Why Is This A Problem???

[Bradskii]

If the one is an innocent child and the five are SS guards, I'm not pulling it.

I love the problem because it's infinitely variable. So what if the five were 3 SS guards and 2 innocent children on one track and one innocent child on the other?

You do know that we have some in this thread who wouldn't sacrifice (oops, sorry - murder) the whole of the Waffen-SS to save one innocent child?

 

[o_mlly]

No we dont. 5x is a comprehensible expression. And its not meant to be precise. It functions as "a bunch more than". Can you like Bob more than Jill? Of course. Does that mean you have to have a number for it?

I already told you what I mean by value, with a lot of specificity.

Your turn.

So, in the same post you contradict yourself: your valuation of human life is not precise but has lots of specificity as in "a bunch more than". Where's my aspirin bottle?

Looks like you're just going to keep "Cha-Cha"ing on this one. I'd laugh it off but your inability to assign a value to one human life reduces your argument for murdering the one to save five unsupportable.

Is it murder? Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Is pulling the lever the direct cause of his death? Yes. Did the bystander directly kill an innocent person? Yes.

There are some who in their hubris think they stand above common man and have the authority to decide who lives and dies (as long as they are not the one dying) and by their own hand. In their minds; they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. Pray for them, they know not what they do.

 

[Nithavela]

So, in the same post you contradict yourself: your valuation of human life is not precise but has lots of specificity as in "a bunch more than". Where's my aspirin bottle?

Looks like you're just going to keep "Cha-Cha"ing on this one. I'd laugh it off but your inability to assign a value to one human life reduces your argument for murdering the one to save five unsupportable.

Is it murder? Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Is pulling the lever the direct cause of his death? Yes. Did the bystander directly kill an innocent person? Yes.

There are some who in their hubris think they stand above common man and have the authority to decide who lives and dies (as long as they are not the one dying) and by their own hand. In their minds; they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. Pray for them, they know not what they do.

The only number where killing one person and killing five person is equivalent is 0.

 

[durangodawood]

So, in the same post you contradict yourself: your valuation of human life is not precise but has lots of specificity as in "a bunch more than". Where's my aspirin bottle?

Looks like you're just going to keep "Cha-Cha"ing on this one. I'd laugh it off but your inability to assign a value to one human life reduces your argument for murdering the one to save five unsupportable.

Is it murder? Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Is pulling the lever the direct cause of his death? Yes. Did the bystander directly kill an innocent person? Yes.

There are some who in their hubris think they stand above common man and have the authority to decide who lives and dies (as long as they are not the one dying) and by their own hand. In their minds; they are the judge, the jury and the executioner. Pray for them, they know not what they do.

Basically I'm telling you what I value more. You don't have access to that. I do. You have no choice but to accept it or consider me a bad faith liar in the discussion. If I didnt value people, then perhaps I'd do nothing instead. But I value a group of five more than one. Thats not arguable. Its for me alone to say.

Your complete inability to define what value is in terms of inherent-value is noted. Was noted long ago.

 

[o_mlly]

You have no choice but to accept it or consider me a bad faith liar in the discussion.

No, not true at all. I think you sincerely believe what you post. But after the thunderous clapping sound you hear between your ears subsides, I hope you rethink the idea that murder can ever be justified.

 

[durangodawood]

No, not true at all. I think you sincerely believe what you post. But after the thunderous clapping sound you hear between your ears subsides, I hope you rethink the idea that murder can ever be justified.

Can you define what value is in terms of inherent-value? That would go a long in explaining your position, and you seem exceeding cagey about this

For now it sounds like nonsense for the reasons Ive explained. And I'm not trying to trap you with some rhetorical jui jitsu. It simply makes no sense, because value is conferred by a subject that values something. If I'm missing something.... what is it?

 

[o_mlly]

For now it sounds like nonsense for the reasons Ive explained. And I'm not trying to trap you with some rhetorical jui jitsu. It simply makes no sense, because value is conferred by a subject that values something. If I'm missing something.... what is it?

Yes, I think it's called The History of Western Civilization. You know surely that those who believe the right to life is not sacred are few in number and almost exclusively atheists.

[We] assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...
​

I am impelled to separate from you.

 

[Sketcher]

I love the problem because it's infinitely variable. So what if the five were 3 SS guards and 2 innocent children on one track and one innocent child on the other?

That's a tougher decision. Which of the children are sons or daughters of the SS guards who, if saved, would attempt to take revenge, thus contributing more violence?

You do know that we have some in this thread who wouldn't sacrifice (oops, sorry - murder) the whole of the Waffen-SS to save one innocent child?

I haven't paid close enough attention to notice, and now I don't want to.

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, I think it's called The History of Western Civilization. You know surely that those who believe the right to life is not sacred are few in number and almost exclusively atheists.

[We] assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ...
​

I am impelled to separate from you.

All you had to do was explain what "value" is in terms of inherent value.

That's it. You might have even enlightened me! Instead you've convinced me either that you don't know, or that there in fact is no such thing as inherent value.

 

[o_mlly]

That's it. You might have even enlightened me!

Matthew 13:14-15.

 

[durangodawood]

Matthew 13:14-15.

We've have the Declaration Of Independence.
Now we have the Bible.
When do we get you?

 

[o_mlly]

We've have the Declaration Of Independence.
Now we have the Bible.
When do we get you?

If you will not listen to Our Lord, Jesus Christ, then you would and should dismiss anything I might say. He is the Truth. I am but His disciple.

The Declaration of Independence instructs me to separate from you.
So also does Scripture: Matthew 10:14.
So long.

 

[durangodawood]

If you will not listen to Our Lord, Jesus Christ, then you would and should dismiss anything I might say. He is the Truth. I am but His disciple.

The Declaration of Independence instructs me to separate from you.
So also does Scripture: Matthew 10:14.
So long.

A professed Christian in post #2 asserts that atheists or Buddhists are the type who would fail to pull the lever. Various other Christians here think you should pull the lever.

It seems you dont have a monopoly on how Christian truth should play out in every situation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Bradskii replied to a post you wrote to me, and it was pretty close to what I would have said so I let him run with it. But I saw this in the exchange between you two after and decided to poke my nose back in.

There are factual statements that use "is" but the "ought" and "should" moral statements aren't even false.

... that will depend upon whichever Metaphysical situation is 'Real.' (Notice, I didn't say 'True.')

Things function they way they do.

Truism much?

Sometimes I like that function. Sometimes I like the things I get because of that function. That doesn't imply the function is "good".

I'm pretty sure that taking a dump is a "good thing." And I appreciate that I have that function; I'm sure you do too.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm pretty sure that taking a dump is a "good thing." And I appreciate that I have that function; I'm sure you do too.

What makes you think taking a dump is a good thing? Because you like it? Because you like what it accomplishes? What else makes you think it's a good thing aside from things you like about it?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What makes you think taking a dump is a good thing? Because you like it? Because you like what it accomplishes? What else makes you think it's a good thing aside from things you like about it?

Define 'good.' .....see, what I'm attempting to infer here by semantic slight-of-hand (being the all too efficacious illusionist of mental concepts that I know I am, and that everyone else knows I am [insert tongue-in-cheek emoticon here] ) is that 'good' doesn't have to amount to a religious or necessarily metaphysical notion of value.

'Good' can be a bit less than metaphysical in nature yet still reside on a more practically human level. 'The Good' can be something that we all (mostly) can recognize as being generally functional, whether we like it or not.

 

[Moral Orel]

Define 'good.'

You used the word, you can define it however you like.

It can be a bit less that than on a more practically human level. It's just something that we all need to recognize as being generally functional, whether we like it or not.

The atom bomb functions extremely well at obliterating life. Does that make it "good"?

 

[Bradskii]

Define 'good.' ....

How about 'a preferential outcome with no negative implications for anyone else'.

 

[Moral Orel]

How about 'a preferential outcome with no negative implications for anyone else'.

Then your definition is just "It's good if I like it". Having "no negative implications for anyone else" is just another thing that you like.

 

[public hermit]

It's just something that we all need to recognize as being generally functional, whether we like it or not

I agree. If the good is not functional, not practical, it can hardly be good. If it doesn't work, it's broke. Morality is about fit and function. If everybody dies (5 people) because nobody should have died, it's broke.