Total posts: 14,582
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I think that if ANYperson were to save everybody (they could possibly save) every second they could they would be mentally run down and therefore physically run down. If they were to use that mentality then he would start to inherently blame themselves as the cause of every death (they could have prevented), which would further detract from their abilities. Therefore it is necessary for them to take breaks, to do things like this. everyday.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Wrong, there are actually machines which can depict, with general accuracy, whether someone is lying or not.
The Truth About Lie Detectors (aka Polygraph Tests)
Most psychologists agree that there is little evidence that polygraph tests can accurately detect lies.
Lie detector tests have become a popular cultural icon — from crime dramas to comedies to advertisements — the picture of a polygraph pen wildly gyrating on a moving chart is readily recognized symbol. But, as psychologist Leonard Saxe, PhD, (1991) has argued, the idea that we can detect a person's veracity by monitoring psychophysiological changes is more myth than reality. Even the term "lie detector," used to refer to polygraph testing, is a misnomer. So-called "lie detection" involves inferring deception through analysis of physiological responses to a structured, but unstandardized, series of questions. [THE AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Do you or do you not agree with the points which you have dropped?
Please be slightly more specific.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Was he aware of them? No.
Superman has an above average intelligence. It is reasonable to believe that Superman is aware that somebody somewhere is in danger every second of every day.
Does Superman actually have to use the restroom... nope, he doesn't need to eat, as his body can work with photosynthesis alone.
Post-Crisis Superman seemed a bit more human and mentions more than once:
- He did need to breathe, just not very often and could hold his breath for a very long time, hours or even days if he needed to. (His body must not NEED oxygen at the same rate ours did, supplementing solar energy for whatever metabolic processes needed oxygen. He never notes whether it was painful to hold his breathe for such extended periods. He has worn a spacesuit and used compressed oxygen tablets when forced into space for extended periods.
- He notes he needed to sleep for the same reasons we do, to give his mind a chance to rest and process information through dreaming. He talked about going long periods without sleep noting reduced efficiency if he went longer than a month or two. (The clinical safe record for humans is about 11 days.)
- Post Crisis Superman was known to eat, mostly with his friends and family, but it was never made clear whether he NEEDED to eat. Since eating is both about repairing tissue and providing energy to the body, both things handled by his solar energy process, it is conceivable, Post Crisis Superman had no reason to have to eat other than enjoying the food and the company. [LINK]
Well, apparently, whether or not Superman NEEDS to eat, he certainly does eat and I think we can safely guess that the food is digested at some point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.That is not what you claimed
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Until now you did not specify that you were referring to the trolley problem exclusively,
ALL TROLLEY "PROBLEMS" SOLVED FOREVER.YOU CAN NEVER BE HELD MORALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR AN EVENT YOU DID NOT CAUSE. [POST#6]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Your dishonest analogies are getting a little old.
AD HOMINEM ATTACK.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You're saying that considering the fact that a CRIMINAL may be lying is "telling the future"?
How do you know if they are lying or not?
You only know IN THE FUTURE when they either KILL or NOT KILL someone every hour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If he had the power to stop it and did not, then yes.
Ok, no more bathroom breaks for Superman.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
If you directly cause an action you have the most fault, if you help the action then you have some fault, if you let the action happen then you have less fault -
We agree.
And I'd say (IFF) you're thrust unexpectedly into a time-sensitive situation where you apparently have the ability to choose who lives and who dies without knowing who might be a saint and who might be a heinous criminal (THEN) you can be absolved for not taking action on severely limited information.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop.
For example, is Superman (hypothetically) morally responsible for everyone who dies when they visit the fortress of solitude?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Next, as I already said, you would be morally responsible to a lesser degree than the murderer.
Please explain how you measure this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
However, it is also possible that the criminal is lying, even likely
(IFF) your moral code relies on accurately predicting the future (THEN) your morality is functionally indistinguishable from WITCHCRAFT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Hence why you are not morally responsible for something which you have no opportunity to stop.
So, basically as long as you don't know that child labor is used in the production of about 50% of chocolate candy on the world market then you can't be held indirectly responsible for contributing to exploitation of child labor.
What happens when you do know?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can, however, abide murder by inaction. Such is standing aside as a trolley is about to murder a person and not even attempting to turn the tracks.
I disagree.
How can someone be held responsible for something they did not cause?
It's like a criminal who says, "if you don't send me all your money, I will kill one person every hour", do their words magically make you a murder?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
The action of NOT DOING SOMETHING in response to specific stimuli is still an action
Ok, so according to your ONTOLOGY, rocks can take actions?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Furthermore, IF you have consciously decided to NOT do something, THEN it is comparable to positively affirming a negative proposition.
A negative claim is not the same as a "negative action".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Second of all, that means that nobody has any moral obligation to not murder people, if you accept that people have moral obligation to not do something, then you accept that they have moral obligation to stop things which people should not do.
This entire discussion is about THE MORAL JUSTIFICATION OF INACTION.
You can't MURDER someone by INACTION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
What Is an Accessory?Accessories are usually people who cover up the crime after it has been committed.
This still requires ACTION.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
You have not provided sufficient argument to convince me that someone who has the ability to prevent something which they "know" is bad, and has done nothing, is, at the very least, indirectly responsible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
the context of situations can clearly change the intended moral point of an action, furthermore - none of these things are likely to happen, and thus using it to declare anything of that sort all wrong is faulty, these are outliers.
What is likely and what is not likely are morally irrelevant.
If we could perfectly predict the future, we wouldn't need laws.
Making any exceptions to the rules for any reason breeds corruption.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Oh? Foreknowledge that something will hurt somebody, and you are immediately able to use that knowledge to save them isn't analogous? I beg your pardon? Do you have an actual rebuttal, or just claims?
Generally speaking, most people are under no legal obligation to report a crime, whether they knew about it in advance, witnessed its commission, or found out about it after the fact. However, there are exceptions to this law that you ought to know about.
Aiding and Abetting a Crime (Penal Code section 31)
In California, you can be charged with the crime that was committed if you aided or abetted in its commission, but did not actually commit the crime yourself. Penal Code section 31 describes the phrase “aiding and abetting” as meaning that you assisted another person to commit a crime. Prosecutors can charge you as an aider and abettor whenever you:
- Know the perpetrator’s illegal plan,
- Intentionally encourage and/or facilitate that plan, and
- Aid, promote, or instigate in the crime’s commission.
You don’t have to be actually present at the scene of the crime to be charged under what is known as “accomplice liability.” If you willfully participated in the planning of a crime prior to its commission, you can be held criminally liable as an “accessory before the fact.”
If you take a passive role during a crime in progress, such as acting as a lookout or disabling a security device, you can be prosecuted as a perpetrator in the second degree (an accomplice).
Finally, if you help to conceal a crime already committed (hiding stolen money or weapons used in the crime’s commission, for example), or give assistance to perpetrators of crime to help them avoid detection, arrest or prosecution, you can be charged as an “accessory after the fact.”
In these situations, you are culpable under the accomplice liability theory because you knew of the illegal plan and willfully did something to cause it to be carried out or concealed. [LINK]
WILLFULLY DID SOMETHING
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
you have no justifiable reason to ignore your moral obligation to save the more lives,
Humans will always follow these instinctive rules,
(1) PROTECT YOURSELF.
(2) PROTECT YOUR FAMILY.
(3) PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY.
And only then, if it's convenient, you might consider saving some lives of outsiders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
And I would like for you to specifically answer how "consequentialism" is incoherent.
There was a farmer who one day left his stable door ajar and his horse wandered away.
His neighbor notes, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, for now you have lost your only horse."
The farmer doesn't reply.
A few days later his horse returned with a wild horse.
His neighbor is surprised and exclaims, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable! Because now you have two horses!"
The farmer doesn't reply.
A week later the farmer's son is training the new horse and is thrown onto a rock and breaks his leg.
The neighbor sympathetically comments, "it is a terrible thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because now your son is lame."
The farmer doesn't reply.
The next year their king declares war and forcibly recruits all of the able bodied young men to fight.
The neighbor chuckles, "it is a wonderful thing that you forgot to secure your stable, because your son, being lame, will not have to face the horrors of battle."
The farmer doesn't reply.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
This is a fairly basic principle.
You'd think so.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Firstly: if you had the opportunity to stop something "bad" and refused to do so, in other words doing nothing, then you are morally culpable. Because you are indirectly responsible this is easily seen in law: guilty by association and all that
Foreknowledge of a criminal conspiracy that you can report to the authorities is NOT A TROLLEY PROBLEM.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The correct answer to the trolley problem is that there is no definitely correct answer and there never will be.
DOING NOTHING IS ALWAYS THE CORRECT ANSWER TO "TROLLEY PROBLEMS".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I needed no options. He said God made evil. God did not make evil. I told him so.
Who made evil?
(IFF) you stick with your "shadow" analogy (THEN) whoever made "light" also made "shadow" at the exact same time.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
IF he made humans with inherent value, THEN he is necessarily obligated to protect them.
Sound logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
A person can be very authoritarian on one issue and extremely anarchic/libertarian on another.
Please explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
But they advance to the last switch, 450 volts, a dangerous severe shock, XXX, because they're politely told to.
The results are terrifying and depressing.
They suggest that the kind of character produced in American society can't be counted on to insulate its citizens from brutality, and inhumane treatment in response to a malevolent authority. [LINK]
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
You seem to be suggesting that evil is an UNINTENDED, UNAVOIDABLE consequence of good.No, I suggested that evil was not "created" like your logic challenged pal said.
Your only other option is to pretend that evil "shadowdarkness" "existed" "before" "YHWH".
And if that's your solution then your "eternal" and "creator of all" both go out-the-window.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I told you that you were not God's child.
I thought Jesus loved everyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
I mean, if I had the powers of god? Sure. But to be fair I don't think thats a very high bar - I mean.... I'm pretty sure anybody could be a better god than what god allegdedly is.
Here's a good illustration.
In the television show WATCHMEN, Dr. Manhattan is (very nearly) omniscient and (very nearly) omnipotent.
This power has been demonstrated publicly and nearly everyone on the planet believes Dr. Manhattan is a de facto god.
Some people accept that Dr. Manhattan is "doing what's best for everyone even if we don't understand it".
Other people think they could do a much better job and have made plans to become gods themselves by carefully studying how Dr. Manhattan became a god.
Dr. Manhattan doesn't care about their ambitions because he knows that any being with his same power and knowledge would act exactly as he acts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I use a VPN nearly 24/7 for my general browsing and value privacy and protection against abusive governments
Does your VPN provider have your credit card info?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yes that is 100% my stance.
You're not getting a result that matches your self-image because your position is incoherent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Exactly.
Do you still believe your "left" vs. "right" one-dimensional scale is better than the alternative (4 quadrant map)?
Just based on this one brief conversation, I wouldn't personally say we are an "exact match" politically speaking.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Political Compass gives me a libertarian stance even when I answer 100% honest without 'tweaking' based on stats.So, if you consider me authoritarian, take it up with the quiz.
It sounds like you're a functional libertarian who still has faith that a "good king" is the ideal option.
Bad invasions of privacy are bad.
Good invasions of privacy are good.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
So, it would seem that even though our positions are an exact match on your political survey, this glosses over our significant disagreements on personal privacy.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I value safety above freedom if we take it to the extreme, without question.
That is a de facto pro-authoritarian position.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Depends on the issue. It definitely ranked me far more anti-authoritarian than my actual stance.
What's your opinion on using cell phone gps (and other assorted) data to identify suspects in the vicinity of a political protest?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Do you consider yourself "pro authoritarian"?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I have, multiple times. I understand what it's ranking based on so I know how to get the result I want.
Where did you land?
One of the dumbest questions on it is 'If corporations serve the interests of humanity, it is in our best interest to enable them' or something like that.
This is a perfect question.
(IFF) some or even most corporations were "good" (THEN) would you support corporate rights and corporate power?
The answer is "NEVER".
IT'S EXACTLY THE SAME AS ASKING "IF KINGS PROTECTED PEOPLE, WOULD YOU SUPPORT KINGS?"
The answer is always strongly agree if we tske the 'if' question to genuinely be 'if'.
NOPE.
The fact it uses belief in astrology to determine alignment, among pther arbitrary things like attitude towards pornography which is a very oddly put question
These are also fantastic questions.
People who believe in astrology are generally less intellectually rigorous.
Nobody is going to honestly answer a direct question like, "Are you generally less intellectually rigorous?"
Anti-pornography advocates are against personal freedom and personal privacy.
Nobody is going to honestly answer a direct question like, "Are you against personal freedom and personal privacy?"
as well as 'respecting privacy of all consenting adults behind closed doors' which could be doing heinous things such as building a terrible device or planning a very devastating coup, not just having BDSM sex, is a sign of a very flawed quiz/test.
This is precisely the point.
(IFF) you only believe in personal privacy for some things but not other things (THEN) YOU ARE ANTI-PRIVACY
A lot of the questions are terribly one-answer-is-always-correct based on literal interpretation,
Only you think they are obviously one-sided.
while others require a neutral response and there is no neutral answer option.
There are 4 options, two on the fence line and two firmly in one camp or the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Political compass is a superficial test that ignores reasoning behind values and focuses only on chosen values in ultimatums that don't represent real situations.
Try it.
POLITICAL COMPASS IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE ACCURATE THAN YOUR "LEFT" VS. "RIGHT" (ONE DIMENSIONAL) SCALE.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Do dogs care about dictionary definitions?No, again I fail to see your point, please make it rather then point out the obvious.
Only humans use dictionaries.
Definitions are written for humans.
Only humans use definitions.
Claiming that definitions apply (somehow) regardless of whether human minds exist or not is INCOHERENT.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
In the same way that a gromblegop isn't an actual OBJECT, a "1" is not an actual OBJECT.Again, how do you know objectivity is limited to just objects?
Please present what you consider a perfect fact.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
CONSEQUENTIALISM IS INCOHERENT.Incoherent relative to what?
DEONTOLOGICAL ETHICS.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
So you think that as long as I go my intended path, no matter how many people lay on the track, I can crush them as freely as possible as long as it is not malevolent and intentional?
(IFF) I am morally responsible for EVERY DEATH I could possibly prevent (THEN) I am a mass-murderer.
YOU CAN ONLY BE MORALLY CULPABLE FOR THINGS YOU CAUSE.
EVEN CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS.
IT'S HOW "YHWH" GETS A FREE-PASS FOR EARTHQUAKES AND HURRICANES.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
Trolley runs over the scientist. Hope no one disagrees with that
If they're a true scientist, then their research should all be public domain anyway, so any other scientist should be able to pick up where they left off.
Created: