Yeah I agree when it comes to moral perfection. Kant says 'ought implies can'. Thus being morally perfect means doing the best we can do.

Mr Crank, I understand your point. But I think this is not a case of the ethics decreasing with distance, but rather accuracy of facts decreasing and technical issues increasing. I too would rather contribute to local charities and avoid contributing to distant charities. This is not because I am a nationalist, but I reason that my money is more efficient if spent close by. I also have direct experience of my area, and only indirect experience of distant events. Our ethical goal is to optimize the net outcome. It would be absurd to ask each individual to help all the poor in the world, as opposed to focus their effort to help the poor in their proximity. Also it is not unethical to avoid rescuing a human being if you are not confident in your skills. Getting killed in the process does not result in the greatest net gain at all.

Bottom line is that the GCB ethics is still the standard to follow, and we can only do our best in practice, given the limited info and abilities we have.

That is correct. And they don't, do they? They are only represented as humans with wings as a symbol, like God is represented as a light or an old man.

Would I say if people who have pets are unethical? No, they are not. That's just an absurdity resulting from the GCB's lack of nuance regarding ethics. — Πετροκότσυφας

Maybe I misunderstood what you originally said. The GCB ethics does not entail that having pets is unethical, inasmuch as doing something for pleasure is not unethical. Choosing to have a pet is unethical only if that choice results in the harm of a higher being.

You are right that it does not prove the ethics to be true. But likewise, the argument that some people do not act according to the GCB does not prove the ethics to be untrue. To avoid circular logic, we can look in ourselves for this innate knowledge.

You wrote that you want to "show that we all have an innate knowledge of it". Then you asked what we'd do in a specific situation. How would you show that it's innate to all of us based on our answers? — Πετροκότσυφας

Like any experiment, by using the good old inductive reasoning. If most answers are "I personally believe we ought to save the human first, animal second, plant third, and object fourth", then we can reasonably draw that conclusion. Say there are a few exceptions? Well the exception makes the rule!

Which means that, based on how we would behave in this specific situation, he wants to show that we all have an innate knowledge of the GCB. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not so much how 'we would' but how 'we should, or feel we should'; and also how you would. Innate knowledge can only be tested as a personal thing. Sure the fact may be that some other people may behave differently, but it is hard for me to interpret their thought based on the act because I am not them.

In real terms: much like many of us anthropomorphizes our own pets, there are people who objectify or animalize other humans. This is not a disease; it is on one hand an aberration, and on the other hand, it can serve as a survival tool, when survival is aided or is only possible by murdering another person. — szardosszemagad

Part of the GCB ethics is to pick the choice that results in the greatest net gain. It may not be unethical to kill someone for the sake of survival, say as self-defence, because it is one human life vs another. Nobody considers an abortion to be unethical it is the only way to save the mother's life.

It may be a picture of someone that you love that you value over a human, animal, or plant. — yatagarasu

Would you choose a pic over a human? Would you not call this rescuer insane?

It could be a valuable plant that you think may be the cure to a terrible illness. Same thing with the human or animal. — yatagarasu

The thought experiment states that the object has no monetary value. Even then, the cure would be to benefit humans, either directly or indirectly. It it does not, then it has no worth. If it does, then this act would abide to the GCB ethics.

When enough people agree on common definitions and common values we call those ideas morals. — yatagarasu

It would follow that slavery was morally good at the time it existed, and that Nazism would be morally good if Hitler had won. But this is absurd.

Hitler and his dogs (he had many!) would not save you over his little kittens. Especially, if you're a jew. — Πετροκότσυφας

This is true. But it is also true that Hitler is seen as unethical by a large majority, thereby confirming the ethics based on the GCB.

My point is that while some may claim that people would in every case save humans over non-humans, that's factually wrong. — Πετροκότσυφας

Not in every case indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not about 'what is'; and the thought experiment is about you, not about other cases in history. You and I are on the same page that some people would indeed not abide to the GCB ethics, but then this entails an unethical behaviour, not an error in the ethics itself.

The fact that there are people who care for pets or strays, while there are countless humans without access to food, meds or shelter, demonstrably shows that in practice the cases where we value non-humans over humans are extremely common. — Πετροκότσυφας

There are indeed. But ethics is about 'what ought to be', not 'what is'. Would you not say that such people are either crazy, uninformed, or else unethical? And I don't mean just subjective opinion, but objective fact, much like it is an objective fact that Hitler is unethical.

I like CS Lewis. Where does this quote come from?
I agree with you regarding the murderer case. It may not be unethical to let Hitler burn. This in fact supports the GCB hierarchy where we ought to find the largest net gain. That gain is not found if we have reasons to believe the murderer will murder again.

I might prioritize my couch. I like my couch. It's been good to me. The dog likes the couch too. — Bitter Crank

Do I detect irony? I am fairly sure that in some countries, as a rescuer you would get sued for failing of duty.

What are angels? — fishfry

Here is my understanding. In essence, angels are rational immaterial beings with free will, in contrast to humans who are rational material beings with free will. Good angels are just called angels, and evil angels are called demons. If the definition of gender is related to sex, then angels have no gender because of no sexual organs. If the definition is about emission and reception of things, then they may be male if they emit, and female if they receive. God is represented as male because he always emits (love, info, existence) to all other beings, who are all female in relation because they receive all of this. That is the reason why Jesus is referred to as the 'husband' and Israel as the 'bride'.

The adult Hitler is inside and he's fully evil already.
Your system says you should save Hitler because he's human. I say, save your cat who loves you.
In this case an animal may be placed above a human in ontological value. — fishfry

Actually I agree with you that, in this case, I too would not save Hitler. But that is because we know Hitler to be evil because he killed many humans, and is likely to kill more humans if saved; and this choice would not result in the largest net gain. So the GCB hierarchy is still followed.

I think the christian doctrine says that Jesus condescended down to the human level to become human, thereby not being perfect in every way during that time. I think he kept his omniscience but not his omnipotence because he could suffer physical evil. As for deifying animals, I think their definition of gods is not the same as the christian definition of God. A god (lower case g) may be better than a human but is not perfect in every way.

Good and bad may be subjective or objective depending on its kind. Good and bad in taste is subjective. Good and bad in morality is objective. Everyone wants justice done to them; nobody wants injustice done to them.

So it is possible for something to be perfect even if it is incomplete? — Sir2u

If by 'complete' we mean 'reaching its full potential', then no. But if we mean 'includes all properties', then yes.

Not worked out too well yet though has it? When are we supposed to be saved? — Sir2u

After we die. Instead of ceasing to exist after death, we resurrect in the afterlife and the physical evil is gone, as well as the original sin.

this is supposed to be a complete being, so I would guess he needs to have every single possible property. — Sir2u

Completion is not synonymous with perfection. A perfect score on a multiple choice exam includes only the right answers and excludes the wrong ones.

Sending your only son to die is a good quality?
Letting "your favorite group of people" wonder around a dessert after being slaves for a long time is a good trait?
Letting some nitwit that is not nearly as powerful as you bully you into letting him tempt your creation into doing bad is a good quality?. — Sir2u

Yes, it is all logically possible that these are good acts; inasmuch as it is good to allow a short-term evil for a long-term good. Jesus died for our salvation. God let his people wander around because they sinned and may have needed to learn a lesson. Etc.

Hello. I think I can prove that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. Science is by definition the search for truth that is empirically verifiable. The christian God by definition is an immaterial being and therefore not made of any divine matter or energy that could be tested empirically.

I suppose a scientist could test the authenticity of a miraculous event (ie if explained by the laws of physics then it is false, if unexplained by the laws of physics, then it is true), but if true, a scientist could always conclude that we need to revisit the laws of physics, instead of labelling the event as a miracle.

And surely the perfect being would be a combination of ALL possible properties. — Sir2u

I accept your definition of 'quality', but reject your definition of a 'perfect being'. A perfect being is one that possesses all good qualities and no bad ones. Possessing all possible qualities results in a contradiction because some qualities like omnibenevolent and omnimalevolent are contradictory.

Actually I think that salvation answers that question precisely. This condamnation for another's sin would be unfair IF there was no salvation. But there is salvation, and so justice prevails in the end.

Now I admit I am a bit unconfortable with that answer because it sounds like this salvation act is done out of duty, rather than out of charity as taught in the Christian doctrine, and so I could be missing something. But it is a possible explanation.

For God created us deformed and made us ‘born sinners’ from the start. Yet He was kind enough to save us from ourselves? God cannot be that wicked or arrogant. God doles out mercy when and where He wills. But to condemn the human race collectively (original sin) and then swoop in later to save the human race is not glorious, its illogical. — Modern Conviviality

Hi. God did not create us deformed and 'born sinners'. In the bible, God created Adam and Eve without sin, but with free will (for free will is necessary for love). Free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. They chose evil, which damned them and their children. But God did not condemn us; Adam and Eve did. And this 'condemnation' may be a necessary result from willing evil, inasmuch as 4 necessarily results from 2+2.

I agree with you that we can know God if God reveals himself to us, like through Jesus and the bible. But why do you claim that we cannot know God any other way? You have not provided any reasons for that claim. Can you refute any of the arguments stated here?

Weakness and shyness are not qualities, are they? They are properties that are considered negative, like ugliness and laziness. The perfect being would not possess these.

I am impressed by your knowledge of God and the reasons for evil in the world.

One small disagreement is when you say we cannot have any knowledge of God. Thomas Aquinas says that while we cannot have complete knowledge of God, we can have some. For one thing, we can know what he is not: If he is perfect, then he has no properties that are imperfect (weak, shy, ...). We can know he is the first cause, from the cosmological argument. We can know that there can only be one perfect being, as argued here. Finally, we can know some things about the cause from its effects: If we are truly created in his image, then our image must be somewhat close to his, even if only a little.

You are presuming that the essential nature of a button MUST be defined in utilitarian terms. What if my friend Mr X insists that the essence of a button is fundamentally a question of aesthetics (beauty). The onus is now on you to prove that Mr X is mistaken and that his thesis that the perfect button is the most beautiful button is false. — John Gould

Sorry for the late response on this discussion.
A property of a thing is essential if the thing no longer retains its identity once the property is removed. Is a beautiful button a button? Yes. Is an ugly button still a button? Yes. Therefore beauty is not an essential property of buttons. On the other hand, is "a button that cannot hold two pieces of fabric together" still a button? No; just scrap material.

What then is free will, if not freedom of intentions? A good will is one that intends on doing the good. We may not always be able to do good deeds, but we always have the freedom to intend to do good. A saint that is in captivity is no less a saint just because he is unable to do saintly things; rather he is a saint as long as his intentions are aimed at doing saintly things if he could.

I accept the analogy, and will add that the sailor has the freedom to set the goal to whichever direction he likes, even if the path that lies ahead has many constraints.

Good point. I think we need to differentiate between two kinds of praises/blames:

(1) Praises/blames to the face of the person, as a means of conditioning them to another end, as you said.
(2) Praises/blames not necessarily to the face of the person, and because their act was judged to be praiseworthy/blameworthy. Judging an act as being praiseworthy/blameworthy only makes sense if there was a conscious choice made by the person. If I unintentionally saved a person's life, say by accidentally bumping into them, then I shouldn't be praised for it.

I was referring to the second meaning in my argument.

I don't know what is Free Will. I do know that as humans, we makes choices as to the direction of some action, by virtue of will. Choices are not free. They are constrained, and outcomes are always unknown. We are trying to navigate. — Rich

Free will is synonymous to freedom of intentions. These intentions are usually categorized as good and bad intentions. We may not always have freedom of choices if the choices are restricted, nor know the outcome ahead of time, but we can intend for a good or bad outcome.

To answer the question "what is a perfect button", we must first answer the question "what is a button", that is, what is its essence. I am guessing you mean a shirt button as opposed to a button you press to activate something. I think its essence is: a device designed to hold pieces of fabric together at one spot. Now, as mentioned, a perfect thing is one that does its job properly, or one that fulfills its nature perfectly. Thus a perfect button is a device that perfectly fulfills its nature of holding pieces of fabric together at one spot. After that, all physical properties that provide a means to that end is part of the perfect button, although these are relative to each situation.

Good point. I think a 'being in every way' is one that transcends all other things; otherwise it is not as perfect as a thing can be. As such, this being would transcend space and time, if that is logically possible, and thus have no space-time attributes.

This is for my own info: What about animals? I think most people would agree that animals don't have free will, and that their acts are determined by instinct or genes. Wouldn't a determinist say that man is nothing but a complex animal?

Supposing that all actions are deterministic, what is the purpose of cognition, and consciously planning your actions? — Daniel Sjöstedt

Thomas Aquinas has a similar reductio ad absurdum argument for free will:
If free will did not exist, then all praises and blames, rewards and penalties, would be in vain. But everyone acts as if these concepts are relevant. I personally have yet to find someone who does not. Therefore everyone acts as if free will exists. If the data does not back up the hypothesis, then it is likely be false.

By what? — Rich

I am not a determinist, but I suppose they would say by the same laws that move objects and animals in determined ways, namely our genes and external forces in the environment.

And what is it that makes us feel like we are planning and choosing? — Rich

Feelings are not infallible. A friend once told me of his experience in being hypnotized. He said that while under, he felt that he wanted to do the things the hypnotist was telling him to do, and only realized that it wasn't his choice once he snapped out of it. Pretty scary stuff.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it sounds like your argument is: If all actions are deterministic, then planning is pointless because the actions will occur whether we plan them or not. If so, then I think this is an error because determinism is still compatible with causality. Thus it could be both that the planning is determining the actions, and the planning was itself determined.

Sorry if this as already brought up before.
Thomas Aquinas has a similar argument using 'perfection' instead of 'omnipotence', as so:

P1: If two beings are distinct, it means that one possesses an attribute that the other does not possess.
P2: A perfect being in every way possesses all attributes that make it perfect.
C1: Therefore if two perfect beings existed, they would both possess all attributes that make them perfect, making them non-distinct, or one and the same.
C2: Therefore there can only be one perfect being.

Hello. I think P1 is correct. (1) Descartes first determines that he is at least thought, for it is a self contradiction to think "I have no thoughts". (2) We find that a body is not an essential property of thought. For one thing, angels are possible, and are defined as rational immaterial beings, or thinking beings without bodies. Conclusion: it is logically necessary that we are made of thought, but not logically necessary that we are made of bodies.

Where I personally disagree with Descartes, is his conclusion that our mind must be separate from our body. Just because it is logically possible does not mean that is it actual.

Hello. I think it is a matter of defining the term 'being'. If being is defined as "a thing that exists", then a "non-existing being" is a self-contradiction. If on the other hand being is defined as "a thing that is a unity or individual", then a "non-existing being" is possible. I am leaning towards the latter definition, because I have heard other people talk about "imaginary beings" like unicorns. That said, I don't think that contradictions can be beings, like "a thing that is both a unicorn and not a unicorn".

I once saw somebody once put it this way: "Science is a nicely-packaged philosophy". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Science or the scientific method is a method built on philosophical premises such as "sense observation gives truth", "illogic gives falsehood", "uniformity of nature", and "causality". Science cannot analyze these premises because it presupposes them; but philosophy can.