[alancalverd]

The scientific followup to the nuclear war was rapid and continues today particularly under the aegis of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, whose data feeds into the US commission on Biological Effects of Ionising Radiation and forms much of the basis of risk assessment in radiation protection worldwide. Chernobyl and a few industria.l accidents have pretty much confirmed the dose/harm relationship of large radiation doses.

Survivors of the atom bombs had a good idea of where they were when the bomb exploded. It is fairly easy to estimate the prompt radiation dose at any point in the area and their subsequent exposure to and uptake of radioactive debris. Japanese medical records and death certificates are considered to be very reliable, so cause and effect can be linked with confidence.

Cause of death is cause of death. It seems that if we live long enough and avoid all other harm we will eventually die from cancer so the conservative presumption is that everyone has a potentially fatal tumor. Currently about 30% of the population live long enough for that tumor to express clinically and 25% of us have it recorded as cause of death. Around another 20% express nonfatal tumors at some time.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Full Semester Ethics Course *Condensed* into One Lecture

Here's the sequel.

I think the failure to reach a consensus on ethics among philosophers stems from the failure to distinguish between objective morality and universal morality.

The word objective means independent from observer or evaluator.  For example, objective reality means the reality as it is, independent from the existence of observer. It implies that the moon is still there even when no one is looking at it.

On the other hand, morality is about good and bad by the definition, which in turn depends on the terminal goal of the subject. Something is good if it helps the achievement of the terminal goal, and vice versa. No goal can exist independently from a conscious entity. If there's no conscious being in the universe, there would be no goal, and consequently, there would be no morality either.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Although morality can't be objective by definition, it's still possible for it to be universal. It means that the universal morality must be free from unnecessary restrictions beyond the requirements to achieve the universal terminal goal.

We can start from the simplest form of morality, which is individual or personal morality. Then expand the scope of moral subject to tribal morality, national, species, life form, and finally to universal morality. Current humans show various levels of morality.

Most little kids embrace personal morality, which is the simplest one. It's understandable due to their limited thinking capacity. Modernity brought some people to higher levels of morality, such as national and species morality, or even beyond that. Although the reasons why they expanded their morality are not very convincing (yet), like why should we include other apes in our ethical protection programs?  Only few people that I aware of have expressed the embrace of universal morality.

Unfortunately, we can see people with lower level of morality such as tribal and racial morality are rising in number, at least in some locations.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Abortion and Personhood: What the Moral Dilemma Is Really About | Glenn Cohen | Big Think

Without understanding of the universal terminal goal, we can ask  many good questions about morality without the ability to answer them consistently.

[alancalverd]

I 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I 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.

In order to get their positions, the philosophers must compete with one another. Those who have the best explanation should prevail. Their failure to finish their job doesn't necessarily mean that they are paid to fail. Similar situation may apply to fusion reactors for nuclear engineers or proving Riemann's hypothesis for mathematicians.

[alancalverd]

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.

[alancalverd]

Abortion.

Around 30% of human pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Clearly God doesn't place much value on a human fetus.

Politicians are happy to sacrifice millions of adults and children to defend an arbitrary line on a map. Clearly humans don't place much value on a mature human life.

So any objection to an intentional abortion is arrogant posturing by someone with no personal stake in the outcome.

Keep ethics simple!

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

Your prizes are seen from different perspectives.
Let's compare it apple to apple.
From researcher's point of view, the prize is to get fundings.
From stake holder's perspectives, the prize is to have a system that actually works, in this case, a fusion reactor or an ideology.

Bamboozling the public into paying your salary can also be done in seemingly scientific endeavours, such as hydrogen transportation, quantum computing, dark matter detector, or ever larger particle collider.

[alancalverd]

Alas no. Whilst the physics may still be baffling, the big money is in engineering, and in this case selling the electricity. Never mind the public funding: what every researcher really wants is founder-shares in the production company..

I was once asked in an interview whether I was an experimental  scientist or an engineer. I said I couldn't really see the difference. The interviewer said "Are you happier when the first one works, or when the millionth one works exactly like the first one?"

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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Never mind the public funding: what every researcher really wants is founder-shares in the production company..

Faraday and Heavyside were famous exceptions I know.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Around 30% of human pregnancies terminate spontaneously. Clearly God doesn't place much value on a human fetus.

99% or more human sperms are wasted.

Keep ethics simple!

How?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

We learned from history that seemingly useless science, like number theory, early electricity and magnetism, or radioactivity turned out to be a key to scientific and engineering break through, which brought immense wealth to the developers.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Answering Absurd Trolley Problems
What 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/

Let's play the game and disclose the reason behind our decision. Let's see if my understanding of universal terminal goal can help me answer the questions consistently.

The first level is the original version. I choose to pull the lever based on following assumptions:

- 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.

If those assumptions turn out to be false, I might change the decision.

[alancalverd]

- People on the track are all strangers.

Therefore your judgement is not based on a universal principle, because you know some people.

- 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.

- 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.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

- People on the track are all strangers.

Therefore your judgement is not based on a universal principle, because you know some people.

Those are non-sequitur.

- 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.

Have you never interacted with other people?
Or have you lost your memory of your interaction with other people until just now?
Or do you mostly interact with horrible people?

Fortunately, most of people I know are nice, even to strangers. 

- 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.

Then be it. Do I have other options?

[alancalverd]

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. So you have made a rational choice based on how you think others will judge you. Pretty normal. In law you can be held liable for not rendering assistance to someone in obvious distress.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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 conditions are part of the stated problem. Other conditions are applied to next problems. Have you tried to answer them?

A universal principle applies to everyone who makes the decision. What's at stake determines the decision. If you always make the same decision no matter what, we will question about your consciousness.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

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.

No.  You seem to forget about Zeitgeist. The fact that modern humans have better chance to extend consciousness both in time and space domain, compared to medieval and prehistoric era indicates that on average people have positive impacts to the society.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

So you have made a rational choice based on how you think others will judge you.

I have a more specific conditions than merely "others". I make a rational choice based on how I think future conscious entities will judge me. The time frame is set for as far away future as can be reliably conceived.