Philosophy Now Forum

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:27 pm A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.

A good utilitarian – such as John Stuart Mill – would opt to switch the track. For utilitarians, the good of the many comes first, and the only option here is to save as many lives as possible. When first presented with the problem, many of us would opt for the same action, whether we’ve ever heard the term ‘utilitarian’ or not.

Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is...moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers...this many dead or that many dead.

But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:34 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:27 pm A Solution to the Trolley Problem
Rick Coste says the solution depends upon what we’ll realistically allow.

A good utilitarian – such as John Stuart Mill – would opt to switch the track. For utilitarians, the good of the many comes first, and the only option here is to save as many lives as possible. When first presented with the problem, many of us would opt for the same action, whether we’ve ever heard the term ‘utilitarian’ or not.

Right, like for those like him, the actual reality of the situation is...moot? Instead, once you take the quandary up into the intellectual clouds, it can all revolve around the numbers...this many dead or that many dead.

You must think "up in the clouds" means something different from everyone else. That's the least up in the clouds moral solution to a moral situation imaginable.

If you want an example of a quote that's up in the clouds, here's one:

But either way, in my view, it still all comes down largely to dasein.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein

Just out of curiosity, FJ, you're not felixdakat, are you?

Over at ILP, my own "three stooges" were phyllo, karpel tunnel [iwannaplato I believe] and felix.

Just for the record.

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:19 pm

iambiguous wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:15 pm

Flannel Jesus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 5:46 pm What you said there must come down to dasein

Just out of curiosity, FJ, you're not felixdakat, are you?

Over at ILP, my own "three stooges" were phyllo, karpel tunnel [iwannaplato I believe] and felix.

Just for the record.

You only think that because of dasein.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.

Since intractable disagreement among wise, informed and rational people about philosophical matters does not license a verdict of philosophical antirealism, it should not do so when the subject is ethics proper.
https://academic.oup.com/book/32534/cha ... m=fulltext

Moral disagreement is widely held to pose a threat for metaethical realism and objectivity. In this paper I attempt to understand how it is that moral disagreement is supposed to present a problem for metaethical realism. I do this by going through several distinct (though often related) arguments from disagreement, carefully distinguishing between them, and critically evaluating their merits. My conclusions are rather skeptical: Some of the arguments I discuss fail rather clearly. Others supply with a challenge to realism, but not one we have any reason to believe realism cannot address successfully. Others beg the question against the moral realist, and yet others raise serious objections to realism, but ones that — when carefully stated — can be seen not to be essentially related to moral disagreement.
Arguments based on moral disagreement itself have almost no weight, I conclude, against moral realism.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... id=2607198

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.

Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Wed Mar 29, 2023 6:00 pm This question comes up ad nauseam
I am continually puzzled by the moral objectivists.
What are they scared of.
You've only to take a moment to examine the history of morality to know with utter certainty that there are no certainties or objective facts that stand the test of time.
Justice is always handed out unevenly; either in mitigation of class, status or circumstance; or restricted due to age, race, and low status or social standing.
That it the world we live in.

Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....

Good start..
FUCK OFF.



I've spend year in the study of anthropology, history, and archaeology. So run along.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:00 am Premise: The world's getting better in almost every imaginable way.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

(Face palm.)

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:35 am

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:13 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 5:23 am
Your knowledge re Morality and Ethics is too narrow and shallow....

Good start..
FUCK OFF.



I've spend years in the study of anthropology, history, and archaeology. So run along.

So did they teach you any statistics and data science in that year?

Because it seems to me the world's getting better in almost every imaginable way. How's that possible in you world view?

https://ourworldindata.org/

Skepdick wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:42 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 11:00 am Premise: The world's getting better in almost every imaginable way.
Conclusion: Therefore, there are moral facts, and morality is objective.

(Face palm.)

Frames everything in terms of "premises" and "conclusions".
Misunderstands what's being described.
Facepalms himself because of his own misunderstanding.

Signature Peter "Dumb Cunt" Holmes

Sculptor wrote: ↑Thu Mar 30, 2023 2:30 pm It was seven years of higher education all told.
I learned statistics yes.
Can you please give it your best shot to show how you think the subject of statistics relates to the question of moral objectivism.
I need a good laugh this afternoon.