Sorry, I feel like I've waylaid your discussion. I know this wasn't the direction you wanted to take it. — T Clark

No worry! Its not my OP. I didn't think it was off topic though.

How often would that type of scenario actually happen in the real world. Answer - almost never. Given that, why has this become such a centerpiece of moral philosophy? — T Clark

Because morality is extremely complicated, and you can start with a very simple example that's easy for others to comprehend. In a proper philosophical discussion in which the limits are clearly laid out, it gives us a small window to evaluate what we think would be the proper decision and why. Its a starter problem one can build off of. It is not the answer to morality in general.

OK, but let's make Trolley Car even more ridiculous by having 999 people tied on the track and 1000 in the car. If a person decides not to pull the switch, do you think they did something wrong? Would you condemn them? — RogueAI

Yes, because this is again, not an emotional problem. Morality is not about our emotions. If you can save 1000 over 999, in this very restricted situation, you do so. If all human beings are the same value in the scenario, this is what you do. If you wish to change the scenario, then of course the answer can differ. With the scenario as is, I see no other reasonable answer.

The one over the five people every time.
— Philosophim

Yes, but what about one over two. I pull the switch if it's five to one, but I'm not sure what I would do if there are only two people on the car. Or what about saving ten people at the cost of nine? Is that obvious? — RogueAI

To me, yes. Because the problem as presented is a math problem, and nothing more. We don't know the value of the people on the tracks. So at that point we save the greatest number of lives.

I'm not declaring a principle. I'm declaring, "In X scenario, this is the correct answer"
— Philosophim

The one over the five people every time.
— Philosophim

This is what I mean by a principle. but it turns out that you don't think it's every time, but only this specific time. — unenlightened

Yes, in the context of his example. You mistakenly assumed I meant for all examples, which is normal mistake. If you reread my entire passage however, you'll note that I added, "The complications come in when you consider the value of the individuals on the tracks." So you can tell that it was your misunderstanding of what I was intending, not me changing anything after the fact.

And the only lesson I can learn, in that case, is to ask Philosophim whenever there's a moral dilemma, because he will know the correct answer, but will not know why it is correct. That is more of a cult than a philosophy. — unenlightened

I thought you understood it was by basic arithmetic as you critiqued me on earlier. If there is no value comparison between the people, then saving five people over one is a no brainer to me. If you disagree, feel free to explain why. You have not been addressing the problem, but a straw man up until now by changing the example, or inserting intentions that I did not make.

I don't know what i would do, quite possibly freeze like most of the people in the video. But if I didn't freeze, I would pull the lever. But I would feel guilty about it, because I do not believe it is moral to do so. I believe it is the comfortable thing to do. — unenlightened

This is a counter answer to the problem which we can discuss! So lets assume you would know what to do, as we've thought about this before. You state you would pull the lever, but not believe it is moral to do so. Why? Morality is often thought of as, "What ought to be/happen." If you think the moral actions is that the lever should be pressed, then you think its moral to do so. Your guilt or emotions over the issue don't change whether something is moral or not.

We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.
— Philosophim

Many people, most notably red-blooded, liberty-loving Americans, including most of those who would benefit from a sensible system of distribution, would condemn you for that hope. — Vera Mont

Just like they would have condemned the declaration that Earth orbited around the sun. Or many other superstitions and examples of ignorance over the centuries. Despite this, knowledge ultimately triumphs. Of course there will be resistance, but that doesn't mean it can't be overcome.

Here's... as close as possible... to a real world test. Just to check how people would actually react rather than believe they would. — Christoffer

Unfortunately this isn't a good example. The situation adds an extra variable of expertise involved. The participants didn't fully understand the situation, and thought hitting the lever might make things worse. Makes sense. If I'm in a strange room with equipment that I'm unfamiliar with, and I know there are people who normally operate this equipment and are possibly nearby, I'm not going to switch the switch.

A better example would have been to have the people be familiar with what the switch does first and have several switch tests with the train at a particular speed so that way they knew switching the tracks would not cause the train to derail, give them agency over it, and understand the power they have. This is like the example. Only then should they put the situation in front of them and see what they do.

when is it morally acceptable to choose non-interference?
— Tzeentch

When there's insufficient knowledge of the outcome, or of the moving parts of a situation. — Christoffer

I think you cover that here, I'm just adding to your note.

If there is a principle that it is right to act to kill 1 to save 5, the principle should apply to both scenarios. — unenlightened

I think our differences are that I'm not declaring a principle. I'm declaring, "In X scenario, this is the correct answer". You seem to think I'm extending some universal principal from this that extends to other scenarios. I'm not.

Now, if I were to declare, "From X example, this is a principle we can apply to all examples," you would be right. I'm not doing that however. You'll even notice I note that it changes if you consider the value of the people, or extend the scenario out from its basic intent.

The question I'm more interested in, is if giving the exact scenario, five nameless and unvalued humans (we don't know what they have done or will do) are on a set of tracks vs one nameless and unvalued human, is it moral to pull the lever to ensure only the one person dies, or leave it for the five to die?

So to be clear, there's a lever for you to pull or not to pull. Five nameless vs 1 nameless, the track is currently set to kill five nameless humans. What do you find moral in this specific and unaltered situation and why?

Then the arithmetic is not crucial, and your justification based on the arithmetic is not valid. — unenlightened

That's a statement, not an argument. Please explain how the arithmetic is not crucial when the example only indicates the number of the people on the track. Again, this specific example. Not variations or additions from what the OP proposed.

The sameness in the scenario is that one acts to deliberately kill one person not in danger, in order to save 5 people who would otherwise die. — unenlightened

Its not the same, its a variation with a similar theme. My answer is to the specific scenario they gave. Of course the answer is different with a different scenario. Changing the scenario is not an argument against the answer given for the specific scenario given. To be clear, you seem to think that from this specific scenario, I am declaring a global moral decision apart from all context. This is a contextual moral decision from a contextual context. Nothing more.

And yet doctors are not permitted to sacrifice one person to save five lives with organ transplants. — unenlightened

That is a different scenario. What you have is one person on the tracks that can walk away vs five tied down. You're asking to switch the track and tell the person they need to stay there. We can't change the analogy as an argument.

Here's a fun little game to play that might answer your question. https://trolleyproblem.io/

If of course its simply a matter of numbers, the answer is obvious. The one over the five people every time. The complications come in when you consider the value of the individuals on the tracks. Hope you enjoy the game. :)

I was an American high school algebra math teacher for five years. One of the problems with the way we teach math in the West is we teach formulas for students to memorize. The alternative is how to arrive at the formulas, and why they are needed.

I had a day early during the school year in which I would take my spare tire into class and lean it against the wall. People would come in wondering what it was for, and I would make up some lame teacher joke like, "In case I need a quick getaway."

I would then take the kids out to a back field in groups of 3 with meter sticks, as well as the tire under my arm. I would place the tire down and then tell the kids, "Today we're going to measure the length of this field!" After students would grown, they would start to use the meter sticks to attempt to measure the field. After about a minute or two, I would shout, "Wait, wait, wait! This seems pretty hard right. Is there a better way we could measure this field?" Then I would slowly look at the tire.

We look at the tire, and I would ask them questions about the distance of one rotation on the tire: Circumference. Ok, how do we measure it? Some kids would try to get the radius, but there's no center area of the tire. Diameter. We would mark the side of the tire afterwards, a volunteer would roll it while another counted, then we would go back to the classroom to find out how long the field was.

Never had a student forget circumference after that. Math makes sense when you show how the formula is formed, and why its useful to them in particular. So yes, etymology added into the classroom could possibly help substantially. I would add that's just one part: the history and practical application are paramount for real understanding.

The problem of course is that math classes are jam packed with formulas and theorems. A careful explanation of how these form takes more time then a quick, "Memorize this formula and practice 30 math problems in your homework until you have it down." We need real educators cutting down exactly what we teach in math, focusing only on the most important aspects that would apply to practical life, as well as further possible academic exploration.

There's an interesting question. Is there lack of evidence of other intelligent life because it is so rare for it to get started? — Apustimelogist

Genuinely rare. We're freaks of nature. Intelligence at our level is highly difficult to achieve when you consider all of the demands of basic survival. The human brain is not only intelligent, but remarkably efficient in its energy usage. We have to remember that we evolved in a world that did not encourage intelligent, rational thoughts, but immediate survival.

Not only that, the world of today still encourages that. Most people work paycheck to paycheck. They do not have spare resources to think about or spend money on things that would be more efficient. Its up to those at the higher levels of society to make that happen, but our leaders are often no better than the rest of us. They might have spare resources, but have internal pressures from different self-interested factions.

What we need is an intelligence that can see the long term consequences of reality, communicate it in a way that lets people see the immediate danger, then also is able to allocate the needed resources to make it happen. We need a non-human intelligence. It is my hope that AI will one day be that intelligence.

Just letting you know I read it. I got my gloom shot in the arm for the day from it! Yes, I'm aware of all of these things, but humanity finds a way. Often stumbling and with the grace of a moose, but it will get there.

Timothy, I'm not really seeing you address the idea of innate ideas. You're more addressing the idea of innate nature. Locke doesn't deny we have innate nature. There's a reason humans are different from chimpanzees. Its whether there is some idea that is innate to all people by dna, and I think Locke nails that we don't.

What we have are certain innate capacities. For example, we have the ability to discretely experience like most living things. I can look at something and say, "This" is different from "that". One person might say that sheep and goats are the same animal while another might say they are separate. The ability to distinctly and discretely separate identities is innate, but the idea of what should be separated, what it should be called, and its rules is not innate. That is for us to determine.

Thank you for the kind words T Clark! I am trying to cut some of these larger ideas into more manageable pieces, and the feedback really helps. :)

↪180 Proof What are you talking about? — bert1

I have no idea. He put two incoherent sentences together, and I've been trying to get him to explain what he meant by them. Instead he wants to climb on trash talk mountain and declare himself king. I genuinely thought he was playfully admitting he was trolling here, which I can forgive if it stops when requested. Apparently he can't even communicate basic trash talk clearly.

I did request in my other thread that he move on, so I'll give him a chance to. Otherwise I'll report him for clear trolling at this point, and I'll talk with the mods to ensure he stays out of my threads going forward. For a member that's been here as long as he has, his conduct is pretty poor here.

Didn't you tell me earlier you believed what was moral was for humans to flourish? How exactly are you helping that right now? Enough trolling my threads. You've said your piece, we've discussed, move on.

Have you read any Schopenhauer? I couldn't think of a better philosopher that presents an exact counter to your claim that existence is inherently good — schopenhauer1

To note again, there is a previous post that puts out the proof that existence is good in any objective morality. Its the link at the top. Feel free to go there and post a counter. Otherwise you're not talking about the OP, but some other idea in your head. That's a straw man. So go read please.

I almost feel TCATHR is a literal counter to this whole notion — schopenhauer1

The quote is an opinion that does not address the logic that I wrote which lead to the conclusion. Here is the original logic if you were unaware of it. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug* — DifferentiatingEgg

How is it not necessarily so? Where's the fallacy? If all are true, then the logic is true no? If you have an issue with one being true, which one? If you are in this thread, you are assuming that "Existence is good," is true from the argument where it is concluded here btw: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1

Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise. — DifferentiatingEgg

If good = "What ought to be" and
Existence = good then
More existence = more good

↪Philosophim Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy. — DifferentiatingEgg

No, that's not a fallacy. Feel free to challenge the definition. If you can give a reasoned counter why that should not be the definition of what is good, that would be an appropriate challenge to the theory. But if its not challenged, then it stands.

However such a discovery needs to withstand criticism and mutliple attempts at rejection to ultimately come out trumps and change our paradigm of reality - for example Einsteins theory of general relativity. — Benj96

Absolutely. Its partly why I'm posting it here. Looking for criticism and challenges.

So if you really believe you're onto something important go with it! — Benj96

Thank you, those are kind words. I don't want to leave the intro just like that though, it needs to be built up more like I'm doing here. We'll see if it works out in the end.

I don't see how that is the implications of my conclusion. The implications would be that if you decide to bathe in the blood of babies, other subjects will exert their subjective morality upon you and take you to the criminal courts. — Benj96

Correct. But this is simply 'might makes happens'. Its not really a morality, its simply an exertion by force of how another person should act in society. There's no objective reason behind the enforcement besides the fact one faction feels others should follow their precepts.

Subjective morality can still have concensus (agreement on general right and wrong) without being objective like gravity is. — Benj96

No doubt. But consensus only means consensus of opinion, not of fact. There is a group of people who believe the Earth is flat. That doesn't mean its flat. If they took over the world, they could very well decide to enforce this precept, and kill anyone who doesn't agree with them. If this was the subjective consensus, then this is a subjective morality enforced upon others. We can't say they're objectively wrong for enforcing such morality upon the rest of us, as no one has any greater justification for their personal moral belief than any other person.

Wait, I don't understand how an objective reality leads to objective morality. — Benj96

Did you read the original post? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15203/in-any-objective-morality-existence-is-inherently-good/p1 This is where I prove my point.

So even with an objective reality, for me this doesn't necessitate an objective morality, just a morality restricted to subjective experience - a subjective morality. — Benj96

Ah, yes, I understand. But do you understand the consequences of your conclusion? If I decide to bathe in the blood of babies, I am no more morally right or wrong then stating my favorite color is blue.

Subjective morality is chosen because its easy on the surface, but taken to its logical conclusion, means there is no morality period. Only those who make the rules, and those who have to follow them. I find most people do not think this is correct.

Consider the example at the end with the submarine. I'm able to come up with an objective conclusion as to what is most moral in that situation. You can only come up with an opinion that holds no more weight than emotional self-satisfaction. What do you think would be better for society overall?

Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence? — DifferentiatingEgg

The conclusion I made is not an opinion. According to the conclusion, no.

People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality." Fact is, the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality. — DifferentiatingEgg

I would say our opinions do not determine what is objective. Objectivity doesn't care. However, society does not have to accept objective conclusions. We know that smoking objectively will give you a much higher chance of cancer, age you prematurely, etc. But people don't have to accept it.

That's the difference between subjectivity and objectivity though. If I say, "Blue is the best color," society has all reasonable rights in rejecting it. If I say, "Blue is a wavelength of light," society can reject it, but it does so unreasonable and wrongly.

That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. — DifferentiatingEgg

No doubt our prejudices incline us towards wanting certain outcomes. But I try to hold myself to a higher standard than that. If you read the OP, you'll see, and Benj96 agrees, that if there is an objective morality, the conclusion that existence is good is logically sound.

I think that yes if there is an objective morality existence must be good by non contradiction. However, I don't believe there is an objective morality. Because I believe morality can only be applied to subjects, and not inanimate objects -rocks and dust. — Benj96

Perfect! Yes, I have no way of proving that there is an objective reality. Only that if there is, this is a logical result. So if you decide to believe there is no objective reality, then yes, we devolve into subjective reality and whatever anyone thinks is good and evil is. We win, the Nazi's win, we all win. :)

One thing I would consider though, is aren't we made up of rocks and dust? When does is transition from the matter we're made up of into subjects?

I would say there's no morality for non-life. As morality requires a means to an end and for the non-existent there are no means, no beginnings nor ends. Absolutely devoid of purpose or the quality of being good or bad.

Morality is for the existent because suffering, pain and conversely joy, peace, love and happiness are for the living. — Benj96

This is all a fine opinion, but did you read and understand the OP? Because I show through the argument that if there is an objective morality, existence must be good by non-contradiction.

Not a problem, ask questions as needed. There's a tiny bit of math and this is a new concept.

↪Philosophim (Sorry if my counter-argument requires more thought than you gave your argument in the OP.) Once again ... — 180 Proof

Alright, I've been polite and you insist on trolling. What a waste of an intellect.

Like some others already have (which you incorrigibly don't get, Phil), been there, done that: — 180 Proof

If you would expand on your points a bit, I might be able to engage with you. I've tried responding based on what I thought you were trying to say, but it doesn't seem like I've hit the mark. No, I don't understand it, but I'm willing to try if you'll expound on it a little.

If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges. — DifferentiatingEgg

I continue with the next steps here. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15217/if-existence-is-good-what-is-the-morality-of-non-life

I'm not sure how you automatically elevate the subjective over the objective, when the objective also exists and is good as well. This first part doesn't really declare what particular type of existence is better than any other type of existence, just the fact that existence, innately, is good compared to their being nothing.

Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone. Although our selves may be illusory creations of consciousness, our pain is nonetheless real.. — 180 Proof

Statements like these are subjective opinions and don't address the OP. Feel free to point out where the logic of the OP is flawed and we can discuss that.

As I noted in the OP, if you have an issue with existence being good, please go back to the previous thread to discuss.

True, but for all intents and purposes unimaginable is as good as impossible in my book. Of course the unimaginable may later become imaginable — Janus

So then its possible. Do you see you keep making contradictions to yourself?

We can't really imagine, in the sense of "form an image of" an eternal existence. We can think it as the dialectical opposite of temporal, that is all. — Janus

So we can imagine without an image. Which is still just imagining something.

Empirical existents are not eternal so I don't know what leads to say that an eternal existence could be empirical — Janus

I'm not, I'm just using your words. I really didn't care about that part, I just wanted you to clarify what you were saying with some evidence and without contradictions. As I noted, it doesn't matter these types of existence, as it does not negate the question of, "Should there be existence?" which does not care about types. Which you still have not addressed. So again, I'm not seeing any viable counters to my points here.

If it wasn't universal, then it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere, if it was not eternal it would not be a guarantor of objective moral goodness at all times. — Janus

So then if I asked a question, "Should there be existence?" and I could prove the answer always has been, and will be "Yes", then would that not be an eternal guarantor of objective moral goodness everywhere? Wouldn't that be transcendent then?

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP.
— Philosophim

Sorry but I cannot help but :rofl: at that. I think we are done here. — Janus

Its fine, as I noted not everyone likes to go to that level, but that is the level that's expected for me to consider my points countered. And believe me, I've been countered before and owned up to it. I appreciate your contributions Janus. I'll be putting a second part out this weekend that may clear up some questions and further the thinking if you're interested.

There is no imaginable way in which an empirical existent could be a universal guarantor of objective moral goodness. — Janus

Just because you cannot imagine it, does not make it impossible right?

For a start such a guarantor would need to be eternal, — Janus

So it is imaginable then. And an eternal existence can still be empirical, so then it seems logical there could be one.

At this point you just seem to be doubling down to try to defend your thesis. — Janus

No. I'm pointing out that coming in and saying, "Here is my counter" does not absolve you of clearly defining and proving your counter is correct. You believe your points to be true, but you have not proven your points to be true. If they are not true, I, who have attempted to prove my points, am not countered.
If you want to counter what I've written, you need to address the logic of what is written, and demonstrate your own counter can hold up against equal criticism. And don't take it the wrong way! :) It is better to make claims, arguments and counters. Just understand and expect the same will be given back.

Finally, it doesn't matter whether the existence is transcendent, empirical, etc. If it exists, it exists.
— Philosophim

That seems to me to be nothing more than empty words — Janus

How? Are you saying that any of the descriptors of existence, transcendent, temporal, empirical etc, don't exist? I think that's pretty clear, otherwise we wouldn't call them existences. They are weighty words that make the point very clearly.

The essential attributes of the idea of a guarantor of objective moral good must be universality, eternality and thus transcendence. — Janus

Why? Can you prove that then more than your opinion?

But so far, you have not presented anything pertinent against the actual argument, just an opinion.
— Philosophim

You apparently won't hear an argument against your claim that such a guarantor could be an empirical existent. — Janus

No, I've heard clearly and addressed it clearly.

The very idea is incoherent, and that's all the argument that is needed. — Janus

You need to prove its incoherent, not just say it is. I have seen no proof that it is incoherent.

So you can see the standards your arguments need to be raised to to counter the OP. As I've noted, its fine to have counter arguments, but they must rise beyond opinions. The OP is a proof. It rises to the same standard I am asking you to give. And now that you understand that standard, feel free to look at the OP again and hold it to the same level. I'm not asking for anything I wouldn't demand of myself.

Unfortunately, we are just talking past each other; and I would just be reiterating if I responded. So I will let it rest.

Take care, Philosophim! — Bob Ross

You too Bob! I'll have the second part posted this weekend, we can touch base again for the second part to see if that resolves your issue.