan's picked up (literally) stuff left behind by the Olmecs, and the Aztecs picked up stuff left by the Mayans. I'm not sure exactly how much the Aztecs developed on their own. The Aztec capital city was built by the Mayans. I don't know if the Aztecs added onto it or just left it as it is and lived there.
But again. You're applying your own definition to morality to exclude it from being anything that you don't think it is, even though just about any philosopher or historian will tell you what morality actually is; a system of norms, behaviors, and conduct that are used by societies/individuals to differentiate right from wrong. Taboos are part of a moral code. You can't have taboos without a moral code of acceptable and unacceptable behaviors or actions. Taboos exist, because the moral code of a group has determined something to be wrong, or not wrong but less than right.
Aztec morality had no problem ripping people's hearts out for the sun god (or whoever they were sacrificing people too, I don't know if it was just one god or multiple gods). Now the Aztecs weren't really unique in this. Lots of cultures in the area did human sacrifice. The Aztecs just took it to an extreme compared to everyone else and did it in a sort of grand stage on their nice fancy Mayan step pyramids. European morality of course had long decided ritual sacrifice of human beings was morally wrong. Moral codes that are flawed don't cease to be moral codes and there's always the argument to be made that there is no such thing as a flawless moral code.
It is if you intend for the word morality to mean anything, then it must be universal. A non-universal system of morals will inevitably be arbitrary -- whomever the moral system does not apply to, there can be no rational reason to exclude them because of the quality of objective equality that all persons have.
That's a perfectly valid position to hold. But you should be able to recognize that not all moral codes are universal. They are a staple of civilization and there's plenty of evidence pre-civilization humans also had moral codes of some degree. While some day there may well be a universal moral code, today we don't have one. There are certain moralities that are near universal (Do not kill, do not steal, etc) but a full moral code that applies to all human beings has yet to exist. Take stealing for example. Most people can agree that stealing isn't right. But there's always some scenario out there that can make you wonder if it is appropriate to steal. While broadly most moralities in the modern world agree on a lot of things, they end up differing on circumstances, when is it okay to do this. What is the motivation, acceptable threshold for error, etc etc. Specifics vary wildly even from one person to another within the same social group.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/09/02 19:01:33
Gailbraithe wrote:Judean and Islamic (and Christian, if anyone is wondering) morality are wrong because they are irrational and based on absurd, untestable premises.
Why is not obviously correct that killing is never morally justified? I would argue that it is never morally justified to kill another person. Many notable moral philosophers would agree with me, such as Jesus.
Contradict yourself much? Since Christianity is based mainly on the teachings of Jesus, your stand here appears contradictory.
2...
Gailbraithe wrote:The moral system I subscribe to is based on two apparent facts:
1) All persons are objectively equal.
2) All persons capable of suffering or dieing desire to not suffer or die without their express consent.
And my moral reasoning starts from two principles:
1) Every person is equal.
2) Everything that knows suffering desires not to suffer.
I noted the difference in wording here. It explains much, You have quoted, with near perfection, Singer and have used his ideas to define your own "code".
I have heard a similar code... "And it harm none, do what thou wilt." Also known as the Wiccan Rede.
3... On the gun/knife issue... adding additional information to the equation does not change the immeadiate circumstance that being each person being in a situation of having their life and/or health threatened by the other. But lets change the init6ial situation.
A starving Lion charges a person, the person has a gun. The lion is acting on instinct. As a meat eater, it is required by its nature to kill to feed. There is no "Moral code" at work within the lion. It needs meat to survive and thus must kill to survive. The person, on the other hand, must make a decission... Kill the lion, which, depending on species, may be endangered, and preserve his own life, or forfeit his own existance by allowing the lion to act according to its nature and instincts.
4... On the Flying machine issue.... there is a great quote from Thomas Edison, "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work." Also, if you know anything about the clip you posted, you would know that many of the machines in that film were ideas for improving or making a "better" flying machine not a new machine. Going back to Edison, they simply found what did not work.
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/02 22:20:49
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
Oh I wouldn't say you were overly hostile. There are plenty of examples of "jumping down his throat" throughout the thread to compare with.
Drink deeply and lustily from the foamy draught of evil.
W: 1.756 Quadrillion L: 0 D: 2
Haters gon' hate.
rubiksnoob wrote:This thread has completely gone off the original topic.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mrwhoop wrote:Dolphins, like humans, are a renewable resource and should be used as such. With proper management extinction can be prevented and future generations can enjoy eating/watching them for as long as the Earth permits (warming/cooling of the oceans etc). Morally humans can do this as we are superior in that we can ignore instincts and thus get to make the rules and Morales.
Are we still subject to instinct and those initial rules? Yes, a predator can still eat me and I will die. But I can break that rule with my rule of making/having a weapon. With a weapon I can kill or drive off the predator.
The thinking that humans are superior to animals is a personal belief, one that many do not share. It can not be used as justification for this.
Can't it? It's a perfectly good justification to him, you just don't happen to agree.
True. I guess I jumped down his throat a bit there.
Oh I wouldn't say you were overly hostile. There are plenty of examples of "jumping down his throat" throughout the thread to compare with.
Yeah, I'm about done with this thread. It really comes down to biocentrism vs. anthropocentrism, and people on both sides feel pretty strongly about their opinions. No one's convincing anyone.
Ah good good, the bait was taken. /jk And a +1 to ^ there really are better examples of throat jumping here, I was prepared with such an aggressive sounding statement. I'll be doing a bit of devil's advocate with morality here so please ignore or take with salt.
I didn't say humans were superior to animals, I mean to say we a superior type of animal. We are also a resource to be used, and as much as Whale Wars enjoys whale watching, I enjoy people watching. Very serious business you know. Very silly too. We can do instinct, we can also ignore it and change the outcome. You see it in nature; we're living longer so new diseases and problems crop up killing us. Another solution and another way to die shows up. There's a system and we can really mess it up by changing the rules of how we deal with it. New exceptions/codexes if you get my drift.
To quote George Carlin: *edited per Dakka decorum
I realized some time ago that I'm not separate from nature just because I have a primate brain - an upper brain - because underneath the primate brain, there's a mammalian brain, and beneath the mammalian brain, there's a reptilian brain; and it's those two lower brains that made the upper brain possible in the first place. Here's the way it works: The primate brain says, "Give peace a chance." The mammalian brain says, "Give peace a chance, but first let's kill this guy." And the reptilian brain says, "Let's just kill the guy, go to the peace rally and get laid."
It's in us, instinct and free will. That makes us superior. Better? Maybe, maybe not. But we can change and choose.
*edited if this is dead I'm keeping my track record of posting at the tailend of threads before they die. Maybe I should post in these types sooner to 'kill' them off.
All this talk of 'rights' but really all we have are privileges. Another Carlin quote:
"And rights aren't rights if someone can take them away. They're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country, is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you know that every year the list gets shorter and shorter."
If someone can take them away. In my argument, we're animals and animals can take those 'rights' away too. I can be killed by a predator. I can kill it too. I can 'cheat' a snake bite with anti venom. Change the rules, but I keep the privilege to live to tomorrow. I don't have a right to eat, but I can work to have the privilege to eat and even choose what to eat and when. Couldn't do that too long ago. But we changed the rules and that, I feel, is what makes us stand apart form other animals.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/02 23:04:35
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
I think the problem is that they were their with cameras filming the whole thing. If the crew hadn't been, I imagine the Japanese that were there probably would have just frolicked with the dolphins. By observing the events, they changed them. Science says so.
Amidst the mists and coldest frosts he thrusts his fists against the posts and still insists he sees the ghosts.
Gailbraithe wrote:
But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:
A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.
Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.
But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.
If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?
The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.
Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?
The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.
Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
Who is justified now?
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
Who is justified now?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
Who is justified now?
If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.
And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill.
If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
del'Vhar wrote:And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill.
If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
What? None of what you just said makes any kind of sense.
What does "And by universal morality," mean? Universality is a property of systems of morality, but saying "by universal morality" you're implying that universality is a system of morality. That doesn't make any sense. Universality only means that all persons are equal when considered as moral actors, that the rules -- whatever they are -- are the same regardless of who the actor is. So universality tells you whom the rules apply to (everyone) but not what the rules are.
For example Christianity is a (flawed) morality system that features universality. Sex outside the confines of marriage is a sin in the Christian schema. Because sin is universal, even if one if discussing a culture where sex outside the confines of marriage is considered no different than sex inside the marriage, sex outside of marriage remains a sin.
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/03 03:58:33
del'Vhar wrote:And by universal morality, if Dave was morally justified to kill Bob at the start then Dave always has the moral justification to kill. If he has no moral justification to kill, then Dave is suddenly a morally bankrupt person by your logic?
What? None of what you just said makes any kind of sense.
What does "And by universal morality," mean? Universality is a property of systems of morality, but saying "by universal morality" you're implying that universality is a system of morality. That doesn't make any sense. Universality only means that all persons are equal when considered as moral actors, that the rules -- whatever they are -- are the same regardless of who the actor is. So universality tells you whom the rules apply to (everyone) but not what the rules are.
For example Christianity is a (flawed) morality system that features universality. Sex outside the confines of marriage is a sin in the Christian schema. Because sin is universal, even if one if discussing a culture where sex outside the confines of marriage is considered no different than sex inside the marriage, sex outside of marriage remains a sin.
That is the fundamental problem with using universality to provide a solution to complex problems, I believe Kant himself recognised this and stated that the individual must act based upon the situation if the Categorical Imperative fails. (This is based off what I remember, I have a passing knowledge of Kantian morality from uni)
Apologies for using an incorrect phrase, of which the intent was perfectly clear to the point where you identified it.
I meant of course a Moral System or Code that features Universality, such as your own Kantian Humanism (by my understanding)
The point stands, Dave is either morally justified or not in killing Bob. Employing Universality: If he is justified, then Dave (and everyone else) can kill anyone, anytime. In fact by killing Bob, Dave was impeding Bobs right to kill Dave.
If he is not justified, is he now morally bankrupt because he has acted immorally?
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
Claiming I don't understand what you said because I disagree is an odd stance, especially when you don't actually address what I said at all.
My view of universality is that it works for hypothetical situations, provided they have a clear answer. It tends to fall over when faced with a conundrum, such as the Trolley Problem I linked earlier.
If there is no morally acceptable action, and taking no action is equally immoral, what do you do? Does the universe explode because there are no "rules" you can apply?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/03 07:16:07
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:@Gilbraithe: So...it's okay to commit immoral acts under given circumstances? I'm not really following your example with the gun and the knife wielder.
Define "okay." You can commit immoral acts whenever you want. If the law wherever you are is in concordance with morality regarding whatever immoral thing you've and you are caught engaging in that act, then you may suffer a punishment. But there is no inherent penalty for doing something immoral, at least not as far as anyone can prove. There doesn't not appear to be any means by which Cosmic Justice is fulfilled.
The point of the gun and the knife is that we often do what is pragmatic, not what is moral.
But here's an interesting twist on the gun and knife hypothetical that shows why acts need to be considered separate from context:
A man with a knife, Bob, charges a man with a gun, Dave, intent on killing Dave. Dave shoots Bob dead.
Chris tells us this is moral, that what Dave has done is not immoral.
But Dave is a burglar and he has broken into Bob's house to steal something.
If Dave was justified in attacking Bob, then isn't Bob now justified in attacking Dave? If Bob is justified in attacking Dave, is Dave still justified in attacking him?
The thing that Dave broke into Bob's house to steal was stolen from Dave the night before.
Is Bob still justified in attacking Dave? Is Dave now once again justified in defending himself?
The thing that Bob stole from Dave is a giant bag full of crack.
Who is justified now? Bob? Dave? Neither? Both?
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
Who is justified now?
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
Who is justified now?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
Who is justified now?
If your answer ever changed as I added more context, then you have started to recognize the problem with context-dependent ethics. There is always more context that can be added.
First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
Bob stole the bag of crack because he believed that Dave was peddling it to little kids in the neighborhood.
This makes little sense, as wouldn't you report this? You may steal it for evidence (perhaps) but you certainly wouldn't keep it in your home.
Dave wasn't peddling it to little kids, he's actual an uncover DEA agent.
So...why does he want it back?
Dave is also a child molestor, and while Bob doesn't know this, if he doesn't kill Dave, then Dave will rape another twenty children before he's caught.
From what I've gathered, Bob is acting out of reaction to a breaking and entering into his home. As you've said he doesn't know that Dave is a child molestor.
However, while the death of child molestor (I guess) is a good thing, this was not in any way the reason behind Bob's act. Perhaps Dave's death is a fortunate occurence, but Bob did not commit a moral act.
This raises interesting questions on Execution. We want them dead, but few would willingly kill them. (Apart from ITG's)
Emperors Faithful wrote:Hey, it takes insane courage to throw out blanket comments like that. (I notice, Gilbraithe, that you didn't have the guts to throw Christians in that mix until later)
That's not fair. The question put to me only concerned Muslims and Jews. I didn't exclude Christians originally because I was afraid, but because Christians weren't part of the question asked. And I didn't add them in later because I suddenly found courage, I added them in because I don't like Christians and think mostly they have cabbages for heads.
Hoo, boy. You dun fethed up now.
I share your dislike for much of the christian religeon and followers, but this is Dakka. The place where gaking on Muslims is okay, but the moment someone makes a pass at Israel or Christianity then you're in deep doo doo. In that same line of thought it is apparently okay to say 'Dirty Sand Arab' (or words to that effect), but God/Extentionalist Super-being help you if you use the 'N' word.
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
del'Vhar wrote:[Apologies for using an incorrect phrase, of which the intent was perfectly clear to the point where you identified it.
I meant of course a Moral System or Code that features Universality, such as your own Kantian Humanism (by my understanding)
The point stands, Dave is either morally justified or not in killing Bob.
Employing Universality:
If he is justified, then Dave (and everyone else) can kill anyone, anytime.
In fact by killing Bob, Dave was impeding Bobs right to kill Dave.
If he is not justified, is he now morally bankrupt because he has acted immorally?
Dave is never morally justified in killing Bob, under any circumstance, because at all times the maxim "One should not kill a person." is true.
If Dave does kill Bob in self-defense, he is not morally bankrupt by any definition of morally bankrupt I would recognize. Taking an immoral action does not make one morally bankrupt. A person is morally bankrupt when they present or act on amoral reasoning as if it moral reasoning. Ayn Rand and by implication all Objectivits are morally bankrupt because they present selfishness as morality.
So you basically completely failed to get the point of the entire comment you were responding to, didn't you? The point is that one can't base moral judgments of an action off the circumstances in which the action occurred because every situation is infinitely complex. As soon as one asserts that the situation determines the morality of an act, one must begin arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation one will consider (plus there's ignorance to consider). But since every new fact changes the morality of the act, by arbitrarily limiting what facts about the situation we will consider we arbitrarily determine the morality of the act.
Claiming I don't understand what you said because I disagree is an odd stance, especially when you don't actually address what I said at all.
But you didn't disagree. You responded by saying something that makes no sense at all.
My view of universality is that it works for hypothetical situations, provided they have a clear answer.
It tends to fall over when faced with a conundrum, such as the Trolley Problem I linked earlier.
Then your view of universality is wrong. Because the Trolley Problem doesn't point out a flaw in universality at all, and if you think it does then you do not understand the concept of universality. The Trolley Problem doesn't even address universality. Only the Fat Villain variant of the Trolley Problem addresses universality. None of the other variants do. Because only the Fat Villain variant asks if the identity of the person who must be killed to save the five is relevant to the outcome.
If there is no morally acceptable action, and taking no action is equally immoral, what do you do? Does the universe explode because there are no "rules" you can apply?
Who said there was no morally acceptable action? I only said that I couldn't figure it out last night, but no one has ever claimed that I'm the smartest guy that ever lived or that I know everything. The reason I'm having trouble figuring it out is because the Trolley Problem, and especially its variants, all suffer from a fundamental problem in their presentation in that all presume perfect knowledge of the outcome of actions before the actions are taken. And while perfect prediction of the outcome is possible in a hypothetical, it's not possible in reality.
The Fat Man, Fat Villain and Man in the Yard variants in particular invoke this problem. Why would anyone assume that shoving a fat man on the tracks would stop an out of control trolley? If one knew for certain that it would stop the trolley, then I can see how it might influence one's decision making, but one couldn't know it for certain. And to act on that assumption seems highly irrational. I'm pretty sure in reality it wouldn't work.
Beyond that problem, it ultimately it seems to me that it comes down to a question of whether being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome. If we assume that being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome, then we could assert a general maxim: When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.
But there may be arguments I'm failing to consider.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
I don't follow. My approach doesn't consider the situation, only the act. My answer never changes because it never considers any of the points of data I offered, because my answer only considers the act itself, not the situation in which the act occurs.
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
None of the question you ask point out flaws, you've only continued to illustrate my point that as soon as one allows for the situation one is set on a path of infinite regress as one attempts to determine what precisely the situation is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/09/03 11:43:26
Wow, that pamphlet is so misleading. First page/pic is a completely red pool whereas in the next page/pic there's a clear(er) view that shows the water isn't just drenched in carnage but that it's buoyed off from the ocean. Yes, the area where you actually kill the animal will be bloody. Anyone who's cut themselves shaving can attest to how little blood it takes to make water blood red.
On the bottom of the second page it pulls another fast one.
ALMOST ALL DOLPHIN MEAT SOLD IN STORES AND SERVED IN
RESTAURANTS IS CONTAMINATED WITH POLLUTANTS SUCH AS MERCURY, METHYL MERCURY, CADMIUM, DDT, AND PCBS.
How much contamination would be my question. Humans have a natural mercury level, are we contaminated? (yes it's a tiny amount but it's there.)
In 1999, scientists reported that in samples
of meat from dolphins and small whales
(the same kind slaughtered in Taiji):
But it doesn't cite where those samples were taken; 10 years ago! Yes the dry cleaner property has high levels of contaminants, so the grocery store across the street must too. the same kind indeed....recalls of bad peanut butter shipped to America don't affect the product shipped to England. Location matters!
• More than 91% of the samples exceeded
the health limits for one or more pollutants.
• One sample had more than 1,600 times
the maximum permitted amount of mercury
And I would call this misdirection. So what if a sample has 1600 times the allowed amount of anything? Did it go to market? A picture of a meat shelf next to these bullet points makes it seem like these samples came from the local butcher, not out at sea where they likely came from. Remember this is the same kind of meat, not the meat in Taiji itself.
3rd page
REWARD: Sea Shepherd has an offer of $10,000 to the person who can obtain
the most graphic photographic evidence of the carnage, including still photographs
and video footage.
Great, they want the most graphic photographic evidence of the carnage. Way to show an objective view, oh wait, that's not the point. You want shock value. Because as I pointed out, it doesn't take much blood to turn the water red. And that second pic where it shows the buoys cordoning off the water was about half clear water. Can't have that, need all the pics to have blood. Oh but there are pics of happy live dolphins right above that picture so referencing the store picture that had contaminated meat samples this must mean that the dolphins cut themselves shaving
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
If we could avoid the snappiness and personal attacks that are seeping into the thread, that's be much easier for all concerned. I fear the thread might not have that much life in it anyway, but the optimist hat is firmly on today.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
..yes, but I have at least heard of him and some big guy who was also a fridge and a bear.
Crazy country, crazy game, crazy people !
..but they didn't actually win the...err.....title ? Superbowl ? Big bowl of Lucky Charms ? with Mr. Marino ..is that right ?
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Well, I've heard of him, problem was I was born in 82 and doing a wiki check; yeah he went to the Super Bowl in 85 and lost to San Fran. Man, 3 and I was already having alcoholic black outs
Hmm Dolphin steak and tailgating. /jk
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/03 12:36:29
My Sisters of Battle Thread
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/783053.page
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:First of all, I would like to point out that your approach was similarily unhelpful. If your answer NEVER changed (If your moral forbids Killing absolutely) then how can that be applied appropriately?
I don't follow. My approach doesn't consider the situation, only the act. My answer never changes because it never considers any of the points of data I offered, because my answer only considers the act itself, not the situation in which the act occurs.
Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative. (BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Secondly, I'd like to point out a couple of flaws in your moral flowchart.
None of the question you ask point out flaws, you've only continued to illustrate my point that as soon as one allows for the situation one is set on a path of infinite regress as one attempts to determine what precisely the situation is.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them. What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
Gailbraithe wrote:
Dave is never morally justified in killing Bob, under any circumstance, because at all times the maxim "One should not kill a person." is true.
... ...
If we assume that being able to affect the outcome obligates one to act to affect the outcome, then we could assert a general maxim: When forced by circumstances to choose between the lives of a few or many, one should choose the course of action that impacts the minimum possible number of lives.
But there may be arguments I'm failing to consider.
Your ethics seem to have developed a contradiction, sir. I urge you to move from Universality to Utilitarianism, where you try to maximize the good in any situation. It even permits a modicum of selfishness- after all, a known moral agent would ultimately provide more good than an unknown or questionable moral agent.
Back on topic- The Dolphins get slaughtered every year by the Jets. I blame their color scheme myself. Orange and teal doesn't look good on anything.
Klawz-Ramming is a subset of citrus fruit?
Gwar- "And everyone wants a bigger Spleen!"
Mercurial wrote:
I admire your aplomb and instate you as Baron of the Seas and Lord Marshall of Privateers.
Orkeosaurus wrote:Star Trek also said we'd have X-Wings by now. We all see how that prediction turned out.
Orkeosaurus, on homophobia, the nature of homosexuality, and the greatness of George Takei.
English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleyways and mugs them for loose grammar.
I thought it was the Patriots that hated the dolphins....
Of all the races of the universe the Squats have the longest memories and the shortest tempers. They are uncouth, unpredictably violent, and frequently drunk. Overall, I'm glad they're on our side!
Office of Naval Intelligence Research discovers 3 out of 4 sailors make up 75% of U.S. Navy.
"Madness is like gravity... All you need is a little push."
Emperors Faithful wrote:Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative.
Dude, I've already said several times that killing another person is not moral. I'm applying Kantian Humanist moral reasoning to the act, and there is no way to justify killing other people using Kantian moral reasoning. It can't be done.
Seriously, what do you mean I'm not offering an alternative? I think my position has been pretty clear this entire conversation.
(BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Yes. Any system of moral reasoning that requires consideration of "aspects surrounding the act" can never come to a conclusion that itsn't arbitrary.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them.
You really weren't though. You were asking questions about the scenarios, looking for more detail, and making a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't constitute flaws. And it also completely misses the point.
What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
gak happens? Sometimes doing evil results in good, sometimes doing good results in evil.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/04 00:14:13
Australia (Recently ravaged by the Hive Fleet Ginger Overlord)
Gailbraithe wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:Galibraithe, can you please tell me clearly and succintly what moral code you would apply to this act. Or is self-preservation the moral? You're pointing out the problem with changing opinions with the situation, but you are not offering an alternative.
Dude, I've already said several times that killing another person is not moral. I'm applying Kantian Humanist moral reasoning to the act, and there is no way to justify killing other people using Kantian moral reasoning. It can't be done.
Seriously, what do you mean I'm not offering an alternative? I think my position has been pretty clear this entire conversation.
My apologies if I seem like I'm ignoring you, this the first I've heard of Kantian Humanism, and I will be looking it up, so I actually didn't (and still don't really) grasp what you were trying to say.
Let me get this straight. Your posistion is:
Killing anyone is always wrong, no matter the circumstances. I'm going to look this up before I get into any more detail, but so far I'm just relaying this info back to you. Am I completely barking up the wrong tree here?
(BTW, being informed of the act is data itself. The rest of the data is the other aspects surrounding the act. Are you saying that you only need a minimal amount of data to come to a decision?)
Yes. Any system of moral reasoning that requires consideration of "aspects surrounding the act" can never come to a conclusion that itsn't arbitrary.
That's pretty rich, given the extreme arbitrary nature of your moral code. Your code implies that there is no difference between someone who kills for fun and a mother killing to defend her newborn child. What does this blanket Kantian Humanist code have to offer? I need to read up more on the subject, but so far it sounds far more arbitary than Relativism.
I was pointing out flaws with your scenarios, not the moral standard being applied to them.
You really weren't though. You were asking questions about the scenarios, looking for more detail, and making a lot of assumptions, but that doesn't constitute flaws. And it also completely misses the point.
Look, I was just pointing out the flaw in the actions behind the characters. I was arguing that your later examples were a bit far-fetched, the initial examples were solid enough. I wasn't trying to address your arguement concerning the bigger picture. The feasibility of some of the actions regarding the characters struck me as irrational though.
What was your opinion on evil acts (which are duely punished) resulting in good occurences?
gak happens? Sometimes doing evil results in good, sometimes doing good results in evil.
Fair enough. So what was with your point on Dave being a Child Molestor?
I feel like a Kid who's stumbled into the Adult Philosophical Play Center.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/09/04 00:28:56
Smacks wrote:
After the game, pack up all your miniatures, then slap the guy next to you on the ass and say.
the same kind indeed....recalls of bad peanut butter shipped to America don't affect the product shipped to England. Location matters!
Remember boys, everything goes better with a little A-1!