0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and 20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.
Quote from: alancalverd on 07/12/2020 22:55:08The tests are universal but if you want to consider quantitative morality you have to compare the sacrifice of the Calais garrison (500 casualties and 20,000 prisoners of war) with the success of the Dunkirk evacuation (300,000 troops repatriated). Any fool can stage a parade but In politics and war the test of command is to choose between the unpalatable and the unacceptable. If there is no good option, take the lesser evil.What if the sacrifice was made by the other side? Would it be eligible as a moral action too?
If kamikaze pilots were successful in destroying allies fleet and save their comrades, would they be called morally heroic?
Quote from: charles1948 on 04/12/2020 23:10:22Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?Perhaps you are not interested to this topic, but that's not a reason to hush others who are. You haven't found any conclusion doesn't mean others will fail too. Not so long ago reusable rocket was thought to be impossible, even by world's leading rocket engineers. But now it has been the norm. People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
Is there any point to continuing these arguments. They never come to any conclusion. So why waste time on them?
Test 1. Would you like it if someone bombed your ship?Test 2. Would you bomb a ship if your wife was on it?
However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?
Suicide has no moral aspect in my book unless it involves harm to others. So we only need to judge the intentional harm. If the moral imperative is to destroy the US navy, the action may be justified in context as expending the least number of personnel to achieve the objective. So we look at the bigger picture and review the Japanese decision to attack Pearl Harbor.1. Would you like it if I attacked your naval base?2. Would you attack a military establishment that was not threatening you, if your wife was in the camp?Once you have poked the wasp's nest, you have no right to complain if they sting you.
Quote from: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?
whilst maximising destruction on the other side.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 08/12/2020 21:50:01Quote from: charles1948 on 08/12/2020 18:43:37However, in the the field of Philosophy, it seems to be different. Arguments about questions like "Is there a universal moral standard" have been going on since the time of Plato and Aristotle. That's 2,000 years!If after all that time, it's not been possible reach an answer to the question, might that not indicate that the question is actually meaningless?Why so? How long time must pass until we can be sure that a question is inherently unanswerable?Pardon?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 07/12/2020 21:43:10What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions? Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience? Is it contagious? Can it be cured? Putting self-gratification above any concern for the wellbeing of others is ultimately an expression of the will to survive and therefore inherent in all living things which would otherwise die rather than inconvenience the next guy. Morality is a bit of a luxury because it is irrelevant where there is no choice. But some people do it to excess, as defined by law.I consider the "negative" basis of English law to be superior to all others. The state exists to serve the citizen, and where citizens would be harmed or inconvenienced by an action, the state makes that illegal and provides the mechanism for prevention and punishment. As a result, Voltaire observed that "the English have very few laws and they obey them all". And it's consistent with my tests of morality.As time goes on, we have acquired an awful lot of trivial laws but got rid of some sigificant restrictions, in particular about sexual behavior that does not affect third parties - the area that most people consider to deal with "immorality".
What do you think about immorality? Why people become immoral? What causes them to do immoral actions? Is it a genetic trait? Or is it acquired from experience? Is it contagious? Can it be cured?
Quote from: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:06:18I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it?
I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:44:10Quote from: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:06:18I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it? You seem to miss this one to.
I agree that self preference is a product of evolutionary process. Those who lack of it tend to extinct.But I don't think that your next sentences answered my questions.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 09/12/2020 04:35:47Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 06/12/2020 21:44:10Quote from: alancalverd on 06/12/2020 16:06:18I make a pact with Satan that I will kill you if I win my next game of chess. Do you like the idea? If not, the pact fails Test 1. (You are safe, for the time being at least - I haven't played for ages.)I don't like it, but for different reasons. If you can find someone who does like your idea, will you do it? You seem to miss this one to. OK, say there's a fool who will be happy if I kill him, never mind the reason. Test 1. If I were that fool, I'd be happy because that's how we defined the foolTest 2. Yes. I'd hope for a more intelligent reason but I think it is almost a moral imperative to kill anyone who wants to die and can't kill themselves.
Selfpreference is essential to, rather than a product of, evolution..
The minimum requirement for evolutionary process are duplication, mutation, and natural selection.