Do not try. Just tell me and explain or leave.

I am not here to waste my time or yours so spit it out before I lose patience … then address the OP more directly perhaps rather tell me what I think? — I like sushi

I did already tell you. But you seemed to have not grasped what I'm saying.

So, please refer to Agent Smith and Banno's explanation of care ethics.

Should Artificial Intelligence provide (previously unseen) insights into matters of philosophy? — Bret Bernhoft

No. The marketing industry would insert adverts in every few lines. Next thing, you'll be reading extra virgin olive oil, yogurt, fromage, and travel guides in the passages.

I know this is probably going to sound disingenuous, but when people talk about social media are they referring just to Facebook, twitter, TikTok, and Instagram? — Tom Storm

Yes.

I've read a few tweets and seen Facebook and Insta used by friends and colleagues, but I struggle to imagine the point of these things. — Tom Storm

You and me both.

Why on earth is ‘murder’ the first thing that springs to mind in your head? How about just stealing the cure and facing the consequences if caught? — I like sushi

Okay that's correct -- murder is not the first reaction.

Also, I am nit quite sure how any of this is addressing my claims in the OP? — I like sushi

I'm trying to tell you that what you think is ethics, it's really not. When you use the family relationships as a measure of your ethical decision, you're no longer talking about ethics, but something else.

All ethical systems are ethical. That is why they like degrees of accountability. The blame lies with the system rather than the individual - if there is any poor outcome. — I like sushi

All ethical systems are ethics. But not all decisions are ethical or ethics. One could decide based on height who to deprive of benefits, this is not ethics.

If we do this, I believe we set societies free from the patronage of politicians and big tech bosses, whereas we make everyone feel responsible for the hours they or their kids spend every single day on internet and the social media. — Eros1982

Yes, it's horrible how for hours on end they're mindlessly on social media. And it's not just children. Even adults who should know better are addicted to them. Employers are now paying for the hours the employees spend not being productive -- some have even resorted to hiring more because employees are good at masking the amount of work, how little work, there is.

And I should qualify my post above by mentioning another ethical dilemma about the man whose wife is dying of cancer but there's a cure, which unfortunately is in the possession of a doctor who would sell it to him for whatever sum of money the doctor wants, or else he won't get the drug. Does he murder the doctor since he can't afford the drug, and that's the only drug available?

Please let me remind you that this is not an example of a zero sum game. The doctor's situation and the man's wife situation are not on par. They're just not disadvantaged on the same level.

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. — I like sushi

And I'm still stuck here until I articulated enough that this kind of thinking is what we do when we discard ethics and start playing the zero-sum game. Ethics is not zero sum.

The trolley problem is meant to remove your personal interest out of the equation and lets you decide for yourself what to do -- you're not supposed to be personally invested in those people.

Well, if the people were members of your family I think you may think differently. Ethics of Care is kind of stating this is ‘okay’ and if it was saving your child you would likely sacrifice many lives for one. — I like sushi

First off, I think you misunderstood what care ethics is.

You fail to make the case that care ethics "avoids responsibility" because you haven't stated clearly what you mean by (moral) "responsibility". As the linked wiki article points out, care is proposed as a virtue (benevolence), that is, a moral – non-instrumental - habit. Do you believe virtue ethics, of which care ethics is a subset, "avoids responsibility" too? — 180 Proof

:up:

That said, if the case is merely of more lives surviving then I would lean into more lives surviving as I value human lives. — I like sushi

That's fair.

To me, whatever action one takes, there's always an imperfect consequence. But it's not necessarily "wrong". No wrong answer.

Also, to me, I would not intentionally murder a human being who did not cause the situation just to save more people. Circumstances such as that are unavoidable, and luck has to do with it.

My point here is — I like sushi

What's your point? How would you respond to the trolley problem yourself?
Or have you thought about how you feel about the trolley problem and you find that you're not decided either?

First of all, the universe is treated like an object, which seems a complete category error. Objects are finite physical arrangements of matter (systems). They exist in (are contained by) time. They are all created (caused) by the rearrangement of pre-existing matter/energy into a different form. Their boundaries are apparently human designations, a product of our language. — noAxioms

Secondly, Hawking begs a very strong bias that the universe (category error aside) has in fact gone to the bother of existing. He should first have asked "Does the universe go to all the bother of existing?". — noAxioms

Sorry, I still don't get your objections to the quote from Hawking. And I mean by this, that you sound overzealous in laying down your reasons. As good as they are, they overextend what Hawking was saying. If I try to stretch the Hawking quote, I would say that Hawking had stripped what he was saying of all that assumptions such as universe being treated as objects. Hawking did not give any opening to warrant this sort of objections to his statement.

So, bottom line, you make a good point, but misplaced.

Are you aware of any decent books describing their ethics? — Benkei

Wrong question. Ethics is the examination of principles that govern the moral behavior of an individual. There's no individuality in tribal relations.

From that approach, economic activity should be aimed at maintaining or increasing the regenerative capabilities of our environments, making nature flourish, in order to reach actual material growth. — Benkei

Good insight. I'm with you.

If profit only exists in terms of increasing resources, instead of diminishing them then a lot of economic activity becomes unviable. — Benkei

Fossil fuel, as an example.

The last question in the quote seems to contain some errors and implied assumptions. — noAxioms

I disagree. Hawking was simply stating a situation matter-of-factly. If you want to put it in philosophical terms -- Hawking is saying that science does not answer the normative question of: "...why there should be a universe ..."

In my opinion, Hawking was giving a correct or reasonable assessment of a scientific model or theory.

Death is not the worst thing. — Athena

It can be. For the one that got left behind. When this person I was very closed to decided to do it, my body went into convulsion and I couldn't feel anything except the ground under me was shaking my whole body. I couldn't cry because I was also numb. If you want to imagine how it felt -- think of screaming your lungs out but no sound comes out.

I suspect that my spirit died that day, but I'm not sure. Because hey, I'm living a "normal" life, interacting with people, having a comfortable life, having sex, having dinner, laughing. I never got the so-called "therapy" for the grieving.

But ask me if I could go back in time, what date would that be. The morning before the death, because then I could stop it. I knew I could. I still believe I could have done something.

Superposition is different than p & ~p. It requires the two states to interfere with each other, which has been demonstrated with macroscopic objects, but not a cat. The cat scenario isn't realistic, and it reduces to simply not knowing the state of the cat in the box. — noAxioms

No, quantum states are transmutable, for the purpose of the experiment. The cat can be used in superposition. But the point is to deny that there's superposition.

Without going into too many specific thinkers (though I could) ...is the prevailing attitude of Phil. of Sci. still Empiricist, to an absurd degree (IMO)? I have verbatim quotes from people like Van Fraasen to the affect that if we can't DIRECTLY experience objects, they are not "real" but just "convenient to use" including such pretty large non-real objects like planets. Or smaller stuff like atoms, electrons, quarks, etc. Because microscopes and telescopes only show us an image of the object, but nothing that can be deemed "real." — GLEN willows

I think your understanding of what was said is incorrect. Direct experience doesn't just mean "seeing". We experience in all five senses. I can't see Mars from here, but the evidence produced by man on Mars should suffice to say, there have been experience of the planets.

Of course, the fallacy of the absurd is a frequent part of interlocutors' conversation. I can't see that there's a brain inside my friend's head, I can't even see my own brain, does that mean brain isn't real?

You don't like bubbles? Lol. — TiredThinker

I like bubbles. But not inside me. I drink plain water.

Why not just drink plain water? Why do you need bubbles in your drink?

I often say to people “think about all the people around you right now, about all the people around the world … they are ALL going to die.” Have that thought to yourself right now in the privation of your head. Is it ‘scary,’ ’liberating,’ ‘threatening,’ ‘confusing’ or something else entirely. — I like sushi

You can look at ancient ruins that were once thriving cities or towns and now a relic of civilization. :yikes:

The odds for a humanbeing living right now would be so impossibly high, and yet here we are.

Does that mean that we are really lucky to be here right now and we are really living in the present and that we are the future? — Persain

The value of saying this is only poetic or sentimental. It's very common to say this. But it's not a philosophical view. Logic itself doesn't approve of it because think about it -- lucky as compared to what? To that non-place, the time before you were born? Then you can't compare two disparate situations and give it a judgment of "lucky".

Voir quoi?

You jest of course! — Agent Smith

Non. C'est vrai.

Isn't that the gist of the OP, mon ami? — Agent Smith

Sharp!!

Sorry. I don't understand this thread at all.

I was talking to two ladies with whom I otherwise chit chat about the weather, gardening, and such. — baker

I really find this hard to believe.

You think the UN will take over and make the revolution? — Olivier5

The signed treaties have made some progress. The Montreal Protocol have almost eliminated CFCs and the Paris agreement for net-zero emissions.

Remember that the decision to go to war stems from one issue. It's not a guessing game. One issue. That's all it takes.

I was talking to a prospective date and she seeks someone with a strong sense of purpose. As far as I know Mr. Smith from The Matrix and Loki from Marvel movies are examples of being obsessed with purpose. — TiredThinker

Those are two different mindsets. I think your prospective date meant someone with ambition -- they have a plan and they're going to follow through with it.

Mr. Smith lives in a much more immediate, urgent, and universe-bending reality. They're lucky to have that kind of challenge that we don't have here on Earth.

I’m the one that posted the video of Trump. Because I think it’s funny— it was a joke, not an argument. Grow up. — Xtrix

Hahaha!

If anyone is not getting the weakness of this thread, here it is:

If her behavior is normal, then let the video speak for itself. Why are you defending something that's normally done by statesmen and leaders and using other despicable leaders to make your point? I wouldn't.

I also agree with Benkei's comments that if you do believe her behavior is substandard, then you have to explain why you don't think men behaving worse is also substandard. — Hanover

And my response is, if Benkei believes her behavior is normal, then why is there a need to bring in Trump, the gambler, the alcoholic, and the drug addict? Why not just say, her behavior is common and indicative of a mature statesman as shown on the video?

Oh wait, because you just can't win an argument like that. No, it's not enough to show the video of her dancing and everyone should come to agreement this is a normal behavior of a leader having fun.

That's a strawman. I didn't say she should get a pass because Trump is worse. I pretty clearly said her actions were fine under any standard.

She seems remarkably normal. That's what I saw. — Hanover

You lost your mojo here.

And I'm gonna tell you again:

This thread launched a support against the scrutiny of her behavior using counterexamples of men that are Trump, alcoholic, drug addict, and a gambler. I'd like to know why the counter examples are the worst kinds?

Please explain this part? Benkei started this thread and in his OP, this is what I read.

Again, you guys are saying "dancing and singing". This is not just dancing and singing like a party with respectable decorum. This is a racy video. Sorry.

And yes, of course, the mere mention of the word "narcissist" would get anyone triste.

Look at the responses on this thread. One even posted a video of Trump? Why? Why do you guys need a counter-example of what many call a terrible, deranged man (not my own words) just to put her actions in a better light? Why not choose a statesman, a representative, a leader, or someone who represents a kingdom and put them side by side. You guys chose Trump, an alcoholic, a gambler, and a drug addict to make your point? So, something tells me, the issue is more grave than what you guys seem to say.

Choose a better counter-example, not Trump, for christ's sake.

It seems a large part of western societies have come to view the world this way, whether they fully realize it or not. Perhaps it is precisely their lack of affinity with science that leads them down this path of wishful thinking. — Tzeentch

Then you've gone the wrong path in this thread. Bowing out. Thanks.

Thumbs up for @javi2541997 for having more maturity than the PM. I support the idea that statesmen and leaders shouldn't behave like how she behaved in that party. She has a responsibility to her entire nation and a role model to the public. What puzzles me is, she could have had a party and still kept the decorum of a statesmen. Instead, she wanted to be seen like a [......]. Also thumbs up for the drug test.

Is this a case of a narcissist, btw? Not sure.

Although they do seem to call this Platonic realism, so I need clarification. — Tom Storm

It's not platonic realism. The platonic view has a very specific definition of "truth", which as you have already mentioned, is a form. Virtue ethics is practical ethics. It's within the realm of humans. Objective morality proponents aren't talking about platonic realism.

Your point?

I was commenting on your quote. What examples? Maybe you could just answer if this view implies Platonism or not. — Tom Storm

We can say it's objective because "goodness" is something that can be achieved, according to virtue ethics. And we can say it's platonistic because Plato was one of the advocates of virtue. But it couldn't come from an idealistic point of view because one of the qualities of goodness is that it benefits others around us. There's the others to whom we dedicate our actions.

Does this view necessarily entail that ethics are Platonic and therefore we discover truth through idealism? — Tom Storm

Which view? I gave two examples.

The mechanistic view (not just "science" in general.. but "scientism"), excludes everything but science as truth-bearing. That's how I interpreted it anyways..
So science vs. scientism.. It's similar to other debates I have seen on the forum. — schopenhauer1

No, this is an erroneous view of mechanistic worldview. The scientific community does not approve of this view. It's a view of a handful of philosophers, not science. It's even at odds with the discipline of science because it purports to reduce everything into formulaic existence.