-->
@3RU7AL
@zedvictor4
@Theweakeredge
Btw do you guys wanna play Mafia? It’ll be my first time playing.
Trolley problem
Posts
Total:
159
-->
@Reece101
"That hurts I'll stay away from it", is an internal response to a external stimulus, and thus becomes an acquired strategy....Nothing to do with formulating abstract principles of right or wrong.....Such as killing to eat is right and killing to eat is wrong so I will become a vegetarian Lion because I believe that is moral.
And hierarchical social structure is an inherent social principle, as apparent in human society as it is in animal societies....Once again, nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
-->
@zedvictor4
"That hurts I'll stay away from it", is an internal response to a external stimulus, and thus becomes an acquired strategy....Nothing to do with formulating abstract principles of right or wrong
Firstly, all thought is abstract.
Secondly, learning from a past mistake and preventing it from happening again in the future, is quintessential to ethics.
Such as killing to eat is right and killing to eat is wrong so I will become a vegetarian Lion because I believe that is moral.
Lions have been known to spare calves. Anyway, killing is a necessity for them to survive just as our ancestors.
When do you think humans developed morality in general?
And hierarchical social structure is an inherent social principle, as apparent in human society as it is in animal societies....Once again, nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
How?
-->
@Reece101
3RU7AL probably considers lying immoral (bad/wrong) even if it would save a persons life.The thing is morality is the distinction between right and wrong, not what is right or wrong (It’s situational).
Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.
-->
@zedvictor4
And hierarchical social structure is an inherent social principle, as apparent in human society as it is in animal societies....Once again, nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
Well stated.
-->
@zedvictor4
so what chance a moral and legal system, above and separate from instinctive social behaviour.
That might seem slightly redundant.
Pool fencing.
-->
@3RU7AL
3RU7AL probably considers lying immoral (bad/wrong) even if it would save a persons life.
The thing is morality is the distinction between right and wrong, not what is right or wrong (It’s situational).
Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.
Hmm sounding a bit “incoherent” there.
-->
@Reece101
Deontological ethics does not necessarily mean all lying is bad-wrong.Hmm sounding a bit “incoherent” there.
The key point about deontological ethics is not a specific code (this old book says this or that).
The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.
-->
@3RU7AL
The key point about deontological ethics is not a specific code (this old book says this or that).The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.
Deontology would dictate that lying is bad regardless if it saved a persons life, correct?
Why do you think consequentialism is incoherent and not you?
-->
@Reece101
The key point about deontological ethics is not a specific code (this old book says this or that).The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.Deontology would dictate that lying is bad regardless if it saved a persons life, correct?Why do you think consequentialism is incoherent and not you?
Deontological ethics would not dictate that specifically.
I would phrase it as a conditional statement (IFF) you claim that lying is always evil (thou shalt not bear false witness) (THEN) lying is always evil (regardless of the consequences)
CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE (ON MORAL SCALES).
YOUR PERSONAL ABILITY TO PERFORM A MORAL ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON YOUR ACCESS TO A SOOTHSAYER.
FOR EXAMPLE, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ut0ai4s4mjU
-->
@3RU7AL
Deontological ethics would not dictate that specifically.I would phrase it as a conditional statement (IFF) you claim that lying is always evil (thou shalt not bear false witness) (THEN) lying is always evil (regardless of the consequences)
However you wanna phrase it.
CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PREDICT THE FUTURE (ON MORAL SCALES).
You can’t morally judge potential actions until after they occur? How many brain worms do you have? Please, just think of the implications of that for a second.
YOUR PERSONAL ABILITY TO PERFORM A MORAL ACTION SHOULD NOT BE CONTINGENT ON YOUR ACCESS TO A SOOTHSAYER.
We accurately predict our own actions in everyday life. And you’re saying we can’t morally judge until it happens.
-->
@Reece101
We accurately predict our own actions in everyday life. And you’re saying we can’t morally judge until it happens.
Please provide a specific example.
-->
@3RU7AL
The key point about deontological ethics is that your (personal) ethical code must be coherent.
1} Any "code" is something that is constructed over years of experience, and,
2] subject to change, and,
3} that change is more so when considering circumstances alter cases, and,
4} a judgement call on one day may be differrent than another day, because, nobody is perfect 100% of the time, and,
5} over the years we have seen in tv and movies how the lines between good and bad can become blurred i.e. lifes realities are can sometime be very complicated set of circumstances --see #3---, and,
6} whatever other complexities I'm not considering, even after seeing many possible complexities in movies over many years.
Seeing the coherence of ones actions is not necessarily going to be clear to every observer, ergo, others will judge on their limited set of information, that, maybe less or more complete in the amount of data/info involved in the complexities of life and death with trolleys or any other scenarios.
Complexity = less judgemental over shorted time periods of consideration i.e. I dunno is sometimes the only answer.
On the other end we have those who feel they must know, and those type are usually more limited to either yes or no answers to any set of circumstances, and that is less than considerate of a more wholistic set of circumstances.
-->
@ebuc
On the other end we have those who feel they must know, and those type are usually more limited to either yes or no answers to any set of circumstances, and that is less than considerate of a more wholistic set of circumstances.
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
-->
@3RU7AL
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF (2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY (3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY
Ok fine, but then step outside of your presented trinary bubble and see how many more considerations can be added to your code of three.
Protect you neighbors, if one feels the neighbors are worthy of being protected. And the list goes on and on.
1} protect yourself, unless you know your life is very short ergo you are allowed to choose others protection over your own. Same may go for their property as that property may consist of circumstances that effect many other peoples way out of danger ergo they will be protected if some one who owns a trolly that will take them out of danger.
Just watch the last 5o years of movies to see how complicated the scenarios can become.
So at each junction of 1, 2, 3 there is a subset of pathways to consider and they may exist more or less time to make a judgement call, with more or less info and with more or less of a persons personal cognitive abilities at the time. Sorry I was in a stupor --for various complicated reasons-- when I made my decison to not protect A, B and C but rather Aaaa, Bbbb that the led me to Ccccc subsets
-->
@ebuc
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF (2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY (3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTYOk fine, but then step outside of your presented trinary bubble and see how many more considerations can be added to your code of three.
Sure, sometimes these get re-shuffled, one can put themselves sometimes (although rarely) second instead of first, or even third in some extreme cases.
But the core structure remains intact.
The core structure remains intact regardless of the circumstances.
NEO risks the destruction of the entire world in order to save TRINITY.
-->
@3RU7AL
The core structure remains intact regardless of the circumstances.
Ok fine, until any individual chooses to step outside of those three and there may exist millions of scenarios where the individual will choose to do so.
1} humans will trample their own family to get to oxygen as core genetics kick in,
2} humans will trample others to save their family first,
3} humans will destroy others property to protect their own property?
The coherent trinary code may have moral and other cracks in it.
In the move the 'Titanic' it was women and children first, not self first fro men, tho we saw in movie some men trying to get into the lifeboats.
-->
@ebuc
1} humans will trample their own family to get to oxygen as core genetics kick in,2} humans will trample others to save their family first,3} humans will destroy others property to protect their own property?
Well stated.
-->
@ebuc
In the move the 'Titanic' it was women and children first, not self first fro men, tho we saw in movie some men trying to get into the lifeboats.
Social brainwashing (that takes advantage of our instincts) can override our individual moral grounding to some degree.
Protecting "women and children" is a subversion of "PROTECT YOUR FAMILY".
Our instinct to protect pregnant women is especially strong (and generalized).
For example,
-->
@Intelligence_06
SWARM INTELLIGENCE SOLVES THE TROLLEY PROBLEM.
-->
@3RU7AL
YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE.
What about an event you did not cause, but participated in, like a Hitler Youth becoming an auschwitz camp guard?
-->
@3RU7AL
SWARM INTELLIGENCE SOLVES THE TROLLEY PROBLEM.
So humans become Star Treks, 'The Borg' with moral constructs within the Borg { aggrregate human morality set }.
Good concept, tho without input of all humans ---ergo all human cultures---, we may still have some parts of the Trinary Core Code that have uncalled for cracks in the code.
In Great Britain or other countries with socialized medicine, the decission is made that greater the age, the less expense that is placed on the individuals care. If I understand correctly.
In the Swam Intelligence video the "the boy" was chosen to be run over by car, but then again I dont have list of all the AI options in front of me.
If there was girl and boy options then girls make sense for those who understand that there are female species of animals that make exactly clones of themselves, whereas there is no male species that can do that. This means that if human women have option to carry on without men, then there is evolutionary chance the the sexual biodiversity { the male seed } could evolve from the female and in fact is what some genetics have shown to be where the y chromosome came from originally
-->
@ebuc
the y chromosome came from originally
The "Y" is quite obviously a deformed "X".
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok except the SRY gene is not found in X chromosome without relationship to the y, so it is not obvious in consideration of that.
Again, it is assumed that that the SRY evolved { -de-volved } from the X chromosome.
-->
@ebuc
In the Swam Intelligence video the "the boy" was chosen to be run over by car, but then again I dont have list of all the AI options in front of me.
(1) one baby in a stroller
(2) one boy
(3) one girl
(4) one pregnant woman
(5) two male doctors
(6) two female doctors
Who needs to die today?
-->
@ebuc
Ok, well, there's also the fact that some people are born with a "Y" that has an extra, partial leg (not enough to make an "X") and these people tend to manifest a mixture of both male-typical and female-typical physiologies.
-->
@3RU7AL
1) one baby in a stroller (2) one boy (3) one girl (4) one pregnant woman (5) two male doctors(6) two female doctors
My choice may have been to elminate all the males first, and more so in case of only a few humans left on Earth except for the following consideration.
Next, if only a few humans on Earth, the boy or girl are assumed to have better chance of actually surviving, than infant, so baby is my choice to go before boy or girl
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, well, there's also the fact that some people are born with a "Y" that has an extra, partial leg (not enough to make an "X") and these people tend to manifest a mixture of both male-typical and female-typical physiologies.
Ive heard it said that all babies or fetus's begin as female and the SRY gene ---or whatever mcehanism--- causes the clit, to protrude outward to become the head of the penis.
And that is not to be confused with female who has extended clitoris. Again, X chromosome has no SRY gene unless it is tranferred from the much smaller y.
And again, it is assumed the SRY gene evolved from the X chromosome. Or can from outer space or the mechanism the cause y to evolve from X came from outer space.
Xx - Xy = Trinary three with X repeating itself in males
-->
@ebuc
Next, if only a few humans on Earth, the boy or girl are assumed to have better chance of actually surviving, than infant, so baby is my choice to go before boy or girl
I think that's more of a "rational" choice than a purely instinctive (moral) choice.
It is BECAUSE an infant needs more protection that our instincts (generally) more strongly coax us to protect infants.