Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Kylie" data-source="post: 74976338" data-attributes="member: 343110"><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">But if the person does nothing, it's exactly the same as if they had not been there in the first place. I'm not saying that's what I'd do, I'm not saying that's how I'd think, but it does show that people can have differing opinions.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"> </span></p><p> <span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">So it's better to kill a five year old than 5 ninety year olds? Because, call me crazy, if we are trying to maximise the amount of life that is preserved, the five year old seems to have a lot more of it ahead of him than all the ninety year olds combined.</span></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't believe I have to say this again, because I've already said it so many times and you just don't seem to listen to me. <strong><u><em>The fact that many people agree on something does not make it objective!</em></u></strong></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No.</p><p></p><p>Subjective morality does NOT mean both options are equal. And I don't need an external point of reference to make it a difficult choice.</p><p></p><p>You really seem to be arguing against something you don't understand.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's actually kinda scary.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Ah, so it doesn't apply because a human isn't deciding on what the car does.</p><p></p><p>It's the car's programming, isn't it?</p><p></p><p>Now tell me, who programmed the car? Who wrote the program that controls the way the car drives and what it will do in different situations? And who wrote the programming that will determine if the car tries to avoid hitting a pedestrian who steps out, even if it could cause a big accident?</p><p></p><p>Could it be A HUMAN who wrote that programming?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Or maybe there are just track workers who don't know the train is coming...? You do realise there could be lots of ways there could be people on the tracks who are in danger, right?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And if you read the article, they were saying that it wasn't real because asking people what they would do in a traumatic situation isn't the same as them actually being in that traumatic situation. That I agree with. But the issue we are using the trolley problem to discuss isn't what you would do. I am asking you to apply your objective morality to it to tell me what the objectively right moral choice is.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Doesn't change the fact that there are situations where the cars may have to choose between causing a small amount of damage to avoid a larger amount. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And this also ignores much of the self driving car situation. What about the people in the car? And who gets the lawsuit? The manufacturer of the self driving car is going to be the one slapped with a lawsuit, so the manufacturer is motivated to program the car properly. What should they have the programming do?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So you are saying that the lives of five 90 year olds are more valuable than the life of one 5 year old? Even though the five year old has another 60 or 70 years at least, and the ninety year olds would be lucky to have 20 years between them?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Why is one person to blame in the trolley problem? Do you think the driver in the trolley problem deliberately took the brakes off?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Doesn't change the fact that he knows it could happen.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Kylie, post: 74976338, member: 343110"] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)] But if the person does nothing, it's exactly the same as if they had not been there in the first place. I'm not saying that's what I'd do, I'm not saying that's how I'd think, but it does show that people can have differing opinions. So it's better to kill a five year old than 5 ninety year olds? Because, call me crazy, if we are trying to maximise the amount of life that is preserved, the five year old seems to have a lot more of it ahead of him than all the ninety year olds combined.[/COLOR] I can't believe I have to say this again, because I've already said it so many times and you just don't seem to listen to me. [B][U][I]The fact that many people agree on something does not make it objective![/I][/U][/B] No. Subjective morality does NOT mean both options are equal. And I don't need an external point of reference to make it a difficult choice. You really seem to be arguing against something you don't understand. That's actually kinda scary. Ah, so it doesn't apply because a human isn't deciding on what the car does. It's the car's programming, isn't it? Now tell me, who programmed the car? Who wrote the program that controls the way the car drives and what it will do in different situations? And who wrote the programming that will determine if the car tries to avoid hitting a pedestrian who steps out, even if it could cause a big accident? Could it be A HUMAN who wrote that programming? Or maybe there are just track workers who don't know the train is coming...? You do realise there could be lots of ways there could be people on the tracks who are in danger, right? [COLOR=#00b3b3][/COLOR] And if you read the article, they were saying that it wasn't real because asking people what they would do in a traumatic situation isn't the same as them actually being in that traumatic situation. That I agree with. But the issue we are using the trolley problem to discuss isn't what you would do. I am asking you to apply your objective morality to it to tell me what the objectively right moral choice is. [COLOR=#00b3b3][/COLOR] Doesn't change the fact that there are situations where the cars may have to choose between causing a small amount of damage to avoid a larger amount. [COLOR=#00b3b3][/COLOR] And this also ignores much of the self driving car situation. What about the people in the car? And who gets the lawsuit? The manufacturer of the self driving car is going to be the one slapped with a lawsuit, so the manufacturer is motivated to program the car properly. What should they have the programming do? So you are saying that the lives of five 90 year olds are more valuable than the life of one 5 year old? Even though the five year old has another 60 or 70 years at least, and the ninety year olds would be lucky to have 20 years between them? Why is one person to blame in the trolley problem? Do you think the driver in the trolley problem deliberately took the brakes off? Doesn't change the fact that he knows it could happen. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Where does morality come from?
Top
Bottom