0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So you should sacrifice your loved one as long as there are more than 1 strangers on the other track.Is it sound reasonable?
No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.
I can't think of any actual non-war examples, and in wartime there are other considerations than immediate numbers alone. It is estimated, for instance, that the immediate death of about 180,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki averted the probable death of 400,000 if it had become necessary to invade Japan.
Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 19/01/2021 03:31:10Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.If you really think that objective morality is of no use, we are wasting our time here trying to find a universal (therefore necessarily objective) moral standard!
Hence whilst an observing Martian might see the "mathematical morality" of the Hiroshima equation, if the nuclear option hadn't been available the Allies would have invaded Japan anyway - "good but immoral". Why good? Because however you look at it, Japan had been the initial aggressor.
Have you read Japanese defense to their actions? They were response to western colonialization.
Following seizures of German territories in 1914, the League of Nations granted Japan mandates over some former German possessions in the Western Pacific after World War I. With the Japanese expansion into Manchuria in the early 1930s, Japan adopted a policy of setting up and/or supporting puppet states in conquered regions.
I don't recall any attempt by the Americans to colonise Japan before 1940, but the Japanese did colonise China.
"Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you. I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious.
Quote from: alancalverd on 19/01/2021 22:42:05"Relativism is the view that all truths are relative" Enough said, thank you. I have no idea why people waste time inventing conundrums or discussing the bloody obvious. Unexpected results come from false assumptions. Perhaps you'll understand why they came up with their conclusions by identifying false assumptions they've made. It's usually harder to identify false assumptions when they are hidden or not explicitly present in the statement itself.
Israeli scientists have identified a specific gene mutation associated with autism and found that it has a significant impact on brain development in mice, with gene-expressions changes that are prominent in the cerebellum area of the brain.The research indicates that these findings could be instrumental in developing drugs to directly change the neural processes in the cerebellum and offer hope for effective medications for the main symptoms of autism in the future.
The study found that genes associated with autism tend to be involved in the regulation of other genes and in the cortex, striatum, and cerebellum areas of the brain. The cerebellum is responsible for motor function, and recent findings have indicated that it also contributes to the development of many social and cognitive functions.The scientist’s findings were published in Nature Communications, the peer-reviewed scientific journal published by Nature Research since 2010.The study aimed to better understand the relation between the cerebellum and autism.In the study, aimed at better understanding the link between the cerebellum and autism, the team tested one of the most prominent genes associated with the disorder called POGZ. Professor Shifman chose this specific gene based on prior findings that linked it to developmental disorders and overly friendly behavior in some patients on the autism spectrum.
I didn't bother to read beyond the first statement! All "isms" are of dubious validity: either your hypothesis is supported by the evidence, in which case you have knowledge, or it isn't, in which case you would be foolish to act on it, whatever you call it.
It is clearly wrong to bring a child into the world if there is no possibility of supporting it to adulthood, and we have the means to safely and humanely prevent that happening.
The most efficient decision is to abort all second sons and any fetus with detectable anomalies, and absolutely limit human reproduction to an average of 2 live deliveries per female. This will avoid the population rising to unsustainable (but currently inevitable) levels, but may prove to be unpalatable. It is the job of government to implement the unpalatable where it is needed to prevent the unacceptable.
"Buy land. They ain't making any more of the stuff." - Will Rogers