You say nothing of interest. All moral philosophers are frauds. As far as applied ethics is concerned - the trolley problem is solved by the principle of no harm/least harm.
In practice people routinely make these calls. Literally everywhere in our social institutions and infrastructure. It's risk management 101 stuff.
Like grounding the Boeing 737MAX to minimize harm; or would you say that's completely unjustified because the trolley problem is unsolved yet?
If you are trying to tell me that you can't decide between 100% human mortality and 95% mortality you are the fraud.
Probably because you are appealing to some logic. Or some "objective authority "to give you the correct answer.
If you want to learn about ethics talk to doctors, not philosophers.
I gave you the link to the Pareto principle. What is it that you don't understand and want me to explain?FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:55 pmYou gave me this 80/20 rule stuff with no explanation of what the 80 or the 20 is. That was supposed to be your answer to a charge of laziness related to your target selection for genocide. It wasn't sufficient, therefore it was just an extension off the laziness.
Genocide is a lesser harm than total extinction.
A real reason - you mean a reason that satisfies YOU? I gave you a reason.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 01, 2019 11:55 pmYou have yet to show a real reason why it has to be the Chinese that die. All you seem to have is that it feels convenient for you to pick that section of the world population to murder. You've declared that if a terrible price must be paid, it should be paid by distant people who you have never met.
You can tell me why it doesn't satisfy you.
Remind yourself that while you twiddle your thumbs unable to make a decision you are (in effect) choosing the default option: extinction.
Much like a doctor who can't decide which gangrenous leg to amputate first is killing their patient the longer they remain indecisive.
That goes against the principle of least effort. I am going after results. You are going after fairness still.
Ahhhhh. There is your appeal to authority - you think I am appealing to logic here. No I am not.
I am merely being transparent about my reasoning process.
"objective-sounding-concepts". What dream-world do you live in?
Welcome to reality. Where objectivity is a social construct and all decision-making (CHOICE!) is made by humans using the principles I have outlined to you (least harm, prioritization/triage, least effort-maximum effect)