What is your fundamental moral compass?

I haven't read the whole thread, but I noticed early on that people were jumping to the conclusion that Robert wanted to save the whole world. It seemed to me he was saying that his priority is not based on geology.
I think the media is partly responsible for the tribalsim and parochiality. Whenever there is a catastrophe overseas, media reports focus initially on whether any Australians where involved.
Really I think it comes down to modern extensions of actual tribalism and you can't really avoid it. It's a hardwired survival mechanism.
As for my moral compass, I'll let you know when it settles on a north. It seems to have always been in a constant state of flux and I expect (hope?) it always will.

1 Reply

@FreeDuck,

(FreeDuck sighting!!! Hello hello!)

1 Reply

@Ionus,

I agree that we are wired for that, but I don't see species preservation as the most noble ideal, so I have a hard time defending that logically (even if I also feel the same).

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Which streetcar dilemma? There are countless variants of it.

Kill one to save many is the core of the one I am asking about.

Quote:

Sorry for proselythizing, but your responses in the American wealth thread suggest to me that you're pretty much a utilitarian. You probably would agree with most of what Peter Singer writes in The Life You Can Save

I'm waiting for Google's bookstore (or any other non-drmed option)e before I start book buying in earnest. I can't carry around physical books anymore (and often can't get them anyway in the countries I am in) and the current ebook stores are all proprietary and have DRM.

Can't wait till I can find a way to buy epub books without DRM and I'll be sure to hit you up for a reading list then.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

In general, I would divert it into the old lady. As a utilitarian, I approve of choices to the extent that they cause the greatest happiness for the greater number. By driving the train into the old lady, I prevent the same unhappiness to a greater number. Therefore, that's what I should do.

So yours is similar to mine then? Greatest happiness, least unhappiness?

Quote:

The case gets interesting if we are talking about a crowd of newborns -- a few hours old, say -- without any grown-up parents holding them. Assuming that the killing is painless, I theoretically ought to kill the babies rather than the old lady. Unlike her, they don't yet have the self-awareness and rationality to know what's going on. Lacking that, the prospect of being killed cannot cause unhappiness to them. Moreover, rationality and self-awareness is what gives us humans a privileged status in the universal calculus of suffering and happiness. Hence, killing newborns by driving a train into them is morally equivalent to driving it into a crowd of chicken. I wouldn't kill an old lady over a crowd of chicken -- they, too, lack rationality and self-awareness, which the old lady possesses.

One thing to keep in mind is that happiness/unhappiness is not limited to the participants. Observer happiness might be a factor that changes your calculations here, and if the newborns have family (even if not with them) it might constitute a greater amount of unhappiness.

Quote:

That's the ethics of the case, and utilitarianism is very clear about them. But in practice, it would shock my conscience to follow through with this; I probably wouldn't. Does that mean I can't overcome the biases of my society and time, or does it mean there's an overriding ethical principle that I missed? I'm still working on that one.

IMO, you may also just be interpreting the situation incorrectly. Having the ideal of least suffering doesn't always mean we can recognize what course best represents our ideal.

I'm not convinced, for example, that your scenario accurately represents your ideal, for one, you are ignoring your own unhappiness in it (and everyone else but the babies and old lady really).

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Now, I hope this works out to least amount of suffering for fewest number of people, or decreased suffering, but I aim for "best outcome".

How do you define "best outcome" though? Fundamentally, how do you define better outcome even? I'm all for your maxim, but I'm defining "best outcome for most people" as least suffering/most happiness and wonder how you'd define yours.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

I don't see species preservation as the most noble ideal

Certainly it is not a noble ideal, but for non-religious people it is their only practical purpose.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

Hey you!

I've been meaning to address this kind of rule, which I like but which I find hard to apply to others.

For example I value my suffering and happiness less than that of others but that is just a personal preference, not something I can apply to others as easily. For example, it's easy to see how this can guide many of your personal actions but hard for me to see how this can tell you what I should do in the streetcar scenario.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

Whenever there is a catastrophe overseas, media reports focus initially on whether any Australians where involved.

I disagree, I think the media is a symptom of the tribalism. That is nearly universal in the media BTW. Ask fbaezer how many dead foreigners it takes to make the front page of his newspaper vs how many Mexicans.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

Hey hey hey! (That was Duane, not Fat Albert.)

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Eorl wrote:
Whenever there is a catastrophe overseas, media reports focus initially on whether any Australians where involved.

I disagree, I think the media is a symptom of the tribalism. That is nearly universal in the media BTW. Ask fbaezer how many dead foreigners it takes to make the front page of his newspaper vs how many Mexicans.

Yeah I think you're probably right, but it reinforces the view almost daily, that "our" lives are somehow worth more than "theirs" and that it's "right" to think that way. I find it annoying and somehow anti-humanist.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Hey you!

I've been meaning to address this kind of rule, which I like but which I find hard to apply to others.

For example I value my suffering and happiness less than that of others but that is just a personal preference, not something I can apply to others as easily. For example, it's easy to see how this can guide many of your personal actions but hard for me to see how this can tell you what I should do in the streetcar scenario.

Yeah, it doesn't really help in the streetcar scenario. It's the only thing that I can really codify, and implicit in it is the fact that I can only apply it to myself -- which is the case for all moral compasses. In general, I think each person is responsible for their own happiness and well being, but that I should try not to hurt others or set them back in their path by pursuing mine. I guess also implicit is that, streetcar scenarios aside, most of us never really get the type of power to make tough decisions that affect others and not ourselves.

So many things are outside of my control in the streetcar scenario. Kids can move faster than an old lady. What happens if you divert to the old lady but the kids were able to jump out of the way? Or all but one of them? I know, I know, that's not how this game is played but it is how life is played. Nobody ever really has that much control over a situation. But assuming that we know that either the woman or the kids will die and there is no other possible outcome, and assuming that we are not overpopulated, I'd take out the old lady. "Try not to hurt other people" is pretty much out the window as it's a given that people will be hurt. I wonder how many people would make that choice if the old lady was their grandmother, though. And maybe that's where it ties in to tribalism and the like. What's closest to you is deemed most important.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

I argue that whereas the pet (e.g., your Pearl) has value,
the human murderer has anti-value;
i.e., negative value, - 1.

What say u?

I think that's a valid point. Because of where I work, who I work with, and what I see and hear every day- I am still working on coming to any sort of conclusion I could call the cornerstone or basis for a fundamental moral decision or opinion on this issue.

I'm conflicted on this point. I think that certain human beings do exhibit or contribute very little more than negativity or harm toward the world and others.
I don't know how to reclassify those human beings so as to assign them a different (negative) value than anyone else. But I have come to the conclusion that they are most definitely 'different'.

0 Replies

@failures art,

Quote:

aidan - I'm not sure you meant "objective" here. This is the kind of statement that is rhetorical blood in the water.

That was a joke-sort of. I know an opinion is subjective- so I said I 'objectively' came to my opinion.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

How do you define "best outcome" though? Fundamentally, how do you define better outcome even? I'm all for your maxim, but I'm defining "best outcome for most people" as least suffering/most happiness and wonder how you'd define yours.

fairly similarly - mine would read "most happiness/least suffering" or "most health/least suffering"

tiny twist, but significant to my way of thinking

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

Moreover, I care about almost all humans' suffering more than I care about all cats' suffering. That's because foresight and imagination greatly amplify the pleasures and pains humans can experience. This amplification isn't present in cats.

Right, and does the fact that humans are in possession of the cognitive and emotional faculties to foresee and imagine anything amplifying their experience of pleasure and/or pain in almost everything convince you that they are 'innately' different?
And that 'innate' difference is not just attributed indiscriminately by individuals. It exists.
The only question is whether it is more valuable in any way -or not.

0 Replies

@FreeDuck,

FreeDuck wrote:

So many things are outside of my control in the streetcar scenario.

Well, no, not really. The hypothetical is set up so that you know everything you need to know in order to make a decision, so there's nothing left out (anyone wanting to see a discussion on the "trolley problem" can go here). Furthermore, just because "kids can move faster than an old lady" doesn't absolve you from your choice if you end up running over them anyway. Your choice, in other words, must be premised on the likelihood of killing either five people or one person. If you steer the trolley toward the single individual and she manages to jump out of the way at the last second, that doesn't make your decision morally better than if you ran her over, since the moral evaluation of your decision occurs when you make the decision, not when you learn the results (except maybe for act utilitarians). If you fire a gun at somebody, intending to murder that person, and the gun misfires, that doesn't make the act of firing the gun any less morally reprehensible.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

use logic.

the golden rule at its finest. if i rip u off, why wouldnt u rip me off?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

They find that we behave as if we value our own lives at about $5 million. I don't think any realistic number of chicken would lay enough eggs to make up for that.

the reality is closer to $20,000

the chickens win. one chicken in a village - laying fertilized eggs, creating more chickens and eggs - can save many lives. Buncha chickens - can save even more lives. Chickens win big.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
So many things are outside of my control in the streetcar scenario.

Well, no, not really. The hypothetical is set up so that you know everything you need to know in order to make a decision, so there's nothing left out (anyone wanting to see a discussion on the "trolley problem" can go here).

Granted I only know of the summary presented here, but I have to assume that I don't control the old lady or the kids (or any bystanders who might also be trying to affect the outcome) -- only the car that has somehow miraculously come under my control. But I recognize (again) that this hypothetical wants you to pretend that you have certainty as to the result of either decision. Just not a big fan of using unlikely and unrealistic scenarios in order to test my moral compass. (But if you look you'll see that I answered, all the same.)

Quote:

Furthermore, just because "kids can move faster than an old lady" doesn't absolve you from your choice if you end up running over them anyway.

Never said it did.

0 Replies

What is your fundamental moral compass?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know