The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[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.

[Mindy]

hey jwb, cool new avy

[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.

[Tristan_Geoff]

Utilitarians unite

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

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

That's not at all the question.

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.

Yes really. In the trolly scenario you also don't directly cause the deaths of the larger number of people. You fail to act in a way that would interfere and save them which requires actively killing someone else. But the circumstance which was going to kill them already existed, and not by your hand, just like the homeless guy's suffering.

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

The arguments you are using are basic utilitarian arguments that have been around for centuries, whether you're aware of that or not.

All of those things account for causing suffering and happiness.

Not necessarily, no.

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

I say biology equips us with a basic capacity for morality which is then shaped specifically by culture. That doesn't contradict anything I've said here.

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.

you yourself declared your views as simple when you said it all boils down to what harms/helps.

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Lucem needs Michael.

Archie >>> meathead

[jwb]

Technically the most utilitarian thing would be to plug us all into the Matrix and give us perfect lives.

They probably won't bother with any of that though since they won't have our same biological inclination towards morality.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by jwb

I mean.. what is the alternative that supposedly works better than pragmatism? To the extent that every society runs into problems based on pragmatic decisions, that's probably mostly true only because pragmatic decisions are necessary and thus ubiquitous in all civilizations. It's not like idealism has a much better success rate.

Alright I've had this tab open since I passed out two days ago but then I had a hangover yesterday and didn't feel like discussing anything in any depth at all and now it's been two days and ehhhh but I can't just leave this hanging so here's my halfassed response:

Yeah I'm not a utopian who thinks that if we just do this one really awesome thing or enact this one really great system of government that we can enact meaningful change. Really we're talking about an empathy problem with the human race. It's hard to feel empathy for people we're doing things to or other people are doing things to half a world away and that's not going to change without taking a lot of time (centuries probably at least) training human instinct to process far away problems differently than we currently do. But while we're not doing that there are a lot of people dying simply because it's hard to care about Syria or the Congo or where ever from all the way here in American comfy chairs. That's not good and should change.

The only step in the right direction I can honestly think of is a total revamp of the UN so that it's not a few powerful countries stonewalling anything that doesn't benefit them while all the smaller countries just deal with issues that don't step on Security Council toes. Aside from that I'd say just on a personal level don't internalize cutthroat pragmatism. You can accept that it's inevitable and that the world is a nasty place but that doesn't mean you have to accept that your own thought processes have to follow that model. You can give that **** the finger even while accepting that there is currently no workable alternative. Maybe a few centuries of people doing that will be part of an honest change in how people deal with the world at large. I agree that morality is probably largely instinctual but instinct isn't written in stone, it's formed by generations doing things over and over.