0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Full Semester Ethics Course *Condensed* into One Lecture
I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/07/2022 14:01:01I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from ...the fact that philosophers derive their income from creating confusion, not consensus.
The prize in fusion research is to make a reactor that actually works (it used to be 5 years away, now it's more like 50, but the chase goes on). The prize in philosophy, politics or religion is to bamboozle the public into paying your salary - there is no defined endpoint, but profit in sowing dissent.
Never mind the public funding: what every researcher really wants is founder-shares in the production company..
Around 30% of human pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Clearly God doesn't place much value on a human fetus.
Keep ethics simple!
Apropos blue sky research, don't forget the response to the Presidential question at Lawrence Livermore "How does this contribute to the nation's defense?" "It's what makes the nation worth defending." Hell of a difference between satisfying curiosity and inventing bullshit.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXtotJBk44wAnswering Absurd Trolley ProblemsWhat do you think about the choices of the Youtuber? Do you think he's consistent with his choices?You can try it yourself.https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/
- People on the track are all strangers.
- Average people around the location of the incident have positive contribution to the whole society to eventually achieve the universal terminal goal.
- Pulling the lever requires insignificant effort, and doesn't bring unwanted side effects, like getting me electrocuted.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/07/2022 17:21:26- People on the track are all strangers. Therefore your judgement is not based on a universal principle, because you know some people.
Quote- Average people around the location of the incident have positive contribution to the whole society to eventually achieve the universal terminal goal. Your best estimate of an unknown average (Bayes) is zero, not positive. And since every person is competing with every other person for a share of natural resources, those you don't know are depleting the world of assets that could benefit you and your nearest and dearest. The logical action is therefore to kill as many strangers as possible.
Quote- Pulling the lever requires insignificant effort, and doesn't bring unwanted side effects, like getting me electrocuted. The known side effect is that you will be held liable for whatever happens.
Very much sequitur. A universal principle applies to everyone, the majority that you don't know, and the few that you do. If you have to make your answer conditional on not knowing the victims, you aren't applying a universal principle.
The people you know have mostly been selected for some common interest or relationship. You may find your bank manager unpleasant, but you have a common interest in getting your business done, and for the most part he gives you a fair deal. You almost certainly don't have the same relationship with a suspected thief, and probably go out of your way to avoid knowing any. Therefore the optimum hypothesis is that people you don't know score zero until proved otherwise. and that accounts for almost everyone on the planet.
So you have made a rational choice based on how you think others will judge you.