Every man takes the limits of his perspective for the boundaries of the world, and so the black truly is still a slave in mind and in heart. Systemic racism, injustice, wrongdoings, these are very real, but so is the inertia that never transforms to kinetic force. Every man is a victim of his will and a product of his circumstance, he flirts with the fences of his garden but never jumps. It all takes place as dawn follows dusk. But nature does not stop where we stop, she begins where we end, such that I carry the whole universe particle por particle within (the strict confines of) my entire essence.
Why is one's "I" so weighted? And why is resistance such a heavy repellant? I lament that many will be born and succeed phenomenons without truly and honestly having have passed through this one, that some will cease to be without ever having been. That death is an aspiration, and lethargy a refuge. That resistance is hard walls and circumstances predestinations. That faith is only for the saint, courage only for the bold, peace only for the meek, and victory for the callous. — Abdul
Hello, I'm a person who's interested to start studying philosophy but I don't really know where to start. I discovered Philososphy through the YouTube channel called "Unsolicited Advice".... I think that's the name. — AlienVareient
Any thoughts on this tangled mess? — I like sushi
If all causation is indirect then surely to refer to anything as 'causal' is nothing more than saying something 'is'. — I like sushi
it is impossible to confirm direct causation ergo why do we assume direct causation at all other than as means of anchor the constant change we experience as beings. — I like sushi
Even the use of logical tools fall apart when this is taken into consideration other than. Implications and Conditionals are meaningless under the regime of indirect causation. — I like sushi
If we cannot prove direct causation outside of the confines of abstract bounds, then how can we ... how can I say 'then'? How can a 'question' form about something yet to happen? — I like sushi
Indirect causation means that it 'could be because' but the 'because' is known as a direct causal term not an indirect causal term. — I like sushi
Are all our propositions based purely on an idea that Pure Abstraction overrules experiential evidence? — I like sushi
It is understood point (2) of the OP is the assertion that if the evil action's consequences continue to the present, that scales up the original evilness of the action. Agreed? — kazan
If you answer yes, then this question could be asked. "Does the older the evil action, that's consequences are still felt in the present, the more evil is that action mean that the oldest of such evil actions ( with current consequences) should be, for example, condemned more actively than more recent actions ( and adding your agreement to the time gap question regarded as evil sometime after their commission)? ( put another way, be considered worse morally?) — kazan
If you agree then at this point the question can be asked, " Are all recent evil actions ( recognized as such immediately or subsequently) never going to achieve equal or highest evilness status until the older evil actions are deemed to no longer have consequences? — kazan
ToothyMaw,
Do you claim only those actions to be evil that are seen/believed by "many" to be evil at the time of enactment? Or.....?
Put differently, can an action not be seen as evil at the time of its enactment but that same action be seen as evil "down the historical track"? — kazan
This question is put because answering it may go to the heart of 1) i.e. defining "the magnitude of evil", possibly the validity of your assertion of 2) i.e."scales upward with its length....to the present", may suggest another timeline argument cited in 3) i.e."claim the bad effects......are no longer present" and "must object to 1)" and may upset the balance of the assertion/conclusion of 4). — kazan
ToothyMaw,
Do you claim only those actions to be evil that are seen/believed by "many" to be evil at the time of enactment? Or.....?
Put differently, can an action not be seen as evil at the time of its enactment but that same action be seen as evil "down the historical track"?
This question is put because answering it may go to the heart of 1) i.e. defining "the magnitude of evil", possibly the validity of your assertion of 2) i.e."scales upward with its length....to the present", may suggest another timeline argument cited in 3) i.e."claim the bad effects......are no longer present" and "must object to 1)" and may upset the balance of the assertion/conclusion of 4).
It is hoped that this comment shows a 'fairly close to your point/s' understanding.
fair smile. — kazan
You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. You take out a coin and toss it, heads to the right and tails to the left. The coin toss makes the decision. This is hardly an instance of free will, other than deciding to leave the decision to the coin.
You are traveling through a maze and reach a fork. Here you experience a maximum degree of doubt (uncertainty), and the consequences of making a wrong decision are large. Now you ponder and then make a decision. Is this free will? Or does some internal neural mechanism in your subconscious "toss a coin"? — jgill
It seems that obvious solution to the existence of misinformation is more free speech, not less of it.
Ideas should be exposed to criticism by default, not taken at face value by default. Question everything. It is those that don't question what they read and hear that end up causing more harm than those that do. — Harry Hindu
It's a combination of free speech and questioning authority. It seems to me that a man that shoots his way into a Pizza Parlor to rescue nonexistent child victims of sex trafficking from a nonexistent basement didn't question the source of the information he received.
Whatever the man read probably just reinforced some idea he already had and a reason to engage in the violent tendencies he already had brewing within him.
Before I would take such drastic action, I would want to verify the source and legitimacy of the claims being made. How about you? — Harry Hindu
I could model the choice the mind makes in the "doubtful" maze situation on a random number generator, or a coin toss, and it could still have the kind of freedom you describe; there is not necessarily the kind of reasoned intention that is required for a mind to be making a meaningful choice.
— ToothyMaw
To the best of my knowledge, there is no pure random generator but a pseudo-random generator. You can read more about pseudo-random generator here. Regardless, the brain cannot produce a random generator to decide about a situation when the outcomes of options are not known. How about a coin toss? You can use a coin to choose a path in the maze. You however don't need it since you have the ability to freely decide. — MoK
No, I would say that our freedom allows us to decide when we are ignorant about the outcomes of the options.
— MoK
I'm having a hard time seeing what you mean.
If we fail to recognize that we are ignorant in some regard do we lack freedom to the degree that we fail to recognize our ignorance in that area? — wonderer1
We don't have any specific reason to choose one option over another one when we have doubts. Therefore, our decision is free* in this case. The brain is however a deterministic entity so it cannot freely decide when there is doubt. Therefore, there must exist an entity, the so-called mind, that can freely decide. — MoK
I think you are mostly right, but usually when such laws are created in repressive societies, it isn't to fight the kind of edge case I describe above, but rather to repress for repression's sake or to enable authoritarian rule.
— ToothyMaw
You don't repress for repressions sake. The above is not an edge case, it is the main case. They might brand the governments collusion with the neo Nazis as misinformation, or criticism of the neo Nazis themselves. Whilst their political opponents receive no such protection from the misinformation laws, the government itself would probably be an organ for spreading Disinformation about them. — hypericin
Intent matters only because a government with bad intent will write the law such that it can be exploited by them. While a more benevolent government would take more care to add safeguards. — hypericin
I think that the intent behind the implementation of such laws is probably a somewhat decent indicator of whether or not they will be easily abused; the rubric in a repressive society for what constitutes disinformation would likely be broader or shift more easily to suit the powers that be as a result of policy hinging largely on the will of the repressors. In a freer, more democratic society these laws would probably just arise naturally from elected representatives legislating it to prevent certain virulent strains of disinformation. — ToothyMaw
There is no obvious solution. The chief danger of misinformation laws is that these same laws can be used to suppress the truth while effectively promoting disinformation. This is a common pattern in repressive societies — hypericin
When Hitler debated Otto Wells regarding the Enabling Act he reminded Wells of how much he was censored, and this justified for him the passing of that law. They used these pre-existing laws to further suppress the opposition. — NOS4A2
Their suppression is a gift to them. — NOS4A2
That isn't to say that freedom isn't worth fighting for, or even dying for, but freedom is a function of what we can allow ourselves in the absence of existential threats to our existence. If you value freedom, then consider if the United States were indeed run by verifiable fascists. We would undoubtedly have even less freedom than we might have had had we suppressed portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. Do you actually think that the fascists wouldn't come for those that are reporting on truth once taking power? Everything except the accepted propaganda would be suppressed for being disinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?
Of course the fascists would, so it makes no sense to afford them the power to do so. One of the best ways to avoid fascism is to not do what the fascists do, which in your idea is to suppress portions of the media to prevent such a takeover. — NOS4A2
I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. — Patterner
What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money?? — Patterner
It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel. — Patterner
Let's say they aren't the most honest, moral beings running around. They certainly wouldn't have any credibility with me. So maybe they were faking, and only wanted us using up our time and resources on this useless task, then they resumed their attack after we gave them the money. — Patterner
freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute , but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.
Uuuumm, no. There is a societal concensus where "responsibility" lies. No personal injury lawyer will try to hold a citizen standing next to the lever (or someone who knows how to swim walking along the shoreline of the pond, to use your example) legally "responsible" for the trolley or pond tragedies, not because they (like you) can't concoct a legal (or "logical") argument to do so, rather because no group of 12 citizens would agree with the argument. No, the trolley maintainance people and the individual who pushed the kid are responsible. It is a common error to confuse a missed opportunity for excellence with incompetence or malfeasance. — LuckyR
I don't think anyone is saying that the person who might pull the lever is literally responsible for all those deaths if they don't pull it. — ToothyMaw
Most people recognize that inaction can be wrong even if they don't directly cause the relevant bad outcome they could have prevented - in fact so wrong that they might break a rule against killing to prevent the outcome. — ToothyMaw
The reason why I focus on responsibility specifically is that despite your protestations to the contrary, when most answer the trolley problem they use wording such as "I could never pull the level since I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander". — LuckyR
As to logical criticism of action or inaction, you're missing why the trolley problem was invented in the first place. It is an example of a situation where a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox. If it was a choice between one person on one track and five mannequins on the other track, there would be a single logical answer (whereby those who don't choose it could be logically criticized), but no one would care about or repeat such a trivial "problem". — LuckyR
a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox — LuckyR
The problem, from a deontological perspective anyways, is whether you can formulate a general rule or maxim that can account for particularly dire circumstances without undermining the force of the command for all other circumstances. In other words is it possible to draw an abstract and general line between the exceptions and the rule.
A consequentialist does not directly have this problem, the consequentialist does need to decide though how to integrate concerns about moral hazard and respect for the individual into their calculation. — Echarmion
So going back to the original problem, why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. Just because they've come up in the conversation it doesn't change the reality of it. Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it.
— EyE
Lol so what are your thoughts on this now. — EyE
Let's suppose aliens come down and tell us that we're all going to wiped out unless we give the aliens any death row convict. If we do that, we'll all live. If we don't, we'll all die, except the death row convict. What should we do? — RogueAI
We should fight the aliens to the death. Not only because it's wrong to sacrifice people (Did we learn nothing from Omelas?), but also because we would be their bitches from them on. — Patterner
maybe they are doing this from a light-year away, but we know they can back up their threat, then we die as humans. — Patterner
I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people.
— Patterner
Are you against conscription in all cases?
— ToothyMaw
No.
We live in societies, with laws. The point of it all is to ensure our rights and freedom, and make our lives better. Not take our freedom, quality of life, or our very lives.
But. Since we want to live in these societies, it can't always go the way we want. There are also responsibilities. As they say, freedom isn't free. There are times when we have to do what we have to do for the society. Regardless of the risk. — Patterner
I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people. — Patterner
First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. — LuckyR
Second, at the time the lever is pulled (or not pulled) the exact consequences of action or inaction is not known with certainty by the bystander. — LuckyR
Thus the answer is "it doesn't matter", do whatever strikes you in the moment, you're not open to logical criticism either way. — LuckyR
why are you choosing to pull the lever? 6 as a value is what I was referring to when I said "6 choices" your including the 1 person on the other track when you shouldn't be, they are not part of the problem. — EyE
Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE
their isn't 6 choices — EyE
Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? — ToothyMaw
When you sacrifice someone it means to kill them when they weren't predestined to die. You seem to look at this in a "I could have killed you if I wanted to but I didn't therefore I saved you" kinda of way. Which is unethical to say the least :lol: — EyE
Death can come at anytime and if someone wants to invoke it they have the agency to, but not in this situation. So I guess by switching that track I honour their ability to choose. — EyE
ultimately the decision you are making is whether you would sacrifice 1 life to save 5. That's not to say if there wasn't someone on that second track I wouldn't pull the lever because of "fate" haha, but at least then I can entertain the choice. — EyE
In this way, other potnetially immaterial things like minds can exist even if they have no directly physical/tangible basis, they can be metaphysical properties that lead to actionable consequences (behaviours) via their interaction with material existants. — Benj96
The train will follow its own course, and the outcome isn't determined by my selection of a track but by the natural progression of events. — EyE
If you want to frame this in mathematical terms, you must recognize that this is not a simple equation of choosing between 1 and 5 lives. The probabilities and ethical weight aren't balanced, and I’m not the one who sets those outcomes in motion. — EyE
I'm no physicist, or mathematician, but this sounds suspect. If a fact - like the laws of physics - in one universe is not the same as in another universe, wouldn't there have to be some independent reference frame against which the two can be compared to evaluate them relationally?
— ToothyMaw
Not sure what is being asked, especially since there isn't any entity necessarily doing any evaluation. For instance, in another universe, the cosmological constant might be different, which I suppose can be compared to (greater/less than relation) to each other. In yet another universe, there is no meaningful thing that could be considered a cosmological constant.
If there were something similar to Newton's laws in both
Newton's laws are pretty basic and don't so much involve things like constants, other than fundamentals like there being 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimension. Other universes could have any values for either of these, and dimensions that are neither spatial nor temporal. Newton's laws wouldn't work in any of those. — noAxioms