-->
@Theweakeredge
you have copied my response and pasted it back, explain what it demonstrates.
Please be slightly more specific.
Trolley problem
Posts
Total:
159
-->
@Theweakeredge
relevant because it accurately describes your behavior
My sincerity is beyond your epistemological limits.
AND if it had nothing to do with the conversation, WHY MENTION IT?
-->
@Theweakeredge
choosing to not do something is an action into itself.
CHOOSING IS A PURELY MENTAL PROCESS.
ACTING IS A PURELY PHYSICAL PROCESS.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't care for red herrings, address the issue at hand.
Feel free to paraphrase what you believe my argument is.
Two single-track minds collide, this is the outcome. :)
-->
@3RU7AL
Again, it is relevant, as I said last time, your claim that it was an ad hominem was irrelevant the "ad hominem" itself was relevant.
-->
@3RU7AL
all mental processes are physical process, there is no meaningful difference.
-->
@Theweakeredge
Again, it is relevant, as I said last time, your claim that it was an ad hominem was irrelevant the "ad hominem" itself was relevant.
You might be able to say that you suspect that I'm being insincere (which is a comment on your own mental state, not mine).
Or you could ask me if I'm being insincere.
However, insisting that my insincerity is a fact is quite simply beyond your epistemological limits and also a textbook ad hominem attack.
-->
@Theweakeredge
all mental processes are physical process, there is no meaningful difference.
You can't hold someone morally or legally culpable for a purely mental process.
You CAN hold someone morally or legally culpable for a purely physical action.
-->
@3RU7AL
You can hold someone legally culpable for not doing a physical action, or I suppose that not feeding your children just isn't wrong? Because that's the logical conclusion that your argument leads to, if someone could never be responsible for something they didn't do, then I suppose its fine to not feed your children, or provide them doctor appointments or anything of the sorts.
-->
@Theweakeredge
You can hold someone legally culpable for not doing a physical action, or I suppose that not feeding your children just isn't wrong? Because that's the logical conclusion that your argument leads to, if someone could never be responsible for something they didn't do, then I suppose its fine to not feed your children, or provide them doctor appointments or anything of the sorts.
Great example.
(IFF) A PERSON'S LEGAL OBLIGATIONS ARE FULFILLED (THEN) NO OTHER ACTION CAN BE REQUIRED
Do you agree or disagree with this conditional statement?
-->
@3RU7AL
No - you don't understand the point of me bringing that up - you can be morally responsible for not doing an action - that was my point. IF you agree that you should not do something, THEN you agree that you should stop someone from doing that thing.
-->
@3RU7AL
@Theweakeredge
3RU7AL probably considers lying immoral (bad/wrong) even if it would save a persons life.
The thing is morality is the distinction between right and wrong, not what is right or wrong (It’s situational).
5 pages of post in a day? I will take that.
-->
@Reece101
I actually agree with that - I think very few things are always wrong, there are some things which are of course intrinsically wrong, but lying definitely isn't one of them.
-->
@3RU7AL
Amazing how a hypothetical trolley situation can stimulate 5 pages of discussion.
-->
@Theweakeredge
"Of course"...Right and Wrong are only intrinsic to human social situations...Though right and wrong are always variably and selectively interpreted.....So their of-courseness is always debateable and therefore can never be established as a universal standard.
And lying is intrinsic to human nature....As deception is a coping strategy.
-->
@zedvictor4
"Of course"...Right and Wrong are only intrinsic to human social situations...
How so?
...Though right and wrong are always variably and selectively interpreted.....So their of-courseness is always debateable and therefore can never be established as a universal standard.
This is why we have laws which are often informed by common held moral (inter-subjective) beliefs.
Yet laws are amoral in and of themselves.
-->
@Reece101
A. Because right and wrong and morals are human concepts, designed by and for the purposes of human societies. It would seem logical to suggest that concepts did not float around the universe waiting to be absorbed by an intelligent lifeform.
B. Laws, morality and immorality are all variable and selectively applied.....But certainly in themselves, Laws are impassive and amoral.
-->
@zedvictor4
I was going off of the assumption that we value human well-being, because if we forget that assumption, then no, no human life has value technically. However, as you are a human you I know for a fact that you value well-being. Regardless of your position.
-->
@zedvictor4
A. Because right and wrong and morals are human concepts, designed by and for the purposes of human societies. It would seem logical to suggest that concepts did not float around the universe waiting to be absorbed by an intelligent lifeform.
So you don’t believe other animals abide by right and wrong behaviour? Jest because animals don’t have language doesn’t mean they don’t understand the concepts of right and wrong.
-->
@Theweakeredge
For sure...I value wellbeing and the well being of most others.
Though selective morality allows me to have exceptions to that rule....And I think that most people are the same.
-->
@zedvictor4
Mm, I would agree, except for having selective morality, or at the very least I try not to have it - though obviously, some biases are stronger than my principles. Furthermore, selective morality is exactly what justifies animal cruelty.
-->
@Reece101
Mmmmmm....I would suggest that most if not all other animals function purely instinctively.....Though I'm sure that you will suggest possible exceptions to that rule.
The interplay between instinct and acquired or evolved behaviour is a bit of a grey area.
Whether or not animals have acquired/evolved instinctive knowledge of right and wrong is another matter.....I would suggest not.
I would further suggest that human knowledge of right and wrong is also an acquired trait rather than an inherited one.
-->
@Theweakeredge
I agree.
-->
@zedvictor4
Mmmmmm....I would suggest that most if not all other animals function purely instinctively.....Though I'm sure that you will suggest possible exceptions to that rule.
That “rule” would mostly involve insects. The “exceptions” are a large frickin group involving many birds, mammals, etc.
would further suggest that human knowledge of right and wrong is also an acquired trait rather than an inherited one.
To an extent. I say it’s also reflective of how we evolved to deal with environments we’re raised in.
-->
@Reece101
Well yeah - you only have the right to vote whenever your 18, that's an acquired trait, aging, you only have the right to drive after you pass a test. You only have a right to college education if you have a certain score on a test, what guarantees moral consideration in my opinion, is the ability to suffer and contemplate that suffering, or at the very least comprehend it.
Just for you anti-abortionist "Aha! Theweakeredge believes that suffering mandates morality, therefore fetuses have moral consideration!" False. The majority of abortions, over 90% of which, happen at 13 weeks or before. Whereas fetus only feel pain around 20 weeks; where less than 1% of abortions occur.
-->
@Reece101
I agree with your evolutionary principle.
And therefore animals have thus, acquired coping strategies.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that animals can readily formulate abstract concepts, such as right and wrong.
Animals have niches and if left undisturbed, will not need to vary established behavioural traits....Compared to humans who continually make new concept based decisions and adaptations.
Chimpanzees left undisturbed in the jungle, never even got around to inventing the wheel, so what chance a moral and legal system, above and separate from instinctive social behaviour.
-->
@zedvictor4
I agree with your evolutionary principle.And therefore animals have thus, acquired coping strategies.But this doesn't necessarily mean that animals can readily formulate abstract concepts, such as right and wrong.
Right and wrong are very simple concepts. Animals don’t need their inner dialogue translated into human language to understand “that hurts, I’ll stay away from it.” Would you consider that subjective morality?
You can then broaden out to include animal hierarchies and various ways animals know where they stand with one another.