FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Moral Philosophy

Jump to newest
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth

I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Isn't this 51% democracy?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *olgateMan
over a year ago

on the road to nowhere in particular

One person murdered is a tragedy

10,000 killed in traffic accidents is a statistic

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ondon MikeMan
over a year ago

St Albans

For me not the number but more the severity of the consequences. If I could save 1,000,000 people from dying of cancer by giving 10,000 people a bad dose of flu knowing they will suffer quite badly with it but ultimately recover fully in 2-3 weeks with no lasting damage I'd do it in a heartbeat

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ondon MikeMan
over a year ago

St Albans

And same the other way round

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *emini ManMan
over a year ago

There and to the left a bit

An interesting dilemma and I guess it would depend on what the "help" was as to it's worth when weighed up against the harm it would cause - for example if you knew that a cure for cancer could be found but 10,000 people would die overall as a result of side effects or during testing - then it's a sad but ultimately a very harsh acceptable pay off for the benefit.

Other circumstances however may not be worth even one person coming to harm.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Would depend on the comparable scale of help/harm. If they were roughly the same then its certainly possible to defend harming a minority to help a majority, this is the basis of utilitarian philosophy and how most Governments work in practice. Of course many other philosophies and religions would regard any intentional harm as immoral.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i think it would depend on the outcome if you did nothing aswel

for example in the trolley problem someone is dying either way , so its a choice between save a few or save many

in the OP it just says help many while harming a few so it’s not clear if the many are already at risk of harm or if the help is just a leg up so to speak

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was à watching à podcast on exactly the same debate, it was an ethics professor in havard University that questions is used often to discuss moral dilemmas what you choose to do depends on the greater good.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i think it would depend on the outcome if you did nothing aswel

for example in the trolley problem someone is dying either way , so its a choice between save a few or save many

in the OP it just says help many while harming a few so it’s not clear if the many are already at risk of harm or if the help is just a leg up so to speak "

Good points. Active harm as opposed to non intervention.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"I was à watching à podcast on exactly the same debate, it was an ethics professor in havard University that questions is used often to discuss moral dilemmas what you choose to do depends on the greater good. "

Cosmic Sceptic from Oxford U touched on it briefly recently as well I'd be interested in your Harvard Professors views, so please share details of the link if you can xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i think it would depend on the outcome if you did nothing aswel

for example in the trolley problem someone is dying either way , so its a choice between save a few or save many

in the OP it just says help many while harming a few so it’s not clear if the many are already at risk of harm or if the help is just a leg up so to speak

Good points. Active harm as opposed to non intervention."

On a broader level, the solution is to give as much individual liberty and responsibility to all to walk away from harm, not just be having to accept decisions of however large majority or small minority or the driver deciding. I think.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was à watching à podcast on exactly the same debate, it was an ethics professor in havard University that questions is used often to discuss moral dilemmas what you choose to do depends on the greater good.

Cosmic Sceptic from Oxford U touched on it briefly recently as well I'd be interested in your Harvard Professors views, so please share details of the link if you can xx"

The links was on my ethics module on my uni virtual class

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *VineMan
over a year ago

The right place

Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation.

When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others.

These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc..

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation.

When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others.

These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. "

oh! that sounds right horrible actually having to make that decision in how you would programme the car , but i guess in a split second you would potentially have to make that decision as a driver too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation.

When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others.

These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. "

Spot on, and our frontline services are faced with these kinds of choices daily, in making hard choices like medical triage decisions...

On a separate note I've never liked the "Fat man" problem as it introduces an unnecessary element of bias that skews the results. But I love the way the "Trolley problem" is usually presented in a series of increasingly difficult choices to test the consistency your moral decision making methodology.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5

i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose

i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I’ve enjoyed reading this. The trolley problem is fascinating, especially the fat man on a bridge scenario. I read one once, might have been in the same book, where a question is posed, ‘Five ‘good’ people need organ transplants, a two requiring a lung, two requiring a kidney and one requiring a heart’ a convicted murderer is shown as a match for all potential recipients. Is it ok to sentence him to death to harvest his organs to save the five good people?’

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I’ve enjoyed reading this. The trolley problem is fascinating, especially the fat man on a bridge scenario. I read one once, might have been in the same book, where a question is posed, ‘Five ‘good’ people need organ transplants, a two requiring a lung, two requiring a kidney and one requiring a heart’ a convicted murderer is shown as a match for all potential recipients. Is it ok to sentence him to death to harvest his organs to save the five good people?’"

i think my moral compass is broken and spinning in circles , i thought it was ok to push the man off the bridge because it was just like swinging left and hitting just one person , but now i don’t think we should be allowed to kill the murderer , which then makes me think should i about turn on the man on the bridge and decide that wasn’t ok either

i guess maybe the only logic i can think of for my different response is in the first scenario immediate death of someone was guaranteed so it was a case of save as many as you can

in this example the death is probable but not guaranteed or imminent , there is still a chance of survival for the 5 through the transplant list without anyone being sacrificed

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5

i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose

i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this "

The difference in the fat man and the trolley scenario as I recall is two fold. In the trolley scenario, either the 1 or the 5 must die, its inevitable.... whereas the fat man is not on one of the tracks and is safe unless you actively chose to push him....

Interestingly when the experiment doesn't use the word "Fat" to describe the 'largest person' fewer people choose to push him..... makes you think

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss...."

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad. "

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived? "

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers."

I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier.

Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers.

I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier.

Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive. "

that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all.

To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected.

doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for.

Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers.

I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier.

Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive.

that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all.

To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected.

doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for.

Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony. "

Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything.

Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers.

I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier.

Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive.

that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all.

To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected.

doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for.

Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony.

Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything.

Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know. "

haha, I do a lot of thinking with being up late alone most of the time

o, your correct the energy is continuation but not in the same form, fossil fuels for instance are dead dinosaurs squashed by rock and deposits over many millions of years but they give energy to our cars, that spit out other energies (co2), that are then eaten by plants, who then produce oxygen which we breath and some of the foods we eat, which is then turned to fertilizer, which then helps more plants to grow.

(human waste not fertilizer now cos we are dirty eaters with chemicals (pharma & food) and preserves (pest killer, chemical long life preservation) and even plastics in us now, plus we are omnivores.)

no they don't, for starts I'm adhd so don't see the world as others do & it is the original hunter gather gene so t's kinda inbuilt I suppose, most adhd folk I have met so far understand it like or similar to this.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss....

this is just the balance of life in my opinion, no one can live forever and someone must die to give space for the new. resources are always finite and always recycled back through the earth be that a person, a tree, an ant or a molecule.

there is no difference in nature, we only see it different because we see ourselves as superior to all else (thanks to stupid religious teachings in my opinion, natives are much more intouch with reality of nature's balance)

its all a balance, little bad in the good & a little good in the bad.

Religion did empower people to create believers' own vision albeit whilst disregarding everything else. But the end story is of those who remain/survived?

it always is, there is never gain without sacrifice,

There is no end story, the universe will continue with or without our stories.

the stories themselves at that point will end, because as far as we know we are the only story tellers.

I didn't understand that. But I agree with some of what you said earlier.

Maybe I'm a leftie...I vision a world that is all inclusive, to let everyone and everything live alive.

that is a common view tbh, i'm more with the ancients and indigenous. the view that everything can live forever is just not practical at all.

To eat, something needs to die regardless of what diet method you choose even these new lab made meats, the ingredients come from some where. so to have humans live forever so many others species need to die to achieve it especially if we didn't stop breeding at the same time, and we rely on those other species to create our foods i.e. the bees who help plants to bred, those plants either feed us or the food that we eat. the whole thing literally goes in circles and all is connected.

doesn't matter where you look in nature or even the big wide universe, life times are finite, resources are finite if not used correctly, most will renew themselves, if cared for.

Yin & yang, a little harmony amongst chaos and a little chaos in harmony.

Hmm you seem to have thought this through. I'm a beginner or just don't have the comprehension. Maybe I misunderstood energy as the continuation in everything.

Lol where are you getting this from? Not a lot of people think like this. Well as far as I know.

haha, I do a lot of thinking with being up late alone most of the time

o, your correct the energy is continuation but not in the same form, fossil fuels for instance are dead dinosaurs squashed by rock and deposits over many millions of years but they give energy to our cars, that spit out other energies (co2), that are then eaten by plants, who then produce oxygen which we breath and some of the foods we eat, which is then turned to fertilizer, which then helps more plants to grow.

(human waste not fertilizer now cos we are dirty eaters with chemicals (pharma & food) and preserves (pest killer, chemical long life preservation) and even plastics in us now, plus we are omnivores.)

no they don't, for starts I'm adhd so don't see the world as others do & it is the original hunter gather gene so t's kinda inbuilt I suppose, most adhd folk I have met so far understand it like or similar to this. "

Oh ok. I come from a somewhat story culture, I only have vague recollections from childhood.

I try to make sense of what I remember, but it's a lost art. It's very unlikely to continue even if I have kids. I'm more caught up in running about making ends meet.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *moothdickMan
over a year ago

stoke

If u want to judge Morels it’s difficult cuz we all have our own perception of morals .. like opinions ... so the easy answer is, I’ve never been a court or morals but I’ve been in a court of law ... so simply, working the facts

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Kill 1 and your a murderer

Kill 20 your a serial killer

Kill a 1000 your a genocidal maniac.

Kill everyone and your god.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I was having the same debate in my head, because of the covid and AZ vaccine. So maybe it is related to your post ?

Do we have the right to choose who dies and who doesn't ?

I can't come to an answer. I get that the greater good of humanity will take over. Yes if I personally have to take the decision to take off the life of an individual who doesn't deserve to die in my opinion (even there it is open to discussion, what I see as a reason to die or not), I would be depressed and not the same after that decision.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *partharmonyCouple
over a year ago

Ruislip

It's all very well knowing numbers, but I really need to know the way in which people are harmed compared with the way in which people are helped. There are some circumstances I would says it's a good thing and others where I'd say it's bad.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ittlesub4uWoman
over a year ago

Manchester

Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Like the covid dilemma. Let the oldies die so younger people can go to the pub and get pissed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ljamMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome."

The alternative is being a total kant

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ljamMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"If u want to judge Morels it’s difficult cuz we all have our own perception of morals .. like opinions ... so the easy answer is, I’ve never been a court or morals but I’ve been in a court of law ... so simply, working the facts "

The real problem with judging morels is there's too mush room for disagreement

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"If u want to judge Morels it’s difficult cuz we all have our own perception of morals .. like opinions ... so the easy answer is, I’ve never been a court or morals but I’ve been in a court of law ... so simply, working the facts

The real problem with judging morels is there's too mush room for disagreement"

I see what you did there you're such a Fun gi.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth

What I enjoy about this is that there is no right or wrong answer to the question.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *hrista BellendWoman
over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights

I couldn't make the decision before hand, I could only do an action dependant on the problem and live with the consequences afterwards

Livestock management choices I have no problem making, but when it comes to human life my brain just cannot comprehend it

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *VineMan
over a year ago

The right place


"What I enjoy about this is that there is no right or wrong answer to the question."

Yes, if you agree there are no moral absolutes.

Right and wrong has to be agreed by society.

The law is just humanities attempt to codify what is morally acceptable or not. And laws change as human consciousness evolves.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *eoeclipseWoman
over a year ago

glasgow

I took this in medical terms i.e. natural viruses, diseases etc

it said help vs harm, it didn't mention the harm and where one treatment works for many, there is always at least one who will react adversely, that is the 1%, and in terms of stats that is incredibly low.

put it this way most animals lose 2/3's of a litter or have a high percentage of death in early years, humans now in comparison have virtually no infant births, it's not even 1% of our infants that die, combine that with denying death in old by prolonging it with pharma & over the last century alone we have went from 2billion to 8.8 billion and still rising despite pandemic being made to look like its wiping out humanity, statistically less than 1% have died and as a result the world has been locked up as prisoners.

nature always hits the young, old and sick first. as cruel as that may sound and obviously darwin, it does create survival of the fittest, best survivor does not mean they are good or a nice personality though!

there are 2 tribes often used for this compassion (damned if I remember the names just now though). one tribe is quite brutal in how they live, little love to kids, war etc but have lots of food. the other very loving and kind but have little to no food so suffer starvation and with that disease due to their lack of ability to stand up for themselves against this neighbouring tribe and in doing so commit their tribe other harms.

basically as I said before it is all in the balance it cannot be just one or the other. where there is a harm there is always little good, a lesson usually or a personal strength, a wisdom.

and where there is bad there is always a little good, the lesson, the strength and the wisdom.

the difference lies in why

Hilter believed he was right...genocide for purity

Christians believe they were right to hound natural healer and kill cats upon mass...plague

Romans believed they were right in expanding their empire and their ways...lost so much knowledge and actually set us back thousands of years compared to egyptian and mayan levels of knowledge

easter islanders believed they were right in cutting down all the trees to erect those statues....mass extinction due to no food! they literally stripped their lands of all food to move stupid stone structures

etc etc etc

if history has any lesson to learn it that humans are not always right and often the premise is greed not balance.

scarcity is true, there is no other way to put it especially how we use the planet today for our own gain.

should we all go back to having 2 acres each, self sustainable, simple local life etc then yes, I agree there would not be as much of an issue, but this is not the world we live in.

just think of all the resources used to build and send a rocket into space..as much as I LOVE knowledge and to learn I don't like wasting resources to go out into space when our planet is in trouble and those exact resources are a big part of the cause.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"For me not the number but more the severity of the consequences. If I could save 1,000,000 people from dying of cancer by giving 10,000 people a bad dose of flu knowing they will suffer quite badly with it but ultimately recover fully in 2-3 weeks with no lasting damage I'd do it in a heartbeat"

Cancer and flu are non comparable.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

Nor are dying and being ill for a few weeks.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"An interesting dilemma and I guess it would depend on what the "help" was as to it's worth when weighed up against the harm it would cause - for example if you knew that a cure for cancer could be found but 10,000 people would die overall as a result of side effects or during testing - then it's a sad but ultimately a very harsh acceptable pay off for the benefit.

Other circumstances however may not be worth even one person coming to harm."

Then you KNOWINGLY killed 10,000 people.

Could I call arms to war saying that 10,000 will die but we will save the holy something or other ? Is that just ?

Finding a cure for cancer doesn't give us any insight to how many people you will save ... it's a counterfactual.

I'm pretty sure that it would be immoral to knowingly kill 10,000 people for what you believe is a good cause.

You are giving yourself the right to kill by skewing something that is enshrined in law in this country...... though shalt not kill.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"Sounds like an extension of the trolley problem first posed by Philipa Foot, and the ‘fat man on a bridge’ adaptation.

When tested most people don’t think it’s palatable to save people if it directly means harming others.

These are not just abstract problems either. Google and others are having to wrestle with this issues as they write the algorithms for driverless cars. Should a car swerve and hit an old man rather than hit a mother and baby etc.. "

Good point. The trolley problem and the myriad of moral dilemmas that present the same choices seem to work fine when thought about in simplistic terms.

but 1 person V 5 people = kill the one?

1 child V 5 very old people ??

1 doctor V 5 criminals ????

1 burglar V 5 sex offenders ????

1 grapist V 5 pedos ????

1 unicorn v 5 rats ..........

hmmmmmmmmm

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross


"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5

i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose

i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this "

But those five pensioners were ex brain scientists who were still contributing to cures and that toddler had only months to live .....

and you killed us ..... booooooo

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I was debating morality with a friend and and we were discussing

the following dilemma-

You are able to help some people, but unfortunately you can only do so by harming other people. The number of people harmed will always be 1 percent of those helped. When considering whether it is morally justified to help does the actual number of people involved make any difference? For example, does it make a difference if you are helping 100 people by harming one person rather than helping 1,000,000 people by harming 10,000 people?

Yes?

No?

Discuss...."

This really depends on the circumstances surrounding that hurt.

In the moment you would be given a choice and only in that moment could you really say what you would do.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Give everyone guns.

God will decide

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"i hadn’t heard the fat man problem before, just read up on it there , i would have thought there was going to be fat person bias in it but in the example i read it only seemed like the fat part was mentioned so it would make sense that they were weight enough to stop the train, i didn’t see it any different to the turn the train and hit one person example , 1 person vs 5

i wonder though if it was 5 pensioners vs 1 toddler what would people think - that makes it harder for me to justify, its no longer just numbers its end of life vs whole life in front of them and i feel stuck in limbo unable to choose

i’m glad i have no need in my real life to make decisions like this

But those five pensioners were ex brain scientists who were still contributing to cures and that toddler had only months to live .....

and you killed us ..... booooooo "

i think i killed everyone involved through my indecision unless the drivers brain kicked in and he did something lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome."

it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department ,

when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved

i imagine it is also used in front line war

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome.

it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department ,

when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved

i imagine it is also used in front line war

"

I agree with both of you

The problem for me lies in the fact that no one school of moral philosophy seems to provide a universally applicable outcomes.

I agree that utilitarianism is flawed in certain aspects, but as stated above it also works very well under certain conditions to provide practical effective solutions.....

And we find the same thing with most of the major schools of thought..... I find moral philosophy incredibly interesting but of very little practical value in our personal lives.

I'm far more interested in practical reasoning and epistemologically.... Why do we believe the the things we believe and do we have good reasons for the our beliefs......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome.

it might be flawed but a scarcity model is not always a lie - for example as some have said this type of thinking is already used in front line medicine like an A+E department ,

when a big incident happens and the department gets lots of casualties at once, beds, medics and time are scarce and decisions will be made on which lives should be saved

i imagine it is also used in front line war

I agree with both of you

The problem for me lies in the fact that no one school of moral philosophy seems to provide a universally applicable outcomes.

I agree that utilitarianism is flawed in certain aspects, but as stated above it also works very well under certain conditions to provide practical effective solutions.....

And we find the same thing with most of the major schools of thought..... I find moral philosophy incredibly interesting but of very little practical value in our personal lives.

I'm far more interested in practical reasoning and epistemologically.... Why do we believe the the things we believe and do we have good reasons for the our beliefs......

"

i need to do a bit of reading on epistemologically (i also need to practice saying it ) , but as a guess does it not link back to moral philosophy anyway? i’m just thinking surely the reason for our beliefs stem in the moral philosophy to begin with? so if they are good or bad that would also be down to the moral philosophy

totally agree that all branches of moral philosophy have flaws , there is no one size fits all but its still all so interesting

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

You accumulate your beliefs as you grow...... parents, siblings, school, society born into, experience of other cultures, changes through time.....

Beliefs are formed and changed.

You are not born with beliefs but with a clear slate ......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

There are no moral absolutes.

I know some God fearing people will argue with that. That's fine

However......

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *inky_Carpenter OP   Man
over a year ago

Portsmouth


"Utilitarianism is completely flawed because it is based on a scarcity model which is a lie.

1. One cannot assign values to the benefit of harm caused by actions, this is impossible.

2. We have seen this play out many times and it is completely immoral. The White government that created South African apartheid claimed that their system only hurt a few (Black) people but benefited way more, they (wrongly) predicted that a Black government would result in harm for the majority of South Africans and literally used utilitarianism ideals as their justification for their regime. This is just one of many many examples from recent history of this flawed philosophy.

3. Who pushes the button? Who are you to decide whose suffering is necessary and predict the outcome? As a philosophical debate, we tell the whole story but when applying it to real life, there are so many variables that we cannot know for certain any outcome.

it might

i need to do a bit of reading on epistemologically (i also need to practice saying it ) , but as a guess does it not link back to moral philosophy anyway? i’m just thinking surely the reason for our beliefs stem in the moral philosophy to begin with? so if they are good or bad that would also be down to the moral philosophy

totally agree that all branches of moral philosophy have flaws , there is no one size fits all but its still all so interesting "

Epistemology is more about the nature, methodology, soundness and consistency of our beliefs.... What do we believe, why do we believe it, is that belief justified, is the argument logically sound, or are there logical contradictions or inconsistencies inherent in the argument or application thereof...

As an Atheist raised in a very right wing fundamentalist Christian society I was constantly challenged to confront and justify my beliefs. My peers had the luxury of drawing their Morality from divine command theory. Whereas I had to confront the question of what is morality, and how do I form a coherent, consistent, moral framework in which to function within society if it is not absolute and God given...

Sadly I don't have any formal learning in the field, but it's something I love to confront, analyse and debate....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Another aspect of this is how people think they will react when called upon. Particularly where there is short time / immediate responses required. Some people freeze at times of real need, or assume less responsibility when in group settings etc. That really skewers morale decision making.

I do find some of the situational experiments interesting, like some of those mentioned so far.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top