The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Yeah, and that question has tons of nuances to explore to really make it an easy decision.

But the most dishonest thing about that question is that it acts like morality is a dichotomy between either right or wrong when there is tons of grey area. Shouldn't be "Is it good to kill a child to save 100 people?" but instead "Is it better to kill a child to save 100 people?" because killing the child is always going to be immoral on a certain level simply because it will cause suffering.

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

You can't say "you did the calculation" as the entire premise of the scenario was that somehow we know for a fact that killing him will be a net positive in terms of suffering caused vs suffering alleviated. It's an unrealistic hypothetical scenario, but then again so is the trolly problem and every other utilitarian thought experiment.

I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.

You had a problem with killing him not just based on suffering but on robbing him of the choice of whether to live. The same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply if he was considering suffice. Yet you wouldn't see that as wrong, because it's his choice. So already we're introducing elements other than pure suffering vs happiness into the moral equation.

I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Which is my point. Not that empathy doesn't inform morality, but it's not the only source that we draw from when making moral decisions.

Of course not, people like to use cultural norms, faux science, religion and etc. to justify the harm they do rather than face themselves. Just because people use outside things to inform their moral decisions doesn't make it moral.

It's not that I don't see the basic appeal of utilitarian thinking. It's just too simplistic to capture morality in its entirety.

No, you're just over simplifying human suffering to push that narrative while I, who holds this belief, am not.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by jwb

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

Lesser of two evils.

Ha, got it in early!

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

by that logic it's "immoral on a certain level" to give your kid a flu shot

It's immoral on a certain level to fart on an elevator but that doesn't make you blatantly evil because I don't think human suffering is as simple as you make it therefor neither is morality.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

I can say that because I did do the calculation. Robbing the homeless person of that choice (or illusion of choice for those that get anal about it) causes suffering because they could be happier enduring their suffering even if death would cause less suffering than living. Ultimately you're not causing their suffering by letting them live either. They are causing their own suffering by letting themselves live. Or something else is causing their suffering which of course is a better alternative to investigate over killing the homeless guy but of course that gets ignored because it doesn't fit your narrative.



I've literally explained how it would be harmful 3 times now. How it does actually fit in suffering vs. happiness. You're just ignoring it or dismissing it because it doesn't fit your narrative.

maybe you're just misunderstanding the actual scenario. It's literally built into the scenario that in this case we somehow know for a fact that with this man, more suffering will be alleviated than caused by his death.

So responding "maybe it won't" is just rejecting the scenario entirely, not answering it.

You did prove my point that there's more to it than just a calculation on suffering by bringing up the problem that you are infringing on his right to choose whether to live or die. This is something that tends to bother us regardless of any suffering vs happiness calculation.

As I mentioned, if the man were to contemplate suicide, the same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply. Yet we wouldn't see that as wrong because it's his choice. So there is another element at play beyond that calculation.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

It's immoral on a certain level to fart on an elevator but that doesn't make you blatantly evil because I don't think human suffering is as simple as you make it therefor neither is morality.

I don't think either of those are immoral. In fact I think the shot thing is actually the right thing to do.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

maybe you're just misunderstanding the actual scenario. It's literally built into the scenario that in this case we somehow know for a fact that with this man, more suffering will be alleviated than caused by his death.

So responding "maybe it won't" is just rejecting the scenario entirely, not answering it.

I never said "maybe it won't". I said maybe the homeless person is happier enduring that suffering. I also said that it's not causing suffering to let him live while killing him is.

You did prove my point that there's more to it than just a calculation on suffering by bringing up the problem that you are infringing on his right to choose whether to live or die. This is something that tends to bother us regardless of any suffering vs happiness calculation.

No, I actually didn't you're just rejecting my explanations. It bothers us because it's harmful to take someone's choice away. Also, because I already mentioned, just killing him is already immoral on a level no matter the suffering.

As I mentioned, if the man were to contemplate suicide, the same suffering vs happiness calculation would apply. Yet we wouldn't see that as wrong because it's his choice. So there is another element at play beyond that calculation.

Because causing suffering to yourself is different from causing suffering to somebody else. You're also leaving out, again, how he could be happier enduring suffering than dying.

The scenario is unrealistically over simplified in an attempt to paint my belief as overly simplified. The only realistic example you can give is if I support assisted suicide or euthanasia and I do. It's not overwhelmingly 'good' it's a morally grey area because suffering and happiness is in no way nearly as simple as you are making it out to be in an attempt to paint this belief as simple.

Originally Posted by jwb

I don't think either of those are immoral. In fact I think the shot thing is actually the right thing to do.

Of course because the amount of harm it prevents compared to how much it does is disparate.

Edit: And you seem to be treating morality as a complete dichotomy when I don't.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

I never said "maybe it won't". I said maybe the homeless person is happier enduring that suffering.

that is again rejecting the scenario. In this case we know for a fact there will be more suffering than happiness produced by him continuing to live. That's literally the entire point of the scenario... To see if killing him would still seem wrong even if the calculation of suffering vs happiness leans that way in this case.

I also said that it's not causing suffering to let him live while killing him is.

you could then say that for instance by not killing the 1 child to save 100 people, you're not responsible for those 100 deaths. Because you didn't directly cause them. You just failed to act.

The utilitarian calculus typically analyzes results above all else. Inaction can lead to more harm than action.

No, I actually didn't you're just rejecting my explanations. It bothers us because it's harmful to take someone's choice away. Also, because I already mentioned, just killing him is already immoral on a level no matter the suffering.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Not that suffering doesn't factor into morality. But there's more to it than that. There are ideas of rights, fairness, autonomy, purity, etc.

Because causing suffering to yourself is different from causing suffering to somebody else. You're also leaving out, again, how he could be happier enduring suffering than dying.

The scenario is unrealistically over simplified in an attempt to paint my belief as overly simplified. The only realistic example you can give is if I support assisted suicide or euthanasia and I do. It's not overwhelmingly 'good' it's a morally grey area because suffering and happiness is in no way nearly as simple as you are making it out to be in an attempt to paint this belief as simple.

all of the thought experiments that are typically used to argue about utilitarian ethics are typically unrealistic and over simplified. The reason for this is that it helps isolate variables as to why we find something wrong. That's all I was doing.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Mindfulness

hey jwb, cool new avy

Lucem needs Michael.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by jwb

that is again rejecting the scenario. In this case we know for a fact there will be more suffering than happiness produced by him continuing to live. That's literally the entire point of the scenario... To see if killing him would still seem wrong even if the calculation of suffering vs happiness leans that way in this case.

Then he could kill himself, it's not my burden to carry.

you could then say that for instance by not killing the 1 child to save 100 people, you're not responsible for those 100 deaths. Because you didn't directly cause them. You just failed to act.

Not really. His suffering already existed and you didn't cause it.

This is an event you have the ability to prevent where people are completely dependent on you. The other situation he's not. Unless we're talking assisted suicide or euthanasia.

The utilitarian calculus typically analyzes results above all else. Inaction can lead to more harm than action.

Yeah, but I never said I was a utilitarian. That's just what you used to describe me.

That's exactly what I've been saying. Not that suffering doesn't factor into morality. But there's more to it than that. There are ideas of rights, fairness, autonomy, purity, etc.

All of those things account for causing suffering and happiness.

Even then, that's kind of a lie. You were saying that morality is cultural.

all of the thought experiments that are typically used to argue about utilitarian ethics are typically unrealistic and over simplified. The reason for this is that it helps isolate variables as to why we find something wrong. That's all I was doing.

No, you were over simplifying things to fit the narrative that my views are overly simple and rejecting any possible nuance I throw at it.