0 Members and 282 Guests are viewing this topic.
Let us assume that the UTG has something to do with the survival of consciousness.Joe Scumbag is not only a popular politician, but has the ability to father hundreds of children. He also demands that women wear ridiculous clothing and should be beaten to death for not doing so. Bill Niceguy is infertile and therefore cannot contribute to the UTG, but thinks it would be a good idea to kill Joe Scumbag and allow half the population to wear whatever they like. Would his action be moral or immoral?
make decisions that leads to the best possible outcome.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 28/07/2024 12:46:02 make decisions that leads to the best possible outcome.Which is the issue under discussion. You have to define "best" in some way that doesn't contradict "universal", and you have failed to do so.
So when you say "universal" you actually mean "restricted to something that may be unique and exist in the future". Which brings us back to the last surviving cockroach as the sun engulfs the planet.An entirely logical concept, but I think you may have some difficulty selling it to humans, and I don't know of another species that can read.
As far as we know, humans and cockroaches have a common ancestor, so why choose humans as your starting point? Particularly if you are going to accept genetic change which means that our successors won't be human anyway?
Cockroaches learn by experience, and are more tolerant of cosmic radiation. Or possibly termites, who build very resilient ecosystems in a hostile environment.
A guided man is more conscious than an unguided man, which in turn is more conscious than a misguided man.A guided AI is more conscious than an unguided AI, which in turn is more conscious than a misguided AI.
So we seem to have reached the conclusion that you want to build something that isn't a human, possesses a characteristic that you can't define, and can survive somewhere that is hostile to human life.(a) why?(b) what makes you think it doesn't already exist somewhere else in the universe?
I take the time to examine the philosophy behind the 2005 film Serenity, the conclusion to the short-lived TV show Firefly. The film conveys a battle between the views of deontology and utilitarianism, exploring the complexities behind the characters' decisions and motivations.--Timestamps:00:00 An Ethical Odyssey01:10 Philosophical Fuel02:24 Utilitarian Enforcer04:45 Deontological Defenders10:16 Utopian Architects13:27 Revelations & Realignments
The best solar company in Australia just installed my new solar system. Check them out here: https://www.resinc.com.au/electricvikingThe money doesn't like distributed power systems. Too hard to exploitAustralians have access to all the real information and facts we could want, if we make a tiny effort. There is no excuse for such gullibility other than outright stupidity, at this point.Mean while, my Australian power supplier is giving away free electricity from 11am to 2pm - capitalising on the over supply of solar. I have never understood how solar and wind is meant to increase power costs. Taking advantage of this, I now have a home battery charged by this free electricity for night time use.
Ghada Karmi, Peter Singer and Uriel Abulof discuss the ethics of violence and vengeance, and whether there should be any difference in how we view these concepts between the oppressors and the oppressed.What do you think - is context paramount when it comes to violent acts?From Robin Hood to Che Guevara, the oppressed hold the moral high ground. The exploited worker, the dominated minority, the enslaved people, are seen as rightly acting to better their circumstances. Some even maintain the oppressed can never act immorally. But there is a risk this undermines the central moral notion that principles should apply to everyone independent of their circumstances. It also encourages portraying oneself as a victim. Moreover, critics argue that oppressed vs oppressor morality hinders our ability to solve problems that defy simple categorisation into good and bad.Should we conclude that morality has nothing to do with oppression? Are violence and vengeance no more acceptable on the part of the victim than the aggressor? Or is morality inextricably linked to the circumstances of the actors whether in Gaza, apartheid South Africa, or the Twin Towers attack, or the events of everyday life and relationships?#moralphilosophy #gaza #ethics Peter Singer is one of the most prominent figures in contemporary ethics. He is an Australian moral philosopher and the Emeritus Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University and the author of Animal Liberation. Ghada Karmi is a Palestinian-born academic, physician and author. She held a number of research appointments on Middle Eastern politics and culture at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and in the Universities of Durham and Leeds. Uriel Abulof is an associate professor at Tel-Aviv University?s School of Political Science, Government and International Affairs. Mary Ann Seighart hosts. 00:00 Introduction00:43 Moral philosopher Peter Singer on consequentialism03:42 Palestinian author Ghada Karmi on the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed07:59 Professor Uriel Abulof on the universal need for moral reckoning
Can violence EVER be justified?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 07/08/2024 07:25:53Can violence EVER be justified? In retribution or for prevention, yes. The alternative would be a Nazi world.
Playing the victim (also known as victim playing, victim card, or self-victimization) is the fabrication or exaggeration of victimhood for a variety of reasons such as to justify abuse to others, to manipulate others, a coping strategy, attention seeking or diffusion of responsibility. A person who repeatedly does this is known as a professional victim. An actual victim is someone or something that has been hurt, damaged, or killed or has suffered, either because of the actions of someone or something else, or because of illness or chance.
A lie cannot justify anything.