[alancalverd]

The principle of charity means that almost any collection of words could be regarded as conveying a profound truth. This is diametrically opposed to the scientific principle of saying exactly what you mean, preferably in absolutely unequivocal mathematical terms, in such a form that it can be tested.. 

There is a classic example due to some ancient philosopher whose name I can't recall from my schooldays. He began with "In boxing, as in other sports, good attack goes with good defence" and ends up proving that black is white because the opening proposition is actually meaningless. It is obvious that a good boxer will be adept at both, and this is true for all combat  sports including rugby, cricket and chess, but has no meaning outside of combat. "Goes with" deceives the listener with flattery and seduces him into the next charitable (i.e. ambiguous or meaningless) interpretation.

Force, power, energy and strength are synonymous in philosophy and journalese, but are not dimensionally equivalent in physics.

[alancalverd]

No, they are irrelevant. In a war situation you have short and long term objectives and material constraints. Drones give you a previously unthinkable flexibility of who to kill and when, but don't answer any long term objectives. This was eloquently pointed out by H G Wells'  The War in the Air, published in 1908, years before military aviation became practicable.

I was referring to unexpected costs which only reveal right before the plan is executed, such as unaware civilians coming closer to the location. Will you proceed to execute the plan, or cancel it?

That is the point of "Good Kill" and "Eye in the Sky". You can make a decision to proceed, wait or abort right up to the moment you release the missile because the drone can loiter at high altitude or orbit "up sun". If your target moves, you can follow a car and take him out on the road. These options are not available with a manned fixed-wing strike aircraft, and not safe with a helicopter.  It is entirely possible that you will accept some collateral deaths if the threat or prize justifies it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The principle of charity means that almost any collection of words could be regarded as conveying a profound truth.

The charity principle is meant to counter a common logical fallacy, namely strawman fallacy, which presents worse interpretations of the original statements, hence easier to attack.
The principle is necessary if a debate is meant to reveal the fundamental weakness or flaws in an argumentation, rather than finding trivial errors/mistakes, or chances for exploiting loopholes and misinterpretations. It merely suggests us to engage with the least ridiculous version of someone's assertions.
If someone sincerely believe in a statement, there might be some good reasons, based on some information that they have. It's possible that they have some good information that we don't have, or we have some good information that they don't. That's why presenting information as accurate and precise as possible, and minimizing hidden assumptions, can save us some time and efforts to rectify misunderstandings.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It is entirely possible that you will accept some collateral deaths if the threat or prize justifies it.

That's the point of trolley problems: weighing in costs and benefits of our actions for our society. To do that, we need to project them into one axis, because we can't compare apples and oranges objectively.
The axis I proposed was the chance/likelyhood to achieve the societies' goals.
By considering all possible scenarios we can think of in advance, we can set up some standard operation and procedure, like in emergency drill by emergency response teams.

[alancalverd]

There is no benefit to the actor in the trolley problem. He is not in danger and has no presumed political, military or economic reason to kill anyone. A soldier is presumed to have an interest in the outcome of his actions, ranging from personal survival to a salary.

Emergency response plans are all subject to the best piece of civil service prose I ever encountered. The 1985 Approved Code of Practice for the use if ionising radiation included the timeless phrase "The bizarre need not be taken into account".  We generally plan responses to a single failure, and allow for single failures in the response. Sadly, the phrase has disappeared as knowledge, intelligence and literacy have been eliminated from the Health and Safety Executive.

[alancalverd]

The charity principle is meant to counter a common logical fallacy, namely strawman fallacy, which presents worse interpretations of the original statements, hence easier to attack.

Better to make an unequivocal statement of fact, and advance an explanatory and testable hypothesis. But that's science, not philosophy.

"I have observed that successful boxers are competent in both attack and defence". Test, observe, refine, and coach  Muhammad Ali. That's science. Not sure any philosopher has achieved as much as a county bronze, never mind olympics and world championships.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

There is no benefit to the actor in the trolley problem. He is not in danger and has no presumed political, military or economic reason to kill anyone.

There is a risk of retaliation from relatives of the victims, whether or not his action is morally accepted by general society.

[alancalverd]

So the answer is to kill the fewest people. Retaliation is statistical.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So the answer is to kill the fewest people. Retaliation is statistical.

Most people agree with you in the case of the original trolley problem, but there are notable dissents from this view.

They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.

[Colin2B]

They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.

Is there a reason it’s a fat man?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing. The surveys shown that it's the case with a modified trolley problem which involves pushing a fat man from a bridge to stop the trolley.

Is there a reason it’s a fat man?

The research said that the weight of the fatman is expected to be adequate to stop the trolley before hitting the victims. It may sound unrealistic, but that aside, the point remains.

[alancalverd]

They usually argue that we must distinguish between active killing and passive killing.

The stench of philosophy is evident. Active killing = killing. No problem. What on earth is passive killing? Negligence, criminal negligence, failing to investigate an ongoing crime, failing to report an ongoing crime, failing to intervene in an ongoing crime, causing collateral harm during an active pursuit, taking the  wrong action  when attending to an injured person, taking no action, calling the wrong emergency service, funding concentration camps through your taxes, voting Conservative, eating the last grain of rice, buying diamonds, not buying diamonds, driving a diesel car....? 

[Colin2B]

The research said that the weight of the fatman is expected to be adequate to stop the trolley before hitting the victims. It may sound unrealistic, but that aside, the point remains.

Ok, I can see that dropping 2 thin people of wht=1fatman would be considered less acceptable.
Just wanted to check this wasn’t a fatist group!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote that "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution".
Trolley problem, its variations, and many others show that "Nothing in Morality Makes Sense Except in the Light of a terminal goal". Universal morality only makes sense in the light of universal terminal goal.

[alancalverd]

Your insistence on a universal terminal goal may be selfdefeating. Suppose the UTG is maximum number of happy people. And let  everyone's immediate moral goal be the same. So you are polite to a Christian you met in the street and we now have two moderately happy people. Or you slaughter a dozen Christians in the gladiatorial arena, and delight a crowd of thousands.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Your insistence on a universal terminal goal may be selfdefeating. Suppose the UTG is maximum number of happy people. And let  everyone's immediate moral goal be the same. So you are polite to a Christian you met in the street and we now have two moderately happy people. Or you slaughter a dozen Christians in the gladiatorial arena, and delight a crowd of thousands.

Your insistence to see morality from human individual's point of view makes you conclude that more inclusive moralities don't exist.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

A moral value is a meme. It will compete with other moral values for their existence in the minds of conscious agents.

There are at least 3 strategies they can adopt to survive. First by spontaneously generated into existence. It's only feasible for simple moral values, which usually come from more basic mechanisms, such as instinct. Another strategy is by helping their media, which are conscious agents, to survive and thrive. The other strategy is by infecting other conscious agents.

[charles1948]

Fleas are happy
When they bite us

Why deny them our blood
When it makes fleas feel good

[charles1948]

When you stroke a cat
It gives out a purr
Because the caress of your hand
Reminds the cat of when it was licked by its mother

[alancalverd]

Your insistence to see morality from human individual's point of view makes you conclude that more inclusive moralities don't exist.

Even if they do,  if they are to be universal they must be applicable to humans, so the quickest test of universality is its applicability to humans.

It might contain sulfur or chlorine, but if it doesn't turn litmus red, it isn't an acid!