Morality (2 Viewers)

[moll.]

Ok, so he wasn't trollling. Just stupid.

 

[moll.]

No.. If you didn't realise that neither decision results in both dead you didnt understand the scenario... :S

However you are correct, with no belief in God I put forward it does simply come down to a Cost/Benefit analysis.. Now is an individuals cost/benefit anaylsis any method in determining a morally astute decision, given the only benefit of allowing your friend to die in favour of your own would be to prevent feelings of guilt.

What? I read the scenario the exact same way he did. If there's a problem with our understanding of the scenario that's because you are incapable of articulating your thoughts into English.

 

[soloooooo]

How do you choose a strong system of morality?

The leader (dictator) determines it. This would be based upon my personal views etc.

 

[Debauchee]

No.. If you didn't realise that neither decision results in both dead you didnt understand the scenario... :S

A man has kidnapped me and a friend. The man gives a decision that I alone can decide. He says that he will spare the life of my friend if I permit him to kill me. If I do not permit him to kill me, he will kill both.

Stupid, stupid.

 

[Peccadillo]

What? I read the scenario the exact same way he did. If there's a problem with our understanding of the scenario that's because you are incapable of articulating your thoughts into English.

No one else seemed to have a problem with it though and seemed to get the concept.. yet you didn't... Which suggest's I posed the question with fine clarity and you just misunderstood.

Anyway I dont want to get into an off-topic argument.

 

[Debauchee]

What is morality

Seriously, what do you mean? You can't just throw these stupid words around without defining them.

 

[moll.]

No one else seemed to have a problem with it though and seemed to get the concept.. yet you didn't... Which suggest's I posed the question with fine clarity and you just misunderstood.

Anyway I dont want to get into an off-topic argument.

No. Garygaz, Debauchee and myself all read it the same way. By way of simple majority (1 for, 3 against) the problem must be with you.

 

[soloooooo]

No. Garygaz, Debauchee and myself all read it the same way. By way of simple majority (1 for, 4 against) the problem must be with you.

Add my name to that as well.

 

[Peccadillo]

No. Garygaz, Debauchee and myself all read it the same way. By way of simple majority (1 for, 3 against) the problem must be with you.

sorry I meant ME instead of BOTH.. My bad.
the scenario was going to be my life or 2 friends but I changed my mind and forgot to change both to me.
Debauchee just relax.

 

[moll.]

sorry I meant ME instead of BOTH.. My bad.
the scenario was going to be my life or 2 friends but I changed my mind and forgot to change both to me.
Debauchee just relax.

Wait, so if you don't permit him to kill you, he will kill you? Idgi.

 

[Peccadillo]

Wait, so if you don't permit him to kill you, he will kill you? Idgi.

As much as I've opened myself for ridicule. I suspect you know I meant HIM. As in my friend.
Using my smartphone while negating central station foot traffic. Lapse of concentration

 

[moll.]

As much as I've opened myself for ridicule. I suspect you know I meant HIM. As in my friend.
Using my smartphone while negating central station foot traffic. Lapse of concentration

Ok then. Now we're getting places. So you die or your friend dies and you get to choose. Now i'm just going to ruin everything and say that hypothetical morality situations are stupid, because if someone holds a gun to your head then all previous assumptions about your own behaviour will be altered by the heightened stress of the situation. Humans are terrible predictors of their own future behaviour, regardless of religion.

 

[Peccadillo]

Ok then. Now we're getting places. So you die or your friend dies and you get to choose. Now i'm just going to ruin everything and say that hypothetical morality situations are stupid, because if someone holds a gun to your head then all previous assumptions about your own behaviour will be altered by the heightened stress of the situation. Humans are terrible predictors of their own future behaviour, regardless of religion.

But that's besides the point.
That's like saying I would grab his gun and go chuck Norris on his ass. The question poses an obvious moral dilemma which you are choosing to ignore.

 

[moll.]

I'm not ignoring it. I'm saying any answer to a hypothetical scenario is biased and likely false, so the conclusions you draw from the answers are meaningless.

 

[Peccadillo]

Ok so rather than a false answer. Give me your method or applicable philosophy

 

[moll.]

My method and/or philosophy is that you don't know your mind (as countless behavioural experiments have concluded) so there is no method of answering a hypothetical.

 

[Peccadillo]

My method and/or philosophy is that you don't know your mind (as countless behavioural experiments have concluded) so there is no method of answering a hypothetical.

so youre unable to apply a hypothetical method to my hypothetical scenario?

 

[moll.]

so youre unable to apply a hypothetical method to my hypothetical scenario?

Yes. And I'm of the conviction that anyone who says elsewise is a deceiving themselves.

 

[Peccadillo]

The scenario implies you discount the variable, which as you said is mostly human emotion (stress, fear etc etc).. I don't understand why you cannot offer a theoretical answer (or at least method) to my question.

If the obscurity of the hypothetical throws you off... here is a more realistic scenario if it helps?

You are friends with a couple.. You witnessed your male friend of the couple commit adultery with another woman. Your male friend asks you to keep quiet about it as it will destroy his marriage. Your lady friend of the couple approaches you one month later and asks you whether or not the male cheated on her. What framework do you apply?

Consequentialism dictates you should lie to your female friend as you believe it's moral on the grounds you believe it will have the best outcome... Freethought would suggest it's up to the individual.. Which is obviously susceptable to various negative influences like selfishness, favouritism etc etc etc.. Sounds pretty flawed to me... Humanism I would be interested to hear what a secular humanist would do in this situation.. Humanist ideas are certainly formed on ancient theology anyway.

 

[Garygaz]

acting as my own moral agent in the situation, the correct response would be to tell her that he was cheating. they are putting me in a situation which is forcing me to lie.

whether i actually do tell her or not doesn't subtract from the point that there is a framework for getting to the correct decision. surely you wouldn't say every muslim would react the exact same way in that situation, regardless of their belief system.