You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Bob Ross

Comments

This just begs the question.
June 22, 2024 at 23:20
Leontiskos: I haven't forgot about your original response: I will respond later to it, as I don't have enough time right now. I just wanted to clarify...
June 22, 2024 at 14:23
I disagree. You have fallen into the consequentialist trap. You think it is ok to use people as a means towards (or at as sacrifices for) good ends.
June 21, 2024 at 21:58
Again, my whole view hinges, in this case, on whether one can save the millions without committing anything immoral; and, to keep things simple, this ...
June 21, 2024 at 21:57
Firstly, my argument, which has been refined quite a bit with the help of @"Leontiskos", does not hinge on a principle of “never treat a person as a m...
June 21, 2024 at 21:51
Fair enough. It is an ideal insofar as it is an idea about how reality should be. When one takes on a purpose, they are implicitly conceding that they...
June 21, 2024 at 13:37
Correct. If they know that they are going to kill an innocent person by intentionally killing hitler; then they are intentionally killing that innocen...
June 21, 2024 at 12:58
You have a lot of good points, but I am, to be honest, losing track of the course of this conversation. So I am going to take your advice and wipe the...
June 20, 2024 at 19:00
Which would be clearly false under my view, because them killing someone is not an inaction. No it is not: letting someone die is not an intentional k...
June 20, 2024 at 01:24
I apologize: I must have misunderstood what you said then. It sounded like you were considering them both actions. Either way, the issue, as will be e...
June 19, 2024 at 15:49
This post is pretty up-to-date on my ethics (although I have sublated it a bit since then). Let me know if you have any questions or would like to dis...
June 19, 2024 at 13:22
I meant in the sense of what morally grounds it. Being the highest moral good, it is the ultimate good which everything else is assessed under. Of cou...
June 18, 2024 at 23:12
It is morally significant if one accepts that they cannot commit immoral acts to avoid bad or produce good outcomes. If one agrees that it is immoral ...
June 18, 2024 at 23:11
Ok, good points. By “means”, I mean “a necessary utility expended to produce an desired outcome”. By “intention”, I mean “a purposeful or deliberate c...
June 18, 2024 at 13:05
CC: @"Herg" I already explicated this in my response: Q is not intended if Q is not a means towards P and P was intended. No. I explicitly stated in m...
June 17, 2024 at 01:13
This is correct insofar as it applies to beings of a rational kind. I would say the immediate underpinning is that beings of a rational kind have righ...
June 16, 2024 at 23:40
CC: @"Herg" By “intention”, I just mean a “deliberate” or “purposeful” course of action; and I don’t know how else to explain it than that. An intenti...
June 16, 2024 at 23:33
This is changing the scenario: that’s not a valid option for the person pulling the lever. They either pull the lever, thereby sacrificing one to save...
June 16, 2024 at 00:31
I am glad we can at least agree on the full consequences of your view (: I think I see a bit of the confusion and mistakes on my end; so let me explic...
June 16, 2024 at 00:23
No worries at all. Correct. I am assuming you disagree: the fact they are swerving to avoid other people, although they are still intending to run ove...
June 14, 2024 at 20:21
I see! I agree that being moral is a choice; but being a moral agent, which is a choice, entails that one has, upon choosing to be such, moral respons...
June 14, 2024 at 13:04
I don't believe in fate; and I am not following how that relates to the trolley problem. My position is simple: it is immoral to kill an innocent huma...
June 13, 2024 at 21:44
Yes, if by “he cannot avoid causing deaths” you mean his actions. If he has to either (1) kill 2 innocent people or (2) 4 innocent people; then I agre...
June 13, 2024 at 21:34
Walk away. I cannot sacrifice innocent human beings to save other innocent human beings: the consequences are not what dictates what is right or wrong...
June 13, 2024 at 21:15
I agree they aren’t the same; but I brought it up to counter your view that: “It seems very straightforward to me that in a scenario where either ever...
June 13, 2024 at 21:14
See that's the problem: there aren't any congregations for people who think deeply but don't subscribe to a mainstream religion...or at least none tha...
June 13, 2024 at 21:11
Killing one person to save the five is what enables the person to save the five. Without being able to kill the one person, they cannot save the five.
June 13, 2024 at 21:10
The biggest problem with consequentialism I have is that it rests on a false assumption of how moral responsibility works. Not sure how deep you want ...
June 13, 2024 at 13:16
For me, it is that I cannot intentionally kill an innocent person (where it is implied it is against their will) period.
June 13, 2024 at 13:15
That’s fine. If you aren’t convinced, then suspend judgment. For me, I am convinced. Hmmm. Ok. Imagine a serial killer has 12 people in their basement...
June 13, 2024 at 13:14
It was an analogy, and perfectly sound. This rests on a false understanding of moral responsibility; that most consequentialists have. It absolutely i...
June 13, 2024 at 13:08
AI girlfriends are wholly inadequate substitutes for real girlfriends.
June 13, 2024 at 13:06
:up: I would still like to strive towards finding my soulmate, although I agree it is very unlikely, while maintaining an open-mind to those who may n...
June 13, 2024 at 13:06
Fair enough.
June 13, 2024 at 13:05
This is, indeed, a difference; but I don’t think it is a relevant difference. Let’s amend the trolley problem: imagine you are the train operator...do...
June 13, 2024 at 13:03
Let me clarify, as I may have said differently before: the pilot wouldn’t let go of the steering wheel but, rather, would keep flying as best they can...
June 13, 2024 at 12:58
Lol. Maybe. I do agree that not mentioning philosophy is better at attracting women. I am pretty sure philosophizing is a turn-off for the vast majori...
June 10, 2024 at 01:12
That’s fine. I just think this indicates that your ethical view isn’t fully fleshed out; and you will have to hierarchically adjust your moral princip...
June 10, 2024 at 01:10
If one diverts a track to save 5 people knowing 1 person will die as a result of it (that wouldn’t have otherwise), then they are intending to sacrifi...
June 10, 2024 at 01:05
Yes, but this does not permit them to sacrifice innocent people to fulfill such duty. This is a really good example, that tripped me up a bit (: First...
June 10, 2024 at 00:59
This is a difference, no doubt; but not a relevant difference (to me). If one amends the trolley example such that the person who decides whether to p...
June 09, 2024 at 20:17
Are you saying it is absolutely right to save the human race, and absolutely right not to sacrifice an innocent person; and that sometimes they are in...
June 09, 2024 at 18:26
Probably, but I am conservative.
June 09, 2024 at 18:15
I would say both are important. Not everything one does to themselves is morally permissible (in virtue of ‘self-agency’). Not necessarily. I would ha...
June 09, 2024 at 18:13
Correct. I cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome. Letting them die, is morally ommissible because I cannot save them without doi...
June 09, 2024 at 18:03
(CC: @@"Fire Ologist" To me, the principle of Double Effect rests on a vague and (typically) biased distinction between intending to do something and ...
June 09, 2024 at 18:00
For me, it was that the five are innocent. If you are amending it such that no one is innocent; then I would have a duty to save more lives.
June 07, 2024 at 22:27
Good question! Voluntarily choosing to die is morally permissible because it is voluntary. In the case of myself, I cannot involuntarily force myself ...
June 07, 2024 at 22:24
But you are. If you pull the lever, you have killed an innocent person, and, worse yet, you intended to.
June 07, 2024 at 22:15
That is fair. Although I am not a Christian.
June 07, 2024 at 22:14