FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Moral Philosophy
Moral Philosophy
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"i think it would depend on the outcome if you did nothing aswel for example in the trolley problem someone is dying either way , so its a choice between save a few or save many in the OP it just says help many while harming a few so it’s not clear if the many are already at risk of harm or if the help is just a leg up so to speak " Good points. Active harm as opposed to non intervention. | |||
"I was à watching à podcast on exactly the same debate, it was an ethics professor in havard University that questions is used often to discuss moral dilemmas what you choose to do depends on the greater good. " Cosmic Sceptic from Oxford U touched on it briefly recently as well I'd be interested in your Harvard Professors views, so please share details of the link if you can xx | |||
"i think it would depend on the outcome if you did nothing aswel for example in the trolley problem someone is dying either way , so its a choice between save a few or save many in the OP it just says help many while harming a few so it’s not clear if the many are already at risk of harm or if the help is just a leg up so to speak Good points. Active harm as opposed to non intervention." On a broader level, the solution is to give as much individual liberty and responsibility to all to walk away from harm, not just be having to accept decisions of however large majority or small minority or the driver deciding. I think. | |||
"I was à watching à podcast on exactly the same debate, it was an ethics professor in havard University that questions is used often to discuss moral dilemmas what you choose to do depends on the greater good. Cosmic Sceptic from Oxford U touched on it briefly recently as well I'd be interested in your Harvard Professors views, so please share details of the link if you can xx" The links was on my ethics module on my uni virtual class | |||
| |||
"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation. When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others. These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. " oh! that sounds right horrible actually having to make that decision in how you would programme the car , but i guess in a split second you would potentially have to make that decision as a driver too | |||
"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation. When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others. These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. " Spot on, and our frontline services are faced with these kinds of choices daily, in making hard choices like medical triage decisions... On a separate note I've never liked the "Fat man" problem as it introduces an unnecessary element of bias that skews the results. But I love the way the "Trolley problem" is usually presented in a series of increasingly difficult choices to test the consistency your moral decision making methodology. | |||
| |||
| |||
"I’ve enjoyed reading this. The trolley problem is fascinating, especially the fat man on a bridge scenario. I read one once, might have been in the same book, where a question is posed, ‘Five ‘good’ people need organ transplants, a two requiring a lung, two requiring a kidney and one requiring a heart’ a convicted murderer is shown as a match for all potential recipients. Is it ok to sentence him to death to harvest his organs to save the five good people?’" i think my moral compass is broken and spinning in circles , i thought it was ok to push the man off the bridge because it was just like swinging left and hitting just one person , but now i don’t think we should be allowed to kill the murderer , which then makes me think should i about turn on the man on the bridge and decide that wasn’t ok either i guess maybe the only logic i can think of for my different response is in the first scenario immediate death of someone was guaranteed so it was a case of save as many as you can in this example the death is probable but not guaranteed or imminent , there is still a chance of survival for the 5 through the transplant list without anyone being sacrificed | |||
"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5 i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this " The difference in the fat man and the trolley scenario as I recall is two fold. In the trolley scenario, either the 1 or the 5 must die, its inevitable.... whereas the fat man is not on one of the tracks and is safe unless you actively chose to push him.... Interestingly when the experiment doesn't use the word "Fat" to describe the 'largest person' fewer people choose to push him..... makes you think  | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss...." this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. " Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? " it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers. | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers." I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier. Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers. I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier. Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. " that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all. To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected. doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for. Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony. | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers. I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier. Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all. To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected. doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for. Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony. " Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything. Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know. | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers. I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier. Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all. To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected. doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for. Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony. Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything. Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know. " haha, I do a lot of thinking with being up late alone most of the time 
o, your correct the energy is continuation but not in the same form, fossil fuels for instance are dead dinosaurs squashed by rock and deposits over many millions of years but they give energy to our cars, that spit out other energies (co2), that are then eaten by plants, who then produce oxygen which we breath and some of the foods we eat, which is then turned to fertilizer, which then helps more plants to grow.
(human waste not fertilizer now cos we are dirty eaters with chemicals (pharma & food) and preserves (pest killer, chemical long life preservation) and even plastics in us now, plus we are omnivores.)
no they don't, for starts I'm adhd so don't see the world as others do & it is the original hunter gather gene so t's kinda inbuilt I suppose, most adhd folk I have met so far understand it like or similar to this.  | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss.... this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule. there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance) its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice, There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories. the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers. I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier. Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all. To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected. doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for. Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony. Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything. Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know. haha, I do a lot of thinking with being up late alone most of the time
o, your correct the energy is continuation but not in the same form, fossil fuels for instance are dead dinosaurs squashed by rock and deposits over many millions of years but they give energy to our cars, that spit out other energies (co2), that are then eaten by plants, who then produce oxygen which we breath and some of the foods we eat, which is then turned to fertilizer, which then helps more plants to grow.
(human waste not fertilizer now cos we are dirty eaters with chemicals (pharma & food) and preserves (pest killer, chemical long life preservation) and even plastics in us now, plus we are omnivores.)
no they don't, for starts I'm adhd so don't see the world as others do & it is the original hunter gather gene so t's kinda inbuilt I suppose, most adhd folk I have met so far understand it like or similar to this. "Oh ok. I come from a somewhat story culture, I only have vague recollections from childhood. I try to make sense of what I remember, but it's a lost art. It's very unlikely to continue even if I have kids. I'm more caught up in running about making ends meet. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie. 1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible. 2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy. 3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome." The alternative is being a total kant | |||
"If u want to judge Morels it’s difficult cuz we all have our own perception of morals .. like opinions ... so the easy answer is, I’ve never been a court or morals but I’ve been in a court of law ... so simply, working the facts " The real problem with judging morels is there's too mush room for disagreement | |||
"If u want to judge Morels it’s difficult cuz we all have our own perception of morals .. like opinions ... so the easy answer is, I’ve never been a court or morals but I’ve been in a court of law ... so simply, working the facts The real problem with judging morels is there's too mush room for disagreement" I see what you did there you're such a Fun gi..... | |||
| |||
| |||
"What I enjoy about this is that there is no right or wrong answer to the question." Yes, if you agree there are no moral absolutes. Right and wrong has to be agreed by society. The law is just humanities attempt to codify what is morally acceptable or not. And laws change as human consciousness evolves. | |||
| |||
"For me not the number but more the severity of the consequences. If I could save 1,000,000 people from dying of cancer by giving 10,000 people a bad dose of flu knowing they will suffer quite badly with it but ultimately recover fully in 2-3 weeks with no lasting damage I'd do it in a heartbeat" Cancer and flu are non comparable. | |||
| |||
"An interesting dilemma and I guess it would depend on what the "help" was as to it's worth when weighed up against the harm it would cause - for example if you knew that a cure for cancer could be found but 10,000 people would die overall as a result of side effects or during testing - then it's a sad but ultimately a very harsh acceptable pay off for the benefit. Other circumstances however may not be worth even one person coming to harm." Then you KNOWINGLY killed 10,000 people. Could I call arms to war saying that 10,000 will die but we will save the holy something or other ? Is that just ? Finding a cure for cancer doesn't give us any insight to how many people you will save ... it's a counterfactual. I'm pretty sure that it would be immoral to knowingly kill 10,000 people for what you believe is a good cause. You are giving yourself the right to kill by skewing something that is enshrined in law in this country...... though shalt not kill. | |||
"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation. When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others. These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. " Good point. The trolley problem and the myriad of moral dilemmas that present the same choices seem to work fine when thought about in simplistic terms. but 1 person V 5 people = kill the one? 1 child V 5 very old people ?? 1 doctor V 5 criminals ???? 1 burglar V 5 sex offenders ???? 1 grapist V 5 pedos ???? 1 unicorn v 5 rats .......... hmmmmmmmmm | |||
"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5 i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this " But those five pensioners were ex brain scientists who were still contributing to cures and that toddler had only months to live ..... and you killed us ..... booooooo | |||
"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing the following dilemma- You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people? Yes? No? Discuss...." This really depends on the circumstances surrounding that hurt. In the moment you would be given a choice and only in that moment could you really say what you would do. | |||
| |||
"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5 i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this But those five pensioners were ex brain scientists who were still contributing to cures and that toddler had only months to live ..... and you killed us ..... booooooo " i think i killed everyone involved through my indecision  unless the drivers brain kicked in and he did something lol | |||
"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie. 1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible. 2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy. 3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome." it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department , when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved i imagine it is also used in front line war | |||
"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie. 1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible. 2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy. 3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome. it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department , when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved i imagine it is also used in front line war " I agree with both of you The problem for me lies in the fact that no one school of moral philosophy seems to provide a universally applicable outcomes. I agree that utilitarianism is flawed in certain aspects, but as stated above it also works very well under certain conditions to provide practical effective solutions..... And we find the same thing with most of the major schools of thought..... I find moral philosophy incredibly interesting but of very little practical value in our personal lives. I'm far more interested in practical reasoning and epistemologically.... Why do we believe the the things we believe and do we have good reasons for the our beliefs...... | |||
"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie. 1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible. 2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy. 3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome. it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department , when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved i imagine it is also used in front line war I agree with both of you The problem for me lies in the fact that no one school of moral philosophy seems to provide a universally applicable outcomes. I agree that utilitarianism is flawed in certain aspects, but as stated above it also works very well under certain conditions to provide practical effective solutions..... And we find the same thing with most of the major schools of thought..... I find moral philosophy incredibly interesting but of very little practical value in our personal lives. I'm far more interested in practical reasoning and epistemologically.... Why do we believe the the things we believe and do we have good reasons for the our beliefs...... " i need to do a bit of reading on epistemologically (i also need to practice saying it ) , but as a guess does it not link back to moral philosophy anyway? i’m just thinking surely the reason for our beliefs stem in the moral philosophy to begin with? so if they are good or bad that would also be down to the moral philosophy
totally agree that all branches of moral philosophy have flaws , there is no one size fits all but its still all so interesting | |||
| |||
However...... | |||
"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie. 1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible. 2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy. 3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome. it might i need to do a bit of reading on epistemologically (i also need to practice saying it ) , but as a guess does it not link back to moral philosophy anyway? i’m just thinking surely the reason for our beliefs stem in the moral philosophy to begin with? so if they are good or bad that would also be down to the moral philosophy
totally agree that all branches of moral philosophy have flaws , there is no one size fits all but its still all so interesting "Epistemology is more about the nature, methodology, soundness and consistency of our beliefs.... What do we believe, why do we believe it, is that belief justified, is the argument logically sound, or are there logical contradictions or inconsistencies inherent in the argument or application thereof... As an Atheist raised in a very right wing fundamentalist Christian society I was constantly challenged to confront and justify my beliefs. My peers had the luxury of drawing their Morality from divine command theory. Whereas I had to confront the question of what is morality, and how do I form a coherent, consistent, moral framework in which to function within society if it is not absolute and God given... Sadly I don't have any formal learning in the field, but it's something I love to confront, analyse and debate.... | |||
| |||
