What's so wrong about Florida Bill? — ssu

What about it being bad for limiting speech? For instance: is the idea that some problems cannot be solved with boilerplate language about colorblindness so dangerous and meritless that it ought to be illegal? And if that is not the case, is it not possible then, that, sometimes, white people might, out of discomfort, deny that such sentiments are more common among people with their skin color and might serve to limit exposure to uncomfortable truths? Couldn't this paradigm intentionally serve to obscure and hamper attempts to get to the bottom of problems of equality, merit, etc.?

You might say that the workplace isn't the place for something this academic, but I think that relatively intelligent, open-minded adults can deal with a little bit of nuance in their thinking about social issues. Furthermore, that is the place it is precisely needed.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. It's essential to consider the multifaceted nature of global conflicts and the various stakeholders involved, don't you think? — Alonsoaceves

There was nothing us vs. them about my post. It was a simplification, yes, but I think that that is basically the reason for celebrating or venerating acts of violence. It helps keep the train of western exceptionalism going until it hits something it can't just destroy outright. If anything, my post indicates that I don't think it is a matter of us vs. them. We have common humanity with the people in the middle east, but our actions don't indicate that we think of any of them as being anything more than an obstacle to dominance.

Also: your use of the word 'stakeholder' is strange. It implies that the many disparate groups of people involved in the middle east have a common interest in seeing some project succeed. The US specifically appears to have no interest in seeing people in the middle east be successful at nation building, except when it aligns with our own goals. Thus, we support and prop up dictators and fund and stage coups that harm people. So, I don't think that we always have to consider everyone's intentions and desires if we want to determine the best path forward for the people most impacted by our policies.

The right thing to do is pretty obvious a lot of the time, even if there are many details involved in a comprehensive analysis.

First off - nice OP, Alonso. Clear and concise.

the continued reminder of violent dates and events only makes it more likely that violent events will occur in the future. — Alonsoaceves

I think you may be right, but I would add that the celebration of specific violent dates and events is more a consequence of a general celebration of directed violence than anything else. Disputing whether or not the specific dates are worth celebrating could only do so much to prevent future violence imo; the only people who might be influenced to be violent by their reverence for some historical event probably already have ideological leanings that are more relevant. Although I suppose the two go hand in hand, really.

As a historical fact, it deserves attention. Now, as a reason for insertion into our daily dynamics – of active incorporation into our lives – we must ask ourselves: What do we gain by celebrating violence? What message do we keep in our minds and in those of our descendants? — Alonsoaceves

From a western point of view: we keep the message that oftentimes violence needs doing, and that we have, and have always had, the men and technology to resolve conflicts decisively. By extension I think that the practical purpose of it is to keep popular support for sending a bunch of Tim Kennedys across the world to enforce the will of the hegemony by killing Arab men who pose almost no threat to us.

Are you alright, dude? That read like a liquor-fueled rant.

Within these evolutionary trends, we can find the essence of the ethical principles and moral norms that humanity seeks to identify. Therefore, understanding the evolution of our planet can help us establish and explain the foundations for more harmonious and sustainable coexistence. — Seeker25

I don't see how certain evolutionary trends - even if they promote peaceful coexistence - are necessarily anything other than the consequences of nature. Is the peaceful coexistence to be found in evolutionary trends the desired end? Is that what we ought to seek? Because you appear to have no justification for that ought.

The evolution of the Earth, over 4.6 billion years, has given rise to the laws and principles that regulate both the natural environment and our existence. — Seeker25

I just don't see how this fact justifies the belief that looking to these trends for our morality is valid or would be effective. We live in a modern world that very much bucks the circumstances that may have formed human nature.

As for your practical examples:

You can correlate the evolved traits you assign to humans with those you find desirable, or ethical, all day, but I don't think it validates your thesis. Neither does assuming something like censorship is remarkable evolutionarily. I do of course agree that humans and animals need places to live, and that censorship is generally bad. But these examples don't do a very good job of supporting your thesis.

Well, that was beautifully written.

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

I especially like this. People in bad circumstances, and that perceive those circumstances to be the limits of what is possible for them, continue to suffer largely as a result of their own inertia. The remedy is to convince ourselves that we can each aspire to be overcome and succeed on our own self-perceived merits even if we are subject to some amount of determinism; furthermore, we are actually empowered by that very same cause and effect given we have the freedom to make our choices.

Or at least that's what I took away from it.

Great OP. :up:

It seems I am a little late to the party, and people have already recommended books and articles and such. I do have something original to offer, however - my own process of learning and approaching philosophy while possessing a working internet connection and a relatively thick skin. A heuristic of sorts.

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

That guy is great. His video on The Fall triggered an existential crisis in me that still hasn't, and may never, resolve. Yet I feel (somewhat?) content to exist somewhat uncertain of my values for now. That sort of process as a miniature schematic in which one becomes uncertain of one's self or one's convictions and then reaffirms certain fundaments through argument is often typical of my interactions with people and their ideas on this forum. Or, at least, that is what it is like when it is exciting. As for posting OPs: have an original idea, do a lot of reading and writing, keep thinking and writing until you have something of worth, and then post it. This recursion does not change too much across the study of different subtopics in philosophy I find.

As for reading articles and such on the internet, I suggest embodying the sponge when focusing on any given topic at first and just sucking up knowledge from reliable sources. Apply your bristly side once you have a grasp of the subtopic of philosophy you are interested in by creating an OP, but you really want to make sure you are prepared to defend it, as people on this forum love to argue and bicker, and sometimes are downright acrimonious. Especially when you insult their short fiction.

That's it, really. Just don't get angry when people try to "score" cheap points or be intimidated when they drop names or historical events they likely learned about through dialogue with a chat bot.

Any thoughts on this tangled mess? — I like sushi

This is my best attempt at a substantive response.

If all causation is indirect then surely to refer to anything as 'causal' is nothing more than saying something 'is'. — I like sushi

This seems partly correct. If a consequence - or the likelihood of a consequence - is related to an intermediary factor manipulated via another variable, that doesn't necessarily include knowledge of how the intermediary factor results in the consequences. But I think that sometimes one could have some knowledge of how the indirect relationship works while maintaining the necessary boundaries i.e. the intermediary factor still exists distinctly and independently of the consequences of the indirect relationship; I don't think the relationship would just collapse into directness due to some knowledge of its workings.

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

I do think indirect causation plays a factor in the change humans experience. For instance: an athlete might lift weights and get stronger, and getting stronger might make them better at their sport. However, direct causation is probably what most people look for when trying to anchor their beliefs and experiences - and rightly so. It is more in agreement with the sense of change you mention. None of that says much of anything about whether or not direct causation can be proven, however.

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

So, if we act like everything is indirect, we have the conclusion that often times we cannot express useful logical statements regarding why when x affects y it increases or decreases the chances of z. I think this is true given that assumption, but like I said earlier, these processes don't need to be totally opaque; furthermore, you have no evidence that relationships that appear to be irreducibly direct are not in fact direct. It seems to me that if some relationship can be directly, logically expressed such that it agrees with reality, there is no reason to try to insert some sort of intermediary factor.

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

Once again, that indirect causation exists does not mean we cannot say definitively that a relationship is direct. There are mathematical models that model reality sufficiently accurately that they can be said to demonstrate the directness of the causes, or forces, that they purport to model; we know, for instance, the commonly used equation that governs projectile motion is accurate given some assumptions - such as gravity having a fixed value near the surface of the earth - and that these assumptions don't amount to some sort of intermediary factors, but rather behave more like settings. So, we can model the world in a very real, physical way that can give rise to questions like: if I throw this apple at a certain speed, and at a certain angle, where will it land? You could even determine such a thing relatively easily given the right tools.

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

You are just making things complicated here. Indirect relationships can exist as an expression of direct relationships or vice versa, and you still haven't shown that using words like 'because' is somehow an expression of a disjunction between abstraction and reality.

Are all our propositions based purely on an idea that Pure Abstraction overrules experiential evidence? — I like sushi

No, clearly not. I think people have plenty of experiences that appear to be genuinely based on direct causation.

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

Agreed.

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

That more recent actions are less immoral merely because they are more recent is clearly specious. If you enact something that will have horrific long-term consequences, although its evil might not be fully realized yet in the present, it possesses that potential - just distributed over time. So no, I don't think that older actions that have materially achieved a higher magnitude of evil in the present should always be considered to be worse - although that might often be the case.

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

I would say no, but I think I can address this despite objecting to the previous question. In fact, I think that this question is a good one even if it doesn't necessarily complement it at all. A fitting response does, however, push the limitations of my argument in a couple of notable ways - namely addressing the status of the evil of an act at its point of being executed, which I mostly avoided in my argument, and for good reason.

So, I'm going to have to introduce some explicit math terminology: It depends upon some sort of initial factor or value assigned to the evil act (which depends upon factors other than time) and the rate (which is likely not constant) at which the magnitude of evil of the given evil action increases over a length of time - which determines its growth over an interval. If an action that is newer or recently deemed evil experiences sufficient growth over an interval it could overcome an older action in terms of growth of magnitude of evil over that interval - even before the older action no longer presents bad effects.

If you think I'm being too loose with my usage of math terms, just say so.

Since you haven't responded to me, I'll just engage with your initial post.

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

Yes, I would say that an action can be seen as not being evil at the time of its enactment, but that same action be seen as evil later.

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

I think I might know what you are getting at here, but I need a little more explanation than that. I could guess at what you are trying to say, but honestly, I would prefer to fully understand your argument before responding.

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

I understand part of what you are saying, but could you try to express all of that a little more clearly? I think I can tell that you have a genuine criticism, I just can't understand what it is exactly.

Bro, I'm done arguing reparations. I did a poor job arguing for it and have no desire to discuss it further. If you want to engage with the OP, however, go ahead. I'll respond to that.

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

This is what I was getting at, but you presented it much more clearly. :up:

I look forward to MoK's response.

One thing I can recommend is that you try to understand exactly what your interlocuters are saying and try to represent their arguments the way they would like - "steel-manning", or whatever. I don't always do it, and I've noticed that not doing so has a tendency to degrade threads over the course of their lifetimes, as clarifications need to be made, people get burned out arguing semantics when it isn't super relevant to the OP, etc.

I would also say just be as authentic as you are comfortable being with this motley collection of strangers. Also: don't insult @Hanover's absurdist fiction.

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

So, in the case of fascists posing a real threat to the government, we should allow news outlets and public figures to propagate dangerous, subversive lies - and they would be dangerous - because you think people ought to question everything they hear? Do you think you imploring us on a philosophy forum to not take things at face value could actually have an effect on the people predisposed via conditioning to acting violently on the lies they hear? Do you think they would apply even the miniscule amount of rigor you mustered up to formulate your vapid responses to engaging with the truth of why they should do what they are told to do by their dear leader?

Do you think many Nazis asked for citations when Hitler claimed Jews were parasites on the German people in the 1939 Reichstag Speech? Did they critically examine the reasoning for his prediction that another world war would see the elimination of the Jewish race in Europe?

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

You were the one who postulated a mind distinct from the brain, and that brains cannot produce random number generators is part of the point. The supposedly freely choosing mind only requires that the doubtful maze choice be made without reason; that is to say with doubt. Since the mind is distinct from the brain as per your definition, I'm saying that it is not necessary for this mind to make meaningful choices, as that would require reasoned intent. Thus, the mind could be choosing in the doubtful maze scenario according to things that have nothing to do with intentioned choices, but rather something like a coin flip or random number generator (even if those aren't totally random). When generalized, this conflicts with any sort of conception of free will there might be; that the mind must operate the way a brain does is not required to fit your definition of free choice.

And a question I should've asked earlier: are you saying that the freely choosing mind has freedom of choice in situations in which there is no doubt?

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

I think MoK is saying here that if you know the outcomes of a decision, you can form reasons for acting in a certain way. This means the act is not free in the sense that reasons impel us to act in one way or another - the brain is deterministic, and the reasons arise from the brain.

Alternatively, when you are ignorant and have doubt, you can choose freely because reasons do not impel you to act in a certain way. However, since the brain is deterministic, this free act must arise from a mind that can freely choose.

That's my understanding at least. @MoK can correct me.

After rereading my response to the OP, I hope I didn't come across smug. I do think my conclusion is right, but it is only because of a somewhat small loophole in your argument. I think that even if you don't come up with a good defense soon - and I hope you do - you could still modify your argument somehow.

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 don't think you can predicate freedom of choice to an entity whose inner workings you cannot describe by virtue of divorcing it from the only thing we do understand stuff about - the brain. In fact, what is to say there is an intentional choice at all being made by the mind? 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. Thus, I don't think the OP, although interesting, necessitates the existence of a freely choosing mind.

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

Okay, fair enough. Not an edge case. But I do think that at a certain point repression can become indiscriminate insofar as totalitarian regimes go, almost to the point of doing it for its own sake, i.e. I don't think every suppressive law in North Korea, for instance, is a cog in some intricate machine that operates totally efficiently and always in a directed manner to serve a greater purpose. I cannot read the intent behind every crappy law in every crappy dictatorship, but my guess is that some of them aren't even put into action to directly benefit the ruling class, although the majority definitely are.

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

That is almost exactly what I said here:

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

The authoritarians would write the law such that the rubric for what constitutes disinformation or misinformation would be likely be broader and more dynamic, while those in a mostly benevolent government would have some specific ideas of what kinds of disinformation they would target i.e. certain virulent forms of disinformation related to enabling fascists' attempts to subvert the government.

I am in favor of allowing neo-Nazis to express themselves freely. I would say the problem arises when portions of the media collude with fascists to report and spread disinformation in a concerted effort to gain power to subvert the federal government. To prevent things like that, I think we should hold those media outlets accountable somehow, or at least offset the effects of the lies via some safeguards. I don't think that that is too objectionable.

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

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. Thus, 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. Of course, good intentions can always lead to bad consequences.

Well then have a good day.

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

I'm pretty sure this is a deliberate misrepresentation of history. The Reichstag Fire Decree was far worse than, and thus superseded, any relatively weak laws that might have already existed against some speech I would think. And I'm sure you know the Reichstag Fire Decree was passed by the then president of Germany at the behest of Hitler with the intent of paving the way to totalitarianism. Thus, the Enabling Act was largely passed because the Nazis were able to work from within the system to create a situation in which they could eliminate their political opponents. My guess is that this regime of violent intimidation and suppression of freedoms played a larger part in the Enabling Act being passed than Hitler whining like a little bitch for being cancelled in the 1933 debate.

Their suppression is a gift to them. — NOS4A2

Yes, it certainly plays to the victimhood narrative fascists propagate, but is that really what made the difference in the case of the Nazis? That Hitler was canceled for being an insane, dangerous moron on multiple occasions? Is suppression of lunatics really so injurious?

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

Then how do we stop them, NOS?

I think the "Let's says" have gone too far to allow any points to be made. — Patterner

I said "let's say" too many times, therefore?

What are extraterrestrials going to do with our money?? — Patterner

Not important, although I acknowledge it might be approaching absurdity.

It's not an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule. It's how I feel. — Patterner

It kind of sounded like you were saying it was a rule (perhaps a personal rule?), but whatever.

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

The difference between your post and mine is that I was trying to go somewhere I find philosophically interesting, whereas you are just throwing up roadblocks.

freedom only leads to its distortion. Suppression is absolute , but distortion can be straightened out by freedom itself.

In the most extreme case of having people that are working from within the system to actively bring about what might be the end of democracy, or humanity in general, I would say that freedom takes a back seat.

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 misinformation. Are you so naive, NOS, that you think you, as a gay vampire, would be unaffected?

Whether or not we have actually reached a tipping point with regards to misinformation I don't know. Maybe we wouldn't even have to suppress speech. But I no longer see anything wrong with it in principle - and especially if it means saving our country.

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

Are you capable of reading? I granted your point about responsibility, saying that the person near the lever would not be literally responsible for the deaths of the people on the track:

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

Neither was I saying that the bystander is responsible for the death of the drowning child. I was just trying to demonstrate that people often view inaction as being evil too:

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

You clearly didn't take much time to read and understand what I was saying, as I literally say that they are not causing the bad outcome.

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

I don't doubt this. I made no claims about the wording someone might use, and I think you are right. But the point of the OP is clearly focused on whether or not someone's desire to create better consequences might overcome their desire not to be responsible for the death of an innocent bystander. Thus, he asks at what number of lives lost would one pull the lever.

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

You are getting the fat man on the bridge vs. diverting the trolley via lever things mixed up with what is in the OP. Unless I'm mistaken the only paradox there is is that people will sometimes intentionally kill the person on the tracks via a lever but are mostly unwilling to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley because that seems more like intentional killing, when really both are clearly intentional.

a logical argument can be created for both choices, thus why some casually refer to it as a paradox — LuckyR

Yeah, that's not really a paradox.

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

Yes, agreed. I myself always leaned naturally towards consequentialism, so the trolley problem has always been relatively straightforward to me. The OP is clearly trying to get at whether or not, or at what point, one will make this exception to the rule of not sacrificing people for the greater good.

That being said, a deontologist could create rules such that the protection of humanity in general takes precedence over the protection of individuals by nesting them. Asimov's Laws of Robotics did this in a simple and concise manner: his Zeroth Law, which says that no robot must harm humanity, supersedes all of the laws protecting individual humans or robots. But the challenge with this approach is resolving the unexpected conflicts that arise from people (or robots) applying the hierarchy of rules in situations far less straightforward than the trolley problem.



My response is that I would pull the lever and sacrifice one life to save more lives, although I think it is a little vulgar to speculate at what threshold. My reasoning is that sometimes good rules that generally apply (do not sacrifice people) need to be broken to effect good consequences, and that to do so is not wrong just for breaking said rules. To choose any alternative - in this case inaction - to pulling the lever is wrong because more people will die than if the lever is pulled. The decision procedure implied by what I just wrote, however, is only useful because the trolley problem is a contrived thought experiment and definitely isn't reflective of how I think we should approach moral problems in our daily lives.

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

I don't have any thoughts on it, as I thought that that was the result of a misunderstanding. Do you mean what are my thoughts on the last sentence?

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

You would sacrifice all of humanity because you personally believe not even one person should ever be forced to sacrifice their life? Even in the situation that they would be executed anyways? I mean, clearly we should draw a line with the aliens, and if they cross that line, we do indeed fight them to the death. But should it really lay where you claim it should?

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

Let's say the aliens do indeed come to Earth and demand a death row inmate for some known or unknown, potentially nefarious reason. Let's say the world leaders listen to you and refuse to capitulate because of their high-minded stance on never sacrificing a person unwillingly. A bunch of people's sons and daughters are then drafted to fight in a war against these far more technologically advanced aliens. Many millions of them die. While they would indeed now be defending our freedoms and lives, this would not have happened if not for adherence to an arbitrary, as of yet unjustified rule.

Let's say that we fight back the aliens, against all odds, and they decide to negotiate with us, demanding the United States' entire foreign aid budget as a sort of tithe in exchange for peace. This might directly result in millions of deaths but will stop the war. Alternatively, we keep the money and fight until every last human is dead. Should we accept the terms of the agreement?

I think it would be wrong to throw the switch. We should not sacrifice people. — Patterner

Are you against conscription in all cases?

First, the trolley maintainance people are responsible for the outcome, not the bystander who happens to be near the lever. — LuckyR

And I suppose that if a child that cannot swim is shoved into the pond, you are also not responsible for the outcome of the child drowning even if you could've jumped in and saved them.

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. Thus, I think that the point of the thought experiment, as presented in the OP, is that at some threshold of loss of life, most people will take a life to save more lives. But 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.

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

You are getting lost in the details; this isn't a substantive criticism. In the OP it just says you allow five people to die, or directly kill one person to save the five. There is nothing about it being "runaway" or whatever you might remember from the classic formulation of the problem, which could probably be modified to deal with these concerns.

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

You very much are open to logical criticism. If you don't choose to kill one person to save a net four lives, or five, or six, or three hundred, you clearly care less about horrific consequences and more about not breaking rules, which might be considered myopic. One might even argue that you must do bad things for good consequences sometimes.

Yeah, I realized that we must have been talking about two different things. Oof.

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

If my logic is correct as you say, then if the lone person does not pull the lever, then the ability for six people to choose how they die is preserved or honored. I'm saying that the lone person on one of the tracks is the one pulling the lever, not me, to potentially save themselves, at the cost of the other five people on the other track. I should have made that clearer when I proposed the modified thought experiment.

Anyway morals and ethics are derived from truth (logic) you can't come to your own conclusion without following it. — EyE

Can you expound on this? I think you are on to something, but it sounds a little circular.

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 I say six choices would be preserved, I'm saying that the choice of when and where one dies for five people are preserved if the person on the lone track sacrifices themselves. I'm not saying that there are six different choices the lone person on the track could make to kill only one person on the other track, if that's what you think I'm saying.

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

I'm a little confused by this. I'm talking about the choice of the lone person on the tracks to willingly sacrifice themselves to save the five on the other track. If they chose to do so, then they would be honoring their own choice with regards to when and where they die, and for what, which is the thing you said makes saving lives important. It might be a choice made under duress, but it is still a choice; it isn't like we don't already know that one's idea of what is right and wrong can interact with whatever idea one has in one's head of the circumstances under which one might intentionally end one's life without robbing them of agency. But this point is less important than your answer to the question I asked you in my last post.

I have no idea how predestination fits into this except insofar as sacrificing oneself might prevent one from dying in the ideal way one might want to. So, with regards to this sort of ideal death, what I said earlier doesn't really apply, although it isn't clear whether you are talking about that, or just the condition of having the agency to be able to intentionally end one's life when and where one wants.

I see now that my last post wasn't particularly well-written. If I need to clarify something, just say so.

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

So, for you at least, the important thing to consider here is the freedom to choose when and where one dies, and for what. That is 100% not what I expected you to say. It is an interesting take on it.

How would you apply this view on freedom in situations where it is not so cut and dry, though?

For instance, what if the lone person on one of the tracks had the ability to redirect the train such that it would kill the five? The lone person's choice over when and where they want to die could lead to five other people losing that choice. Does the choice of the lone person not to die potentially have less value than *six combined? And if so, why? If you don't impose some means of valuing and weighing freedoms against each other, I think we run into a problem that is almost intractable when we zoom out. Or at least I couldn't solve it.

*It would be six choices preserved if the lone person decided not to redirect the trolley because by definition, they would be honoring their own choice to die when they want, and this choice would allow the five on the other track to still choose when and where they die. Thus, the freedom of everyone is preserved in a selfless act. And don't say the lone person could've just stepped off of the tracks.

Sorry if I'm straying too far from the traditional trolley problem.

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

Why might you switch the track if doing so would save the five lives without resulting in a death?

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

So then do the metaphysical properties we attribute to minds arise from the interface between our subjective thoughts and the material reality we perceive and interact with, or do minds have the properties we might predicate to them merely because we observe how they interact with material existents (behaviors)? I ask this because if it were just the latter that made minds what they are there would be no subjective anchoring to help determine the specific properties of any minds. To make it quite literal, ascertaining some properties would be like trying to determine someone's political beliefs with a multitude of simple puzzle boxes. So, I think that to make sense of what it means for a mind to exist in terms of descriptive properties you would need to account for some subjectivity; furthermore, I think it is not that useful to try to boil it down just to interactions with material existents in the form of behaviors because subjective beliefs or qualities, which don't necessarily act in themselves, play a gigantic part in determining how one forms intentions and acts.

Hey, welcome to the forum. I hope you stick around, because I like the substance of your first post.

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

It follows the course you allow it to, methinks; it isn't a deterministic process in which you cannot intervene; you can choose such that two different outcomes are possible.

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 think the point of the thought experiment is that the two outcomes are indeed not weighted equally according to consequentialist reasoning. You are choosing between losing five lives or saving four. Not acting to save the four lives is a choice.

Furthermore, if you aren't responsible for the lives lost for not switching the tracks on the basis that you didn't actually start the train down the tracks (which I think is what you are saying), then who is? Do we just trace the chain of causes backwards until someone took an action that you would consider direct enough to cause the loss of life and impose responsibility there?

It sounds like you are making the claim that determinism leaves no room to explore a thought experiment on the basis that the ethical actor didn't create the scenario, and therefore is exempt from any sort of ethical imperative or responsibility. Is this correct?

Sorry for not being clearer and more direct with my response to your statement, which wasn't even a yes or no question. I just kind of glazed over while reading your post because I'm a little tired of the topic.

For me it comes down to: do we want to correct for the particular injustice in the most precise, straightforward way, or do we want to make the most out of whatever money we can manage to siphon towards helping poor people of color, which includes some - but clearly not all - descendants of slaves. I would choose the former, but both positions clearly have merit.

I hope you are relating this discussion to the OP somehow.

edit: the only relevant alternative to cash payouts I can think of would be extensive government programs intended to uplift poor people of color. Sorry for not stating that directly.