Trolley Problem

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:03 am I neither support nor condemn consequentialism. I'm pointing out that, wherever we look for moral facts, they don't exist.
And I keep pointing out you need an optometrist.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:00 am 'no human ought to kill humans' [as verified and justified true moral fact],
then that maxim will trigger humanity to go all out in the future to ensure the above scenarios do not happen in the first place.

A maxim is an assertion; an opinion.

Such as :

APES GOOD; HUMANS BAD.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sat Mar 27, 2021 3:09 pm Consequentialism offers nothing new to the argument for moral objectivity, which remains dead in the water. The moral rightness and wrongness of consequences are as much matters of opinion as are the moral rightness and wrongness of intentions or actions in themselves.
You are off tangent here.
The OP is NOT about consequentialism and moral objectivity.

The point here is, consequentialism is pseudo-morality thus flawed and bankrupt in dealing with morality-proper, i.e. not in alignment with what is intrinsically human nature.

From what you have posted you are supporting consequentialism [ineffective], i.e. moral relativism as to what are opinions of what is right or wrong based on consequences.
I neither support nor condemn consequentialism. I'm pointing out that, wherever we look for moral facts, they don't exist.

For example, here's your 'morality-proper' pitch: if we prevent a problem occurring, we won't have solve or 'cure' it. And your folksy line is: prevention is better than cure - which sounds right and applicable in many situations.

But that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'better than' other tactical and strategic methods for ending the war in the Pacific is a matter of opinion. And better for whom? Can prevention be worse than the cure?

Your (by now only) supposed moral fact is that no human ought to kill humans. But you say this has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, and is merely a matter of following programming.
But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming - which, presumably also has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness ... and so on.

At bottom is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - which is what moral realists and objectivists refuse to recognise. And this is why morality - consequentialist or otherwise - isn't and can't be objective.
You missed [as usual] my critical point.

Your stated rhetorically and creating your strawman as usual.
PH: But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming

I did not assume and never insisted 'humans ought to follow their programming', i.e. that humans ought to comply with their natural oughtness. Note the difference.

What I claimed is, there is a natural 'oughtness' [moral fact] inherent in the programming.
This natural moral oughtness is the moral fact represented by it physical mechanisms in the brain, thus whole body.
As such ALL humans should let such an oughtness unfolds naturally within their own circumstances and time.
Within morality-proper no human should be forced to comply with the moral ought_ness that is supposedly programmed because each individual conditions are different.

What I am advocating is to expedite the process of the unfoldment of that inherent moral oughtness [function, drive] naturally within the ability of the person in their own time but with some degree of expeditiousness.

In the case of a diagnosed malignant psychopath, and because his moral oughtness [physical moral fact] within the program is damaged, there is nothing at present he can do to enable that natural moral oughtness to unfold.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:00 am 'no human ought to kill humans' [as verified and justified true moral fact],
then that maxim will trigger humanity to go all out in the future to ensure the above scenarios do not happen in the first place.

A maxim is an assertion; an opinion.

Such as :

APES GOOD; HUMANS BAD.
Note:
  • Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct.
As usual you are ignorant and stupid [lack intelligence] on the issue and jumping to conclusion.

In my case of a moral maxim, it is a moral fact verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a credible moral framework and system.

Note my point in the above post.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:21 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 5:00 am 'no human ought to kill humans' [as verified and justified true moral fact],
then that maxim will trigger humanity to go all out in the future to ensure the above scenarios do not happen in the first place.

A maxim is an assertion; an opinion.

Such as :

APES GOOD; HUMANS BAD.
Note:
  • Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct.

And your claimed maxim is yet to be taken as truth, and is as usual your opinion.
Maxims are usually rubbish as is your.
Example:
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Well actually you can teach an old dog new tricks.
You really need to have a better grasp of English.
But sadly you are not a dog and are mentally incapable of thinking outside your mode of thought.
Last edited by Sculptor on Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Across several threads and all too many posts "Veritas" has made a giant claim of objective morality ad nauseam.
Pleas have been made to offer some moral guidence or some simple moral rules to which we can compare his methodology.
And yet in all these pages and pages of posts, he is yet to have made a single coherent moral rule upon which we can all agree. Oh objetivity wherefore art thou??? :lol:
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:03 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 4:34 am
You are off tangent here.
The OP is NOT about consequentialism and moral objectivity.

The point here is, consequentialism is pseudo-morality thus flawed and bankrupt in dealing with morality-proper, i.e. not in alignment with what is intrinsically human nature.

From what you have posted you are supporting consequentialism [ineffective], i.e. moral relativism as to what are opinions of what is right or wrong based on consequences.
I neither support nor condemn consequentialism. I'm pointing out that, wherever we look for moral facts, they don't exist.

For example, here's your 'morality-proper' pitch: if we prevent a problem occurring, we won't have solve or 'cure' it. And your folksy line is: prevention is better than cure - which sounds right and applicable in many situations.

But that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'better than' other tactical and strategic methods for ending the war in the Pacific is a matter of opinion. And better for whom? Can prevention be worse than the cure?

Your (by now only) supposed moral fact is that no human ought to kill humans. But you say this has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, and is merely a matter of following programming.
But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming - which, presumably also has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness ... and so on.

At bottom is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - which is what moral realists and objectivists refuse to recognise. And this is why morality - consequentialist or otherwise - isn't and can't be objective.
You missed [as usual] my critical point.

Your stated rhetorically and creating your strawman as usual.
PH: But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming

I did not assume and never insisted 'humans ought to follow their programming', i.e. that humans ought to comply with their natural oughtness. Note the difference.

What I claimed is, there is a natural 'oughtness' [moral fact] inherent in the programming.
This natural moral oughtness is the moral fact represented by it physical mechanisms in the brain, thus whole body.
As such ALL humans should let such an oughtness unfolds naturally within their own circumstances and time.
Within morality-proper no human should be forced to comply with the moral ought_ness that is supposedly programmed because each individual conditions are different.

What I am advocating is to expedite the process of the unfoldment of that inherent moral oughtness [function, drive] naturally within the ability of the person in their own time but with some degree of expeditiousness.

In the case of a diagnosed malignant psychopath, and because his moral oughtness [physical moral fact] within the program is damaged, there is nothing at present he can do to enable that natural moral oughtness to unfold.
Look at these two statements of yours.

1 I did not assume and never insisted 'humans ought to follow their programming', i.e. that humans ought to comply with their natural oughtness. Note the difference.

2 What I claimed is, there is a natural 'oughtness' [moral fact] inherent in the programming.
This natural moral oughtness is the moral fact represented by it [sic] physical mechanisms in the brain, thus whole body.
As such ALL humans should let such an oughtness unfolds [sic] naturally within their own circumstances and time.

What's the difference between complying with our supposed natural 'oughtness' programming - and letting our 'oughtness' unfold naturally?

The 'should' in the second statement means 'ought to'. So why ought we to let this supposed moral oughtness unfold? (Whatever this claptrap means.)
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:21 am
Sculptor wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 11:16 am


A maxim is an assertion; an opinion.

Such as :

APES GOOD; HUMANS BAD.
Note:
  • Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct.

And your claimed maxim is yet to be taken as truth, and is as usual your opinion.
Maxims are usually rubbish as is your.
Example:
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Well actually you can teach an old dog new tricks.
You really need to have a better grasp of English.
But sadly you are not a dog and are mentally incapable of thinking outside your mode of thought.
My maxim is grounded on truth.
I don't prefer the term 'maxim' but rather it is a moral fact as a moral standard that is grounded on scientific facts, i.e.
all humans are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable. [empirically evident].

Who is supposed to get a better grasp of English? :?:
It is you who to need to brush up on your English, when you insisted, "A maxim is an assertion; an opinion"
when the truth is otherwise as I had shown from a common dictionary.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:23 am Across several threads and all too many posts "Veritas" has made a giant claim of objective morality ad nauseam.
Pleas have been made to offer some moral guidence or some simple moral rules to which we can compare his methodology.
And yet in all these pages and pages of posts, he is yet to have made a single coherent moral rule upon which we can all agree. Oh objetivity wherefore art thou??? :lol:
I have presented my valid and solid argument.

Being well aware of what you have been posting and countering,
it would be stupid of me to expect an ignoramus like you to agree at all.

Note you are in the minority,
  • A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] -Wiki
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 12:15 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:00 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 8:03 am
I neither support nor condemn consequentialism. I'm pointing out that, wherever we look for moral facts, they don't exist.

For example, here's your 'morality-proper' pitch: if we prevent a problem occurring, we won't have solve or 'cure' it. And your folksy line is: prevention is better than cure - which sounds right and applicable in many situations.

But that destroying Hiroshima and Nagasaki was 'better than' other tactical and strategic methods for ending the war in the Pacific is a matter of opinion. And better for whom? Can prevention be worse than the cure?

Your (by now only) supposed moral fact is that no human ought to kill humans. But you say this has nothing to do with moral rightness and wrongness, and is merely a matter of following programming.
But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming - which, presumably also has nothing to do with rightness and wrongness ... and so on.

At bottom is always a moral judgement, belief or opinion - which is what moral realists and objectivists refuse to recognise. And this is why morality - consequentialist or otherwise - isn't and can't be objective.
You missed [as usual] my critical point.

Your stated rhetorically and creating your strawman as usual.
PH: But then you assume, without justification, that humans ought to follow their programming

I did not assume and never insisted 'humans ought to follow their programming', i.e. that humans ought to comply with their natural oughtness. Note the difference.

What I claimed is, there is a natural 'oughtness' [moral fact] inherent in the programming.
This natural moral oughtness is the moral fact represented by it physical mechanisms in the brain, thus whole body.
As such ALL humans should let such an oughtness unfolds naturally within their own circumstances and time.
Within morality-proper no human should be forced to comply with the moral ought_ness that is supposedly programmed because each individual conditions are different.

What I am advocating is to expedite the process of the unfoldment of that inherent moral oughtness [function, drive] naturally within the ability of the person in their own time but with some degree of expeditiousness.

In the case of a diagnosed malignant psychopath, and because his moral oughtness [physical moral fact] within the program is damaged, there is nothing at present he can do to enable that natural moral oughtness to unfold.
Look at these two statements of yours.

1 I did not assume and never insisted 'humans ought to follow their programming', i.e. that humans ought to comply with their natural oughtness. Note the difference.

2 What I claimed is, there is a natural 'oughtness' [moral fact] inherent in the programming.
This natural moral oughtness is the moral fact represented by it [sic] physical mechanisms in the brain, thus whole body.
As such ALL humans should let such an oughtness unfolds [sic] naturally within their own circumstances and time.

What's the difference between complying with our supposed natural 'oughtness' programming - and letting our 'oughtness' unfold naturally?

The 'should' in the second statement means 'ought to'. So why ought we to let this supposed moral oughtness unfold? (Whatever this claptrap means.)
There are nuances re the "ought to comply with the programming" and "allowing that inherent ought_ness to unfold naturally as programmed."

Analogy:
Note ALL humans are "programmed" to learn i.e. via a system of education.
There is a difference,
between,
  • 1. someone ought to be educated to comply with one's inherent programming, which forces on to go to some rigid school [made compulsory] by authorities, parents, society, etc.
and,
  • 2. someone being taught how-to-learn first and then enabling the inherent 'oughtness'-to-learn [education] unfolds in accordance to one's capabilities and pace.
The above analogy is analogous to the inherent moral "oughtness".

No individual should be forced or pressured in being ought to be moral just because they are inherently programmed with a moral function.

The point is regardless what the individual thinks or does, there is no denying there is the inherent moral function or moral oughtness [the moral fact] which exists as a physical mechanism within the brain of the individual.
The 'should' in the second statement means 'ought to'. So why ought we to let this supposed moral oughtness unfold? (Whatever this claptrap means.)
I say you are VERY stupid in jumping to conclusion it is a "claptrap".
  • Analogy: Note the potential for puberty is "programmed" within all humans.
    In time this potential for puberty will unfold to enable a child to be an adult.
    Where this unfoldment is inhibited for some reason, the person will not become an adult.

    It is the same with using female hormones to inhibit the natural unfoldment of any potential male puberty.
The above analogy is similar to how the inherent moral function that is "programmed" within ALL humans will unfolds-in-time naturally for all normal humans.

That is why I keep insisting you are stupid [lack intelligence] & ignorant grounded on shallow and narrow thinking dogmatically with confirmation bias while stuck within a tall windowless silo.
If you are informed of the above, you should be able to understand easily what I am driving at with the term 'unfolding' of what is "programmed" in the above context.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:20 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:21 am
Note:
  • Maxim: a short, pithy statement expressing a general truth or rule of conduct.

And your claimed maxim is yet to be taken as truth, and is as usual your opinion.
Maxims are usually rubbish as is your.
Example:
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Well actually you can teach an old dog new tricks.
You really need to have a better grasp of English.
But sadly you are not a dog and are mentally incapable of thinking outside your mode of thought.
My maxim is grounded on truth.
Some might be, yours is not.
I don't prefer the term 'maxim' but rather it is a moral fact as a moral standard that is grounded on scientific facts, i.e.
all humans are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable. [empirically evident].
That is what scientists call "not even wrong".

Who is supposed to get a better grasp of English? :?:
It is you who to need to brush up on your English, when you insisted, "A maxim is an assertion; an opinion"
when the truth is otherwise as I had shown from a common dictionary.
Maybe you should consult the use of the term in philosophy?
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:42 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:23 am Across several threads and all too many posts "Veritas" has made a giant claim of objective morality ad nauseam.
Pleas have been made to offer some moral guidence or some simple moral rules to which we can compare his methodology.
And yet in all these pages and pages of posts, he is yet to have made a single coherent moral rule upon which we can all agree. Oh objetivity wherefore art thou??? :lol:
I have presented my valid and solid argument.
In your opinion.
Your opinion has proven (evidently) to be worth less than infected yeast.

Being well aware of what you have been posting and countering,
it would be stupid of me to expect an ignoramus like you to agree at all.

Note you are in the minority,
  • A survey from 2009 involving 3,226 respondents[5] found that 56% of philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism (28%: anti-realism; 16%: other).[6] -Wiki
1. Fallacy ad populum.
2. A "tendancy" does not amount to ANY degree of objectivity.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3732
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:09 am The point is regardless what the individual thinks or does, there is no denying there is the inherent moral function or moral oughtness [the moral fact] which exists as a physical mechanism within the brain of the individual.
Nope. There is every denying. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in a certain way is NOT a moral mechanism or function. And the reason why it isn't is that judgement as to the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter. I've explained this to you a thousand times.

For the same reason, that we are obviously programmed to kill humans that threaten ourselves, our families, or our group, doesn't mean that we ought to do so - that it's morally right to do so. For the thousandth time. But ignore this fact, by all means, as usual.
Skepdick
Posts: 14366
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm is NOT a moral mechanism or function.
What is a moral mechanism/function? Where is this mechanism located?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 11:59 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:37 am
Sculptor wrote: Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:20 am


And your claimed maxim is yet to be taken as truth, and is as usual your opinion.
Maxims are usually rubbish as is your.
Example:
You cannot teach an old dog new tricks.
Well actually you can teach an old dog new tricks.
You really need to have a better grasp of English.
But sadly you are not a dog and are mentally incapable of thinking outside your mode of thought.
My maxim is grounded on truth.
Some might be, yours is not.
I don't prefer the term 'maxim' but rather it is a moral fact as a moral standard that is grounded on scientific facts, i.e.
all humans are 'programmed' to survive till the inevitable. [empirically evident].
That is what scientists call "not even wrong".

Who is supposed to get a better grasp of English? :?:
It is you who to need to brush up on your English, when you insisted, "A maxim is an assertion; an opinion"
when the truth is otherwise as I had shown from a common dictionary.
Maybe you should consult the use of the term in philosophy?
You are trying to eel your way out.
First you complain about my English.
When I corner you with English, you shift to philosophy.
  • A maxim is a concise expression of a fundamental moral rule or principle, whether considered as objective or subjective contingent on one's philosophy.
    -wiki
'Maxim' in philosophy is reducible to a principle or truth.
Post Reply