[alancalverd]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No "should", but it is objectively the moral response even if subjectively unpleasant.

You just confirmed that your moral standard has no practical use.

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.

Process safety engineering calculates the risk based on probability and severity of expected occurence of incident. The resulting number is then compared to the risk of normal life. A threshold is set on how much increase of risk is introduced by the process to determine if it's acceptable. If not, further measure must be done to decrease the risk.
In your example, the severity ratio is almost a half. It means that they were pretty confident about the probability of the alternative scenario.

[alancalverd]

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28
No "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!

[alancalverd]

"Severity" has an additional weight in warfare.

War is the result of political failure. Politics is the business of choosing between the unpalatable and the unacceptable, and you go to war because there is no other way of avoiding the utterly unacceptable outcome of being governed by the enemy.   

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Quote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 11:14:28
No "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!

My assertion is that the universal moral standard do exist, and it's important to know and follow to achieve the universal terminal goal effectively and efficiently. I just think that your moral standard is not universal, since it's inherently subjective.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Just in case you have some extra time to waste, here is an interesting video diacussing about relativism philosophically.

[alancalverd]

Have you read Japanese defense to their actions? They were response to western colonialization.

I don't recall any attempt by the Americans to colonise Japan before 1940, but the Japanese did colonise China.

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.

and of course the end result was the westernisation of Japan.

[alancalverd]

"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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I don't recall any attempt by the Americans to colonise Japan before 1940, but the Japanese did colonise China.

When did Japan tried to colonise America?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

"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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Making decisions efefctively with incomplete information requires understanding of Bayesian probability.

[alancalverd]

"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.

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I get this article in my news feed.
https://nocamels.com/2021/01/hebrew-university-autism-genetic-mutation-medications/

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.

If we find a fetus with genetic mutation which will cause severe developmental disorders, what should we morally do?
- Fix the gene.
- Abort the fetus.
- Business as usual.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological before the fetus is born.
- Plan some other treatments, e.g. chemical, physiological, psychological after the fetus is born.

What moral standard do you use to choose the option? What do you think of someone else who choose another option?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Any old scientific theories already superseded by a new one had their own evidences. Some of them are still pretty accurate for some specific conditions.

[alancalverd]

About 30% of human pregnancies abort spontaneously, so I don't get too upset about a very few more that are aborted intentionally.

My moral tests clearly apply to the treatment of anyone who has survived birth (apart from corrupt presidents, of course).

So we have to draw an arbitrary line below which we permit elective abortion and above which we consider the fetus viable and subject to the protections of our moral code enshrined in law.  This doesn't raise too many problems in a civilised country with effectively unlimited free health and social care services but if postpartum treatment depends on parental income, or so many highly dependent babies are born that the economy cannot sustain treatment for the elderly who paid their taxes for it, we have to look very carefully at the position of the arbitrary line, and the availability of in-utero testing and correction.

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.

AFAIK there has been some success in in-utero surgery but gene therapy at any age seems to have hit the wall about 20 years ago.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

We can agree on that case, although we came to our judgements using different standard. Universal moral standard tells us to choose decisions based on their likelihood to effectively achieve universal terminal goal. When no information is available to determine the most effective option, the decision should be based on their efficiency, which is a universal instrumental goal. The most efficient one among the most effective available options should be chosen.

No possibility simply means practically zero probability. That's why I brought the video about Bayesian reasoning here.

[alancalverd]

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. 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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. 

There must be some scientific basis to set those numbers. They are driven by economic law of diminishing marginal utility. How many human individuals are the most optimum to support the achievement of best case scenario? It depends on some factors, such as currently available resources to sustain them, and how much additional resources could be produced by each additional human individual.
If the number is too low, there would be inadequate workforce to produce required resource. If it's too high, too much resources would be wasted just to support them with no additional value.

[alancalverd]

The scientific basis is obvious. If every female gives birth to significantly more than two children, the population will increase, limited only by the availability of space, food or water. The best case is irrelevant: a crowded, starving population is the worst case.

You can't produce more resources

"Buy land. They ain't making any more of the stuff." - Will Rogers

On the other hand if we reduced the world population to 10 - 20% of its current size our descendants could all enjoy a Western standard of living for as long as the sun shines. That could be achieved in 100 years by encouraging women not to have more than one child, with immediate and continuing benefits to everyone and no hardship.

Assuming that most humans mate for life, the genetic makeup of a second son won't be much different from the first, so the evolution of the species will continue with fewer males, but the survival of the species requires a small surplus of females because not all are fertile. We may need to encourage bigamy.