Racism!!

#103

Yet gravity still existed before a universal concensus on a measurement. A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. Scientific theories are just that, theories.
Moral statements are basically statements of value. Some value statements are clearly subjective: “Strawberry flavored ice cream tastes good” can be true for me, but false for you. Subjective because these are subjective statements.

IE Kant’s categorial imperatives -
His approach to making morality objective rests on idea of whether a course of action can be applied in any situation whatsoever. If so then, it is true in all cases, and it is (objectively) moral. Pass, fail.
Utilitarianism specifically is a MEASUREMENT of outcomes, not purely based on emotions. 3 lives > 1 life, external factors aside.
You have 0s and 1s here.

1 Like
#104

Just a theory… It hurts me inside when I hear that. I just hope you meant that in a different way than usual.

Why would that make an action moral?

What if you don’t value life?

#105

Because we can categorize rational and irrational behavior since harm exists

1 Like
#106

What is harm?

#107

This is a value statement

See above

1 Like
#108

Do you subscribe to Kant’s position or are you using it as an example?

Don’t get me wrong, it’s a perfectly ethical way to solve the Trolly.

Sorry you answered already, I read back.

#109

Yeah I wouldn’t hit the lever D:

I do think he’s got the strongest points when it comes to moral law -universal application, outcome, social duties, reason & rationality etc

The only person unethical in the trolley scenario is the one who tied them down. The rest is subjective which is why its a dilemma.

1 Like
#110

I checked. I didn’t see anything explanation of what “harm” is.

#111

Yeah, it can let you make difficult choices, but I always felt it was a crutch. You’re not really being objective, you’re just using a certain set of rules to remove the responsibility from your actions.

I was going to ask people the Doc one next, do you know it?

There’s 5 geniuses who have the potential to save the world, they’re all dying of a terminal condition but not an illness. Organ failure mostly, would it be ethical to kill 1 person who is a perfect donation match for all 5?

Do the ends justify the means, Doc experiment.

Doing it for the greater good, Trolly.

If you would push the button to save the 5 people on the tracks, and if you would, would you sign a piece of paper authorizing the murder of 1 person to save 5.
You don’t have to carry out either death, but both require an action to prevent the death of 5 others.

Edit - no argument about your list, he was a very smart guy.

1 Like
#112

Harm exists in degrees as inflicting negative emotions/injury on another being. Actions imposed on someone or something else. It’s not human-specific and its not necessarily bad, just exists within the universe. Things impose their will on other living things. Action, reaction. Even if you are incapable of feeling pain if I am making you bleed I am inflicting harm. Yes, taking your dog to the vet is harm and so on, just occurs in degrees and this is independent of morality. An animal killing another animal is harm.
This thread is harm xd

2 Likes
#113

That’s the place you need to start (the definition of harm) if you’re going to build out a set of ethics.

The second thing you need to do is accept that some harm is actually ok ie. your dog needs surgery, the surgery is harm but less harm than death.

Then figure out how to tell them a part. I think words where a good solution to this problem. Mostly… (this is a joke).

1 Like
#114

In a way yes, as morality based purely on measurable outcomes are not meant to interpret the action, just justify an end. It’s the go-to objective take for that reason, rather than having to worry about the action itself which has many subjective takes.

You kill 1 to save 5 so its moral as long as you’ve got a numbers advantage. Waterboarding, wars, so on follow the same notion. Ends are measurable outcomes.

#115

Exactly, (although I would say morale not ethical) it’s just not for me. Good place to start but then you got to look at it deeper.
I do like how neatly the doc one makes you rethink it if you are the kind of the person who is completely comfortable with pushing the button to switch the trolly tracks.

Personally after establishing harm I add to it, thinking creatures who can suffer and that they have an innate ownership of themselves.

Seems to work as a fairly solid foundation.

Edit - wish I wasn’t so tired, I haven’t figured out where Jokers boats fit in between the two and it would be a fun discussion. I’m wiped out though.

#116

And that’s not subjective?

Like drawing blood? A finger prick to check hematacrite level or blood sugar.

Is resuscitation without consent harm?

Why shouldn’t I inflict harm?

This is all feeling very subjective right now.

#117

Kill all the people. Only way to be safe.

2 Likes
#118

No, me beating you with a baseball bat and the pain and/or death that follows is objectively harm within the universe. Violence is a fact.

Chest compressions are harm, you’re on the right track.

& As above mentioned surgery is harm. Harm is independent of morality. Animals harm other animals for food. A blood draw is harm. The moral aspect comes into play when measuring human specific intentional harm, rational action, and whether the ends justify the means.
We objectively are capable of both reason and harmful action.

#119

James Cameron thinks you are all missing the greatest moral question of our time.

Was Janeway right to force Tuvix into the transporter to bring back Tuvok and Neelix?

Also James Cameron needs you to all learn the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

1 Like
#120

Rational behavior is guided by reason and irrational behavior is impulsive, what would your broadly defined “harm” have do with rationality?

#121

Rational behavior meaning that people would rather take actions that benefit them versus actions that would harm themselves without reason.
It’s not my definition of harm, its existed since before the creation of medical and legal system xd. The lack of reasoning is how we define insanity.

#122

Tuvix was able to speak for his own desire to live - but who speaks for Tuvok and Neelix, James Cameron?

Alternatively, if you want to look solely at the outcome of this dilemma rather than the action itself, which side has the greater benefit vs potential for harm?