A little thought experiment (1 Viewer)

[Dinsdale]

This is more a description of addiction. I don't think it makes sense to cast all of morality in terms of addiction.

Seriously, you should read up on morality vs identity. There's a lot of interesting stuff there that really explains things.

No, it's a general discription that explains the motives behind everything we choose to do. It all comes to the same principle, even with morality. But with a lot of things that are morally wrong, the downsides are so subtle that a lot of people don't grasp them (or at least not consciously). That's why man invented this convention called morality. It's there to avoid people from doing stuff that just isn't profitable in the long run for sane people. Degeneracy is just one example. I already gave an example of moral justification or the lack thereof.

I will read up on it. But believing that theory is right doesn't show why my viewpoint is wrong.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Martin]

No, it's a general discription that explains the motives behind everything we choose to do. It all comes to the same principle, even with morality. But with a lot of things that are morally wrong, the downsides are so subtle that a lot of people don't grasp them (or at least not consciously). That's why man invented this convention called morality. It's there to avoid people from doing stuff that just isn't profitable in the long run for sane people. Degeneracy is just one example. I already gave an example of moral justification or the lack thereof.

I will read up on it. But believing that theory is right doesn't show why my viewpoint is wrong.

I wouldn't say it's wrong. But if it's right then it's not expressing the same ideas as clearly as I would like. I gave you the example of a dangerous selfless act. In that video there's the example of a man who has two children who saved someone from being killed by a subway train. He jumped down just before the train was going to hit the guy and pushed him to the ground, below the train.

Now how do you explain this with a risk/reward system. It doesn't quite fit, does it?

 

[Geof]

Well I don't have time to read the whole ongoing discussions so my point is probably already made. Anyways:

I think it's easy to insist on human rights when your well-being is not threatened.

Moral values, whether 'natural', religious or legal will keep one from putting into place immoral or unethical practices, but there has to be a tipping point for anyone. The exact moment of tipping will obviously depend on the individual, the situation and the moral rule that is to be infringed.

Take the example of concentration camps. The idea that all prisoners would cooperate and help each other out is totally wrong. People often tried to get favoured treatment by telling on others, or stole food from one another. I would say that's immoral, but would I do the same if I was dying of hunger or, worse, seeing my child die of hunger in front of my own eyes? Yes.

I guess the opening question is designed to make one realise this. I think it's fairly impossible to answer a priori to where my personal tipping point is for enslaving people, but it's clear it exists, no question.

 

[Dinsdale]

I wouldn't say it's wrong. But if it's right then it's not expressing the same ideas as clearly as I would like. I gave you the example of a dangerous selfless act. In that video there's the example of a man who has two children who saved someone from being killed by a subway train. He jumped down just before the train was going to hit the guy and pushed him to the ground, below the train.

Now how do you explain this with a risk/reward system. It doesn't quite fit, does it?

To me it makes sense. For this particular man, the emotional fulfillment he gets from saving those children (or the downside of the emotional suffering he goes through if he didn't try to save them) overcompensates the downside of the risk he's taking. A man who would be defined as 'more of a coward' by our convention, is simply someone who would feel significantly less bad about not trying to save those children. Also note that it's very hard to determine whether it's morally wrong if you don't try to save those children, because it's hard to determine whether the upsides outweight the downsides. Which is hard because both are influenced by very subtle and personal factors (how bad would I feel, what are the odds of me succeeding in saving them, does this situation occur often enough so that's it's profitable to set an example for other people in case I or someone I care about gets into the same life threatening situation). Like Geof said, it's all about deciding on which side of the tipping point the situation is.

Of course one fundamental question then is "why do certain things trigger certain emotions?". This will probably bring us to evolution theory, because organisms who have the most profitable emotional response are more likely to survive.

I'm probably just considering it all from a more abstract and fundamental viewpoint.

 

[Dinsdale]

Well I don't have time to read the whole ongoing discussions so my point is probably already made. Anyways:

I think it's easy to insist on human rights when your well-being is not threatened.

Moral values, whether 'natural', religious or legal will keep one from putting into place immoral or unethical practices, but there has to be a tipping point for anyone. The exact moment of tipping will obviously depend on the individual, the situation and the moral rule that is to be infringed.

Take the example of concentration camps. The idea that all prisoners would cooperate and help each other out is totally wrong. People often tried to get favoured treatment by telling on others, or stole food from one another. I would say that's immoral, but would I do the same if I was dying of hunger or, worse, seeing my child die of hunger in front of my own eyes? Yes.

I guess the opening question is designed to make one realise this. I think it's fairly impossible to answer a priori to where my personal tipping point is for enslaving people, but it's clear it exists, no question.

Excellent post.

 

[Martin]

To me it makes sense. For this particular man, the emotional fulfillment he gets from saving those children (or the downside of the emotional suffering he goes through if he didn't try to save them) overcompensates the downside of the risk he's taking.

Okay, so I talk about identity but we're on the same page.

A man who would be defined as 'more of a coward' by our convention, is simply someone who would feel significantly less bad about not trying to save those children.

Or more terrified by the risk! I mean if you thought you faced certain death you wouldn't save anyone I don't think. And if I stood next to you and I thought I could make it, perhaps I would try.

This is another thing about risk. We talk about calculating risk, but noone performs the same calculation. Some people who are said to be heroic are just underestimating the danger. So there is no objective basis here.

Of course one fundamental question then is "why do certain things trigger certain emotions?". This will probably bring us to evolution theory, because organisms who have the most profitable emotional response are more likely to survive.

Yeap. But truth be told we could take this a bit further. Evolutionarily speaking, an individual may have a better chance to survive and reproduce as a member of a society than an individual, yes? So that opens the door to social values codified in evolution as well.

 

[Dinsdale]

This is another thing about risk. We talk about calculating risk, but noone performs the same calculation. Some people who are said to be heroic are just underestimating the danger. So there is no objective basis here.

Yep, everyone weighs the determining factors differently.

 

[Enron]

No, but I find it extremely annoying that basically every time a topic is discussed in this subforum the majority of people who post in the thread feel the urge to derail the thread by cracking jokes, make mocking or insulting comments or start talking about something completely else. Why post in a thread you don't care about? And you, althought in a lesser degree, are one of those posters. Honestly, I thought you had more class.

As for the analogy, make it cripples. But then it still wouldn't make sense because soms cripples can move their arms, right? Yeah.

Don't be such a cry baby.

 

[Enron]

Well I don't have time to read the whole ongoing discussions so my point is probably already made. Anyways:

I think it's easy to insist on human rights when your well-being is not threatened.

Moral values, whether 'natural', religious or legal will keep one from putting into place immoral or unethical practices, but there has to be a tipping point for anyone. The exact moment of tipping will obviously depend on the individual, the situation and the moral rule that is to be infringed.

Take the example of concentration camps. The idea that all prisoners would cooperate and help each other out is totally wrong. People often tried to get favoured treatment by telling on others, or stole food from one another. I would say that's immoral, but would I do the same if I was dying of hunger or, worse, seeing my child die of hunger in front of my own eyes? Yes.

I guess the opening question is designed to make one realise this. I think it's fairly impossible to answer a priori to where my personal tipping point is for enslaving people, but it's clear it exists, no question.

I think the real issue at hand is the inability for people to consider other options. In this case, why would there be a need to enslave a populous? Why not examine the decision that were made that led the country to it's current position and then do the opposite?

The biggest issue is that it is almost always never a choice between A or B. People need to think "outside of the box". There are several options. It is when you limit yourself to a single way of thinking that you end up with situations like we have described to us in the first post.

 

[Bjerknes]

If it came down to it and a scenario like this would really happen, I'm fairly certain everybody would say yes. In no way would there be so many "no" votes. What matters in life is family and friends, so to save them you'll choose them over some other entity and allow the other group to perish. That's just what it boils down to.

You may not want to think you'd make that decision right now, but trust me, you would. Think of it as if someone was holding a gun to your head -- if it came down to the people you supposedly love, it would be exactly the same.

 

[Martin]

If it came down to it and a scenario like this would really happen, I'm fairly certain everybody would say yes. In no way would there be so many "no" votes. What matters in life is family and friends, so to save them you'll choose them over some other entity and allow the other group to perish. That's just what it boils down to.

You may not want to think you'd make that decision right now, but trust me, you would. Think of it as if someone was holding a gun to your head -- if it came down to the people you supposedly love, it would be exactly the same.

No it isn't. A gun to your head is a choice between life and death. Choosing to enslave other people has no risk of death (as presented in the question).

 

[Bjerknes]

No it isn't. A gun to your head is a choice between life and death. Choosing to enslave other people has no risk of death (as presented in the question).

Death to the way of life you're used to. So in some sense, it is similar to death.

 

[Enron]

No it isn't. A gun to your head is a choice between life and death. Choosing to enslave other people has no risk of death (as presented in the question).

Yeah and I have to disagree with the first post of this thread. Taking away the ramifications and future consequences of enslaving the people is kind of cheating. Unless you live in some quasi-utopian society in which there are no consequences and in short no morals.

Looking over history the enslavement of people for the benefit of the many never ever works out. It is human nature to rise up, to revolt. Even the Bible shows human nature as revolutionary. Take Haiti for example, after there war with France, Britain, and Spain the once profitable island was in shambles. Louvertoure did what he thought was the only possible course of action and enslaved the poorest of his population, much like the French did, in order to restore the economy so that the majority would prosper. Fast forward to today and Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas and the majority that Louvertoure's forced slavey was to benefit is not among the poorest in Haiti.

 

[Bjerknes]

There's nothing to disagree with in the first post. It's a hypothetical situation where one has to make a decision.

 

[Martin]

Yeah and I have to disagree with the first post of this thread. Taking away the ramifications and future consequences of enslaving the people is kind of cheating. Unless you live in some quasi-utopian society in which there are no consequences and in short no morals.

It's fully contrived. But he was trying to raise a point which is hard to formulate.

 

[Enron]

There's nothing to disagree with in the first post. It's a hypothetical situation where one has to make a decision.

It's hypothetical, which means it would never happen. So why ask?

 

[Dinsdale]

It's hypothetical, which means it would never happen. So why ask?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

 

[Bjerknes]

It's hypothetical, which means it would never happen. So why ask?

It's a thought experiment, as he said.

The counter to you is: why respond?

 

[Enron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment

Did you see the part where it says a though experiment may not be possible to perform?

 

[Enron]

It's a thought experiment, as he said.

The counter to you is: why respond?

As you said it's a thought experiment.