A little thought experiment (3 Viewers)

[Dinsdale]

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

Yes.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Enron]

Yes.

Then why ask the question you did and strip it of all moral consequence? Without consequence morality becomes oblivious and logic takes over. Without consequence the dilemma is no longer one of morality, but on of logic. And of course we all know the logical answer would be yes.

Frankly, morality is built on what society has deemed acceptable. In this scenario, the act of enslaving foreigners is not only the logical thing to do, but because there would be no societal repercussions morality doesn't play a factor. As morals are a matter of nurture rather than nature.

 

[Dinsdale]

Then why ask the question you did and strip it of all moral consequence?

To come to certain conclusions, among them a few which you just mentioned.

 

[Hist]

There are two schools of thought
Deontological ethics: Focuses on the action itself (Kant)
teleological ethics: Focuses on the consequences. (Utilitarianism)

 

[Enron]

To come to certain conclusions, among them a few which you just mentioned.

Well in a Thought Experiment you generally have a certain conclusion to inquire upon, for example if moral standards are held by the individual or society and then a broader question in to standard moral theory.

My question to you is what is your broader examination? What is the thinker supposed examine on the broader scale? In this situation.

 

[Enron]

There are two schools of thought
Deontological ethics: Focuses on the action itself (Kant)
teleological ethics: Focuses on the consequences. (Utilitarianism)

This one is nonexistent in this case as consequences of the action in question(slavery of a few for the good of many) do not exist. So we're dealing with Deontological ethics.

 

[Dinsdale]

Well in a Thought Experiment you generally have a certain conclusion to inquire upon, for example if moral standards are held by the individual or society and then a broader question in to standard moral theory.

My question to you is what is your broader examination? What is the thinker supposed examine on the broader scale? In this situation.

This one is nonexistent in this case as consequences of the action in question(slavery of a few for the good of many) do not exist. So we're dealing with Deontological ethics.

One thing you could conclude is that moral values are created by applying the same method we apply when taking any decision: comparing positive and negative consequences. If the negative consequences disappear, so will the corresponding moral values. Every sane person will give up their moral values for a certain price. So there's nothing superhuman about it. (I already mentioned all of this stuff earlier btw)

 

[Fred]

I'm not sure why you're asking this question, verynine.

Everyone living in the richer parts of the world has already answered yes. Fred in particular has given a very, very fat yes.

Did i?

Exactly. And I believe that almost every sane person (if not every, but it's of course kind of hard to define sane) would give up his beliefs/faith for a certain price. The only way to never give up your beliefs, is when you believe that you will always get punished more severely in your afterlife, than by the price you have to pay in your current life. And that doesn't sound like a reasonable belief to me.

Well not everyone actually, but yes the majority. Believe it or not, there are some people that will not give up their beliefs/faith for their well being, because they believe in an afterlife.

 

[Eddy]

Did i?

 

[Enron]

One thing you could conclude is that moral values are created by applying the same method we apply when taking any decision: comparing positive and negative consequences. If the negative consequences disappear, so will the corresponding moral values. Every sane person will give up their moral values for a certain price. So there's nothing superhuman about it. (I already mentioned all of this stuff earlier btw)

Yes, but the scenario brought about removes all consequence leaving only one choice which of course isn't made under a moral pretense. In a sense, you already know the answer to the question. Which is why I deemed it silly.

Why not leave the consequences and allow people to come to their own decisions? By limiting the ability to place pros against cons, by basically eliminating the cons, you really limit the depth of thought.

 

[Enron]

Did i?

You did.

 

[ßöмßäяðîëя]

He definitely did it.

 

[Hambon]

Kunta Kintai Braclet....

 

[Fred]

You did.

A big fat yes?

Then you guys misunderstood me. I'll try to make it more clear.


You ask me the question now, i will say no.

But i have not been put in the situation

Therefore i do not know if i, in my case am a strong enough believer to sacrifice my own well being for my beliefs.

Hence i cannot answer the question now, because i cannot predict my actions/decisions if i were put in such a situation.


So how is that a yes?

 

[Seven]

But Fred we all say yes on a daily basis. Let's just admit it, we live off other people. That's where our wealth comes from.

You live in the UAE FFS. And that's only the direct slavery.

 

[Fred]

But Fred we all say yes on a daily basis. Let's just admit it, we live off other people. That's where our wealth comes from.

To an extent yes. But that's only because we are able to tell ourselves otherwise. But when it comes to blatant slavery, then maybe our conscience will intervene.

The keyword being maybe.

 

[Seven]

I think it's pretty blatant TBH. The EU can say whatever they want, but they do very little to prevent slavery. In some ways they indirectly support it even.

 

[Fred]

But Fred we all say yes on a daily basis. Let's just admit it, we live off other people. That's where our wealth comes from.

You live in the UAE FFS. And that's only the direct slavery.

You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

How am i benefiting from that?

 

[Seven]

No, I meant that there is proof of direct slavery in the UAE. So you see that people don't have such a big problem with it.

 

[Eddy]

Don't be so retarded Seven, just because we live in the UAE does not mean we support Slavery, do you know how retarded that sounds ?