Why objective morality is important?

Penis Drager 2.0 said:
The source is irrelevant.
And of course it's an unrealistically simplistic scenario. Simplified abstractions are useful to establish general principles. Almost any time you've seen a mathematical formula to describe a physical phenomena, you understand that the scenarios you apply those equations to are typically idealized and the results are a rough approximation because the real world has tons of added variables. Does that make the equations useless? absolutely not. So why take issue with an oversimplified thought experiment?

Want a real world example of the trolley problem? Organ harvesting. People who are unlikely to regain consciousness before they die are killed so that their organs can be used to save the lives of multiple people. This is typically done with consent via the donor registry but that consent is rarely "well-informed." How, exactly, this situation should be handled is hotly debated which lends credence to morality being far from "obvious."
Click to expand...
Some abstractions can be misleading and are not suitable for establishing general principles.
 
Penis Drager 2.0 said:
The source is irrelevant
Click to expand...

Penis Drager 2.0 said:
Simplified abstractions are useful to establish general principles.
Click to expand...
These two statements are contridictory. What general principle is the trolley problem attempting to establish? Oh it's that bombing Dresden is okay because the Holocaust. But yes I understand the point of hypothetical questions. My point is that the trolley problem is a bad hypothetical because it is implausible and has no bearing on reality. Other hypotheticals like the Chinese room or the one about forcibly harvesting organs to maximize happiness according to bentham's utilitarian calculations or can't knife murderer that's going to murder your friend and so on have value to people that are not professional philosophers in that they have a glimmer of plausibility in them that the trolley problem does not. There is no situation in which an examination of the trolley problem would lead one to a greater understanding about it.

Penis Drager 2.0 said:
Almost any time you've seen a mathematical formula to describe a physical phenomena, you understand that the scenarios you apply those equations to are typically idealized and the results are a rough approximation because the real world has tons of added variables. Does that make the equations useless
Click to expand...
Well this again goes back to the source of the trolley problem, why was the question asked? What problem was it attempting to simplify?


Penis Drager 2.0 said:
How, exactly, this situation should be handled is hotly debated which lends credence to morality being far from "obvious."
Click to expand...
Given that there aren't any countries with mandatory organ donation suggests otherwise. And no an opt-out system is not mandatory organ donation. But I will assenr to the general argument that there are limits to intuition and that philosophy must be employed to get to the truth of many situations. However, I do not think that necessarily implies an absence of objectivity. Going back to the math thing, Pythagoras didn't invent the Pythagorean theorem, he merely discovered it. His knowledge of that mathematical relationship has no bearing on its factuality. It was and always will be the case regardless of whether or not humans understand it
 
Agreeably4263 said:
What general principle is the trolley problem attempting to establish? Oh it's that bombing Dresden is okay because the Holocaust.
Click to expand...
Is killing one innocent person okay if it would save 5?
That's the point. What real world scenarios you do or don't think it applies to is up to you. And if you think other analogies are better then that's fine too.

Agreeably4263 said:
Given that there aren't any countries with mandatory organ donation suggests otherwise
Click to expand...
To a degree. In this sense it seems there is a general consensus that the answer to the trolley problem is "no, it is not okay to flip the switch." At least it's not okay to make it public policy that everyone must be tied to the tracks. Though people being tied to the tracks by default seems to be debatable.
And there are debates about when "brain death" starts or, of course, informed consent. How much information should be given upfront before putting someone on the registry? This is the whole thing about having an unrealistically simplified scenario so we can at least establish certain general principles without the million other variables that occur in the real world.

Agreeably4263 said:
I do not think that necessarily implies an absence of objectivity.
Click to expand...
Sure. That people disagree on something doesn't mean there is no objectively correct position. The Earth is not flat no matter how many internet schizos try to argue it is. I was speaking to the "obviousness" of morality and not the "objectivity" of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neodanthril
Brightstar777 said:
torture is not an answer
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I mean. Your usual style of writing is highly aggressive and usually with little content and no regard for grammar or orthography.
And then suddenly you post walls of text full of proper sentences and written as if by an actual adult who speaks English, with actual content to boot?
Nah mate, it's clear those texts were not written by you.
 
Penis Drager 2.0 said:
Is killing one innocent person okay if it would save 5?
That's the point. What real world scenarios you do or don't think it applies to is up to you. And if you think other analogies are better then that's fine too.


To a degree. In this sense it seems there is a general consensus that the answer to the trolley problem is "no, it is not okay to flip the switch." At least it's not okay to make it public policy that everyone must be tied to the tracks. Though people being tied to the tracks by default seems to be debatable.
And there are debates about when "brain death" starts or, of course, informed consent. How much information should be given upfront before putting someone on the registry? This is the whole thing about having an unrealistically simplified scenario so we can at least establish certain general principles without the million other variables that occur in the real world.


Sure. That people disagree on something doesn't mean there is no objectively correct position. The Earth is not flat no matter how many internet schizos try to argue it is. I was speaking to the "obviousness" of morality and not the "objectivity" of it.
Click to expand...
The Trolley Problem is flawed, and it's being used to justify retarded actions, Rather than promoting thoughtful ethical reflection it is being used for stupid purposes.
 
Brightstar777 said:
The Trolley Problem is flawed, and it's being used to justify retarded actions, Rather than promoting thoughtful ethical reflection it is being used for stupid purposes.
Click to expand...
Any analogy is flawed when you take it beyond its intended scope. Electricity behaves a lot like water except when it doesn't. It's a widely used analogy but taking it too far leads to retardery.

The trolley problem is basically "baby's first ethical quandary." You can't really use it to "justify" any particular action unless you can justify your choice within the problem and demonstrate how that logic applies to the situation you're applying it to.
 
Penis Drager 2.0 said:
This whole time I was assuming he was using some shitty AI.
Click to expand...
I think he does do that partially as well. You can see it in this post:
Brightstar777 said:
It is not okay to torture a child, I mean it is wrong to torture a child to prevent the torture of two, you should teach him a lesson without torture, Morality is clear and evident to a discerning mind and all morality is subjective.

The prevalence of moral disagreements both within and between societies is often cited as evidence for the subjectivity of morality. People in different cultures, and even within the same culture, may have fundamentally different views about what is right or wrong. For instance, one person might argue that abortion is morally wrong, while another might believe it's a woman's right to choose.

that's why God is the source of all morality, Many theistic philosophers argue that God is the standard of all goodness and morality. According to this view, moral actions are considered good because they align with God’s nature. Since God is morally perfect, all of God's actions are inherently good, and thus God's character provides a standard by which all human actions can be judged.
Click to expand...
The first paragraph has kinda wonky sentence structure and questionable capitalisation, and is not very coherent. The second paragraph is straight 100% AI output, with the whole "for instance" last sentence, and there are no grammatical errors anything there. The third paragraph is then again riddled with errors, stylistically different, and I think he copies sentences from different sources, leading to odd capital letters within sentences or minuscles at the beginning. Might be copy-pasted from various AI outputs since none of these sentences are found verbatim on the Internet, unlike the original post.
The original post, btw., is not just an abridged version of the Moral Apologetics blog, it also has elements from here:
You can tell where he cuts and pastes various sources together because he doesn't understand actual sentence structure, grammar, or just a narrative coherence.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YHWH's Strongest Soldier
Meriasek said:
The first paragraph has kinda wonky sentence structure and questionable capitalisation, and is not very coherent. The second paragraph is straight 100% AI output, with the whole "for instance" last sentence, and there are no grammatical errors anything there. The third paragraph is then again riddled with errors, stylistically different, and I think he copies sentences from different sources, leading to odd capital letters within sentences or minuscles at the
Click to expand...
you are just a retarded idiot and nobody takes you seriously, What value are you contributing to this thread? Nothing.

Instead of discussing morality like a good boy you're wasting time trying to find my sources and not contributing anything of value, all of your responses sound like they're coming from ChatGPT, that is not the language of a real human, what a fucking robot.
keep bumping the threads retard.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures
Brightstar777 said:
you are just a retarded idiot and nobody takes you seriously, What value are you contributing to this thread? Nothing.

Instead of discussing morality like a good boy you're wasting time trying to find my sources and not contributing anything of value, Also all of your
keep bumping the threads retard.
Click to expand...
You're not discussing anything, you're just copy-pasting shit you found on the Internet. What are your thoughts? The only times you actually write something here by yourself it's yelling people in broken English like some balkan retard. What kind of morality is that? Slivovitzian Morals?
Additionally, you're spamming up the board with your copy-pasted shitthreads. Why two different threads on objective morality (neither of which contain your own thoughts) when one would have sufficed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neodanthril
Meriasek said:
You're not discussing anything, you're just copy-pasting shit you found on the Internet. What are your thoughts? The only times you actually write something here by yourself it's yelling people in broken English like some balkan retard. What kind of morality is that? Slivovitzian Morals?
Additionally, you're spamming up the board with your copy-pasted shitthreads. Why two different threads on objective morality (neither of which contain your own thoughts) when one would have sufficed?
Click to expand...
you are just a fool wasting more of my valuable time, fuck off you german scum you are a failure.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Lowlife Adventures and YHWH's Strongest Soldier
Brightstar777 said:
you are just a fool wasting more of my valuable time, fuck off you german scum you are a failure.
Click to expand...
What valuable time? You're just copy-pasting other people's thoughts instead of coming up with your own.
Give me your thoughts on Kant's Categorical Imperative, then. It's as fundamental as it gets.
 
Brightstar777 said:
When I saw your kike face on the profile i deleted the post immediately
Click to expand...
Does it hurt to realize that ChatGPT is more human than you? Even a robot is capable of writing original text, but you resort to theft without crediting your betters.
 
YHWH's Strongest Soldier said:
Does it hurt to realize that ChatGPT is more human than you? Even a robot is capable of writing original text, but you resort to theft without crediting your betters.
Click to expand...
Nothing is worse than kikes, you are thieves and liars, Go fk yourself kike.

1731343059501.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back