[alancalverd]

Common decency and Bayes' postulate says save the five. It's the response most likely to find favor with the jury.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Common decency and Bayes' postulate says save the five. It's the response most likely to find favor with the jury.

Is it immoral to choose other options?
Is jury's verdict always moral?

[alancalverd]

It's outside the strict realm of morality because you stated that you don't know any of the potential victims, so you can't apply my tests. However you could adopt a variant: what is the probability that your nearest and dearest is one of five unknowns, or one of one? Then morality says you would choose the a priori moral stance of saving the larger group.

Ethics talks about equipoise: essentially, parity of probable outcomes. So we resort to the numerical probability of causing or not preventing avoidable death, and the answer is obvious.

Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It's outside the strict realm of morality because you stated that you don't know any of the potential victims, so you can't apply my tests. However you could adopt a variant: what is the probability that your nearest and dearest is one of five unknowns, or one of one? Then morality says you would choose the a priori moral stance of saving the larger group.

If you already know that all of them are strangers, then your morality asks you to choose option 1. You'll save your stopping device, and efforts to use it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ethics talks about equipoise: essentially, parity of probable outcomes. So we resort to the numerical probability of causing or not preventing avoidable death, and the answer is obvious.

Some of them do, but not all of them.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.

Average Joe, as well as the judge, think that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent.

[alancalverd]

It's outside the strict realm of morality because you stated that you don't know any of the potential victims, so you can't apply my tests. However you could adopt a variant: what is the probability that your nearest and dearest is one of five unknowns, or one of one? Then morality says you would choose the a priori moral stance of saving the larger group.

If you already know that all of them are strangers, then your morality asks you to choose option 1. You'll save your stopping device, and efforts to use it.

Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.

You might review the ethics of war.How many civilian bystanders is it reasonable to kill in order to remove one bad guy hiding in the group? And if the Emperor or Fuhrer is not likely to be in the city, how many civilians should you kill to disable his war effort? 

[alancalverd]

Law (at least the civilised law of pre-EU Britain) considers the opinion of "the man on the Clapham omnibus" (i.e. Joe Public, if you don't live in south London) as definitive. I think Joe or Jo would prefer you to save five lives.

Average Joe, as well as the judge, think that Kyle Rittenhouse is innocent.

The man on the Kenosha omnibus thinks the Second Amendment gives everyone the right to shoot everyone else.  That's why I referred to the law of a civilised country, not some failed state governed by crooks and idiots.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.

Then you are using more assumptions or principles than you like to admit. If you expect someone else to agree with you, as well with one another, you need to state all of those assumptions explicitly and unambiguously.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You might review the ethics of war.How many civilian bystanders is it reasonable to kill in order to remove one bad guy hiding in the group? And if the Emperor or Fuhrer is not likely to be in the city, how many civilians should you kill to disable his war effort?

It may depend on how bad your opponent is. It also depends on how they are involved in the conflict. Are they supporters/ sympathizers/ enablers of your opponent?
It can vary from 0 to almost all of them.

A-bombs in WWII showed that a few hundred thousands can still be considered acceptable.

[alancalverd]

Ridiculous. If you can't apply a moral judgement, common sense and decency says you should save the larger group.

Then you are using more assumptions or principles than you like to admit. If you expect someone else to agree with you, as well with one another, you need to state all of those assumptions explicitly and unambiguously.

It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.

How would you define civilised society?
The Aztecs sacrificed some human individuals, which they thought would save many more from famine or natural catastrophe. Some religious groups execute gays and infidels for similar reasons.
Were they civilised enough?

You seem to commit a circular reasoning.

[alancalverd]

It all comes back to a civilised society, where the law states what the majority of the citizens consider to be unacceptable behavior. I think there is reasonable precedent to prefer saving the larger group.

How would you define civilised society?

Exactly what I said! It is one where the state serves the citizen, not the other way around, by consultation and representation. Thus excluding all theocracies, dictatorships, and states where long lists of  "rights" are required. The law of a civilised country is based primarily on "wrongs". Pity about the USA.

The classic example is the UK Air Navigation Order, which states that "flying is prohibited in the following areas*....", compared with, for example, its Danish equivalent which says "flying is prohibited except in the following areas...."



*the list basically covers nuclear power stations, a few (but not all) Ministry of Defence sites, and a daily list of temporary restrictions for military exercises. Private pilots are actually encouraged to use military traffic zones at other times, to keep the radar guys sharp and the airline routes clear for fast traffic!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Exactly what I said! It is one where the state serves the citizen, not the other way around, by consultation and representation.

That's what the Aztecs and some others did. They just got the false relationships of cause and effects.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The law of a civilised country is based primarily on "wrongs". Pity about the USA.

Those list should mention things that bring negative effects to the society, especially when those effects are not immediately occuring, ornot directly affecting the perpetrators, hence people need to be reminded. A society ignoring these will suffer in the future.

[alancalverd]

We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.

AFAIK the Aztecs were a theocracy. Asking people what they want (bread and circuses, usually) is not the same as asking what they consider unacceptable (being sacrificed by an old pervert).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We have such lists, from general heath and safety requirements not to create hazardous working conditions, speed limits, and environmental pollution laws.

What do you think about vaccine mandate, safety belt for car driver, or helmet for motorcyclists?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

AFAIK the Aztecs were a theocracy. Asking people what they want (bread and circuses, usually) is not the same as asking what they consider unacceptable (being sacrificed by an old pervert).

Not all religious persons are pervert. Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexuality and luxury, some are at the borderline with nihilism.
Speaking about universal morality, you need to identify a general rule shared by all moral acts, and violated by all immoral acts. You can't just provide ad hoc rules to follow your personal preferences.

[alancalverd]

Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexuality

Doesn't that denote someone with a perverted attitude to sex? If it wasn't a primary drive and fun, the species would have died out long ago!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Some of them even discarded worldly desires such as sexuality

Doesn't that denote someone with a perverted attitude to sex? If it wasn't a primary drive and fun, the species would have died out long ago!

What's your definition of perverted? Here's from dictionary.

adjective
Deviating from what is considered right and correct.
Of, relating to, or practicing sexual perversion.
Marked by misinterpretation or distortion.

The dying out of our species is supposed to be bad then. Why?
Previously you said it's a good thing.