Why Is This A Problem???

[o_mlly]

That's a great passage for this discussion. It looks like he and God had the same idea: one dies for the sake of saving all.

Yes. With the condition the Lord gives in John 10:18.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you give me an example of something you recognize as good on a natural level that you dislike?

... the existence of trophic levels.
Just thinking about them makes me sad... "sniffle, sniffle"...

 

[Bradskii]

In such a case ............. I'd have to suspect that you subscribe to a form of Hedonism ???

I'm really not sure that follows. But you need to address the question in any case: What if we view this ephemeral 'good' differently?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm really not sure that follows. But you need to address the question in any case: What if we view this ephemeral 'good' differently?

You're absolutely right. It doesn't necessarily follow, and I'll admit this readily since after having read a number your posts here on CF you don't seem to strike me as a Hedonist. But I thought I'd go for the low-hanging fruit first. ...

And what if we view this ephemeral 'good' differently? Well, it's always possible that we could, but then I'd have to get down to brass tacks and ask: how ephemeral is the presence of trophic levels in nature, Bradskii, if we were to take them as but one 'ephemeral' example?

I guess if I were a more rigid Hindu, I might possibly think one thing about the presence of trophic levels in our world, but as a Secular Realist I could very well think another. (...and Bradskii, before we go to lunch, may I ask you how you like your steak?)

I'd say that their presence, as painful as it can be for us to realize their inherent existence as we engage them on a human level, shows evidence of a 'good' that is difficult to put into axiological terms other than express attributes of biological function. Their existence beats the alternative, even though, ironically, their existence almost seems to involve the alternative [DEATH!!!], but not exactly in the same way as we find the alternative elsewhere in our world in relation to overall Entropy.

Of course, it might become even more ephemeral for us if we attempt to find agreement in the valuations we'll make between us when we're faced with a Caesar Salad rather than a juicy steak...

 

[Bradskii]

You're absolutely right. It doesn't necessarily follow, and I'll admit this readily since after having read a number your posts here on CF you don't seem to strike me as a Hedonist. But I thought I'd go for the low-hanging fruit first. ...

And what if we view this ephemeral 'good' differently? Well, it's always possible that we could, but then I'd have to get down to brass tacks and ask: how ephemeral is the presence of trophic levels in nature, Bradskii, if we were to take them as but one 'ephemeral' example?

I guess if I were a more rigid Hindu, I might possibly think one thing about the presence of trophic levels in our world, but as a Secular Realist I could very well think another. (...and Bradskii, before we go to lunch, may I ask you how you like your steak?)

I'd say that their presence, as painful as it can be for us to realize their inherent existence as we engage them on a human level, shows evidence of a 'good' that is difficult to put into axiological terms other than express attributes of biological function. Their existence beats the alternative, even though, ironically, their existence almost seems to involve the alternative [DEATH!!!], but not exactly in the same way as we find the alternative elsewhere in our world in relation to overall Entropy.

Of course, it might become even more ephemeral for us if we attempt to find agreement in the valuations we'll make between us when we're faced with a Caesar Salad rather than a juicy steak...

I know you're a fan of Kierkegaard but there's no need to try to be as dense as he was. Whatever 'good' you envisage, you still haven't addressed the problem of what to do when someone else disagrees with you. Most Christians will say that God knows what the good is and somehow passes this information on to us. Except that there appears to be a breakdown in communication somewhere as different Christians seem to have received different messages.

If you know what the good is, then we can just ask you. If not, then how do you find out?

And my steak? Just cut off the horns and wipe it's @rse.

 

[Moral Orel]

Perhaps lions killing gazelles. On a natural level I recognize that it's good, but on a personal level I can't help but dislike it.

... the existence of trophic levels.

You both went to essentially the same answer, so pardon me if I just address my follow-up question to both of you at once. Why do you recognize it as good?

 

[Moral Orel]

Who said anything about tastes?

That's what subjectivism is all about. Tastes, preferences, likes, dislikes... What folks call "right" and "wrong" is all based on these things and nothing more.

This isn't like a choice between Sambuca and Jagermeister.

No, it's pretty much exactly like that. The only difference is the intensity of our feelings about stuff we would call "moral" and stuff we like to drink.

But we must individually determine what is the preferential outcome.

There is no "the preferential outcome". There is an outcome that you personally prefer. Big difference. One individually determines what outcome one prefers.

How else can it be done?

It can't.

There aren't rules or moral laws that cover every eventuality.

There aren't rules or moral laws that cover any eventuality.

But we can determine some guidelines and interpret each situation on it's merits.

We can choose some guidelines and interpret each situation on how it fits the guidelines we like.

Nothing I've said here is an argument for moral subjectivism. I'll grant that they are all assertions I've offered no evidence to support. However this is what it means for morality to be subjective. You don't have to ascribe to moral subjectivity, but if you're going to claim it, then these facts are inherent to that claim.

 

[Bradskii]

You both went to essentially the same answer, so pardon me if I just address my follow-up question to both of you at once. Why do you recognize it as good?

Just to jump in here...

I don't think we need confuse what is natural (the food chain) with what is good.

 

[Bradskii]

That's what subjectivism is all about. Tastes, preferences, likes, dislikes... What folks call "right" and "wrong" is all based on these things and nothing more.

No, it's pretty much exactly like that. The only difference is the intensity of our feelings about stuff we would call "moral" and stuff we like to drink.

There is no "the preferential outcome". There is an outcome that you personally prefer. Big difference. One individually determines what outcome one prefers.

It can't.

There aren't rules or moral laws that cover any eventuality.

We can choose some guidelines and interpret each situation on how it fits the guidelines we like.

Nothing I've said here is an argument for moral subjectivism. I'll grant that they are all assertions I've offered no evidence to support. However this is what it means for morality to be subjective. You don't have to ascribe to moral subjectivity, but if you're going to claim it, then these facts are inherent to that claim.

We are talking about moral problems. Presumably ones that we would consider required some thought. Not decisions about whether it's going to be chicken or steak tonight. That's just a simple preference based on taste. But if we are talking about, for example, whether a couple can have sex before they get married (especially if one of them is your daughter), then we will each determine a preferred outcome but it will (or at least should) be based on the facts of the matter. Not on some personal 'taste'.

So, as an answer to a question that was asked earlier, we might agree that the preferred outcome is one that we might not like. But the preferred outcome is one that has the best outcome overall.

As to being 'the preferential outcome'? Well, aye, there's the rub. If I prefer an outcome (even if I don't personally like it) then it may not align with your preferred outcome (even if you don't like that preference). How do we solve this problem? Well, we make our arguments based on the facts as we know them and hope that we can come to an agreement.

And there are rules we could follow up to a point. 'Don't kill innocent people' is a good one. But if it means that we obey that rule and a few thousand people die as a result, then...trolley problem. Do we treat it as an unbreakable rule as some Christians do or do we treat it as a guide? Obviously I say it's a good guide.

 

[Moral Orel]

We are talking about moral problems. Presumably ones that we would consider required some thought. Not decisions about whether it's going to be chicken or steak tonight. That's just a simple preference based on taste. But if we are talking about, for example, whether a couple can have sex before they get married (especially if one of them is your daughter), then we will each determine a preferred outcome but it will (or at least should) be based on the facts of the matter. Not on some personal 'taste'.

What your taste is is a fact. It's a fact that my taste prefers steak over chicken. It's the same when weighing matters I take more seriously. I prefer living people to murdered people.

So, as an answer to a question that was asked earlier, we might agree that the preferred outcome is one that we might not like. But the preferred outcome is one that has the best outcome overall.

But you're saying the same thing. An outcome is the best if prefer it the most. There is no other way to measure "the best" outside of your own personal preferences. You don't "prefer the best", you call something "the best" because you prefer it most. Your preferences are all you use to evaluate something's goodness. And your preferences are your tastes. They're one and the same.

And there are rules we could follow up to a point. 'Don't kill innocent people' is a good one. But if it means that we obey that rule and a few thousand people die as a result, then...trolley problem. Do we treat it as an unbreakable rule as some Christians do or do we treat it as a guide? Obviously I say it's a good guide.

It's a guide you like. There's nothing else about it that makes it "good". If it were possible to show that it is good for some reason other than your own personal preferences, then you'd have objective morality on your hands. If it were "good" for any other reason besides "you like it" then I ought to like it too. It would be correct to like it. But without this phantom reasoning, that would be the same thing as saying it's correct to like chocolate ice cream, and it's incorrect to like brussel sprouts.

If you think there's something more to evaluating morality than what I've described, then you ain't on board with subjectivism. Honestly, it's a hard pill to swallow. People like being correct (see what I did there?). And under subjectivism, in terms of morality, no one is correct about which acts are "right" or "wrong". Of course, no one is incorrect either. Morality simply isn't evaluated in those terms.

Rather, I think you're comparing relativism and absolutism. That it depends on the circumstances what makes a choice the correct choice or incorrect choice (relativism), where some Christians might say that there is always, under all circumstances, one correct choice (absolutism). Either way, relativists and absolutists think that a correct choice could be made. Here's the rub. Absolutists and relativists are objectivists. Relativism is still on the opposite end of the spectrum from subjectivism.

 

[Bradskii]

What your taste is is a fact. It's a fact that my taste prefers steak over chicken. It's the same when weighing matters I take more seriously. I prefer living people to murdered people.

Trying to watch the footy right now, so just a quick response...

The fact that I prefer steak to chicken is not the same as my preference that steak is better than chicken. That I prefer steak is an objective fact. Whether steak is better than chicken is relative to tbe person making the decision.

You are confusing the two. Meanwhile, I'm back to the game. Hasta manana.

 

[Moral Orel]

The fact that I prefer steak to chicken is not the same as my preference that steak is better than chicken.

"My preference that"? You have an opinion that steak is better than chicken. Or you have a preference for steak over chicken. Your sentence doesn't make sense. You prefer that steak be better than chicken? Wut the wut?

I drew the distinction that your preferences are not correct or incorrect, while we can make factual statements about what your preferences actually are, so I have no idea what you're on about me "confusing the two".

 

[o_mlly]

If morality is subjective then morality is reduced to merely an irrational epistemic privilege unique to each and every individual. For the moral subjectivist, what might be good or bad to you has no bearing on what is good or bad to him.

One cannot argue rationally with another on the other's values. And that is true unless the moral subjectivist professes some logical method in his unique calculus for his value system. If so then criticism may be offered on inconsistencies in his logical system. But if the moral subjectivist has no rationale for the values he professes then there is no point in engaging with him. What he holds today he may on a whim change tomorrow.

In this thread, the value of a human life I profess to be sacred and inestimable. Therefore, the value of one human life is not less, nor greater than five human lives. Some disagree. But they cannot find an inconsistency in the logic of my position. On the basis of value, the five are no more important than the one. The decision to kill one to save five is invalid.

They claim by assigning an equivalent value to innocent human life, quantitatively, the value of five lives is five times greater than one. On what basis could that judgement be made? Is the basis one of limiting human suffering? How can the bystander know that the number of grievers for the five are greater than those for the one? Is the basis one of caring about the welfare of others? How can the bystander know the number of dependents for the five are greater than those for the one? Is the basis the good that will be done in the future will be greater for the five than for the one? Only an omniscient being could know such things and conclude that the value of the five to be greater than the one. Can life and death decisions for others be made on some contrived probabilistic basis? No.

Since the one on the track is innocent, I also submit that pulling the lever that directly kills him is murder. Others believe his murder is justified. However, when I asked whether the one on the track has a right to lethal self-defense against the one who would murder him, I have no reply. The reason is that no rational person can agree because doing so would make the bystander in his act an unjust aggressor.

 

[IceJad]

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.

The problem with utilitarianism is that you assume you're are certain by enacting one action the maximum happiness is achieved. This will only make sense if all future outcomes are guaranteed. In the trolley case all variables are accounted for and certainty of choice is known before hand.

In real life scenarios there are no such foreknowledge. Utilitarianism brings with it horrible implications. If maximizing happiness to the most individuals is moral any actions to achieve it will be justifiable as implied by the pulling the switch to spare the 5 and killing the 1.

Therefore slavery is morally right as the suffering of the small minority gives comfort to the majority either directly or indirectly. If decimating a small community to make space for the profit of the majority then it is morally justifiable under this line of thought. The trolley problem is just utilitarianism boiled down to its simplicity.

 

[durangodawood]

The problem with utilitarianism is that you assume you're are certain by enacting one action the maximum happiness is achieved. This will only make sense if all future outcomes are guaranteed. In the trolley case all variables are accounted for and certainty of choice is known before hand.

In real life scenarios there are no such foreknowledge. Utilitarianism brings with it horrible implications. If maximizing happiness to the most individuals is moral any actions to achieve it will be justifiable as implied by the pulling the switch to spare the 5 and killing the 1.

Therefore slavery is morally right as the suffering of the small minority gives comfort to the majority either directly or indirectly. If decimating a small community to make space for the profit of the majority then it is morally justifiable under this line of thought. The trolley problem is just utilitarianism boiled down to its simplicity.

Maybe sometimes utilitarianism is the right framework for solving a dilemma... and other times it isnt.

To me, directing a peril to the least populated area is morally right in principle. If that vindicates utilitarianism for limited are rare applications, so be it. Slavery introduces so many other issues that the comparison falls apart.

 

[IceJad]

Maybe sometimes utilitarianism is the right framework for solving a dilemma... and other times it isnt.

To me, directing a peril to the least populated area is morally right in principle. If that vindicates utilitarianism for limited are rare applications, so be it. Slavery introduces so many other issues that the comparison falls apart.

That is why the scenarios are so specific and can't be easily transpose to real life. The trolley problem is not a problem but a one way conveyor belt. It guides you to make the only reasonable (not moral) choice if you're not a psychopath or have any mental deficiency.

It removes all nuances, consequences and aftermath to the situation. All victims are nameless and faceless. No one you will ever know or love will be presented as the one you must sacrifice. There is no physical execution of your choice as it is merely a thought experiment. It becomes harder once you physically need to execute your choice. The outcome stops at the point of pulling (or not pulling) the lever. You need not worry about the legality, the investigation after nor facing the family of the one you sacrifice.

Utilitarianism works when it is all in the mind.

If I change the problem a little bit will you take the logical choice again?

You have a gun in hand with only one bullet. In front of you is the crib of baby Adolf Hitler. You cannot miss at this distance nor will the baby survive the shot. Surrounding you are his parents (Hitler's father is a government official) and family friends come to celebrate his first birthday. You only have this one chance to be ever this close to Hitler. Will you take the shot knowing if not millions will die. After the shot you're sure to be branded a baby killer and your family shamed for all time. You will certainly be sentenced to death.

 

[durangodawood]

That is why the scenarios are so specific and can't be easily transpose to real life. The trolley problem is not a problem but a one way conveyor belt. It guides you to make the only reasonable (not moral) choice if you're not a psychopath or have any mental deficiency.

It removes all nuances, consequences and aftermath to the situation. All victims are nameless and faceless. No one you will ever know or love will be presented as the one you must sacrifice. There is no physical execution of your choice as it is merely a thought experiment. It becomes harder once you physically need to execute your choice. The outcome stops at the point of pulling (or not pulling) the lever. You need not worry about the legality, the investigation after nor facing the family of the one you sacrifice.

Utilitarianism works when it is all in the mind.

If I change the problem a little bit will you take the logical choice again?

You have a gun in hand with only one bullet. In front of you is the crib of baby Adolf Hitler. You cannot miss at this distance nor will the baby survive the shot. Surrounding you are his parents (Hitler's father is a government official) and family friends come to celebrate his first birthday. You only have this one chance to be ever this close to Hitler. Will you take the shot knowing if not millions will die. After the shot you're sure to be branded a baby killer and your family shamed for all time. You will certainly be sentenced to death.

Your baby Hitler hypothetical is absurd. There is no known world where future-seeing like that is possible. Its impossible to situate myself in that kind of world.

I composed a different take on the trolley problem that does like this:

Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot and killed the engines. The plane is on a glide path right toward what looks to you like the most populated part of the city. You think you can steer a plane in a situation like this. No other pilots on board. Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward less populated area? The plane itself is totally doomed either way. .......Or.... hands off, let God decide? Those are the available options in your very best judgement at the time.

Its basically the exact same moral issues trolley problem, but with a more realistic feel, I think. What do you think?

 

[IceJad]

I composed a different take on the trolley problem that does like this:

Youre flight attendant and an accident has just killed the pilot and killed the engines. The plane is on a glide path right toward what looks to you like the most populated part of the city. You think you can steer a plane in a situation like this. No other pilots on board. Do you try to take the stick and steer it toward less populated area? The plane itself is totally doomed either way. .......Or.... hands off, let God decide? Those are the available options in your very best judgement at the time.

Its basically the exact same moral issues trolley problem, but with a more realistic feel, I think. What do you think?

I think it's almost there. We need to add back the elements missing from the trolley problem, mainly the consequences after. For one the decision maker must survive the initial execution of the choice. He/she must be around to witness the negative impact on the ones sacrificed. Secondly the consequences after must in some way affect the decision maker's closest love one. Lastly there must be judgement rendered by an authority on the decision maker.

Because in real life if we initially survive sacrificing others to achieve a greater goal, it always affects our love ones. Either in terms of emotions or societal status. And there is always the legal system at work.

BTW, I would have taken the chance to bail the plane by myself. Taking the chances on dropping hard on the ground and hoping that I only injure non-critical organs. Since the death is assured either way if I take control of the plane, I would go with self preservation. The selfish choice. And legally I'm not required to ensure the safety of the passengers in such situation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You both went to essentially the same answer, so pardon me if I just address my follow-up question to both of you at once. Why do you recognize it as good?

It's functional, and functional states as we identify them on a human level lend themselves to biological survival (again, speaking from a human level and NOT from the level of a Covid-19 virus ),

Does anyone here want to go on record and state they they unqualifiably think that something that can be evaluated as being 'dysfunctional' is in some sense 'good' as is could be or (even just physically speaking and not necessarily meta-physically speaking) .... 'should' be?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I know you're a fan of Kierkegaard but there's no need to try to be as dense as he was. Whatever 'good' you envisage, you still haven't addressed the problem of what to do when someone else disagrees with you. Most Christians will say that God knows what the good is and somehow passes this information on to us. Except that there appears to be a breakdown in communication somewhere as different Christians seem to have received different messages.

Oh, I'm not THAT big of a fan of Kierkegaard. I don't primarily rely upon him. It's just that he has some interesting epistemological and axiological points to make. Frankly, I'd lean more toward some Wittgenstein and Gilkey if I wanted to pull in anything treating with our ability to 'get at' the good ... that's just the angle on the game that I play.

If you know what the good is, then we can just ask you. If not, then how do you find out?

The good is that which is functional (speaking, though, on a human level and from our categorical human perspective, not on that of the level of a Covid-19 virus).

And my steak? Just cut off the horns and wipe it's @rse.

I guess all that ends well is well, in hindsight...if you like that kind of thing.