[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

We usually call something immoral by pointing out short term gains while sacrificing longer term goals. The short term gain here is money from gun sales. The longer term goal is the peaceful lives of their next generations.

[alancalverd]

Second Amendment, amendment to the Constitution of the United States, adopted in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, that provided a constitutional check on congressional power under Article I Section 8 to organize, arm, and discipline the federal militia. The Second Amendment reads, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nothing wrong with that. Many other countries have a well-regulated militia, with compulsory gun training and ownership in the case of at least Norway and Switzerland, and very little gun crime. What the USA does not have is a well-regulated militia.

I've met many enthusiastic proponents of "home defence" in the USA but never been met at the door by any of them carrying a gun, so there is no evidence of sincerity or consistency. A pistol under the pillow might be useful in the middle of the night, but an AK47 at short range and short notice is more of an encumbrance, and if you ever managed to hit a deer with it, you'd end up with bone splinters in hamburger, not prime venison, so it's hardly a sporting gun.   

The answer to mass shootings is surely to note that the sole function of an automatic weapon is to kill people, so whenever anyone asks to buy such a weapon, he should be required to list and inform those he intends to kill.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The answer to mass shootings is surely to note that the sole function of an automatic weapon is to kill people, so whenever anyone asks to buy such a weapon, he should be required to list and inform those he intends to kill.

That's a good idea.

Unwillingness to look for the real cause of a problem prevents us from solving it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/06/politics/gun-mass-shootings-politicians-poll/index.html

As Congress considers, again, the possibility of moving a package of gun control reforms, a number from a new CBS News/YouGov poll jumped out at me as evidence of why solving America's gun violence problem is so hard.

It's this: 44% of Republicans said that mass shootings are something we have to accept as part of a free society. (A majority of Republicans -- 56% -- said mass shootings are something we can prevent and stop if we really tried.)
That number is a striking departure from how the country as a whole views the issue. More than 7 in 10 Americans (72%) said that mass shootings could be prevented if we really tried, while just 28% said they were part of living in a free society.

Consider what those Republicans are saying: There is no policy -- or cultural -- solution to the problem of mass shootings. Instead, it is a necessary evil of living in a free society.

Is mass shootings really a necessary evil of living in a free society? How to justify who should be the victims?

[alancalverd]

The only freedoms that clearly distinguish the USA from other western societies are the freedom to become bankrupt if you are ill, and the freedom to be shot by anyone at any time. I often feel sad that so many of my friends and colleagues have to live in such an intellectually impoverished society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Full Semester Ethics Course *Condensed* into One Lecture

This is a philosophy video lecture that compresses a course that normally takes 15 weeks into just one video. Or really, it only manages to condense half of that course into 22 minutes.

What is the morally right thing to do? Is there some moral law that applies to everyone, or is morality relative in some way? And what’s so good about morality anyway? To answer these questions, we read Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Locke, Kant, Nietzsche, Nozick, Singer, O’Neill and others. This is an introductory level philosophy course. Students do not need any prior experience with philosophy.

For more of my videos: https://www.jeffreykaplan.org/youtube

[alancalverd]

The test we use in my medical research ethics committee is "would the man on the bus approve if we did it to him?".  Clearly the  answer depends on whether he is fit and healthy or at death's door, so the concept of true universality is meaningless.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The test we use in my medical research ethics committee is "would the man on the bus approve if we did it to him?".  Clearly the  answer depends on whether he is fit and healthy or at death's door, so the concept of true universality is meaningless.

The fact that a value depends on something doesn't necessarily disprove its universality.
The magnitude of gravitational force depends on the mass of the object. It doesn't proof that there's no universal law of gravitation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

If your mind is confined by individualistic perspective bubble, everything becomes meaningless when you don't exist and conscious, like before you were born and after you die. But any successful conscious being will think and act from the perspective of the future versions of themselves, which are expected to be better at preserving consciousness. Individualistic confinement and generational succession are products of evolutionary process which were necessary as scaffoldings to build better versions of our ancestors, which emerged in the absence of better methods.

https://twitter.com/evolutionofgods/status/1536201030601699328?t=iABtr52mgWblDcJwFQmMLA&s=03
In dark ages people were best guided by religion, as in a pitch-black night a blind man is the best guide; he knows the roads and paths better than a man who can see. When daylight comes, however, it is foolish to use blind old men as guides.'

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Another way to distinguish between moral and immoral behaviors is by predicting their impacts on future conscious beings. In general, morally good behaviors make life easier for future conscious beings. Immoral behaviors make life harder for future conscious beings.
The disagreements can emanate from differences of model parameters used to make the prediction, including who will be more likely to exist as the future conscious beings.

[alancalverd]

Suppose I could have prevented the birth of Pol Pot. Serious negative impact on one known conscious being, major benefit to everyone else. Moral or immoral?

Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?

Contraception?

Spaying a pet dog?

Ah, philosophy. Ask a question with no defined parameters, then get paid for not answering it.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Suppose I could have prevented the birth of Pol Pot. Serious negative impact on one known conscious being, major benefit to everyone else. Moral or immoral?

How did you predict what the unborn Pol Pot would do?

[alancalverd]

The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.

Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Abortion of unwanted pregnancies:moral or immoral?

Contraception?

Spaying a pet dog?

The moral judgement should be done case by case, considering what's known to the moral agents, and the most likely consequences from the actions/behaviors, and how they would affect the life of future conscious beings.
Is pushing a red button moral/immoral?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The same way that you predict the effect of any action on generations yet unborn. Inspired guesswork.

Look at Russia and China in 1900. What could benefit present and future generations more than a communist revolution?

I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Veganism will win, but you're wrong about why

Loose workings for how many cows my dairy consumption will kill (for a reason unknown to me, this text didn't render on the video, sorry): Based on my current rate of dairy consumption (1 litre milk + 500g of cheese per week) I’ll consume another 15,600 litres of milk if I reach 82. The average cow produces 49,780 litres of milk throughout its life, and for every cow there is a culled bull and a child that’s taken away.

Timestamps:

00:00 Why Make it Easy?
02:48 Can They Suffer?
06:53 Unnecessary Harm
16:02 An Arbitrary Definition
19:34 Two Sovereign Masters
27:58 Why Not Vegan?!

[alancalverd]

I don't see how it can lead to determine the future actions of a specific individual.

In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.

Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.

Whilst vegans don't drink milk, the quantity of water required to produce a liter of almond "milk" is ludicrous. Nonveggies argue that the culled bull calf will be eaten anyway, either now as veal or later as beef, but beef is a very inefficient form of grass-protein conversion so now is better.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In order to have a revolution, you need to persuade a few million individuals to behave in a certain way, beheading aristocrats or marching across China, for instance. And the leaders of the revolution are subject to your judgement of morality.

Problem is that society evolves, so what may appear to be in the short term interest of the peasant army may pave the way for repression of their descendants.

With more knowledge and more accurate and precise model of reality, we can avoid and prevent more immoral actions. We forgive but not forget. Any moral rule involving reward and punishment system is meaningless if it doesn't help making life easier for future conscious beings.

[alancalverd]

Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.

I was at a Monday project meeting some years back, when we were building a new clinic. Doctors, scientists, engineers, craftsmen and bankers sat around my boardroom table. The architect arrived last and said he had just returned from a  visit to Auschwitz "which was designed, built and run by people just like us". Sobering thought, my friend.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Lenin, Mao and Hitler had very good models of reality that helped them persuade millions of individuals to do all sorts of things that you might consider immoral.

The collapse of the systems that they built show that their models of reality are not as good as you'd like to think.