Why Is This A Problem???

[o_mlly]

You claimed that my lack of belief in God could justify my actions.

Oh, dear. How inventive (that's the best spin adjective I can put to your post w/o being moderated) a mind you must have. Wherever did you come up with that? Show me by using the quote facility where that notion came from me. I'll wait for you to do so or retract.

Objectively evil acts are not made good because the actor happens to be an atheist.

 

[durangodawood]

? I thought I just brought that question up. Haven't got an answer yet.

Your demand for a bright line is a distraction. Ive showed you why. And Ive showed you clearly how theres no evidence for an infinite value on human life. Thats plenty.

 

[durangodawood]

I keep mentioning being involved with military targeting because it was a real-world application of this problem.

When we got the execution order that kicked off the Persian Gulf War, I was immensely sad because I had spent many, many hours doing bomb damage assessment during the Vietnam War...seeing all those craters, all those craters in populated areas.

The genius bombs we used in the Persian Gulf War mitigated that to a great extent most of the time. But the dumb bombs dropped by B-52 aircraft were just as dumb in Iraq as they had been in Vietnam. There was that oil tank "farm" that was set as a B-52 target because it was so large...how could they miss? But that oil tank farm was just across the river from an apartment complex...and they did miss the tank farm and raked right over the apartment complex. I'm glad I didn't identify that target and especially didn't "weaponeer" it (the "weaponeer" is the person who decides what kind of weapon to use).

The Persian Gulf war added a feature for my role that had been missing from the Vietnam War: We got the "bomb camera" videos, and many times we could actually see the people who got killed in the moment before their deaths. I need to insert an expletive here to explain how that felt, particularly when it was me who identified that target. Even when I could be sure it was an enemy soldier, it was still a man who would have lived that day if I hadn't put a cross on that bunker.

Like the guy with the trolley switch in front of him, someone upstream started that disaster. My role was how to manage it. I had to operate under the belief that Swartzkopf's plan--perfectly executed--would end the war with the fewest casualties, and all I cold do was to target accurately to reduce civilian casualties. And I couldn't just step away, because my replacement might not care.

Thanks, for bringing to light your real world example of how some of these principles play out. Its pretty harrowing to consider, and reminds me of just how detached many of us in civilianland are from the consequences of our demands.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

OK, you might see some value in the coaster. But it would be your subjective value. Which was the point I was making.

Perhaps. But perhaps not. Part of the 'value' of some thing/idea isn't all placed into simply one's ability to value some singular aspect of a thing in an all too general way. Human valuation is a multifacted human mental act; it's not always, and not necessarily, a singular one. Some aspects of the valuation process may be subjective, but some aspects may be objective.

And you are still implying that an objective 'good' is somehow related to the decisions of, if not all people, then at least a sizeable majority. A concept which I reject entirely. You are literally proposing in this post doing what I suggested you might be proposing in your last post: Voting on what is good. You are saying that 'Hey, if so many people say it's good (and I agree with them) then...it must be what we describe as an absolute good.'

I always wonder what's up when other people begin to tell me what I'm thinking and why.

Here, you've jumped from the notion of objectivity of a value to the notion of absoluteness of about the same. Where did I say that 'absoluteness' played any conceptual role in our discussion? You're imputing to my thoughts a quality I didn't actually express or intend to express. Objectivity and Absoluteness are two different concepts, but it almost seems like you're cojoining them.

Is it not an absolute good if less then half think it is but then somehow becomes an absolute good if we have 99.9% agreeing on it? Is it an absolute good if almost everyone believes it to be so but you disagree completely?

In light of what I've said just above, I'm going to have to pass the bucket on this one and not put in my dollar bill.

It simply doesn't, and can't, work like that.

Is that an objective conclusion on your part?

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, you have. Consistently, all along

Trying to be clever? Reading the post in question in context discloses this feeble attempt at misrepresenting my position.

Your demand for a bright line is a distraction. Ive showed you why. And Ive showed you clearly how theres no evidence for an infinite value on human life. Thats plenty.

I guess that means I'm not going to get a finite numeric answer.

Your argument is nonsense. You claim that because people live their lives rather than choose to merely exist wrapping themselves in bubble-wrap and remaining in their basements waiting to die a natural death is evidence that the human life has a finite value.

You say 30,000 +- for auto. Well go on, add boats, planes, trains, walking, running, swimming, farming, ranching, construction, eating, ... When you finally get to "walking down a staircase" as risky behavior, be sure and let me know your new finite number.

 

[durangodawood]

...When you finally get to "walking down a staircase" as risky behavior, be sure and let me know your new finite number.

Stairs are a great example. They are quite dangerous and lots more people die on them than you'd think.

The building codes are always being amended to strike a balance between the value of human life, and ease of construction. If human life had infinite value, it would trump finite cost considerations every time.

 

[o_mlly]

The building codes are always being amended to strike a balance between the value of human life, and ease of construction. If human life had infinite value, it would trump finite cost considerations every time.

No, not at all. Car companies do the same calculation when deciding whether or not to have a recall for a known defect. The cost of the recall is measured against the value of the lives lost as measured in the car company's estimate of the court's probable awards to victims.

Does that mean that human life has a finite value? No. The court often relies on an economist's estimate of the income potential of the lost one to the beneficiary. Is the value of a human life merely a function of one's income potential? Sorry, that doesn't help your argument.

 

[Moral Orel]

You say it's not an objective good, but they say it is...because they all agreed that it is.

That doesn't make sense. The reason they say it is good is because they agree it is good? Those are the same thing.

The reason they say it is an objective good is because they like it a lot.

 

[Moral Orel]

Is that an objective conclusion on your part?

Just because there are no factual "ought" statements doesn't mean there are no factual statements at all.

 

[DamianWarS]

I cant play the fat man version because it defies intuition so badly. I cant shake the sense that a man wont derail the trolley. The hypothetical has crossed into the absurd.

As I said, in the game of rock-trolley-human, everyone knows trolley cuts human.

I do agree that any scenario is a losing situation. Thats because someone upstream of you started this disaster. Your role is just how to manage it. You cant wave it away.

if you don't like the fat man version you are free to revise it to allow a scenario when you have more direct involvement with killing someone to stop the trolley. the show "the Good place" kept bringing up the trolley problem and they have some humous videos. you can also have a doctor version where the organs of one person save the lives of 2 others that without them they would die so you choose to sacrifice the one to save the many.

I think most would probably pull the lever if they can think that fast otherwise they would freeze and the trolley would go on its path. the exception however is when they know individuals the trolley may or may not hit or there are some examples where you would never pull the lever like there's a baby on the track or something like that. I'll be honest I probably wouldn't pull the lever if I was emotionally attached to the person on the lever's path like for example of kids or wife. but the trolley probably is a gut reaction and you could probably think of another scenario where you have time to process the choice which complicates it more.

 

[Job 33:6]

I'm talking about the tired old "trolley problem". It goes like this:


Trolley problem - Wikipedia

Where's the "problem"? Pull the darn lever. Only a jerk wouldnt.

I'm thinking that the best option would be to let nature take it's course and not touch the lever. Who am I to judge who's life is worth more or less than another? Assuming I don't know them.

 

[Job 33:6]

No you arent actively killing anyone. The death(s) are entirely built into the trolleys course.

So basically the question is: is it OK to steer danger toward less populated areas?

Or even: is it reprehensible not to?

The answer to both is YES, obviously. (Assuming we value people generally. If not then just steal the level handle.)

My thought on this is that, what if the 1 person is say, a billionaire philanthropist, while the other 5 are homeless thieves? We don't really know, so how can we make such a choice to actively kill one over another?

I think it would be different if it were an asteroid headed toward new York city, versus headed toward some farm fields, in which case you might be talking about millions of deaths, versus a dozen.

But 5 to 1? My thought is that maybe the 5 dying could benefit natural selection. Maybe the 1 was smart enough to walk on the empty tracks while the 5 were not. But in killing the 1 you've altered the future toward a world where more stupid people walk on tracks where trains are moving.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps. But perhaps not. Part of the 'value' of some thing/idea isn't all placed into simply one's ability to value some singular aspect of a thing in an all too general way. Human valuation is a multifacted human mental act; it's not always, and not necessarily, a singular one. Some aspects of the valuation process may be subjective, but some aspects may be objective.

This is true. Some things we value because we have reasoned that they're valuable. But it begins with a subjective value. For instance, I love money. But I don't love money itself. I don't love pieces of paper with dead presidents printed on them. No, I love money because it buys happiness, and I like being happy so I've reasoned, logically, that more money brings more happiness and therefore value money.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just because there are no factual "ought" statements doesn't mean there are no factual statements at all.

Sure. But are you saying this on Bradskii's behalf, or on mine?

So, then do we want to apply some second order thinking here to our categorization(s)?

Are the "factual statements" themselves merely human constructs arising out from a nihilistic void? I mean, if it seems to be the case, we may still consider that the fact of the existence of "factual statements" is, itself, existing as some small aspect of our collective human existence, however slender, thin and prone to subjective, personal relativity the fact of the existence of "factual statements" may be, and even if its seeming immediacy for us seems to hang only within our lowly, terrestrial, earth-bound perspective.

I mean, too, we can go all Kant or Hegel on this, but I don't think every single thing can be reduced to simply an "expression" of human variable valuation; some things in this world are what they are, have some meaningful function for us, and thus imply intrinsic value. Like the value of your eye-balls, for instance. They, and their respective level of effective functioning, may come to play a role in your making the moral town choices that you actually end up (factually) making.

 

[RDKirk]

That doesn't make sense. The reason they say it is good is because they agree it is good? Those are the same thing.

The reason they say it is an objective good is because they like it a lot.

I personally don't think there is any such thing as an objective good, but where people claim there is such a thing as an objective good, it's only by reason of broad public agreement.

 

[durangodawood]

I personally don't think there is any such thing as an objective good, but where people claim there is such a thing as an objective good, it's only by reason of broad public agreement.

Yeah I dont understand "objective good".

-"objective" means independent of anyone's judgement.
-"good" is a judgement.

Seems inherently contradictory

 

[Bradskii]

You say it's not an objective good, but they say it is...because they all agreed that it is.

Agreeing to it doesn't make it so.

 

[Bradskii]

Wherever did you come up with that? Show me by using the quote facility where that notion came from me. I'll wait for you to do so or retract.

Thanks for waiting.

Sadly, you believe that this life is all there is so you can see circumstances that justify, in your mind, murder.

You just claimed that my lack of belief in God could justify my actions. It couldn't be plainer.

Are we done now? I like to keep the post numbers ticking along in these conversations until there's enough info so that your position is made clearer (I reckon I missed my calling as a dentist). There's a term that I can't put my finger on right now - something to do with petards? It'll come...

But feel free to keep on keeping on.

 

[RDKirk]

Agreeing to it doesn't make it so.

I personally don't think there is any such thing as an objective good, but where people claim there is such a thing as an objective good, it's only by reason of broad public agreement.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps. But perhaps not. Part of the 'value' of some thing/idea isn't all placed into simply one's ability to value some singular aspect of a thing in an all too general way. Human valuation is a multifacted human mental act; it's not always, and not necessarily, a singular one. Some aspects of the valuation process may be subjective, but some aspects may be objective.

I always wonder what's up when other people begin to tell me what I'm thinking and why.

Here, you've jumped from the notion of objectivity of a value to the notion of absoluteness of about the same. Where did I say that 'absoluteness' played any conceptual role in our discussion? You're imputing to my thoughts a quality I didn't actually express or intend to express. Objectivity and Absoluteness are two different concepts, but it almost seems like you're cojoining them.

In light of what I've said just above, I'm going to have to pass the bucket on this one and not put in my dollar bill.

Is that an objective conclusion on your part?

Valuation is always subjective. There are objective facts about a matter which are true whatever one prefers: this is a Pollock, that is a Rembrandt. Which you refer or which is the better painting is subjective.

And I'm not telling you what you're thinking. I'm responding to what you've written. I can't do any more.

And my bad - I wrote absolute when I meant objective in that particular paragraph. So the comment should have read: 'You are saying that 'Hey, if so many people say it's good (and I agree with them) then...it must be what we describe as an objective good.'

Apologies for the confusion.

And yes. It's a conclusion that is objectively true. It's not a value position I'm taking. I don't take the position I do because in my opinion it's true. I believe it to be true in the first instance and therefore I take that position. Although I will grant that a lot of people, myself included, will use a term like 'In my opinion x is true' when what is actually meant is 'X is objectively true'. It muddies the waters somewhat but I hope you can see what I mean.