Is torturing a child for fun wrong?

Yes, obviously. — Bartricks

What do you mean by wrong? Nothing than happens in nature is wrong it either can happen or can't. nature allows animals to be eating alive and starve and nature didn't intervene in The Holocaust.

I think you are stating a preference rather than discovering as morality. In some countries they are adamant homosexuality is wrong and should be punishable by death. Having a strong reaction to something doesn't mean you have made an accurate judgement.

But most consequential and moral decisions are not about straightforward immediately harmful things. Like I said with the saving baby Hitler paradox. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The calculations you need to do to live ethically are immense and convoluted.

Do you think evolution didn't provide them with the ability to make decisions and act on those decisions? Do you think people 100,000 years ago couldn't act without application of rules, objectivity or teleology? — T Clark

Slavery and misogyny have have been constants in human history. Humans are quite capable of surviving whilst behaving in harmful and irrational ways. I am exclusively gay and don't have children but gay people seem to have been around for ever.

It is reason that makes it harder to act and now increasingly people are more highly educated and aware of paradoxes etc. More educated people have a lower birth rate ironically and more religious people have irrational prohibitions leading to large families. Like my own religious parents had six children.

Ironically a false religion can do more for the continuation of our species then reason which as in my case may lead to antinatalism or seriously restricting family size and nihilism.

I think most actions are probably initially made without getting to the existential stage that I got to so decisions might more based on instinct and socialization and culture over reason.

What do you mean by wrong? — Andrew4Handel

By 'wrong' I mean it is 'not to be done'. That is, there is a norm of reason enjoining us not to do it.

The judgement that an act is wrong is, then, a judgement about a norm.

And we make such judgements because there appear to be such norms.

They are not seen, touched, smelt or tasted. They are intuited. That is to say, our reason represents there to be such norms.

Those possessed of reason have recognized and argued about such norms for millennia. So there is no point in denying that such rational appearances exist. The history of ethics is a history of philosophers arguing over the content of such norms. Well, that confirms that there appear to be some.

And no nihilist worth their salt would deny them.

THe nihilist would deny that such appearances are accurate. That is, they would maintain that such rational impressions constitute normative hallucinations.

The problem, however, is that if you think there is a case - an argument - for thinking that such appearances are normative hallucinations, then you must presuppose that at least some rational impressions are not hallucinations (or concede that you have no case).

And once you concede that some of what our reason represents to us is true, it seems arbitrary to decide that when our reason starts telling us about norms enjoining us not to harm others, etc, that now it is lying.

The calculations you need to do to live ethically are immense and convoluted. — Andrew4Handel

That's not my experience. No calculations involved. We can only do the best we can (within reason) and make our choices. Fucking up sometimes is the price of freedom.

The baby Hitler example, for instance, is never going to happen and like most thought experiment scenarios, has minimal relevance.

I in particular has a very strict authoritarian religious upbringing. — Andrew4Handel

I suspect this may be at the heart of your concerns. Sometimes those who have stringent religious upbringings become very preoccupied with trying to work out what is right and wrong - it's part of the conditioning from childhood (righteousness/purity/reward - sin/judgement/suffering - all that good stuff) and may need some support in overcoming.

I think you are stating a preference rather than discovering as morality. In some countries they are adamant homosexuality is wrong and should be punishable by death. Having a strong reaction to something doesn't mean you have made an accurate judgement. — Andrew4Handel

And that's most likely a mistake. Among those who are so good at thinking clearly about moral matters that they make a living doing it - so, among professional moral philosophers - you find virtually no one who thinks homosexuality is immoral. Why isn't that excellent indirect evidence it is not immoral?

When we make moral judgements, we are not expressing our attitudes. Our moral judgements may often reflect our attitudes - we may prefer it if certain acts are wrong because and only becasue we personally disapprove of them - but that discovery, if made, then discredits the judgement in question, which just shows that moral judgements are not expressions of attitude.

Those baby studies have a problematic paradigm.

On what grounds are the babies evaluations being considered moral? You have to prove a behaviour is good or moral not the baby and the baby is doing things we think are good which could be anything we already have a preference for.

Wynn also found babies seemed to exhibit bias

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EoNYklyShs&t=129s&ab_channel=CNN

Here the babies choice overlooks "bad" behaviour based on shared preferences.

I was badly bullied in school as a child and if humans are innately moral I would like an explanation for how that happened? You need to explain the array of antisocial behaviour humans exhibit in light of supposed inherent moral knowledge.

Some of these soft toy studies and child preferences can be explained by self preservation however. It is not surprising people would like cooperative and non aggressive behaviour because it has the most personal benefit. Children as I have seen especially very young ones are frightened by aggression and loud voices.

My main dilemma on this thread though is not morality per se but choosing out of a seeming infinity of choices and with modern technology at our finger types such of the masses of information and behaviours on the internet we have even more choice daily. None of these choices may turn out to be profound but the seem to be there free will permitting yet our brain somehow copes at least to some extent.

The ad absurdum is saving baby Hitler from drowning which seems admirable but saving his life would doom others. But my general point is that every choice we make is done in a situation of infinite possibilities and without anyway to know we have done the best or correct thing.

It is something that can lead to an existential crisis. — Andrew4Handel

If this helps:

Choice requires intent; it is intentional (rather than unintentional). We always choose one of multiple alternatives for the sake of fulfilling some goal (some as of yet unactualized outcome we aim to actualize). This goal can well be subconscious or unconscious – with that of optimal self-preservation as one possible candidate; others can well be fathomed – but it will nevertheless be a goal one pursues.

Secondly, choices are infinite only is some metacognitive conceptualization or other. In practice, choices are always limited to the finite alternatives one's finite mind can conceive of. Not being omniscient, our knowledge will always be limited.

Thirdly, who’s judging what you chose? You, others, some angels or devils? Whomever it may be for you, think of it this way:

If you can justify why you choose what you choose (as one possibility: "I deemed it the best means to accomplish goal X given what I honestly knew at the time, and I stand by goal X regardless") then you empower yourself to be responsible for your choices irrespective of what may befall. Like: to hell with what the judgers judge if they condemn me for rescuing a baby from drowning given what I knew at the time about it and what I held to be a noble goal (here, maybe, improving other’s lives even at risk to your own). So, the baby turned out to grow into Hitler/Stalin. You are not responsible for the outcome of the adult he became, for this was not of your choice; you are only responsible for saving the life an anonymous baby for a humanitarian reason/goal (rather than for money, for the vanity of fame, so as to sabotage some enemy, or some such).

So, if you can justify your choices based on what you knew at the time and your intents in so making them, this might be all that’s needed to break free of this angst you talk about. You could then in principle hold your own against your future self (given that the future-you judges the past-you fairly, I would think), others in society, and even some all-mighty being if that happens to be up your alley.

Then again, fact is bad things sometimes happen to good people. If one regrets one’s choices strictly based on outcomes rather than on former reasons for having so once made them, then this enters into a completely different ballpark. One where a person will then come to regret the most virtuous of deeds merely on grounds that they weren’t justly compensated, such that the person might then come to curse all virtuous deeds, choosing anything but. I’d disagree with this notion of ethics, and though I find the issues intertwined, its still a completely different matter.

-----------

p.s.: In case this might otherwise lead to confusion, the “ethics” I was addressing in the last paragraph is that of consequentialism: in this case, a subspecies that upholds that the rightness or wrongness of one’s choices is determined by the consequences (outcomes) that result from one's choices.

But my general point is that every choice we make is done in a situation of infinite possibilities and without anyway to know we have done the best or correct thing.

It is something that can lead to an existential crisis. — Andrew4Handel

What constitutes an 'existential crisis'?

Synonyms and closely related terms include existential dread, existential vacuum, existential neurosis, and alienation. The various aspects associated with existential crises are sometimes divided into emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components. Emotional components refer to the feelings they provoke, such as emotional pain, despair, helplessness, guilt, anxiety, and loneliness. Cognitive components encompass the problem of meaninglessness, the loss of personal values, and reflections about one's own mortality. Outwardly, existential crises often express themselves in addictions, anti-social and compulsive behavior. — Wiki - Existential crisis

Different definitions, different aspects.
So, a form of 'inner conflict'. Conflict about what?

What leads to it?
Is it a case of:

Every decision we make we don't know if we are doing the right thing and what the consequences are going to be. — Andrew4Handel

Perhaps if too many choices are available, even the simplest of decisions can be ridiculously overwhelming. Like my coming out in a sweat when choosing a television. Facing a barrage of flickering images, sounds, shapes, sizes and costs, I walked out of the store empty-handed.
I did without a television for months. People looked at me in disbelief - what on earth did I do without one? How could I exist? Let them wonder...
No crisis ensued. It wasn't an existential issue, for me anyway.

What comes first, existential feelings or the difficulties in making a decision?
Is there a circularity?
Is there any practical guidance on how best to live your life; to choose wisely?
What should you do now that you have lost your religious faith?
What, if anything, can take the place of any sense of belonging and support that might have been there?
No quick and easy answers to any isolation felt...or anxiety about the past, present and future.

It's easy to spend too much time alone in reflection. Does that help? If not, what does?
Both positive and negative views and choices can result.
The potential consequences of any choice are unknown, but many are clear.
Eat or drink too much rubbish or toxins your stomach will rebel :vomit:

When faced with so many alternatives and the need to take or make the best choice, the difficulties might indeed lead to an existential crisis.

The problem brought about by this increased freedom is sometimes referred to as the agony of choice.[93] The increased difficulty is described in Barry Schwartz’s law, which links the costs, time, and energy needed to make a well-informed choice to the number of alternatives available — Wiki - Existential crisis

The agony or the paradox of choice. Sometimes it's about doing the best you can, given your capabilities, and knowledge at any given moment. It can be rational, intuitive and involve a final 'leap of faith'.

https://www.ted.com/talks/barry_schwartz_the_paradox_of_choice

I eventually bought a television. The paralysis was resolved. After a process of working out what I wanted/didn't want, what would fit and was affordable. Basically, a cost/benefit analysis and then some.
Plus a little help from friends.
Trivial compared to others who have less freedom of choice; whose agony comes from questions like:
"To eat or heat...?"
Facing a barrage of bullets and bombs from an invader - "To flee or fight?"

But my general point is that every choice we make is done in a situation of infinite possibilities and without anyway to know we have done the best or correct thing.

It is something that can lead to an existential crisis. — Andrew4Handel

Welcome to a world without religion in which this crisis leads people to extreme behaviors since society, schools, and work never cared to tackle true existential questions. This is essentially Nietzsche's nightmare future that he predicted and we're seeing it in things like people's desperate attachment to conspiracy theories like Qanon and the increase in depression worldwide.

The solution would be for parents and schools to prepare children for the bleak existence that is life. In doing so teach them to find a purpose that revolves around a positive moral value system: "it's ok to fail, but strive for caring for all life", to simplify what is required.

The problem is that we replaced religion with neoliberal capitalism. Our church is our cash flow and materialistic life. Such a life can be very easily proven pointless and if we don't have anything else than that cash flow to inform us of a good life, then of course people fall into nihilism and despair.

I'd say the best solution to this nihilism is to be curious and creative. Seek knowledge and create things. The more knowledge, the easier it is to understand the dread, the more creativity, the easier it is to find meaning in the meaningless. Anyone who puts all their existential fruit in the neoliberal capitalist market will in the end die screaming (which they usually do) because it's essentially just irrelevant noise that blinds them from finding purpose in a universally meaningless existence.

Trial and error is how we learn, yes, but not necessarily as individuals, that is to convoluted. We get most passed on by our parents, society at large, by tradition.... and then we can work with that and try out some things, sure. But almost nobody has the time, energy and the genius to make that sort of strategy work purely as an individual. — ChatteringMonkey

You think trial and error is convoluted, it's actually extremely simple compared to trying to explain how we learn from others.

The wording was a bit of a play on your wording... what I meant is that the social aspect of how we learn was missing in your story. Trail and error on its own would be very difficult if you don't start from a lot of build up knowledge through the generations. Put another way, I don't disagree with what you said, I just thought it could use this addition.

Those baby studies have a problematic paradigm.

On what grounds are the babies evaluations being considered moral? You have to prove a behaviour is good or moral not the baby and the baby is doing things we think are good which could be anything we already have a preference for.

Wynn also found babies seemed to exhibit bias — Andrew4Handel

Are you basing this on the video I linked or another source? The video made it clear. The types of judgements the babies were making were not not necessarily fair or positive. They didn't necessarily match what we would think of as good moral judgement. Moral judgement doesn't just mean doing what is right. It also means judgement of others behavior and establishing some sort of moral standards. Prejudice is a good example of a moral judgement we don't like.

Here the babies choice overlooks "bad" behaviour based on shared preferences. — Andrew4Handel

As I said, moral judgements that aren't consistent with what we consider good are still moral judgements.

I was badly bullied in school as a child and if humans are innately moral I would like an explanation for how that happened? You need to explain the array of antisocial behaviour humans exhibit in light of supposed inherent moral knowledge. — Andrew4Handel

Saying that humans may have an innate moral sense is not the same as saying they are innately good. As shown in Wynn's studies, I think it shows we are innately judgmental.

My main dilemma on this thread though is not morality per se but choosing out of a seeming infinity of choices and with modern technology at our finger types such of the masses of information and behaviours on the internet we have even more choice daily. None of these choices may turn out to be profound but the seem to be there free will permitting yet our brain somehow copes at least to some extent. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, there is truth in what you've written. I would just say that for most decisions, it doesn't really matter what you decide, as long as any possible negative consequences are minor. Save your stomach aches for decisions that really matter and do what you can to recognize which ones really do and which ones don't. I have a default setting - if I don't have strong feelings, I decide no. I never get the extras - extended warrantees, extra buttons on the washing machine, a moon roof. When I vote on initiative petitions or referenda, if I don't really understand the possible consequences of the law and agree they are worthwhile, I don't vote on it at all. You have the power to limit the number of choices you have to make.

Yes, there is truth in what you've written. I would just say that for most decisions, it doesn't really matter what you decide, as long as any possible negative consequences are minor. Save your stomach aches for decisions that really matter and do what you can to recognize which ones really do and which ones don't. I have a default setting - if I don't have strong feelings, I decide no. I never get the extras - extended warrantees, extra buttons on the washing machine, a moon roof. When I vote on initiative petitions or referenda, if I don't really understand the possible consequences of the law and agree they are worthwhile, I don't vote on it at all. You have the power to limit the number of choices you have to make. — T Clark

I appended something to my last post before seeing your latest. If you’re interested; to clarify: The notion that actual (rather then intended) consequences ought to determine the rightness or wrongness of a decision made runs into difficult problems – problems I think @Andrew4Handel had in mind when writing the OP. For instance, a guy decides to do X for the good of all humanity; having so done, a sociopath gets pissed and kills off all of the guy’s family. Here, the intended outcome is “improved benefit to all of humanity” and the actual outcome is “the murder of all of one’s family”. Judging by the consequences of the choice alone, this choice was therefore wrong/bad/malevolent … and the person ought not have so chosen. But since there's always some risk of some sociopath doing something bad to someone who makes a virtuous decision, should no virtuous decision then be ever made?

One could argue along the lines of “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Here, more explicitly, the intentions intending to do good don’t take into account all the practical repercussions/consequences of so intending. But then, is one to be held accountable for one’s particular limitations of mind? As one extreme, does one hold a lesser animal accountable for it lacking the capacity of abstract thought as we humans know it. Or, among humans, does one blame, hold responsible, someone with a mental handicap for so being mentally handicapped? Currently, the only two possible answers seem to me to be:

Yes: in which case we can hold all sentient beings responsible for not being closer to omniscience than they are. In which case, we can use the saying of “the path to hell is paved with good intentions” as a genuine principle of ethics. (As though those with bad intentions never get to go to (this imaginary realm of) hell.)

No: in which case we cannot then judge choices based on how much a person knows before hand of all possible, actual, unintended outcomes resulting from the choice. In which case, we then only judge a choice based on what the person intended the outcome to be and their reasons for choosing the one alternative among many as the best means to so fulfill this intent.

Mostly thinking my thoughts out-loud while trying to work through the issue: I deem your example of not voting on something that you don’t understand the consequences to as a noteworthy counter example.

I suppose in sum: To what extent should a person be held accountable for not having taken into better consideration all the possible implications of each alternative one chooses amongst? This in the choice one makes … considering the choice to be of relative importance.

The baby Hitler example, for instance, is never going to happen and like most thought experiment scenarios, has minimal relevance. — Tom Storm

It did happen Hitler existed and cause the deaths of Millions and massive destruction in Europe. Hitler was kept alive as a child by interventions. Likewise with other murderous dictators.

One human can cause massive destruction or massive benefit. It is statistically unlikely but it has happened several times. A scientific theory can cure a disease or create a weapon of mass destruction.

I think we are in a situation where are decisions or lack of can have profound consequences. Every one who didn't stand up against Hitler contributed to the Holocaust.

No calculations involved. We can only do the best we can (within reason) and make our choices. — Tom Storm

Doing the best we can can be apathy and a lack of imagination and following the crowd.

The existential dilemma as in Sartre's bad faith scenario is that we are freer than we believe and have an existential freedom but we can act as we don't by reifying (or making concrete) invented social roles.

If you become a school teacher or work in a factory the decisions you make are restricted by the practises of the organisation but as in Sartre's you can leave the job anytime and reject the rules. So I am saying making choices within pre-existing structures and dogmas is not necessarily authentic choice.

Choices can be restrained but are these restraints, pragmatic or social or religious or through fear etc?

Saying that humans may have an innate moral sense is not the same as saying they are innately good. As shown in Wynn's studies, I think it shows we are innately judgmental. — T Clark

Humans clearly exhibit moral judgement making. But that is one of numerous traits humans exhibit. That does not mean any of these traits should guide how we chose to live. Isn't that the naturalistic fallacy and the appeal to nature?

I believe utilitarianism is using pleasure as a guide to action and is mistaking pleasure with good and rightness or meaningfulness. Where we have extreme scenarios such as drugging everyone or putting them in a happiness machine to induce mass pleasure or deciding we must end all life because suffering outweighs pleasure.

Utilitarianism had the truth problem where some pleasures were thought to be higher pleasures than other like listening to Mozart over The Spice Girls but it is argued that the notion of higher values or pleasure could not be justified on utilitarian grounds.

So I think what seems to be reason based decision making can just be an appeal to utilitarianism which is an appeal top pleasure and so does not lay a rational foundation to decision making.

I think we are in a situation where are decisions or lack of can have profound consequences. Every one who didn't stand up against Hitler contributed to the Holocaust. — Andrew4Handel

My point is that none of this is relevant to the 'baby Hitler' thought experiment wherein a scenario which can't possibly happen is used to shape real world thinking.

Choices can be restrained but are these restraints, pragmatic or social or religious or through fear etc? — Andrew4Handel

Yes, you do the best with what you have. This includes thinking about one's influences and restrictions and doing something about them if you have reflective capacity and insight into how they might be impacting upon you in a negative way.

Everyone has to do this to a greater or lesser extent. Comes with being human.

But of course it is probably easier to give up and make the claim that the 'right path' is impossible to find in a world overflowing with choices and influences.

Doing the best we can can be apathy and a lack of imagination and following the crowd. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. And some people have intellectual disabilities and the best they can be also looks different to how it might be for others. But the real questions for us all is probably are we doing the best we can within our capabilities?

You are asking, after I've done what I choose, how will I know whether I've done the best thing. Give this up, only an omniscient being, like some assume God to be, could ever answer that, and we are only human. — Metaphysician Undercover

Thanks your advice is interesting.

I do come from a fundamentalist religious back ground with regular hell and damnation sermons which I rejected in my late teens. So I have been forced into existential thought and decisions from day one.

Now as a non believer I have struggled to retain meaning after leaving the extensive rules and regulations and mandates of religion to making a new meaning from scratch.

But after being lied to as a child truth and validity have become very important to my (being on the autism spectrum may also contribute.)

I tend to take an agnostic position to what I don't or can't know but I want to have a meaningful life and I suppose fulfil potential or an easier life where what I am doing isn't delusional, pointless or harmless but is fulfilling on a basic needs level I suppose.

Every day you are confronted with other peoples opinions and values from childhood religion to school to now the internet and other media.

My point is that none of this is relevant to the 'baby Hitler' thought experiment wherein a scenario which can't possibly happen is used to shape real world thinking. — Tom Storm

I was mainly using that example as an example of an extreme consequence of decision making or a serious unforeseen consequence of decision making to highlight the potential dilemma we face.

I am not sure to what extent we can be criticised for not acting but if we have serious information that means we should probably act then should we?

Like info about climate change or human rights abuse and poverty.

You can turn off the news etc and limit your own exposure to stimuli and info that might make you make more profound decisions.

I am not suggesting everyone spends every day making massive decisions but to some extent we want people to make serious decisions to minimise harm. Realising we may cause great harm or great good/benefit might be useful.

For instance, a guy decides to do X for the good of all humanity; having so done, a sociopath gets pissed and kills off all of the guy’s family. Here, the intended outcome is “improved benefit to all of humanity” and the actual outcome is “the murder of all of one’s family”. Judging by the consequences of the choice alone, this choice was therefore wrong/bad/malevolent … and the person ought not have so chosen.

One could argue along the lines of “the path to hell is paved with good intentions”. Here, more explicitly, the intentions intending to do good don’t take into account all the practical repercussions/consequences of so intending... — javra

Some thoughts.

Foreseeability- If I buy a loaf of whole wheat bread and that somehow starts a chain of events that leads to World War III, it would be silly to hold me responsible. More realistically, if I am driving down the street at the speed limit and a child jumps out, causing me to swerve, causing the car to run into a tree, the event was not foreseeable. But, if I got drunk, drove fast, and ran into a tree I would be responsible, because accidents are a known result of driving drunk. So - the extent to which the event is reasonably foreseeable is relevant.

Scope and scale - My responsibility is different for acts that will affect only myself and those that will affect larger groups and areas, e.g. "all humanity." The larger the scope and scale of my behavior, the more likely there are to be unforeseen consequences and the worse those consequences are likely to be. I am responsible for understanding that and taking it into account.

It did happen Hitler existed and cause the deaths of Millions and massive destruction in Europe. Hitler was kept alive as a child by interventions. — Andrew4Handel

If Hitler had been killed as a child, I never would have been born. The same is true for everyone on the forum. Most, maybe all, the people in the world. Also, who knows what would have happened if not for World War II? Technological advancements which took resulted from the war would have taken longer. I have read that, if not for WWII, there would eventually have been a war between European countries and the Soviet Union. I don't know if that's true.

Yep. The sane response to "what if"'s was articulated by Terry Pratchet, but I don't recall which book it was (Equal Rights?). Esme Weatherwax meets with her former romance, Mustrum Ridcully, who begins to wax lyrically about what might have been had they run off together and started a home, and Esme cuts him off mid sentence by pointing out that the house might have burned down the night they moved in, killing them both.

The thing about "what if"'s is that we make them up.

But it is an example of a paradox involved in doing the right thing and the absurdity of the consequences of our actions.

How would you describe a rational or reasonable action?

You cannot be certain of the consequences of your actions. But you have to act anyway.

Hence there is a limit to what is reasonable.

My Master's thesis was the application of this to organisations, as an explanation of organisational irrationality.

By in large agreed.

How would you describe a rational or reasonable action? — Andrew4Handel

I'm with @Tom Storm - We do the best we can. I've read that all humans are related to one woman who lived about 200,000 years ago. Think about that. Every decision she made affected the entire human race from then till now. Every day, I'm sure she just got up in the morning, cooked breakfast, kissed her mate before he went off to hunt dinosaurs, sent the kids out to play in the tar pits, and got down to work pounding animal skins.

I'm with Tom Storm - We do the best we can. — T Clark

But some people want more from life.

I probably do.

Life presents us with deep mysteries (I studied consciousness as part of a degree) I grew up in a really religious milieu. I won't be happy not knowing or not trying to know.

To me understanding why I exist and knowing how to act are fundamental. I already sit around getting fat on junk food pottering around the internet. That will end up being my existence. The path of least resistance. I see it as defeatism.

Someone with serious moral principles may want to radically change society. I personally am an antinatalist so I believe the decision to procreate and its ramifications are far from trivial and resonate in many ways philosophically and socially and we need a serious attitude shift around this.

As you said it is possible one persons procreational decisions could have affected and created all of us ( I was brought up like in many religious families being told Adam and Eve had doomed us all).

I found my religious upbringing raised many unanswered questions and inconsistencies that made me skeptical about everything and lacking a default trust in society.

Conformity is certainly an easier life.

Conformity is certainly an easier life. — Andrew4Handel

Following your heart is not conformity. For many people, me included, it is hard to hear what their heart is saying. For me, the search for awareness is the search to hear the voice inside me.

I'm with Tom Storm - We do the best we can.
— T Clark

But some people want more from life. — Andrew4Handel

More than the best you can do?

You're not happy with what you are doing. So do something different.

Me, I'm going out to trim one of the shrubs in the back yard, and work out where to plant the second lot of corn.

It really is that simple. And that hard.

My mind wanders too easily and I got distracted making the opening post.

I think my main question was supposed to be how is it possible to do the act of choosing?

It seems people would like to make a robot that can make decisions but my dilemma is how do you make decisions and select amongst a huge range of inputs.

It is true that their are restraints in humans from upbringing hormones and genes etc but when you get to the point that you become aware you have Sartrean style of freedom to chose and you can reflect abstractly on decisions then the dilemma kicks in.

If we want to make autonomous machines (that also don't become genocidal lol) then we need to imagine what kind of decisions they might make given complex inputs.

And on that vein I think creating intelligent robots that act on their own (if possible) would be dangerous if they didn't have our own desires, biology and style of interaction with the world.

PS on the internet these days people have been heavily cancelled/criticised and their death celebrated for having a different belief/ideology to some other group of people. Even if you stick by your principles it can be clouded by other peoples animosity.

To me, this suggests that human behavior beyond just acquisition of language is motivated by instinct modified and expanded by learning and experience. — T Clark

The problem is isolating what would be instinct. Instinct to me, seems like a drive you cannot but help. So an instinct to eat perhaps, go to the bathroom, prefer that which is physically pleasurable or raises levels of oxyctocin, dopamine, and serotonin. However, those are so broad to not really be helpful to consider how they are motivating. For example, reading a book might be pleasurable, but to say that the pleasure of reading the book is instinct, is a bit more than a stretch as far as I'm concerned.