Based on what though? Why would interests just happen to line up with some unrelated demographic grouping? That'd imply precisely that the demographic grouping and the interest are not independent. — Echarmion

Based on the traits of each demographic. There are general trends within demographics. (Cultural, biological etc)

Can you tell me what the methods are, then? — Echarmion

It would be specific to each case. It’s a question of what you are building the system to do (equality of outcome or equality of opportunity) and which way is better. The exact method used would be whatever is best suited to equality of opportunity

For a first approximation, that is probably a good strategy though. If, for a given field, you don't think there are any significant biological differences between the groups involved and the sample size is large enough, results should correspond to the makeup of the population in general. If they don't, something else is going on. Now something else is almost always going on, not necessarily something bad. But it's a legitimate cause for concern if the ratio is way off from what it should be given the makeup of the population. — Echarmion

I don’t think the groups will naturally corespondent to the demographics. Certain professions for example attract certain kinds of people. These professions will naturally have more people of that certain kind. Some fields or areas will not have diversity because the interest in that field or area isn’t all that diverse.

I consider the dichotomy between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity to be a false one. The terms imply two distinct methods, when in reality it's not a question of method, but of goals. — Echarmion

I think you are using those terms idiosyncratically, and that’s why you think it a false dichotomy. Those two things are indeed two methods and they are mutually exclusive.

How do we know that "equal outcome" isn't concerned with merit or qualification? Equality is a value judgement. It can and usually does include considerations for qualifications and experience. Is there any mainstream view which espouses a strict quota system based on some form of identity without consideration of merit? — Echarmion

Well in the context of race/gender etc I think the idea for some is that the proper metric for a fair group selection is diversity. That idea is about “equality of outcome”, the goal is for the group to have a proper amount of of diversity. A mainstream example would be affirmative action.

I'm very sceptical regarding this claim, as I don't see how it would be possible a priori to know whether a given system actually filters out only "undesirable traits". In my view, the only way to check is by looking at the output and comparing it with other metrics to figure out whether or not the process works. "Equality of opportunity" a judgement of an outcome, the term does not describe any specific method. — Echarmion

The specific method of “equality of opportunity” is usually about creating a system where everyone has a fair shot, an equal playing field.
I agree with your view and on looking at the output, that’s a good way to check what a systems actually doing but I was more talking about system design. Specifically, whether the idea of “equality of outcome” is better than “equality of opportunity”.

I think you're ascribing a specific goal to equality, based on a political usage of the word, which is not inherent in the term. — Echarmion

Well yes, that was what I was making a point about. The political usuals. That’s what the discussion had been about.

If you want a panel of the best doctors, then the only reasonable application of the term equality is that people on the panel should have the highest qualification possible, regardless of other factors. In other words all factors except qualification should be considered equal (you don't care about their marital status etc). — Echarmion

Yes, that was the point I was making. I think we are using terms a bit differently, I’m not sure we are in disagreement about the concepts.

What's the difference between "outcome by merit" and "equal outcome"? "Merit" is not the name of a physical law or constant. — Echarmion

The difference is that “outcome by merit” means the most qualified person gets the job (for example), based upon n the merits of their qualifications. “Equal outcome” is not concerned with merit or qualification in this context, but with making sure their is a diverse range of race/gender etc regardless of qualifications/merit.
The point being made I think is that equality of outcome is more problematic because it doesn’t filter out incompetence or any other undesirable traits, where equality of opportunity does while at the same time is an explicit effort to make sure no one is left out do to race/gender etc.
Think of selecting a panel of doctors to save a loved ones life. You want the panel to have the best doctors right? If you gathered the best and it turns out it’s majority black, white, straight, gay or whatever then equality of outcome demands that some of the best doctors be swapped out so that the panel is diverse.

Ethics/morality is more or less the study of what you should do. So, when saying “why should I be moral?”, surely that is no different to saying: Why should I do what I should do.
That seems to not make sense (maybe?), so surely asking “why should I be moral” has its answer embedded in the question itself.
I feel like there is a mistake in her somewhere, please tell me. — Georgios Bakalis

Ethics isn’t the study of what you should do its more specific that that. It would be the study of what you do according to an ethical standard. It isnt the study of what you should do to train your dog for example, right? It’s specific to a ethical standard, of which there are many different kinds.
So rephrased “why should I be moral?” is actually more like “why should I do what I should do according to so and so ethical standard”, which illustrates the two different contexts of the word “should”. It is an awkward sentence but none the less it isn’t fallacious. I think you fell into a semantic trap .

At this point, one may get the sense that everything is relative, but that can't be the case right? Surely there have to be some absolute facts about the world. — Mr Bee

Well couldn’t something be a fact and be relative? I’m not sure those two terms are mutually exclusive in the way you are using them. Time is relative according to Einstein, yet when time distorts because of gravity there is still a fact of the matter depending on the relative position.

So perhaps there are some matters that are relative and others that are absolute. There are some issues that have absolute answers (like those in philosophy) and others (like direction) that don't. But how does one go about distinguishing between the two? At least that's the issue that I've been grappling with as of late and currently I don't have much of a satisfactory answer apart from the fact that I feel like that's how things should be. — Mr Bee

I’m not sure how you are using “absolute” here...is 2+2 equals 4 absolute? What kinds of philosophical answers are absolute?
I’m confused about your treatment of “relative” being the opposite of absolute, is that how you are using the terms? Like “up” and “down”?

Of course on the other hand this may just mean that everything is either relative or absolute, but then the question becomes which one to pick. On the one hand I like to think that there is an absolute set of facts out there to uncover about the world, but at the same time I also don't like the idea that there is some sense of an "absolute left" in the world. — Mr Bee

Well there are facts out there to be discovered, but also there are facts about relative positions. “Left” is relative, but that doesn’t change the fact that something can be factually to your “left”, and factually to someone else’s “right” at the same time. Right? It’s not like the fact that the other persons position which puts the object on their “right” somehow makes the object not to your “left” anymore..it’s still absolutely to your “left”.

Ya ya, if you wanna be all reasonable and measured. Pft. :wink:
...anyway, your enlightened response to his shenanigans aside I think my point still stands. The fact people respond isn’t persuasive, I could write complete trash on here and it would get responses. I’d bet the more trashy the more attention. Would you take that bet?

Isn’t antinatalism an ideology? If not, doesn’t it become ideological if the anti-Natalist cannot let the subject go and everything they “contribute” to discussion is either the anti Natalist point or the anti natalist point disguised as something else? Plus the counter arguments not being much acknowledged as the broken record plays on. How is that not promoting an ideology?

Ya no kidding. Its nice to see him try something new to discuss. Especially such a rich question with no relation to Antinatalism whatsoever.
How it doesnt count as prosthelytising which is forbidden I cannot tell. Its the same thing over and over with the only discussion offered is a tactic so he can whine about life.

Any explanations? — Banno

Your mistake is thinking that the magical thinking of theology stays in theology. Its not physics they have trouble with, its thinking.
Also, Dunning Kruger effect. They don’t know enough physics to realise how ignorant they are about physics.

Your eyes are pieces of your brain. They did not connect with each other at some point in our evolution. The brain grows, and part of it grows into the eye sockets and becomes your eyes.

Your eye IS your brain. Human eyes literally grow out from the brain as it develops. Your eyes and brain are essentially the same organ so its not a matter of which came first.

The point you are asking about is whether money outweighs morality, right? Not whether or not 100 million dollars can do enough good to outweigh the persons life? In other words, is the scenario about measuring the moral good of the two actions or is it about pitting the selfish act (money) against the moral one (saving a life)?

I still am sure of the obvious moral answer. I asked about the other answers but you couldn't be bothered to answer.
You were specific about there being no additional information to go on so you could focus solely on the moral “dilemma” which I did, and I think I was the only person to respect the boundaries of the thought experiment. The problem I pointed out was that within the boundaries the correct moral action is to save the person.
Taking the money to save more lives is outside the boundaries you set I thought, since that would rely in more information introduced to the dilemma. (Are there other people worth saving? Are there other people in trouble? Are there other people? Is the problem im saving other people from with the money even actually solvable by money alone? Am I obligated to save the maximum amount of people etc etc )

Ok, well you are clearly not interested in discussion. You have no rational reason for your claims and have a clear bias against pot.

— NOS4A2
While many other times, it's a act of submission and letting the other person have the upper hand. And to fuck with you.
And once you make the mistake of extending that olive branch, it's too late, the power hierachy between the two of you is set for as long as you live. — baker

Google Daryl Davies. His “act of submission” has done more to cure racism than all community banishing of racists combined because banishing a racist doesnt do anything to address racism. Stopping people from saying racist words or not wearing certain things or talking about race or any if the other non-remedies “anti-racist” people go to battle over doesn’t do anything to stop racism. The sole purpose of such things is yo make people feel better about race and NOT the actual targets of racism but mostly white people who enjoy the social license to act poorly, like the witch hunters of old.

If thats your situation then I’m sorry that happened to you but it doesnt mean smoking pot is bad, it would at best mean smoking pot and driving is bad. At best, because you would have to show that the pot is what caused the accident. The data doesnt usually back that up, in all the recorded cases I’ve seen where a person was high and got into a car accident they were also drunk.

Maybe, what answers are you talking about?

Is this supposed to be a dilemma? The correct moral choice is clear, save the person on the tracks.
Are you seriously asking if people should value money over life?

What are you saying? That the driver was a poor driver anyway, and smoking weed was only the final straw in their driving ineptitude? — baker

What I meant by that was that he was driving while high, as opposed to just being high. The problem, maybe, is driving while high. The fact that people might be getting hurt by high drivers doesnt mean getting high is wrong, it would mean getting high and driving is wrong.

People who smoke pot hurt themselves, so they are the victims, so smoking pot isn't "a victimless crime". — baker

Victims of what?
Also, alcohol. Any criticisms you have about pot use also apply to alcohol, plus more since alcohol is clearly worse on every level. Do you think alcohol should be illegal?

I'm critical of all substances and activities that in any way diminish a person's ability to drive safely. — baker

You seemed to be using the supposed accidents caused by weed as a reason people shouldn't smoke it or it should be illegal, did I misunderstand you?
Also, many things diminish driving, lack of sleep, fighting with your girlfriend, fussing with the radio, yelling at some guy who cut you off etc, none of which are activities you shouldn't do, they are things you should be careful about when driving.
And that's IF you could show that weed affects driving with significant diminished safety which the data doesnt indicate.

Smoking weed is not a "victimless crime".

How do you feel about being run over by a pothead and ending up in a wheelchair for the rest of your life? — baker

Well smoking weed wouldn't be what caused the car accident and wheelchair harm. Pretty obviously it was something to do with the driving, possibly from the weed but not necessarily.
Running people over isn’t a victimless crime, but smoking pot is.
Also, people critical of smoking pot or its legalisation have to be critical of drinking alcohol or its legalisation first if they want to be taken seriously.

I think you need more parameters. Are we trying to preserve the most innocent life? What would the 100 serial killers going free have to do with the structure of the dilemma you presented?
Is our goal to get the death penalty removed? Whats the priority?

P.S. We assume it is better to have a 100 serial killers go free than to have one innocent person executed. — James Riley

Why would we assume this? In what way is that better?

Dude is mentally ill, he’s psychologically incapable of stopping. Thats my guess. Some sort of personality disorder. So its a waste of time, but whatever floats your boat, just din’t let me catch you complaining he’s still around :wink:

My mistake, apologies.

Yet still you engage. Just stop feeding him and he’ll go away.

Nothing worse than a well fed troll. I don’t understand the masochism displayed by some of our more educated members to engage. I havent seen a single productive response from him.

Whats comforting is that death isnt the end. Fear of death is at the heart of every fairy tale about an after life. The exact nature of the afterlife is irrelevant to the comfort the fairy tale provides in this regard so I think the point you were responding to still stands.
Also, both Sumerian and greek mythologies have pleasant afterlife fairy tales to accompany the harsher ones, just like christian mythology has heaven and hell.

None of those are unanswerable. The question of whether god exists is answered, its just people who believe in god and certain types of fence sitters still carry on regardless, attached for whatever reason to the indefensible believer position.
Free will is a bit trickier I’ll grant you but I feel like its mostly a problem of definition of free will. If its defined as something outside deterministic forces, cause and effect but if the definition isnt magical and accounts for deterministic forces then sure, free will exists. As Hitchens used to say, we have free will becuase we have no choice
Lastly, life after death. Like god, this has been asked and answered. No, we have no good reasons to think there is life after death.
There is certainly things beyond human understanding, but none of the things you mentioned are. All understandable, all have fairly clear answers. Whether or not those answers can overcome indoctrinated belief or strong emotional bias is another matter.

Lol, ok.

I don’t know how to respond to that.

I was actually asking which courage you were referring, not being sarcastic or snide if that mattered in you decision to ignore the question.
Anyway, Can you elaborate on why lack of trust is a real moral problem? I don’t think of trust as a moral/ethic, so I’m curious.

What courage are you referring to?
Also, Its not cowardice to not trust someone in fatmans position. He has good reasons to sabotage if he is the type to sacrifice a bunch of other people to save himself.

True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks — javi2541997

And if he does the latter, who can blame him? He’s trying to survive after all.

Nah, just as for his consent. Giving him the dynamite only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink:

You’ve still done nothing more to defend your position.
Anyway, which assertion and why exactly is it insulting? Also, I cannot follow how your food scenario is analogous to the fatman blocking the cave scenario or my answers to it.

Im not a utilitarian, my reasoning wasn’t dependent on the greatest amount of good for the most people. I would say the same thing if it was fatman and only one other person stuck in the cave.
If you refuse to abandon him then that is your decision, you can die righteously beside him if you want.
If there are rescuers then dynamite is no longer the only option, so my answer would change depending on the details of the rescue. If I didn’t know there were rescuers my answer wouldn't change. You can change the scenario however you like and I will always be able to answer, right up until you change the scenario to become nonsensical or self contradicting at which point I wouldn't be able to answer without likewise being non-sensical or contradicting. Garbage in garbage out.
If the dynamite kills rescuers and I still cannot get out the indeed, bad luck. It wouldnt be due to the morality of using the dynamite.

:up:

The most egregious moral violation is fatman, who is clearly acting immorally and selfishly. The second worst violation is the man stopping the others from using the dynamite, for the reasons stated. The least egregious is the dynamite users as their action have good justifications both ethically and practically.
The only person who has clean hands and has made no moral violation is the person who abstains from dynamite use, doesn’t interfere with the others use of dynamite (except to offer his views I suppose) and does not exit the cave once the dynamite is used. He would die with full moral virtue.
That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions.

That doesn’t address what I said nor justify your position which you’ve been kind enough to repeat once again.
Is there something confusing about what I’m asking you?