Right or wrong?

[Exorcet]

In a way, yes. This situation is extreme and the decision has to be made in fractions of a second, but basically it is the decision between two alternatives:

a) to die

b) to live with the memory that your friends died and suffered.

For some, b) is the worse of both alternatives ...

 

I believe that so called altruism is just a special form of egoism - when we break it down to, let's say the biological standpoint. People don't do good deeds because it helps other people. Instead they do good deeds because they like the warm fuzzy feeling that it gives them. Or at least, because they feel better when doing these than when not doing it.

Evolution is about passing on genes, not living long. Altruism evolved because the older humans giving up their stuff/lives for the younger gave their genes an advantage.

 

If you were selfish and your house was burning down and you ran out and left your kids to die, evolution stops there.

 

The parent that goes into the fire and saves the kids may die, but his kinds have his altruism gene. It is passed on.

[Schnittertm]

What would the logic say in this case:

Track 1: 5 adults, track 2: one child?

 

Or even more delicate:

1 adult vs. 1 child - this one is easy, eh?

2 adults vs. 1 child - still somewhat easy to decide?

3 adults vs. 1 child?

...

5 adults vs. 1 child?

10 adults? 20?

 

Childs lifes are deemed "worth more" perhaps? How much more? When would the scale be weighted down in favour for the adults? How does one "calculate" that?

 

Again, the case of logic would dictate that the many outweigh the few, the other thing starts to go into what I said, that morals are subjective.

 

You might go a bit further though. Are the adults still able and willing to procreate? If so, then the loss of the child is acceptable, as they can easily 'make' more. If, however, they are barren, then let them die. The only logic, if you could call it that, is for the life to go on multiplying and spreading and adapting if it wants to survive. In this case only ability and willingness to procreate would be the logical choice.

 

You could go even further, to show how logic can be quite contratry to human decission making, by saying that the child is terminally ill. In this case let it die each time, every time. But what if you don't know that, but see a lot of 90 year olds on the other track. Then you might try to safe the child, as logic would dictate that it is able to procreate, whereas the others aren't. The end result being, that you effictively 'removed' five people that weren't able to procreate at all to safe a child that won't get old enough to procreate, so effectively you would have changed nothing, no matter the decission. Yet your logic would have dictated that you were right.

 

A whole can of worms you could open up there.

 

Heck, even in the natural universe are things that we can describe by mathematics, but can't really fathom. Electrons being all over the place and measuring them would change their state, meaning the measuring is pointless. We can only describe it by probabilities, which are mathematically logical and coherent, but give only a description of reality, yet do not necessarily depict the real, current state of a system.

 

Many are the times when logic fails and we can't make a decision or have to make a gut decision. Some decissions we can put off until later, until we have more information, but most of the time we just don't have all the information we need and need to decide on the information we have. I think there was a TNG episode where Geordi explained it in some such way to Lal (Data's daughter), after Lal had asked why decisions are not made with all data available.

[Flagrum]

The answer is to do nothing. To pull the level means that you value the 5 people more than the one person, which cannot be justified. That's what logic says.

Doing nothing can not save you from this dilemma. You have a choice only between two alternatives and you make your choice pro the one and contra the other alternative - wether this involves some sort of physical action or not.

 

The decision making is the same if you had only one track and the lever would just stop the cart. The lever is in the position that the cart will kill a person. You can't now turn away and say "well, it was already set up this way, I am not responsible for it!".

[Flagrum]

Evolution is about passing on genes, not living long. Altruism evolved because the older humans giving up their stuff/lives for the younger gave their genes an advantage.

 

If you were selfish and your house was burning down and you ran out and left your kids to die, evolution stops there.

 

The parent that goes into the fire and saves the kids may die, but his kinds have his altruism gene. It is passed on.

Yes, no objections here for a change. :o)

 

Evolution just utilizes the endocrine system with all the body's self produced fancy drugs like endorphins and the like.

[Schnittertm]

No subjective idea is better. You can distinguish between good or bad subjective thoughts. Objective ideas can be evaluated.

 

Red is ugly, true or false?

 

I think red is ugly, true of false?

 

Subjective ideas are equal, true or false?

 

If the last one is true, no subjective idea is better than another. A is "evil" because he disagrees and then acts on that disagreement. B isn't forcing anything on anyone. If A just holds the idea but does not act, then nothing is wrong.

 

 

 

The formula was not the formula for morals, it was an example of logic that always holds true.

 

 

Logically consistent

 

 

This works too by itself

 

 

 

There is a jump here, that killing is right. That does not follow from killing not being not killing (true) or X not being Y (true). It is merely stated.

 

 

Killing yourself is moral by being not immoral. Killing yourself certainly isn't bad, because killing is not bad. People stopping suicide are incorrect if the person who wants to kill themselves wants to die. It's their life. This doesn't mean that stopping suicide is always wrong though. Suicide, like killing is a wider term. That's why it looks like logically applying morals doesn't apply to it. It's because you're trying to apply morals to various things, some contradictory.

 

To say suicide is wrong is to put someone with a mental illness killing themselves because a voice in their head told them to and someone who is in their senses but in great pain in the same bucket. That doesn't work. The ill person is misguided by their disease. They don't actually want to die. The person in great pain does.

 

 

Not killing Hitler in self defense would never be the "right" thing to do. Hitler violated rights, self defense vs him is fine. If after he is killed, the next person 20 times worse comes along, you defend yourself against that guy.

 

 

Killing Hitler is unjust until he violates someone's rights, no matter what hindsight we have. The best you could do is find a time machine and stalk him until he tried to kill his political rivals, at which point you could put him and his followers in jail. Going back to his birth and killing him them would land you in jail.

 

 

Torture is wrong for getting an admission of guilt, you have no right to torture someone innocent and if you don't know that they did it in the first place, they're innocent.

 

 

Why would objective morals make killing always wrong?

 

 

 

This sounds like an issue we had on the forum a couple of days ago

 

F-15 supercruising is wrong

Unless it in clean configuration

But not if it's really hot and the engines lack thrust

though possibly if it uses afterburer to get to Mach 1

 

The various circumstances aren't an indication of a lack of objectivity. It's an indication that you're not using sufficient wording. X is not a single thing, but a variety of things, some conflicting. This dooms the argument from the start.

 

 

That sounds right.

 

Moral = 1 (true)

 

Immoral = 0 (false)

 

Person A kills B. Is A wrong?

 

Person A:

 

is an organism that can understand rights: 1

 

has no right to put his will above others: 1

 

Person B:

 

is an organism that can understand rights: 1

 

has no right to put his will above others: 1

 

Respected the above: 1

 

Person A:

 

Did respected the above: 0

 

1^5 * 0 = 0

 

Person A is not morally correct. Notice that it only takes one immoral action to make a person wrong, while any number of moral actions leads to the same outcome (1, moral correctness).

 

 

His idea that his being alive is important is subjective, so it can't be more important than the other person's idea of having bread. But I'll go on.

 

 

Indeed. The idea that we don't want our stuff taken is subjective and is no basis for the idea that having it stolen is wrong. Instead we need to look at the fact that all subjective ideas are equal, which means there is no justification for putting one will above another.

 

 

D'Almber's paradox, Schrodinger's cat, Zeno's arrow, etc. We can argue over concrete facts because we can make mistakes or find things unintuitive. It doesn't make those facts wrong.

 

 

 

The answer is to do nothing. To pull the level means that you value the 5 people more than the one person, which cannot be justified. That's what logic says.

 

From a subjective standpoint, well, it's do what you want. You could kill that one person and it wouldn't matter, no matter how much that person wanted to live.

 

 

I appreciate the counter points. I still disagree with you, but feedback as provided is a good way to show any holes in my thoughts I might otherwise miss and I'd really rather not be wrong about this.

 

So, where do you derive your moral compass from, that tells you that not putting your will above that of another person is 'right'? That already is a moral judgement, where you assume that this is the natural state of the system. Yet, you would have to test and prove or disprove this hypothesis.

 

Is understanding rights, which are made up by societal rules, both in the animal kingdom, as well as human society the basis? If so, then we should acknowledge that human society is hierachical in structure and then it is right for some to put their will above that of others, as it is accepted by that society. That is a problem, right then and there, because there are daily things that happen on small, as well as large scales.

 

So, which is the natural state? A society where each individual is totally equal in rights and duties or one where some have more duties, but get a leeway in rights (because they are state leaders or diplomats or just rich people).

 

If anything, nature shows us that it is just that inequality that breeds evolution. Some genes give an advantage and survive, others are neutral and may survive, yet others are detrimental and might not survive. But in all of this there is variation, not a clear cut border. This is also evidence in paeleological findings. You can't find a clear cut line between a homo erectus and its direct predecessor and ancestors. The changes accrued over time and then some one decided that we call this type of skeletal build Erectus and the other Egaster.

 

So, how can we arrive at equality of morals if nature itself is not fair. Too big, too small, too fat, too slim, too dumb, too intelligent. Again, you are asking for an absolute measure of morality that I can not see.

 

Same with the trolley. Do nothing? That, too, is a moral judgement, because you had the opportunity to do something, yet did nothing, so you valued that life of one person higher than that of five or you valued your own peace of mind higher than that of all six persons involved. You see, that is the crux of that problem, not doing anything does not magically absolve you of any or all moral obligations. Deciding to do nothing is still a decision, a subjective descision, that says I don't want to get involved, I needn't get involved and it is right by my moral compass.

[Exorcet]

Equal when? Each individual has a his/her own personal (subjective) opinion on which view is right or wrong. There is no external perspective from which all views are always equal.

They are all non objective correct? That means they all lack objective value, making them equal. They have zero objective value. Whatever value an individual puts on their ideas means nothing, that's all subjective.

 

 

 

By "someone" I don't necessarily mean someone else has to acknowledge a right. It's enough with the individual itself that claims to have the right.

 

So tell me why the UN has set up a document specifying the human rights and not a document specifying the laws of physics? Why would it need a document that needs to be signed by all countries if it's part of nature and cannot be questioned?

For the same reason people write documents denying the holocaust and stating the world is flat. They made a mistake. I'm not trying to sound full of myself here. I'm capable of being wrong, which is why I like to test my ideas, but pointing out that humans disagree with something isn't going to show much. Humans disagreed with or were ignorant of just about everything originally.

 

 

 

Rights do not need to be objective to be respected. Humans are full of subjectivity to cover for any lack off objectivity.

Humans can respect the subjective, yes, but you don't have subjective rights. That's because they're subjective. Someone can respect them, but it's rather pointless.

 

 

 

 

No (as I said previously, there exists no perspective from which all are always equal).

OK then this is the issue. I'm having a hard time seeing how it's disagreed with though. On a personal basis anything can ranked anywhere. We agree there. However this personal view is just that, personal and subjective. It has an objective value of zero. Wouldn't you agree? If all subjective ideas have zero objective value, they're equal in value. They have none.

 

 

No, any value put on the ideas would be by those individuals exposed to them and they would rank them by their own subjective opinion. There is no external perspective where they are always equal.

The first part is fine, but it doesn't mesh with the second. The values are subjective. You can't correctly choose between things based on subjective measures. That's why things like "best color" have no answer. "Best color to blend in at night" has an answer because it's objective whether something blends in with night level light or not.

 

 

No offence but I don't think you do.

Well, you're saying it's wrong.

 

 

 

Anything can be justified if someone is of the opinion that it is right.

Then wouldn't I be justified in saying that nothing can be justified unless it's objective?

 

Is someone justified in teaching that the world is flat because they believe it's right? Are they right?

 

 

What's your definition of logic? Logic can be as simple as "is there food? if yes, then I will eat. if no, then I must look for food" and probably any living organism is capable of making some type of decision.

Logic is reasoning using facts. Asking if there is food and think I must look for some requires understanding of food and I. You could program a computer to make the decision above, it wouldn't understand either concept though.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT

 

I see more good points, but I'm going to stop for bit so I'm not playing catch up.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Exorcet

[eurofor]

They are all non objective correct? That means they all lack objective value, making them equal. They have zero objective value. Whatever value an individual puts on their ideas means nothing, that's all subjective.

 

(...)

 

OK then this is the issue. I'm having a hard time seeing how it's disagreed with though. On a personal basis anything can ranked anywhere. We agree there. However this personal view is just that, personal and subjective. It has an objective value of zero. Wouldn't you agree? If all subjective ideas have zero objective value, they're equal in value. They have none.

 

(...)

 

Saying that all are valued exactly zero is still implying that there is an objective perspective from which they are valued and such a perspective does not exist. You are using this as the foundation of your theory that nature knows what is right and wrong in the interaction between individuals and I insist that it is not so.

 

Humans can respect the subjective, yes, but you don't have subjective rights. That's because they're subjective. Someone can respect them, but it's rather pointless.

 

Why does that make them pointless? The perception of rights only matter in the interaction between individuals where subjectivity is always present. It does not need to matter in a context that doesn't include any individuals.

 

Then wouldn't I be justified in saying that nothing can be justified unless it's objective?

 

Is someone justified in teaching that the world is flat because they believe it's right? Are they right?

 

As I said the justification is subjective. Something cannot be objectively justified. It would only be justified to those individuals that are convinced that it is right in their subjective opinion.

[Exorcet]

Again, the case of logic would dictate that the many outweigh the few, the other thing starts to go into what I said, that morals are subjective.

But that's not logical. Can you explain how the needs of the many outweigh those of the few from a logical standpoint? I can't see it.

 

You might go a bit further though. Are the adults still able and willing to procreate? If so, then the loss of the child is acceptable, as they can easily 'make' more. If, however, they are barren, then let them die. The only logic, if you could call it that, is for the life to go on multiplying and spreading and adapting if it wants to survive. In this case only ability and willingness to procreate would be the logical choice.

Reproduction has nothing to do with it. That's evolution, which has no moral weight.

You could go even further, to show how logic can be quite contratry to human decission making

Yes, a million yeses. Humans can disagree with logic. Morality is not what humans happen to feel is right.

 

, by saying that the child is terminally ill. In this case let it die each time, every time. But what if you don't know that, but see a lot of 90 year olds on the other track. Then you might try to safe the child, as logic would dictate that it is able to procreate, whereas the others aren't. The end result being, that you effictively 'removed' five people that weren't able to procreate at all to safe a child that won't get old enough to procreate, so effectively you would have changed nothing, no matter the decission. Yet your logic would have dictated that you were right.

The logic remains the same no matter what condition the people on the tracks are. If you pull the switch, you're guilty of murder.

 

 

Many are the times when logic fails and we can't make a decision or have to make a gut decision. Some decissions we can put off until later, until we have more information, but most of the time we just don't have all the information we need and need to decide on the information we have. I think there was a TNG episode where Geordi explained it in some such way to Lal (Data's daughter), after Lal had asked why decisions are not made with all data available.

 

It is very foolish to make a decision without information, I agree there. I don't agree that a gut reaction is better than waiting for more data though. If it's truly a pure reaction with no reasoning behind it at all, you're basically leaving things to chance. It's not better than not reacting.

 

Doing nothing can not save you from this dilemma. You have a choice only between two alternatives and you make your choice pro the one and contra the other alternative - wether this involves some sort of physical action or not.

Doing nothing avoid the dilemma. I didn't put the people on the track, if I do nothing I'm not responsible for anything. If I pull the level I would have murdered someone. I don't get to decide who lives and dies, there's no objective decision to be made there.

 

Note that I'm answer to the trolley problem which dictates its own rules and isn't necessarily realistic. In a real situation I may be able to do more than just pick who dies. I'd try to save anyone. I wouldn't kill anyone. Best you could hope for is that you had time to inform someone else and told them to free the single person (because freeing 1 person should be faster than freeing five) and then changing the trolley direction. If you have no plan of rescue though, then you're just deciding to kill someone.

 

The decision making is the same if you had only one track and the lever would just stop the cart.

This is completely different. In that case I'd pull the lever, no one would die, and I would not have violated any rights.

 

The lever is in the position that the cart will kill a person. You can't now turn away and say "well, it was already set up this way, I am not responsible for it!".

But that's exactly the case. I'm no more responsible for the trolley than I am for Hamas vs Israel which I'm not doing much about right now.

 

So, where do you derive your moral compass from, that tells you that not putting your will above that of another person is 'right'? That already is a moral judgement, where you assume that this is the natural state of the system. Yet, you would have to test and prove or disprove this hypothesis.

 

I can test that statement through logic. It's basically this:

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified

Either I'm right or one or more of those points is wrong, which some here think is the case.

 

I like ice cream but I have no money, so no one will sell it to me. There is no possible way for me to argue that I deserve ice cream from someone right now. I may think I deserve it, but no one agrees with me. If I try to get ice cream, I'm disregarding the thoughts of everyone else. This leaves for me, no protection against people ignoring my thoughts (like not putting me in jail).

 

Is understanding rights, which are made up by societal rules

I can't really argue that because I don't think it's true. Society makes its own rules, but those aren't rights.

 

 

So, which is the natural state? A society where each individual is totally equal in rights and duties or one where some have more duties, but get a leeway in rights (because they are state leaders or diplomats or just rich people).

Where did duty come from? And what do you mean by that specifically. Everyone is equal in rights. State leaders, diplomats, and rich people have no additional rights.

 

 

 

So, how can we arrive at equality of morals if nature itself is not fair.

 

I might have confused things when I said that I can see objective morality as a natural thing. I'm not saying that nature is moral or fair, I'm saying that morality exists without people.

 

Too big, too small, too fat, too slim, too dumb, too intelligent. Again, you are asking for an absolute measure of morality that I can not see.

These thing will lead to people being treated differently, living different lives, and having different experiences, but I don't see how anyone one group deserves to be stolen from or something like that.

 

Same with the trolley. Do nothing? That, too, is a moral judgement, because you had the opportunity to do something, yet did nothing, so you valued that life of one person higher than that of five or you valued your own peace of mind higher than that of all six persons involved.

Doing nothing is correct because it keeps you out of the situation. To make a choice, if we're strictly following the problem as stated on Wiki, is to kill unjustly. Killing unjustly is always wrong. I'm not saying anything about value (other than they're equal) by doing nothing. The problem is constructed such that someone must die unjustly. Going back to morality as an equation from a few posts before:

 

moral = 1

 

immoral = 0

 

Since anything times 0 is 0 it only takes one immoral act to get to immorality.

 

Save lives of 5 (1) by killing 1 (0)

 

1*0 = 0

 

Save life of 1 (1) by killing 5 (0)

 

1*0 = 0

 

Do not kill 1 person (1), do not kill 5 people (1)

 

1*1 = 1

 

You see, that is the crux of that problem, not doing anything does not magically absolve you of any or all moral obligations. Deciding to do nothing is still a decision, a subjective descision, that says I don't want to get involved, I needn't get involved and it is right by my moral compass.

Not getting involved is a decision. It's a decision to not violate anyone's rights. That's why it's the best decision for this case. You're not obligated to do anything, you just happen to be there. Kill someone, and you're obligated to pay for it because you in effect said to them "you're less important" which then applies to you.

 

Saying that all are valued exactly zero is still implying that there is an objective perspective from which they are valued and such a perspective does not exist. You are using this as the foundation of your theory that nature knows what is right and wrong in the interaction between individuals and I insist that it is not so.

Nature is dumb and doesn't know anything. When I agreed to morality existing in nature I meant it was natural like math.

 

The objective perspective that sees all subjective values as being worth zero is the logical perspective. It is the perspective you look from when you approach the issue with logic.

 

If you're trying to say that you need a perspective as in someone experiencing something, you won't find that. Math doesn't need, nor does objective morality which exists without people (or anything).

 

 

 

Why does that make them pointless? The perception of rights only matter in the interaction between individuals where subjectivity is always present. It does not need to matter in a context that doesn't include any individuals.

If they only exist in someone's mind they're pointless because they are a subjective ideas with no value. Someone can think that another not saying hello is rude. They'll believe that's a sign of rudeness all day, but they're wrong because there is no objective reason for that to be true. Objective means it's constant and does not depend on perspective. If something has value only in someone's perspective, it's not objective and it's not constant which makes applying it consistently futile.

 

 

 

As I said the justification is subjective. Something cannot be objectively justified. It would only be justified to those individuals that are convinced that it is right in their subjective opinion.

That is self defeating though and I think it highlights my point on subjective thoughts being pointless. This is saying that your idea (no objective justification) is only true to you. That means it's not even appropriate to direct at me, because it's not true for me. That doesn't make sense, it's either true or not. We can't both be correct because we hold conflicting ideas. That's an objective fact and it exists regardless of perspective. This is how I consider the points in my argument. Subjective ideas all hold the same merit because they have no objective base. They are totally arbitrary and that makes them worthless when it comes to make a decision.

[Flagrum]

Doing nothing avoid the dilemma. I didn't put the people on the track, if I do nothing I'm not responsible for anything. If I pull the level I would have murdered someone. I don't get to decide who lives and dies, there's no objective decision to be made there.

You ARE in that situation and you HAVE the power to influence the outcome. You can not not influence the situation, you CAN NOT decide to be not involved, because objectively you are already involved. You can only decide between A and B, there is no other option. What you do or do not determines who will die.

 

But that's exactly the case. I'm no more responsible for the trolley than I am for Hamas vs Israel which I'm not doing much about right now.

You are not responsible for the situation as whole, but you are responsible for the outcome.

 

According to your logic, whatever you do, it will be wrong:

( wrong AND right ) OR ( right AND wrong ) = wrong OR wrong = wrong

 

The true dilemma here is not that you are forced to do something wrong, the dilemma is more about if "right" and "wrong" are just binary, objective and absolute yes/no results or if there is perhaps the possibilty for "weighting" the value of some wrong against some right and if so, how much "right" does it need to outweight a "wrong".

 

And then we are back to subjective assessments and opinions ...

[Schnittertm]

First, it would be nice of you to tell me which you think the natural state of the system of morality is. Where does it come from, why is immoral to kill, to steal, to torture? I mean there are species that survive on stealing, that commit infanticide. It is moral for them to do it, it is right for them to do it, as it is all about the propagation of the species and that would be a basis for constructing morality. Everything that is good for oneself or the species is moral, everything that is detrimental is immoral. However it is only the amalgation of a majority of subjective judgements on the matter.

 

Logic exists

 

Humans understand logic

 

Logic says subjective ideas are all equal

 

Logic says no subjective idea is better than another

 

Humans understand the above

 

Humans know that putting their will first cannot be justified

 

Yes, logic exists, humans can set up rules for what logic is and isn't, however it is a stretch to say that all subjective ideas are equal and none is better than the other. Similarly humans do not inantely know that putting their will before others can not be justified.

 

Ideas have strange quality in that the subjective idea of jumping off a cliff without parachute is worse than the idea of doing the same with a parachute. One will lead to serious injury or even death, an outcome not preferable, while the other will lead to you usually landing unharmed. In that alone you have already a different quality to an idea.

 

Putting your own will above that of another can be quite helpful to you, if it helps you or even others to survive, by stealing food or by killing someone that threatened to kill you or others and moved to do so. In both cases you are putting your will to survive above the others will to kill you.

 

So, in my opinion your logic is already flawed, as subjective rules almost demand a different quality to each rule.

 

Which brings me to your equation. You are there, you can chose to do something or to do nothing. In both cases the outcome will be the death of sentient beings, one or five. Yes, you did not put the trolley on track, you did not put the people on track, but you are right then and there and see it happening and have a choice you could make, a choice that must come from what you see and your gut feeling of what is right or wrong in your mind. It is not like with Israel vs. Hamas, because in thise case, at least I assume, you are not there and you can't make a choice on the matter.

 

You not doing anything can be construed as a denial or failure to render asisstance to one of the two parties involved. In the first example with the switch, you'd have the choice to pull the switch or not. In the second you can push the man or not, in the third, again, you can pull a switch or not. Just because you chose inaction does not absolve you of any and all responsibility. People will die and how many will die is up to your choice and cogitating on that choice is what makes up this test.

 

The thing is, if there is a switch and you pull it, most people would accept that as moral and an accident, as only one person died in the accident and not five. In all likelyhood any charges for manslaughter would be dismissed in this case, because of the circumstances. You can't count on it, but it is very likely. In the second case, even though you would safe five people through your action, you would probably get sued for manslaughter. I believe that this fear of punishment is already a deterent and a deciding factor on how and why people mostly chose how they chose.

 

As for my enhanced scenarios, they were more about having to make a choice in other circumstances than the ones proposed. The also added in information from Flagrum, as he mentioned children, which many see as to be worth more to protect than adults, mainly because they have less ability to fend for themselves or protect themselves from assaulters. A very wise programming by evolution for a species that is not able to put out hundreds of offspring in a single load (e.g. spiders).

 

It also dealt with missing information in choices and how that could affect them. Based on the information you had and on the decision you made with amount of information and with your gut feeling (your moral compass so to speak) you made a choice, yet after the event happened you gain more information and find out the choice you made was wrong. In this case you would have to adjust your behaviour and moral compass slightly. This is what happens on a daily basis with each and every human. We get new information, we process it and we act on it both on a conscious and unconscious level, but still a subjective level. Information may be what we hear, see, learn, remember, etc. but it is usually influenced by subjective ideas from other people. This all together forms a whole, this forms a societies moral compass. This is what makes slavery good on one day and bad on the next, so to say. Slavery in and of itself must not necesserily be a bad thing, if the slaves are treated good and have certain freedoms and are just locked in a contract of servitude.

 

The thing is morality is, as many things that deal with emotions, feelings, internal judgements and such, a very grey area in human interactions. There is no objective morality and no natural laws that guide morality from which we could derive the information we need to make moral decisions.

 

Concerning the notion that some are less equal in front of the law than others, it is true. If rich people get caught for tax evasion they often have both the money and the connections to get off easy, say by paying a lump sum or getting the very best lawyer. A poor person can not do that, they often go to jail for that, precisely because they can't afford the best lawyer. It is an injustice in the system.

 

Diplomats are even better off, they can get away with murder and the worst they must fear, because of diplomatic immunity, is a deportation to their country of origin, where the crime might not even be sentenced, were you might not even have a trial.

 

State leaders often can, for example, avoid traffic, by using the police to make way, a perk the common man has not. They get a level of protection that is certainly needed in this world for their position, but again it creates an inequality before the law.

 

Laws are, at the end, just the ratified subjective will of the majority (at least in most western countries) of people of a society to govern base matters of morality. Yet again, laws are changed all the time, because, again, there is no objective morality to derive them from and subjective ideas can have different levels of quality.

[Flagrum]

I might have confused things when I said that I can see objective morality as a natural thing. I'm not saying that nature is moral or fair, I'm saying that morality exists without people.

Now you are contradicting yourself ... or maybe you were just inprecise here.

Remember my lion example? What lions do is neither right or wrong - as they have no conscious and free will which could be oppressed.

 

That implies that morality can only "exist" in conjunction with conscious minds - morality is a property of conscious minds.

[Exorcet]

You ARE in that situation and you HAVE the power to influence the outcome.

Yes, agreed.

You can not not influence the situation, you CAN NOT decide to be not involved, because objectively you are already involved.

Alright, this is a disagreement over the meaning of involved, at least partially.

 

If you want to say that being able to influence the outcome makes you involved, then yes the person by the lever is involved.

 

There is no obligation to act though. The would be lever puller has his will, whatever it is. The people on the tracks have theirs, probably to live. Both of these groups possess their rights because they have not violated rights. This leaves their wills equal. It's not more right for the person at the lever to go out of his way to support the will of whoever is on the track than it is for him to do nothing either out of laziness, panic, or indifference.

 

If the person at the lever did pull though, he is instantly responsible for death or someone. That is a rights violation.

 

You can only decide between A and B, there is no other option. What you do or do not determines who will die.

Yes, but one results in a rights violation, the other does not.

 

 

You are not responsible for the situation as whole, but you are responsible for the outcome.

Going back to involved, I don't think responsible fits here, but I understand what you're saying. If involved/responsible means able to affect the outcome though, that has a pretty wide reaching consequence. People are essentially involved with everything. If someone is murdered on the other side of the planet, you can argue that you have nothing to do with that because you couldn't change the outcome. However what if 20 years ago you moved to the other side of the world, became a police officer, and solved all crime? You would have stopped the murder.

According to your logic, whatever you do, it will be wrong

No, logic says doing nothing is right. Anything else would be wrong.

 

The true dilemma here is not that you are forced to do something wrong, the dilemma is more about if "right" and "wrong" are just binary, objective and absolute yes/no results or if there is perhaps the possibilty for "weighting" the value of some wrong against some right and if so, how much "right" does it need to outweight a "wrong".

I do think they're binary absolutes. How much wrong something is subjective, so there is no way to make a measurement. You can only see when the line is crossed, which is when a rights violation occurs.

 

First, it would be nice of you to tell me which you think the natural state of the system of morality is. Where does it come from, why is immoral to kill, to steal, to torture? I mean there are species that survive on stealing, that commit infanticide. It is moral for them to do it, it is right for them to do it, as it is all about the propagation of the species and that would be a basis for constructing morality. Everything that is good for oneself or the species is moral, everything that is detrimental is immoral. However it is only the amalgation of a majority of subjective judgements on the matter.

Killing isn't wrong, stealing is, torturing innocents is wrong too. Propagation of the species has no moral weight and should be totally ignored when it comes to morality.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the natural state of morality, but morality comes from logic. I've said that already, so I think you might not be satisfied with that answered. The best I do is make a comparison to some other logic. Asking where morality comes from is like asking where math comes from. 2+2=4 is true, the end. It was true before math classes, true before humans, true before time. I see morality in the same way. I'm not making the rules, I'm finding them.

 

With logic you reach the only viable conclusion by eliminating what is false or doesn't make sense. Subjective morality doesn't make sense because you can't make absolute decisions on a subjective basis.

 

 

 

Yes, logic exists, humans can set up rules for what logic is and isn't, however it is a stretch to say that all subjective ideas are equal and none is better than the other. Similarly humans do not inantely know that putting their will before others can not be justified.

I don't think that humans set up rules for what logic is. Logic simply is. It was before people, and when people showed up, they found it.

 

The last part is a good point, you're not born with that in your head. However if you understand logic you can reason out what's justified or not. Hypothetically I guess if someone went their whole life without thinking morality over, they would not know that important idea. However as soon as they did anything wrong it could be explained to them and they should understand (barring translation issues or something). If they don't and continue doing wrong, they're showing a lack of understanding of rights.

 

Ideas have strange quality in that the subjective idea of jumping off a cliff without parachute is worse than the idea of doing the same with a parachute.

That's not true. You are subjectively valuing the parachute jump, but there is no objective basis for saying its better. If someone wanted to die, the parachute is not helping.

 

One will lead to serious injury or even death, an outcome not preferable, while the other will lead to you usually landing unharmed. In that alone you have already a different quality to an idea.

This is just subjective valuing.

Putting your own will above that of another can be quite helpful to you

Yes, but that doesn't factor into whether or not it's right.

 

if it helps you or even others to survive, by stealing food or by killing someone that threatened to kill you or others and moved to do so. In both cases you are putting your will to survive above the others will to kill you.

This is what rights are for. The person trying to kill you is putting their will first, violating your rights, and in the process giving up their rights. So when you fight back and kill them it's not a problem. In putting their will first they are saying that they don't mind if one will overtakes another. In retaliating, you're just being consistent with their mentality. So basically they're giving you permission to fight back.

 

So, in my opinion your logic is already flawed, as subjective rules almost demand a different quality to each rule.

I feel like this is offtrack somehow. Subjective rules can differ from each other, I didn't say otherwise. I said they're baseless. You can't build justification off them because they're just some thing you came up.

 

Which brings me to your equation. You are there, you can chose to do something or to do nothing. In both cases the outcome will be the death of sentient beings, one or five. Yes, you did not put the trolley on track, you did not put the people on track, but you are right then and there and see it happening and have a choice you could make, a choice that must come from what you see and your gut feeling of what is right or wrong in your mind. It is not like with Israel vs. Hamas, because in thise case, at least I assume, you are not there and you can't make a choice on the matter.

I've been alive for a while. Long enough to become a politician or something and devote my entire life to stopping the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't feel like doing that. Even if I was born today, I could decide right now to devote the rest of my life to stopping it. If involvement means I can impact the outcome I'm pretty much involved everywhere.

 

As for the trolley, yes I can make a decision and impact the outcome. I don't consider that relevant to the morality of the situation. Instead I look at rights. If I don't pull the lever, 5 will die. This is something I consider bad, but that's subjective and doesn't matter. The five people probably think death for them is bad too, but like me they have subjective ideas. If I do pull the lever, one person will die. I think that's bad. The victim thinks that's bad. My choices are pull the lever and violate the will of the 1 victim or do nothing not challenge anyone's will. Using the logic I've outlined, doing nothing is the only right choice.

 

Here's a twist. What if no one is on the other track? What does objective morality say? Assuming the 5 people want to live, pulling the lever becomes permissible, but it is not an obligation. The people's will to live does not outweigh the lever person's will to be lazy. If the lever puller decided to be lazy, you could have all sorts of nasty subjective thoughts about him (I would) you could come up with endless lists of subjective ways to behave towards him (I would), but you couldn't say he was wrong. If you did think he was wrong though, then I am wrong for not stopping the Arab-Israeli war.

 

You not doing anything can be construed as a denial or failure to render asisstance to one of the two parties involved. In the first example with the switch, you'd have the choice to pull the switch or not.

Pulling the switch violates one person's rights. Not, does nothing from a moral standpoint.

 

In the second you can push the man or not

Pushing is out of the question unless you don't care about morals.

 

in the third

The real third one is the fat villain. This one is unique because every action here is morally right.

 

again, you can pull a switch or not.

Pulling the switch on the loop problem is out of the question because it will lead to a rights violation.

 

Just because you chose inaction does not absolve you of any and all responsibility.

Correct, I have no responsibility (as in obligation) in the first place. Responsibility is different from the ability to act. If you mean responsibility as in I can decide what happens, then you're right. But that's not a moral issue.

 

People will die and how many will die is up to your choice and cogitating on that choice is what makes up this test.

From a moral standpoint the only thing that matters is the question of rights. As long as you do not violate rights, you have done absolutely no wrong.

 

CONTINUED....

[Exorcet]

The thing is, if there is a switch and you pull it, most people would accept that as moral and an accident

They're mistaken. The switch puller would have killed unjustly. I agree with you that many people would think it was the right thing to do, but that has no objective support. For it to be right, either the world with the 5 lives must be objectively better than the world where there is 1 in their place or the 1 life lost must not have had rights at all.

 

as only one person died in the accident and not five. In all likelyhood any charges for manslaughter would be dismissed in this case

Probably. Then you would be an unjust killer without a punishment.

 

because of the circumstances.

Believe it or not I think the circumstances matter. You're a murderer without a doubt, but in such a state of panic, you might not be able to act reasonably. Also in this case, like with the NA example, there is a lot of cultural influence (saving 5 people saving > 1 person, even if it's not true). You should probably at least be made to repay the family of the person you killed.

 

You can't count on it, but it is very likely. In the second case, even though you would safe five people through your action, you would probably get sued for manslaughter. I believe that this fear of punishment is already a deterent and a deciding factor on how and why people mostly chose how they chose.

For me there is no difference at all, while law/society may look at them differently, from my perspective that's just them being flawed.

 

As for my enhanced scenarios, they were more about having to make a choice in other circumstances than the ones proposed. The also added in information from Flagrum, as he mentioned children, which many see as to be worth more to protect than adults, mainly because they have less ability to fend for themselves or protect themselves from assaulters. A very wise programming by evolution for a species that is not able to put out hundreds of offspring in a single load (e.g. spiders).

 

Sure, saving kids is great for evolution, but evolution has nothing to do with morality.

 

It also dealt with missing information in choices and how that could affect them. Based on the information you had and on the decision you made with amount of information and with your gut feeling (your moral compass so to speak) you made a choice, yet after the event happened you gain more information and find out the choice you made was wrong.

You can only make a choice based on knowledge. As far as morals go, the only thing that matters is rights. If no rights were violated, you did nothing wrong. This applies no matter what you learn afterwards.

 

In this case you would have to adjust your behaviour and moral compass slightly. This is what happens on a daily basis with each and every human. We get new information, we process it and we act on it both on a conscious and unconscious level, but still a subjective level. Information may be what we hear, see, learn, remember, etc. but it is usually influenced by subjective ideas from other people. This all together forms a whole, this forms a societies moral compass. This is what makes slavery good on one day and bad on the next, so to say. Slavery in and of itself must not necesserily be a bad thing, if the slaves are treated good and have certain freedoms and are just locked in a contract of servitude.

I think this is accurate. However this does not define morality. If you want morality you need to ignore all the cultural influences and the gut reactions. Yes, it can be hard, but if you don't you get caught in subjective wish-washyness.

 

Slavery is always bad, and slavery can't be a contract. If someone wants to work for you, that's fine. Slavery is always bad because it must involve a conflict of wills. Slavery says that the master is always right. The master is human though and only have subjective ideas. Ideas no better than the slave.

 

The thing is morality is, as many things that deal with emotions, feelings, internal judgements and such, a very grey area in human interactions. There is no objective morality and no natural laws that guide morality from which we could derive the information we need to make moral decisions.

I'm trying to argue otherwise. Morality is heavily debated, but that doesn't mean there's no objective solution. It just means if there is an objective one, it hasn't been found (or universally accepted) yet. I do get where the idea that it's all subjective comes from. It's very similar to my point with subjective reasons being all the same. There is just no way to objectively decide between the different desires people have. If you stop there, then there is no objectivity. But stopping there is stopping early. With no objective way to decide between two people's will, there is no way to decide whose will to yield to. If person A goes against person B, there is still no way to decide between the wills. This means that person A's actions against B do not justify his actions. Person B isn't doing anything, so he can't be at fault. That makes A wrong. Does that keep A from getting his way? Maybe, maybe not. A might kill B and then kill the rest of the planet if they try to stop him. If that happens, he got his way, even if he was wrong.

 

 

 

Concerning the notion that some are less equal in front of the law than others, it is true.

The law is not morality. My argument doesn't need to involve society.

 

If rich people get caught for tax evasion they often have both the money and the connections to get off easy, say by paying a lump sum or getting the very best lawyer. A poor person can not do that, they often go to jail for that, precisely because they can't afford the best lawyer. It is an injustice in the system.

There is no injustice there (ignore the laws). The rich person benefited from his position. That's not morally wrong. It's just like people on an island being safe from a volcano on the mainland benefit from their position.

 

Diplomats are even better off, they can get away with murder and the worst they must fear, because of diplomatic immunity, is a deportation to their country of origin, where the crime might not even be sentenced, were you might not even have a trial.

Examples of laws that are morally wrong.

 

State leaders often can, for example, avoid traffic, by using the police to make way, a perk the common man has not. They get a level of protection that is certainly needed in this world for their position, but again it creates an inequality before the law.

More laws that are wrong.

 

Laws are, at the end, just the ratified subjective will of the majority (at least in most western countries)

Yes. And that's morally wrong.

 

of people of a society to govern base matters of morality. Yet again, laws are changed all the time, because, again, there is no objective morality to derive them from and subjective ideas can have different levels of quality.

Laws change because they ignore objective morality. Laws certainly aren't morals.

 

Now you are contradicting yourself ... or maybe you were just inprecise here.

Remember my lion example? What lions do is neither right or wrong - as they have no conscious and free will which could be oppressed.

Morality exists without people, yes. The lion's actions have no moral weight. This is not a contradiction. Morality only applies to rights, the lions don't have this. Rights don't require people to exist, but that doesn't mean they apply to everything.

 

If you go back to my argument as I broken it down, each point can be true even if no one was around to see them, just like with math. The lions would be oblivious, just like with math. Is it clearer now, or did I make it worse? lol

 

That implies that morality can only "exist" in conjunction with conscious minds - morality is a property of conscious minds.

Imagine there are no minds at all, of any kind. It would still be the case that if there was intelligent beings, they would have rights and all that comes with it. The idea exists independent of anything else.

 

Likewise a functioning calculator would also display 2+2=4, even if calculators didn't exist or if there was no mind to understand what that meant or to make up symbols for it.

[Flagrum]

I've been alive for a while. Long enough to become a politician or something and devote my entire life to stopping the Arab-Israeli conflict. But I don't feel like doing that. Even if I was born today, I could decide right now to devote the rest of my life to stopping it. If involvement means I can impact the outcome I'm pretty much involved everywhere.

Twenty years ago you could probably not forsee that a specific situation would develop, you had no knowledge of it and therefore no reason to become a politican. You did not decide to not become involved in the situation that developed later as there was nothing to decide, yet.

But today you must ask yourself, what CAN I do? What are my options to prevent something wrong happening on the other side of the planet. Now you know about it. If you come to the conclusion that there is nothing you can actually do, allright. That is a decision and you will have to live with the later outcome.

 

On a side note: you know what they said after WWII to the germans? "Why did you not do something!?!?" and they answered "But we didn't know how bad it all was ... yes, people disappeared .. but what could I have done!? ... yes, there were rumors of war crimes ... but what could I, a single person, possibly could have done to prevent this!? ... yes, there were those camps ... with the smoking chimneys ... but how should I have know, that ..."

This mindset forstered the emergence of a nation consisting of "blind followers" where nobody really was responsible. Trying to not be involved can be as bad, and sometimes maybe worse, than trying to do a tiny bit - even if you fail.

 

 

As for the trolley, yes I can make a decision and impact the outcome. I don't consider that relevant to the morality of the situation. Instead I look at rights. If I don't pull the lever, 5 will die. This is something I consider bad, but that's subjective and doesn't matter. The five people probably think death for them is bad too, but like me they have subjective ideas. If I do pull the lever, one person will die. I think that's bad. The victim thinks that's bad. My choices are pull the lever and violate the will of the 1 victim or do nothing not challenge anyone's will. Using the logic I've outlined, doing nothing is the only right choice.

No, your choices are to pull the lever and to violate the rights of one person, or to not pull the lever and to violate the rights of five persons. You have the means to prevent the death of the five who want to live. If you don't do it, they will die because of you. (And the same is true for the other option to save the one guy)

 

 

Morality exists without people, yes. The lion's actions have no moral weight. This is not a contradiction. Morality only applies to rights, the lions don't have this. Rights don't require people to exist, but that doesn't mean they apply to everything.

 

If you go back to my argument as I broken it down, each point can be true even if no one was around to see them, just like with math. The lions would be oblivious, just like with math. Is it clearer now, or did I make it worse? lol

Yes ... and no. ;o)

Yes, math exists without someone able to understand it. But math has still it's context. 2 rocks + 2 rocks = 4 rocks - independently of wether the rocks care about it or not. But your modell of morality can only exist in a certain context. It is like an electrical field - if there are no + and - poles, then there is no electrical field.

Now you might argue, that the theoretical concept of such an electrical field would still exist, even though there is no practical relevance for it. Yes, but only if we know that it is possible that somewhere such +/- poles could exist. For a universe without intelligent life and even without any concept of life at all, the existence of the required conscousious minds can by no means be assumed.

 

Or take the 3 or 4 dimensional space-time. You need at least 2 dimensions for a concept of "distance". In a 1-dimensional universe "distance" simply does not exist.

 

Heh, or as we all appreciate math so much:

You have a cake and divide it between two people. 1 cake / 2 people = 1/2 cake: every person gets a piece of cake of 1/2 of the size of the cake.

Now, in a different universe where no people exist - how much cake does every person get?

1 cake / 0 people = *undefined, division by zero error* In this universe a "pieces of cake" simply does not exist.

 

edit:

Or just another analogy:

Waves. Waves need a medium to exist. If there is no water, then there are no waves (let us ignore electro-magnetic waves here ... if we can avoid quantum mechanics, relativity and similar stuff, I'd appreciate that! :o).

Similar for morality - without it's medium it can not exist.

Edited July 24, 2014 by Flagrum

[Flagrum]

"All subjective ideas are equal and none can be considered better than any other"

 

Coming back to your reasoning ... how you derive the concept of "rights" from the idea that any subjective idea is not superior to any other...

 

You say, there is no logical dependency that would explain why subjective idea A is superior to subjective idea B - as both lack a common, objective measurement scale, right? It can not be objectively be determined which idea is superior.

 

But how is that relevant? As I said earlier already, to me it seems as if you are missing a step in your reasoning here. You simply _define_ that ignoring the mentioned concept is considered as "immoral".

 

Just because something can not be measured or compared does not mean that it is automatically immoral, wrong or just something with a negative sign in front of it.

 

A has the idea "I want to live in peace"

B has the idea "I want to end As life"

 

Both ideas are subjective and as such not even right or wrong. Until the day when B puts his plan into action - then both ideas collide.

 

But where does A's right come from? Who or what does him grant that right? Why is his right, to live to his idea now suddenly more worth than the idea of B if he wants to live to his own idea? The idea of A is totally subjective but suddenly it is an absolute and objective(?) right?

 

edit:

Pst, Flagrum, didn't you want to say "I want to end A's live", or were you really talking about suicide?

Corrected the example. Thanks! :o)

Edited July 24, 2014 by Flagrum

[Schnittertm]

A has the idea "I want to live in peace"

B has the idea "I want to end Bs life"

 

Pst, Flagrum, didn't you want to say "I want to end A's live", or were you really talking about suicide?

[WildBillKelsoe]

Man, that sh$t is deep... But I'll take it with a grain of salt, and a shot of Tequila!

[eurofor]

Nature is dumb and doesn't know anything. When I agreed to morality existing in nature I meant it was natural like math.

 

The objective perspective that sees all subjective values as being worth zero is the logical perspective. It is the perspective you look from when you approach the issue with logic.

 

If you're trying to say that you need a perspective as in someone experiencing something, you won't find that. Math doesn't need, nor does objective morality which exists without people (or anything).

 

I know you don't mean it as a conscious thing. I worded it wrong. But why would subjective opinions even be part of the calculation that objectively determines right and wrong if they do not matter?

 

If they only exist in someone's mind they're pointless because they are a subjective ideas with no value. Someone can think that another not saying hello is rude. They'll believe that's a sign of rudeness all day, but they're wrong because there is no objective reason for that to be true. Objective means it's constant and does not depend on perspective. If something has value only in someone's perspective, it's not objective and it's not constant which makes applying it consistently futile.

 

But if nature has rules for what is right and wrong in the interaction between lifeforms, why is it incomplete? Why does it include stealing but not rudeness? In the same way a person expects not to have an item taken as he considers it his possession he also expects another person to be polite and say hello. What is the difference?

 

That is self defeating though and I think it highlights my point on subjective thoughts being pointless. This is saying that your idea (no objective justification) is only true to you. That means it's not even appropriate to direct at me, because it's not true for me. That doesn't make sense, it's either true or not. We can't both be correct because we hold conflicting ideas. That's an objective fact and it exists regardless of perspective. This is how I consider the points in my argument. Subjective ideas all hold the same merit because they have no objective base. They are totally arbitrary and that makes them worthless when it comes to make a decision.

 

People in different cultures and religions choose to live their lives differently. Each have ideas that conflict with others but they still consider their own to be "correct". People have a lot of subjective ideas and that is why the world has such diversity. If there was an objective correct answer that could be calculated then that would have more influence over the choices people make.

[Schnittertm]

Exorcet, to it seems that, concerning morality, there is only a binary choice for you and one of it is right, the other is wrong.

 

Where does our sense of morality come from is always tied to our evolution and our growth as a species. Morality is in itself an idea that certain things are the right thing to do and others aren't and that there sometimes is a conflict between ideas of what to do in certain circumstances and a decision can not be easily reached.

 

If we didn't evolve into a species that thinks killing its own is bad in most circumstances we wouldn't be arguing hypothetical cases where we have a decision between the right to live of one man and the right of live of five people. Rights in itself are an idea created by man to ease societal interaction and are based on a moral basis, that has changed over time. For many laws this moral basis is the decider for the laws, which is why someone that killed in defence of his or others lives is usually free to go, if the evidence supports that it was in defence and that this was the only possible outcome. Laws have to change and be flexible, because while many are derived from a moral standpoint, it is a aggregated subjective moral of the society and not an objective, universal morality. An objective morality would not change and therefore, at least for the laws dealing with moral behaviour, would not necessitate a change of the law. Aggregated subjective morals of a society do necessitat the need to change if the overall view on moral changes. This is why the death penalty is abolish in most European countries. It is not 'moral' anymore, yet it was once.

 

Stealing is only wrong, because in our society we have a concept of property, one that we even extends to living things among others (e.g. cattle, pets, plants, even other humans). Again, stealing is only a matter because we decided that individual property is the way to go, but how about a society where all property belongs to everyone? Then it wouldn't be stealing anymore, it wouldn't be wrong anymore to take other things.

 

Torture to get confessions are wrong, yet torture, again, is not always wrong. There are men and women out there that, mostly for sexual pleasure, let themselves be tortured. In this case the parties involved in this voluntary torture agreed to do this, no rights are harmed.

 

The rich man that gets scot free of his position is still wrong, because few are the cases where a rich man hasn't exploited other people to get where he is. It is still seen today. Is it moral for, say, Walmart to pay their people a wage, from which they can't support their cost of living or their families unless they get aid from the government or take on other jobs, while Walmart makes billions and billions of profits? It certainly doesn't seem right to me, it certainly doesn't seem moral to me and the exploitation comes from the fact that many that work there have no other option left, be it because of age, of education or intelligence or other reasons. That is pure exploitation, if only of those that can't chose any better. Yet there are people that say it is moral of Walmart to do this, why? What makes their subjective idea of morals better? Is it better?

 

Is it right for managers to have contracts nowadays that give them bonuses even if they don't meet the goals, that pay them millions upon millions of dollars in some cases? I don't think it is right.

 

Is it right to exploit your position to evade the law, even though the law purports to treat everyone the same? I don't think that should be the case. If you are rich and evaded taxes for a certain percentage of your wealth or income you should be treated just the same as a poor person that did the same in relation to their wealth and income. If the poor person goes to jail, the rich person should, too, yet this is often not the case.

 

Slavery, well, slavery it an interesting subject, but if your rights of freedom are violated, yet you still have a better life than you would have while being free to do what you want, because your 'master' treats you right and gives you certain freedoms, wouldn't it be prefereable to give up some of your freedom for a better life? Wouldn't it make the master or mistress a moral person if it treated its slave with respect? A rethorical question, I know, but the answer would be, that in these cases slavery or being a slave might be a moral thing or at least the right thing.

 

Nowadays we have corporate masters and some forms of legal 'slavery', see my Walmart example above. Some can't get out of that thing, they need that job, just to be able to somewhat survive, they need additional help because of the way things are handled, they have no chance to improve themselves to get away from it all, but they also feel that they should not try to be a burden on society. The laws actually support the case of what Walmart is doing. Walmart can say what we are doing is legal. Is it moral, in this case not, at least not to the majority of people. Most do have the moral stance that if you work, even if it is the worst job on the planet, that you should at least get paid enough to support the basic costs of living (e.g. being able to pay the rent, transportation to and from your workplace, buy food, pay the bills). This, now, would necessitate a change or adjustment of laws, based on the majority subjective feel of morality in the society.

 

One thing I can see is, however, despite all the above, that morals are not binary, but circumstancial. Subjective ideas that have a certain quality to them, the quality of some being better than the other. This can lead to you doing things that are wrong, but moral or right but immoral. While right and wrong and moral and immoral seem to be existing indepent of each other, they are certainly influence each other.

 

With an overlying, objective, universal, testable and verifyable set of rules for morals it would be so much easier, you wouldn't have to rely on a changing set of rules and morals overtime, that come form an amalgation of subjective ideas, some of which have been deemed better, others which have been deemed worse.

[Schnittertm]

Man, that sh$t is deep... But I'll take it with a grain of salt, and a shot of Tequila!

 

Nah, we are just average armchair philosophers. The real ones in the universities would probably laugh at us.

 

However, have fun with that Tequila. Oh, and would you like a slice of lemon to go with that?

[NeilWillis]

No killing can ever be justified. Just today, an executioner in one of the most advanced civilisations on our shared planet took 2 hours to "lawfully kill" a prisoner on death row.

 

ALL war is wrong, every nation in every war that has been fought have killed innocent people, and no matter what anyone says, try justifying a "legal war" to the parents/family of a victim of democracy by other means.

 

Until religion and politics are outlawed, we'll all have the same curse on us forever.

 

However, it does mean we get to fly some amazing hardware, and drop some pretty excellent weapons systems, so who am I to judge?

[eurofor]

No killing can ever be justified. Just today, an executioner in one of the most advanced civilisations on our shared planet took 2 hours to "lawfully kill" a prisoner on death row.

 

ALL war is wrong, every nation in every war that has been fought have killed innocent people, and no matter what anyone says, try justifying a "legal war" to the parents/family of a victim of democracy by other means.

 

Until religion and politics are outlawed, we'll all have the same curse on us forever.

 

However, it does mean we get to fly some amazing hardware, and drop some pretty excellent weapons systems, so who am I to judge?

 

No war happens without a cause and those participating in the war justifies it based on that cause. E.g. both sides consider a geographic area to belong to them and both will do anything to prevent the other one from claiming it. That is their opinion. It is right in their mind because it has to be done for their cause. Someone else may have another opinion, e.g. you that have the opinion that no killing can be justified and all war is wrong. But that is your opinion. What I'm getting at here is that there is no correct answer that is true for everyone. There is no objective right and wrong, it's all subjective.

 

Also. Outlaw religion? That would be outlawing freedom of thought. Outlaw politics? That would result in anarchy.

[NeilWillis]

In other words, there will always be conflict as long as people follow one ideal or another. As for justification of warfare as a viable option, name one war that has happened in the 21st century that has been both justifiable, and without controversy?

 

This whole subject is a minefield.

[Schnittertm]

In other words, there will always be conflict as long as people follow one ideal or another. As for justification of warfare as a viable option, name one war that has happened in the 21st century that has been both justifiable, and without controversy?

 

This whole subject is a minefield.

 

From a human point of view no war is justifiable, that is right and no war will ever be without controversy. WWII, the allies bombed to death more civilians than the axis, yet they are the good guys. The US used the first and the last nuclear weapon in anger and lets hope that the one on Nagasaki will be the last nuclear weapon used in anger ever.

 

But war is just a perversion of the struggle that is life. Life, on its most basic level, does mean struggle, struggle for survival and for resources that ensure that survival. Almost all animals are territorial to some part and will aggressively pursue any and all interlopers, if they are able to. Humans are also still just animals from a pure biological standpoint, only that we have a bigger brain and more brain power and should know better, but apparently we don't. Well, I guess Einsteins quote about the infinity of the universe and that of human stupidity was right.

 

While I share your view that especially religion is one of the prime causes of struggles today, that don't necessitate a war for resources, but a war of ideas, I don't think that struggles or wars would end if you'd just take religion away. We humans are quite apt at conjuring up, if you will, reasons for fighting each other. In the not to distant future we will have to face a problem of overpopulation, which certainly will end in bloody struggles. We will also have to face the problem of certain resources becoming more and more scarce, e.g. crude oil and rare earths, which are materials used to, especially in the west, ensure our standard of living. An industrial and commercial sector that is mostly driven only by profits and more profits, but not looking early enough for sustainable alternatives is just exacerbating this problem.

 

All in all, it would be nice if we humans remember that Earth doesn't need us to go on, but we certainly need Earth. Same with the Universe, the Universe is no entity, but if it were, it couldn't care less about this infinitesimally tiny spec somewhere in the arm of one of its hundreds of billions of galaxies with hundreds of billions of stars each.

 

Maybe I'm just realistic or even pessimistic, but certainly cynical in that I believe that humanity is ****ed, as it is slow to change and tries to often change things when it is too late.

[eurofor]

In other words, there will always be conflict as long as people follow one ideal or another. As for justification of warfare as a viable option, name one war that has happened in the 21st century that has been both justifiable, and without controversy?

 

This whole subject is a minefield.

 

Any war that happened was justified to those that participated in it. No need to be specific even. When you say a war was controversial, someone else might disagree. Even if you and others that were not involved do not accept their reasoning it does not change the fact that there are people that think it was justified. So who is right? You think you are right. They think they are right. There is no objective answer. Just subjective answers.

 

Every individual has its own mind and its own ideas. It's inevitable that the ideas of someone at some point collides with the ideas of someone else. And the view that one's own opinion is objectively right and someone else is objectively wrong doesn't exactly prevent conflict (no matter how good you think you are and how evil you think someone else is).

Edited July 24, 2014 by eurofor