0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Here is an example where eye for an eye doesn't work as moral guidance.An old man rapes his own little kid many times over a period of ten years.
Here is another one.A man borrow some money and use it for gambling. He dies before paying the debt.
A man kills his neighbor's dog for being noisy.
It can only happen in a democratic society. Moreover, what would they do if they got reelected? Can they just rest in peace? If not, then it can't be their actual ultimate/terminal goal.
Deception to gain political power only work if the constituents are gullible enough to believe it.
They can systematically dumb down their people, but that would bring unwanted consequences in the long term.
So no drug dealer or pimp would vote Republican. Why not? Surely these are the very people who favour private enterprise and low taxes? Or are they hoping for state-funded addiction and prostitution in the Land of the Free?
Human Nature lays out these tantalizing possibilities alongside some even more far-out applications, like Crispr-ing pigs to grow human organs. Then viewers spend time with Steven Hsu, the chief scientific officer at Genomic Prediction, a company that generates genetic scorecards for prospective parents’ IVF embryos. Hsu believes that using Crispr to create children free of disease will one day be routine, and that parents who leave their genetic recombination up to chance will be the ones deemed unethical by societies of the future.
those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.
How can this rule help to solve moral problems such as trolley problem?
The concept of IQ has been around for more than a century
99.9% of the morality of the trolley problem is resolved by:- An annual thorough inspection of the brakes, lights, windscreen wipers, etc...- A several-times daily check of the engine, brakes etc when each new driver starts his/her shift.- Keeping to the speed limit appropriate for the conditions- Reporting any brake problems as soon as they occur, rather than waiting until there are 6 people tied to the tracks.
Quote from: alancalverd on 01/03/2020 21:46:06 those on the left are usually corrupted by money, those on the right by sex.If impeached presidents are useful as indicator, then the US would be a different story.
EQ or "Emotional Quotient" has been around for much less time, but it relates to an emotional connection with people, rather than an intellectual connection.Whether a leader can be emotionally connected to millions of people is an open question...See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_intelligence
The Oxford Dictionary definition of emotion is "A strong feeling deriving from one's circumstances, mood, or relationships with others."[22] Emotions are responses to significant internal and external events.[23]Emotions can be occurrences (e.g., panic) or dispositions (e.g., hostility), and short-lived (e.g., anger) or long-lived (e.g., grief).[24] Psychotherapist Michael C. Graham describes all emotions as existing on a continuum of intensity.[25] Thus fear might range from mild concern to terror or shame might range from simple embarrassment to toxic shame.[26] Emotions have been described as consisting of a coordinated set of responses, which may include verbal, physiological, behavioral, and neural mechanisms.[27]Emotions have been categorized, with some relationships existing between emotions and some direct opposites existing. Graham differentiates emotions as functional or dysfunctional and argues all functional emotions have benefits.[28]In some uses of the word, emotions are intense feelings that are directed at someone or something.[29] On the other hand, emotion can be used to refer to states that are mild (as in annoyed or content) and to states that are not directed at anything (as in anxiety and depression). One line of research looks at the meaning of the word emotion in everyday language and finds that this usage is rather different from that in academic discourse.[30]In practical terms, Joseph LeDoux has defined emotions as the result of a cognitive and conscious process which occurs in response to a body system response to a trigger.[31]
While concept of intelligence is meant to represent problem solving capability, the concept of consciousness includes the ability to determine which problems to solve first.
A disability is any condition that makes it more difficult for a person to do certain activities or interact with the world around them. These conditions, or impairments, may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or a combination of multiple factors. Impairments causing disability may be present from birth or occur during a person's lifetime.
Brain-implanted rats and human addicts will solve the problem of getting the next fix rather than getting the next meal. This behaviour may seem illogical to you, but if you use it to determine consciousness, you are applying your arbitrary values to another entity in a different environment, so it's subjective. Think about a parent who knowingly sacrifices himself to save a child: same outcome (self destruction) for the same stimulus (feeling good).
The compensation may be relief of chronic pain, emotional suffering, or obvious looming disaster. Or simply to give a lifetime's accumulated wealth to one's children instead of wasting it on terminal "care". I fully intend to take my own life rather than suffer pain and indignity.
Who authorised any of the aforementioned old perverts to judge "adequate"?
Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.Having forewarned the Kenites who were living among the Amalekites to leave, Saul goes to war and defeats the Amalekites. Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full, he informs Saul that God has rejected him as king due to his disobedience. As Samuel turns to go, Saul seizes hold of his garments and tears off a piece; Samuel prophesies that the kingdom will likewise be torn from Saul. Samuel then kills the Amalekite king himself. Samuel and Saul each return home and never meet again after these events (1 Samuel 15:33-35).
Now there's a problem! Some laws are made by politicians or perverts for their own aggrandisement, some for the sake of social cohesion, and some as an emergency provision. The case you quote suggests personal aggrandisement: the war was over and the prophecy was to "blot out the remembrance", i.e. to re-educate, not eradicate, the population.Not much evidence of an acceptable moral standard in the statute books, nor the bible, I fear.
Several years after Saul’s victory against the Philistines at Michmash Pass, Samuel instructs Saul to make war on the Amalekites and to "utterly destroy" them,[14] in fulfilment of a mandate set out Deuteronomy 25:19:When the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies on every hand, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget.
Saul kills all the men, women, children and poor quality livestock, but leaves alive the king and best livestock. When Samuel learns that Saul has not obeyed his instructions in full