0 Members and 223 Guests are viewing this topic.
Would I save a drowning child? All depends on statistics and risk assessment.Most people are reasonable and grateful if you save their lives. So the first position is to assume the kid doesn't want to drown and isn't particularly evil. So you save him. If he really wants to die, he has he rest of his life to kill himself in my absence. If he turns out to be evil, I can kill him.Now we look at the circumstances. If I can't swim, or judge that despite my being an Olympic medallist and Coastguard lifesaver the cold/tide/rocks/alligators will kill me anyway, there's no point in making two corpses. Sadly, heroism, altruism or ignorance frequently outweigh the rational decision - in the absence of evidence or experience we tend to assume the best, and end up as a minor news item. The decision is a bit easier but more painful for a lifeboat or helicopter captain - you are doing the job that you chose and trained for, possibly for the only time in your career, but you can't endanger your crew if the situation is beyond your technical limit. And it's tough for the "dope on a rope" - the paramedic or swimmer who is focussed on making actual contact, but has to submit to the skipper's decision to abandon the rescue.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2023 11:55:15TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST...because evil is an adjective, not a noun.
TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST
A lot of disputes in making moral decisions come from inadequately justified assumptions, whether they're taken explicitly or implicitly, which create different expected results.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 17/06/2023 10:20:16A lot of disputes in making moral decisions come from inadequately justified assumptions, whether they're taken explicitly or implicitly, which create different expected results.But you should never forget greed - the One True Motive behind politics, economics and religion.
Most people think there are evil entities. Some are more evil than the others.
TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST - Socrates Philosophy
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 16/06/2023 11:55:15TRUE EVIL DOESN'T EXIST - Socrates PhilosophyThe title seems to refer to evil as an entity. But the video content only talks about evil persons.
Whether there is a universal moral standard is a complex question that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. There is no easy answer, as there are many different perspectives on this issue.Some people believe that there are certain moral principles that are universally true, regardless of culture or individual beliefs. These principles might include things like the Golden Rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) or the principle of non-maleficence (do no harm). Others believe that morality is relative, and that what is considered right or wrong depends on the individual or the culture in which they live. This view is often referred to as moral relativism.There is evidence to support both of these views. On the one hand, there are certain moral principles that seem to be widely shared across cultures. For example, most cultures have some form of prohibition against murder, theft, and violence. This suggests that there may be some universal moral standards.On the other hand, there are also many moral disagreements across cultures. For example, some cultures believe that it is morally acceptable to practice polygamy, while others do not. This suggests that morality is not simply a matter of universal principles, but also depends on the specific context in which people live.Ultimately, the question of whether there is a universal moral standard is a matter of philosophical debate. There is no easy answer, and both sides of the argument have valid points. It is up to each individual to decide what they believe.Here are some additional points to consider:Morality is often seen as a way to promote cooperation and social order. By agreeing on certain moral standards, people can live together more harmoniously.Morality can also be seen as a way to protect the rights of individuals. By establishing universal moral standards, we can ensure that everyone is treated with respect and dignity.Ultimately, morality is a complex issue that cannot be easily reduced to a single answer. It is something that we must continue to think about and debate.
There is no single, universally accepted moral standard. However, there are some moral principles that are widely shared across cultures. These include the principles of harm-avoidance, justice, and cooperation.Harm-avoidance refers to the principle that it is wrong to harm others, either physically or emotionally. This principle is generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is interpreted. For example, some cultures may view certain forms of harm, such as corporal punishment, as acceptable.Justice refers to the principle that people should be treated fairly, regardless of their social status, race, gender, or other factors. This principle is also generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is interpreted. For example, some cultures may place a greater emphasis on group justice, while others may place a greater emphasis on individual justice.Cooperation refers to the principle that people should work together for the common good. This principle is also generally accepted across cultures, although there may be some variation in how it is expressed. For example, some cultures may emphasize cooperation within the family, while others may emphasize cooperation within the community or the nation.While there is no single, universally accepted moral standard, these three principles provide a foundation for moral decision-making in many cultures.
Ultimately, the question of whether there is a universal moral standard is a matter of personal belief. There is no scientific evidence to prove or disprove the existence of such a standard, and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe.Here are some of the arguments for and against the existence of a universal moral standard:Arguments for:There are certain moral principles that are universally accepted, such as the Golden Rule.People in different cultures tend to agree on some basic moral principles.Morality is based on human nature, which is universal.Arguments against:Morality is relative to culture and individual.There is disagreement about many moral issues, even within the same culture.Morality is based on social conventions, which are not universal.I hope this helps!
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that people use to determine what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.Moral rules are specific instructions about what should or should not be done. They are often based on religious or cultural beliefs. For example, a moral rule might be "Thou shalt not kill."Moral standards are more general principles that guide people's behavior. They are often based on personal values and beliefs. For example, a moral standard might be "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."Moral rules are often more rigid than moral standards. For example, it is always wrong to kill, regardless of the circumstances. Moral standards, on the other hand, can be more flexible. For example, it might be considered acceptable to lie to protect someone from harm.Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:Moral rules Moral standardsSpecific GeneralBased on religious or cultural beliefs Based on personal values and beliefsRigid FlexibleAlways wrong to break Sometimes okay to breakUltimately, the difference between moral rules and moral standards is a matter of degree. There is no clear line between the two. Some rules are more flexible than others, and some standards are more rigid than others.It is important to note that not everyone agrees on the distinction between moral rules and moral standards. Some people believe that all moral guidelines are simply rules, while others believe that there is a fundamental difference between the two.The important thing is to understand the different ways that people think about morality and to be respectful of other people's beliefs.
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that people use to determine what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.Moral rules are specific instructions about what should and should not be done. They are often based on laws, religious teachings, or social norms. For example, a moral rule might be "Thou shalt not kill."Moral standards are more general principles that guide people's behavior. They are often based on values, such as fairness, compassion, and honesty. For example, a moral standard might be "Always treat others with respect."Moral rules are often more specific than moral standards. This is because moral rules are typically designed to address specific situations. For example, the rule "Thou shalt not kill" is designed to address the specific situation of murder.Moral standards, on the other hand, are more general and can be applied to a wider range of situations. For example, the standard "Always treat others with respect" can be applied to a wide range of interactions, from personal relationships to business dealings.Moral rules and moral standards can both play an important role in guiding people's behavior. However, they serve different purposes. Moral rules provide specific guidance in specific situations, while moral standards provide general guidance that can be applied to a wider range of situations.Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:Feature Moral Rules Moral StandardsSpecificity Specific GeneralPurpose Provide guidance in specific situations Provide general guidance that can be applied to a wider range of situationsExamples "Thou shalt not kill" "Always treat others with respect"
Moral rules and moral standards are both sets of guidelines that help people make decisions about what is right and wrong. However, there are some key differences between the two.Moral rules are specific, concrete instructions about what should and should not be done. For example, a moral rule might be "Do not steal." Moral rules are often based on religious or philosophical beliefs, and they are typically enforced by social institutions such as the law or the family.Moral standards are more general principles about what is right and wrong. For example, a moral standard might be "Be honest." Moral standards are often based on personal values and experiences, and they are not always enforced by external institutions.In some cases, moral rules and moral standards can conflict with each other. For example, a moral rule might say "Do not lie," while a moral standard might say "Be kind." In these cases, people must use their own judgment to decide which rule or standard is more important in a particular situation.Here is a table that summarizes the key differences between moral rules and moral standards:Moral Rules Moral StandardsSpecific and concrete General and abstractBased on religious or philosophical beliefs Based on personal values and experiencesEnforced by social institutions Not always enforced by external institutionsCan conflict with each other May not conflict with each other
So Bard is a lawyer? Old story: professor is addressing freshman law students. "right now, if someone asks you a legal question you will shuffle your feet, look down, and say 'I'm not sure'. In three years' time you will stand up straight, look him in the eye, and say 'that depends...' "
The best thing about being a lawyer (or an AI program) is you don't have to worry about science, maths, or even facts. Half the people in any courtroom are lying, and it's the job of the jury, not the lawyers, to decide which half.
The jury isn't required or allowed to know anything except what they are told in court. In some jurisdictions the foreman can ask for clarification, but their decision must be made on the basis of the evidence provided.
Reliability isn't important: each case is only tried once. Some lawyers specialise in prosecution, some in defence, but quite a few are prepared to take either side and all of them pretend to accept the "facts" as reported by their client. The job is to present the client's case to the best of your ability, regardless of its merit.