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

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 12:01 pm
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.
You are stupid, i.e. not all majority consensus are fallacy of ad populum.

I did not insist the above majority view conclude my thesis it true.
The above is merely an indication of the truth.
Whatever is to be proven to be true or fact must be verified and justified as I had done.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
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.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
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.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Here are my counters, in your number order.

1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.

If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.

Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.

2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.

3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.

Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:42 am 1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.
Also, an utterance in the vein of "x is morally wrong" can't get into a "moral framework and system" or any body of standards, principles, etc. in the first place aside from individuals feeling that x is morally wrong.--Which is just our point. He seems to think that conventions counting as "frameworks/systems" or whatever he's calling them, conventions of standards, etc. somehow become objective by virtue of being a convention/being agreed upon/being common. They don't. They're still subjective. They still arise from individuals having whatever dispositions they do, having whatever preferences, beliefs, etc. that they do. The objective world has no standards, it has no epistemological frameworks, etc.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8529
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Sculptor »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:23 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:01 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:42 am
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.
You are stupid, i.e. not all majority consensus are fallacy of ad populum.
This one is.
You are more stupid.

I did not insist the above majority view conclude my thesis it true.
word salad. Take a deep breath and try again.
The above is merely an indication of the truth.
No, it is YOUR opinion.
You opinion is not the truth.
Whatever is to be proven to be true or fact must be verified and justified as I had done.
Keep trying.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:42 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:34 am
Peter Holmes wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 1:50 pm
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.
You are the one who is ignoring all my counters to your above.

1. "the moral rightness or wrongness of that behaviour is a separate matter"
is not an issue within morality proper.
Judgments and Decisions are not Morality Per se.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=31615
You have not countered the above point.

2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is NOT a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that may make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is NOT a sexual mechanism or function.
This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.

3. That humans are programmed to kill for various reason has nothing to do with morality on a primary basis but rather they had to kill for food and basic survival.

I have explained ad nauseam on the above but you have not provided any convincing counter to the above.
Show me your counters to the above.
Here are my counters, in your number order.

1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.

If your claim doesn't apply to 'abortion is morally wrong' - because that's a matter of opinion - but instead applies to 'no human ought to kill humans' - in other words, if some moral assertions are factual, but others aren't - then you have to demonstrate that that distinction between moral assertions is objective (factual) and not, in itself, merely a matter of opinion. In other words: is it a fact that some moral assertions are factual (and therefore true or false) but that others aren't factual? My answer is: no.
You are creating your own strawman and is deceptive as usual.
I did not state this "'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion."

I agree 'abortion is morally wrong' is a judgment, belief or opinion, but such a judgment is not applicable to morality-proper [as defined].

Morality-proper do not deal primarily with judgments, beliefs or opinions.
Note my general principle;
Whatever is claimed as a moral fact, it must be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a moral FSK, e.g.
'no human ought to kill humans'
which I had justified.

If it is related to abortion then the moral fact would be,
"no human ought to abort any unborn human'
But note, I have not justified this moral fact solidly and soundly yet, so I am not making any strong claim on it at present.

Also, your description of morality doesn't conform to any dictionary definition of the word 'morality', all of which (including the one you repeatedly cite) refer to the rightness and wrongness, the propriety and impropriety, or the goodness and badness of behaviour. And if your version of morality merely involves consistency with programming, or other causal aspects of human nature, then it has nothing to do with what the rest of us call 'morality'.
I am aware morality is defined in term of 'right or wrong' but I do not prefer such "too-loose" terms so I am opting for 'good' or 'evil' which I had defined the latter terms.
2 This seems to endorse my point about the use of 'moral' as a modifier in the way you use it, for example in the incoherent expression 'moral fact'. I'm delighted you understand this point, at last.
I was rushing to do something, thus there is an omission there and I had merely copied what you wrote without editing it out the 'NOT'. I will represent, i.e.
  • 2. A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in moral ways within a moral FSK is a moral mechanism or function. re morality as defined.
    A physical mechanism or function in the brain, that make us behave in sexual ways within a sex-FSK is a sexual mechanism or function.
    This applicable to all different functions, e.g. visual, auditory, intellectual, compassion, etc.
3 Your expression 'morality on a primary basis' is as empty as your expressions 'morality-proper' and 'morality per se'. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that this is your invention, as is the 'morality framework and system of knowledge'. You've deluded yourself into thinking these things exist, but have failed to provide what you yourself insist on: empirical evidence. Your claim that programming represents an 'oughtness' in humans that somehow translates into a moral 'oughtness' is fatuous - as I and others have demonstrated a thousand times.

Your claims are false, or not shown to be true. And your arguments are unsound, or not shown to be sound. And nothing will change for you until you go back to the drawing board, wipe off all the elaborate nonsense you've chalked up, and start again.
Point is I have defined what is 'morality-proper.'
This definition is in alignment with the fundamentals of what is generally defined as 'morality', e.g. deontology, consequentialism, theistic morality, those of moral relativism. e.g.
Do you have a problem with that definition?

How come you are so ignorant of what is generally a Framework and System of Knowledge or Reality as in Science and the range of knowledge out there?
As such there is no issue with what is a moral framework and system.
Whatever "programming" in the brain is justified with the moral FSK is a moral fact just as scientific facts are from a scientific FSK.

Why you cannot understand my rational views is because you have been indoctrinated with the bastardized views of the logical positivists and the archaic classical analytic philosophers.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 12:38 pm
Peter Holmes wrote: Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:42 am 1 You claim that what you call 'morality-proper' or (here) 'morality per se' has nothing to do with judgements, beliefs, decisions or opinions. So you claim that the assertion 'abortion is morally wrong' doesn't express a judgement, belief, decision or opinion - but is instead a factual assertion that is true or false, independently from opinion and therefore subjectivity. And this claim is false.
Also, an utterance in the vein of "x is morally wrong" can't get into a "moral framework and system" or any body of standards, principles, etc. in the first place aside from individuals feeling that x is morally wrong.--Which is just our point. He seems to think that conventions counting as "frameworks/systems" or whatever he's calling them, conventions of standards, etc. somehow become objective by virtue of being a convention/being agreed upon/being common. They don't. They're still subjective. They still arise from individuals having whatever dispositions they do, having whatever preferences, beliefs, etc. that they do. The objective world has no standards, it has no epistemological frameworks, etc.
So in other words you are insisting scientific facts from the scientific framework and system are not objective?
The point is scientific facts are objective as conditioned upon the scientific FSK and based on intersubjective consensus, i.e. intersubjectivity.

What you deemed [assumed] as the 'objective world' out there existing independent of the human condition is only an illusion which cannot be proven or objectified at all.

Prove to me your 'objective world' out there independent of the human condition is real?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:29 am So in other words you are insisting scientific facts from the scientific framework and system are not objective?
Nothing becomes a (scientific) fact via consensus, except for the fact of what the consensus is. In other words, if there's a consensus that combustion works via phlogiston, then it's a fact that there's a consensus that combustion works via phlogiston, but that doesn't amount to it being a fact that combustion works via phlogiston.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Terrapin Station wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 1:03 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:29 am So in other words you are insisting scientific facts from the scientific framework and system are not objective?
Nothing becomes a (scientific) fact via consensus, except for the fact of what the consensus is. In other words, if there's a consensus that combustion works via phlogiston, then it's a fact that there's a consensus that combustion works via phlogiston, but that doesn't amount to it being a fact that combustion works via phlogiston.
Even it is was wrong on hindsight, whatever is accepted as a scientific fact is still "objective" as qualified to the scientific FSK within the specified period.

Point is,
there is no absolute certainty whatever is claimed as scientific facts NOW which are considered objective as qualified to its FSK will remain scientifically true. This provision is itself a principle within the scientific FSK, i.e. a scientific theory will be abandoned upon new evidence which prove otherwise.

The "phlogiston theory" was a reasonable scientific theory which merely lack sufficient evidence but merely based on the best inferences then.
Note;
  • Phlogiston theory led to experiments which ultimately concluded with the discovery of oxygen.
    -wiki
The point is scientific objectivity is credible and reliable;
  • This section examines the importance of reliability of scientific knowledge, for the scientific community and for society. Reproducibility is one criterion for reliability of scientific knowledge, ...
    viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333
but that doesn't amount to it being a fact that combustion works via phlogiston.
As I had stated you are relying on a bastardized version of 'what is fact'. i.e. an assumed independent fact-in-itself which is not based on any credible framework and system.
But it is impossible for an independent fact-in-itself to exists as real.

The principle is;
'whatever is a fact is always conditioned within a FSK'.

You think what you postulated is independent but you are ignorant that you are relying on the linguistic FSK which are mere words to represent your assumed fact-in-itself.

Prove to me a fact [fact-in-itself] that is absolutely independent of human conditions and FSK can exists as real?
I have already raised a thread on this,
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 am The point is scientific objectivity is credible and reliable.

Prove to me a fact [fact-in-itself] that is absolutely independent of human conditions and FSK can exist as real?
1 If scientific objectivity is credible and reliable, of what does it give us credible and reliable knowledge?

2 What is a fact-in-itself?
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:52 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 am The point is scientific objectivity is credible and reliable.

Prove to me a fact [fact-in-itself] that is absolutely independent of human conditions and FSK can exist as real?
1 If scientific objectivity is credible and reliable, of what does it give us credible and reliable knowledge?

2 What is a fact-in-itself?
Note the link where I had explained why scientific facts are objective, credible and reliable.
Again: viewtopic.php?p=489333#p489333

The test of scientific objectivity as credible and reliable is the confidence level the non-scientific public has relied on scientific facts to generate positives for the progress of mankind while being mindful of any known limitations.
Do you dispute the above?

I have explained below;
Prove to me a fact [fact-in-itself] that is absolutely independent of human conditions and FSK can exists as real?
I have already raised a thread on this,
Prove An Independent Reality-in-Itself Exists
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=32481

A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 6:32 am
But it is impossible for an independent fact-in-itself to exists as real.
This is just complete nonsense. What's the case isn't determined by consensus, aside from the consensus being determined by that.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 3731
Joined: Tue Jul 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Peter Holmes »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:17 am A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 4548
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 7:18 pm
Location: NYC Man

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Terrapin Station »

Peter Holmes wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:17 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 8:17 am A fact-in-itself is a fact that is independent of any FSK.
In other word a fact is always a fact-within-FSK.
Show me a fact that is absolutely independent of any FSK, and I will exposed the assumed or underlying FSK you are relying upon.
I can't show you something until you explain what it is that you want to see. What are you asking me to show you?

What is a fact that is independent from any framework and system of knowledge?

Same question: what is a thing-in-itself? Do you also want to see one of those?
You could just point to any arbitrary thing.
Skepdick
Posts: 14363
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Trolley Problem

Post by Skepdick »

Terrapin Station wrote: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:20 am You could just point to any arbitrary thing.
OK! Show me.

Point at a thing.
Post Reply