A universal morality?

[ArtieE]

(Everything else being equal, I'd divert the train in a New York minute. I have no problem playing God.)

Yes. If God wants five people dead who are you to interfere? Does that apply to all scenarios?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes. If God wants five people dead who are you to interfere?

You seem confused either about the scenario or about my position. There are five people on the track. God is planning to ice all five of them. But SuperAmbigGuy brushes aside his cape, leaps to the switch, and throws it... depriving God of four lives.

For SuperAmbigGuy fears no God.

Does that apply to all scenarios?

Sorry but I don't answer simplistic questions. Since you refuse to provide any details, I cannot work my magic rationaiity and common sense and stuff and provide you with God's True Moral Answer on this issue. Sorry.

 

[ArtieE]

In my scenario, I never even said that they were Chinese doing the torturing, or that there was anyone else on the boat to give a direct order. So, reading fail on your part. Please stick with just my scenario. I explicitly said there were only two people affected: Steve McQueen and the Tortured Guy.

Sorry. I thought you were using the same scenario and didn't catch the differences. I give up trying to follow the different changing rules and scenarios. If you need there to be only two people involved to make your reasoning work so be it. In the real world it's a bit more complicated. I'm sure in your world shooting somebody and not shooting somebody can be equally "morally permissible" so it doesn't matter what you choose and what you base your choice on since no choice would be morally superior. Just flip a coin. Got it.

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry. I thought you were using the same scenario and didn't catch the differences. I give up trying to follow the different changing rules and scenarios. If you need there to be only two people involved to make your reasoning work so be it. In the real world it's a bit more complicated. I'm sure in your world shooting somebody and not shooting somebody can be equally "morally permissible" so it doesn't matter what you choose and what you base your choice on. Just flip a coin. Got it.

It is rather astonishing the lengths you go to avoid answering any of these moral questions.

I mean, really, you don't think there could ever possibly be a situation in the world in which the outcome only really affects the two people involved?

You've already indicated that you believe that killing someone who is being tortured and who can't be rescued would be the correct moral action.

Now, explain why you believe that it would not be a morally correct option to abstain from killing the person, particularly if that person would prefer not to be killed?

I can explain why it would be a morally permissible option:
1) We have a code of ethics in which killing people is frowned upon, and some people may feel this more strongly than others.
2) We (the shooter) don't know whether the person wants to be shot or not, and so we abstain from shooting.
3) We (the shooter) would prefer not to be shot if we were in the same situation, therefore, applying the Golden Rule would lead us to not shoot the person.

Now it is your turn. Tell me why you believe that not shooting the person is not a morally permissible action.

Flipping a coin has nothing to do with it. Find some other strawman to hide behind.

 

[Falvlun]

Now this is an interesting moral dilemma but a lot of pertinent information is missing and there's a lot of other things one must consider besides the amount of people on the track.

1. Which track is longest and straightest so the train can be spotted early enough to get off the track?
2. Do both tracks go uphill or downhill or does one go uphill and the other downhill?
3. Which track has the sharpest turns so there's a possibility of derailing before it reaches anybody?
4. Does any of the tracks end up so that the train has a possibility of crashing into a building perhaps killing dozens?
5. Am I aware of any weaknesses in the structure of the line or foundation that couldn't cope with the train?

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered. I would combine the knowledge and choose the track I believe could result in the least loss of life pulling or not pulling the lever wouldn't matter. The moral choice would be reducing loss of life pulling or not pulling the lever wouldn't matter.

Psychologically, this is one of the most fascinating responses I've ever gotten to this problem.

Everybody, I mean everybody, asks questions about the people. They ask whether there are children, whether either group has somebody they know or love, they ask whether somebody important to humanity (like the curer of cancer) is involved, or whether somebody evil will get killed. These answers help them determine whether they should throw the lever.

You are the absolutely first person to ever ask about the train. Very odd.

The answer to your question is that the tracks are perfectly identical in every way. Throwing the lever will not derail the train. There is no way to save both groups; there is no time for either to get off the tracks. There is no way to stop the train. You are just a passerby that happens to know that if you throw that lever, the train will move to a different track. You do not know anything about any of the people on the track; you just know how many are in each group.

What do you choose to do and why?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Everybody, I mean everybody, asks questions about the people. They ask whether there are children, whether either group has somebody they know or love, they ask whether somebody important to humanity (like the curer of cancer) is involved, or whether somebody evil will get killed. These answers help them determine whether they should throw the lever.

You are the absolutely first person to ever ask about the train. Very odd.

I found his series of questions most odd, too. Virtually everyone asks about the people. To me, it seems as though his questions are maybe driven by a passion to stop the event. But stopping the event would ruin the moral puzzle, and I'm confused why someone would want to destroy a moral puzzle rather than play with it.

Well, maybe I'm not confused by the urge to wipe away hard moral questions. It's more like I'm confused that someone might want to do that in the middle of a discussion about morality.

 

[ArtieE]

It is rather astonishing the lengths you go to avoid answering any of these moral questions.

I mean, really, you don't think there could ever possibly be a situation in the world in which the outcome only really affects the two people involved?

Sure. But the original scenario was on a US gunboat in China involving crewmen and Chinese torturers and later modified to include standing orders by the president not to fire a gun on Chinese soil. I won't discuss that scenario any further even though you attempt to reduce it just to be about two men and pretend that any action taken would have no consequences for anybody or anything else.

Please feel free to jump to my new scenario below and to not comment on any other points if you like.

You've already indicated that you believe that killing someone who is being tortured and who can't be rescued would be the correct moral action.

I based that on the scenario and the consequences for anybody or anything else. Your attempt to remove the possible consequences for others from the equation removes many factors needed to determine whether the act is moral or not in the scenario and my evaluation is no longer valid and can't be used in other scenarios.

Now, explain why you believe that it would not be a morally correct option to abstain from killing the person, particularly if that person would prefer not to be killed?

I can explain why it would be a morally permissible option:
1) We have a code of ethics in which killing people is frowned upon, and some people may feel this more strongly than others.
2) We (the shooter) don't know whether the person wants to be shot or not, and so we abstain from shooting.
3) We (the shooter) would prefer not to be shot if we were in the same situation, therefore, applying the Golden Rule would lead us to not shoot the person.

Now it is your turn. Tell me why you believe that not shooting the person is not a morally permissible action.

You have changed the scenario and removed any potential consequences of shooting or not shooting involving anybody or anything else but the two men from the equation so I won't continue that scenario as it's no longer realistic. I won't comment each point. Just the idea that it would be "morally permissive" for me to let a person suffer unnecessarily if he asks to be shot because my feelings tells me I shouldn't kill him is immoral.

If two single men with no families are alone in the woods and they have lived there all their lives and have no connection with the outside world whatsoever and their acts have no consequences for anybody else but animals and nature and their impact on the animal population and nature is so tiny that it doesn't affect anybody or anything else negatively we can use this scenario to discuss morals.

1. As a baseline it would be immoral for one to shoot the other without reason.
2. If one had been in an accident and was suffering and there was no hope of rescue and he was conscious and obviously mortally wounded and asked to be shot it would be moral to ask to be shot and moral to shoot.
3. If one had been in an accident and was suffering and there was no hope of rescue and was conscious and obviously mortally wounded but did not want to be shot it would be moral to ask to not be shot and moral not to shoot.
4. If one had been in an accident and was suffering and there was no hope of rescue but he was unconscious and obviously mortally wounded but still alive it would be moral to wait for him to gain consciousness if he was in no obvious pain.
5. If one had been in an accident and was suffering and there was no hope of rescue but he was unconscious and obviously mortally wounded and in obvious serious pain it would be moral to shoot.

Feel free to add more independent points or modified original points but stick to the scenario and don't introduce outside factors.

 

[ArtieE]

Psychologically, this is one of the most fascinating responses I've ever gotten to this problem.

Everybody, I mean everybody, asks questions about the people. They ask whether there are children, whether either group has somebody they know or love, they ask whether somebody important to humanity (like the curer of cancer) is involved, or whether somebody evil will get killed. These answers help them determine whether they should throw the lever.

You are the absolutely first person to ever ask about the train. Very odd.

Because these considerations are so obvious that I didn't bother to mention them. The first priority is to determine whether one can avoid any deaths. The next priority is to determine what could cause more deaths. (Just to make it perfectly clear, I define the "train" as an unmanned locomotive.) After this has been determined one can start to consider the people on the tracks. If I knew exactly who were on the tracks I would have to determine where to send the train using much the same criteria as transplant doctors use when they determine who gets organs. If I only know that there's one person on one track and five on the other I would have no other moral choice but to send it down the track with one person on it. I would have to live with the knowledge that I had killed one person but saved five others. Throwing or not throwing the lever the deaths would have been caused by me anyway.

The lesson is really very simple. You choose the option that will have the least negative effect on the least amount of people. That would be the moral choice.

 

[ArtieE]

I found his series of questions most odd, too. Virtually everyone asks about the people. To me, it seems as though his questions are maybe driven by a passion to stop the event. But stopping the event would ruin the moral puzzle, and I'm confused why someone would want to destroy a moral puzzle rather than play with it.

Because some people just play with simplified moral puzzles while others are more concerned with the complexity that is reality and how morality works in reality. I also prefer reading books for adults over books for children.

Well, maybe I'm not confused by the urge to wipe away hard moral questions. It's more like I'm confused that someone might want to do that in the middle of a discussion about morality.

Yes. Like Stephen Hawking would rather sit and add two plus two and three plus three and pretend that that is all there is to math instead of talking about the mathematics of general relativity. Sure you can play with removing every single criteria needed to make an informed moral judgment but then you don't have any toys left to play with. It's the complexities and different options and consequences that makes it hard to reach the correct moral decision not removing them. You might consider 3+3 to be a hard mathematical puzzle but I can assure you finding the correct answer gets more difficult the more advanced the math gets. But you can stay with 3+3 if you like.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It's the complexities and different options and consequences that makes it hard to reach the correct moral decision not removing them. You might consider 3+3 to be a hard mathematical puzzle but I can assure you finding the correct answer gets more difficult the more advanced the math gets. But you can stay with 3+3 if you like.

Yes, that's most curious. It was my suspicion when I spoke earlier of your age.

I don't know your age, of course, but I'm now of the opinion that whatever your age, you consider yourself some kind of advanced genius. That's why you can figure out moral puzzles with such ease and certainty, yes? And why you speak of simplicity with such disdain?

It's because of your superbrain?

What can I say. Maybe if you would bring yourself to answer the difficult questions which Falvlun and I have been asking you, you might convince me that you do indeed possess such a brain and know how to use it.

But I can't get a sense of your wattage unless you will deign to shine on us.

 

[ArtieE]

Yes, that's most curious. It was my suspicion when I spoke earlier of your age.

I don't know your age, of course, but I'm now of the opinion that whatever your age, you consider yourself some kind of advanced genius. That's why you can figure out moral puzzles with such ease and certainty, yes? And why you speak of simplicity with such disdain?

It's because of your superbrain?

What can I say. Maybe if you would bring yourself to answer the difficult questions which Falvlun and I have been asking you, you might convince me that you do indeed possess such a brain and know how to use it.

But I can't get a sense of your wattage unless you will deign to shine on us.

How flattering that you would devote an entire post commenting on my age and brain. Tells us a lot about yours. What happened to the Klingons and were they part of some "difficult" question?

If you ask an intelligent and interesting question or come up with an intelligent well-thought-out statement or argument concerning morals I will be happy to comment. If I consider the question, statement or argument not intelligent, interesting or well-thought-out I will say why.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you ask an intelligent and interesting question or come up with an intelligent well-thought-out statement or argument concerning morals I will be happy to comment. If I consider the question, statement or argument not intelligent, interesting or well-thought-out I will say why.

Great! Here's my original question again except that this time I will flesh it out for you, since you did not seem to understand it in the way that I was trying to mean it. I hope you will answer.

If you say that X is the Correct Moral Choice (CMC) and Jack Doe says that X is the Incorrect Moral Choice (ICMC), how do we decide which of you has the actual CMC?

I walk into the room and find Artie and Jack sitting at a table. I tell them my McQueen story and sit for hours answering every possible question they have about it. Then Jack says that McQueen was immoral for shooting the sailor, but Artie says the opposite... that McQueen was moral for shooting the sailor.

How do I know which one of you has the CMC?

I do some investigation. I find out that Jack has an IQ of 252, is a professor of logic at Harvard, and holds the record for most Jeopardy wins in the history of that show.

Artie has an IQ of 155, has never been to college, and hasn't yet passed the qualifying test to become a Jeopardy contestant.

Not only that, but I personally agree with Jack's assessment of the McQueen thing. By allowing the sailor to be tortured for military info, McQueen has clearly done the most good for the most people.

Hmmm... how to decide whether Jack or whether Artie has properly applied logic, common sense, knowledge, etc... and come up with the CMC. Hmmm.

Well, Artie, I'm sorry. But under these conditions I'm afraid that I would only have Jack's resume and his apparent dominating argumentation to go by. I would have to see you as holding the Incorrect Moral Choice.

So how would you yourself decide this issue? Assume that it's Jack and AmbigGuy in the room, rather than Jack and Artie. How would you decide which one of us has picked the Correct Moral Choice about the McQueen shooting?

By the way, PLEASE NOTE: Regarding my question, it does not matter about the details of the McQueen case. Those have already been processed by the two parties. I'm only asking how you will decide which of these two guys has the CMC.

I look forward to hearing how you think of it.

 

[Falvlun]

Well, this discussion is officially utterly pointless.

 

[ArtieE]

If you say that X is the Correct Moral Choice (CMC) and Jack Doe says that X is the Incorrect Moral Choice (ICMC), how do we decide which of you has the actual CMC?

I consider this mixture of assorted questions, statements. arguments and conclusions an unanswerable mess and won't even attempt to first rewrite it in an effort to make it intelligible and then answer the rewrite.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I consider this mixture of assorted questions, statements. arguments and conclusions an unanswerable mess and won't even attempt to first rewrite it in an effort to make it intelligible and then answer the rewrite.

OK, Artie. Good to meet you.

 

[ArtieE]

Well, this discussion is officially utterly pointless.

If that is the most intelligent comment you have after reading my last posts, I officially concur.

 

[ArtieE]

OK, Artie. Good to meet you.

Ditto. Give the Klingons my best.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Ditto. Give the Klingons my best.

Bad news. The Klingons paid me another visit today. They say that they want Artie's crops and his women, and they've been hounding me to tell them where you hang out online. Today they pulled out two more of my fingernails, but fortunately I enjoy a little pain on the weekends. So far, the letters 'RF' have not escaped my lips.

But tomorrow is a weekday and I won't have time for the distraction of pain. I'm busy. So if they come back tomorrow, should I tell them that they can find you here or should I continue to resist them? What is the Correct Moral Choice?

Actually -- between torture sessions as I've had more time to contemplate the problem -- I have thought that it might be a good thing for humanity if Artie is busy chasing the Klingons around trying to get his crops and his women back. That way, he can't be in the RF spreading his dangerous notion that such a thing as objective moral truth actually exists.

On the other hand, from the way that Artie writes, I feel that he is an American, and America is obviously the Promised Land and Americans are the Promised People! So betraying a fellow American is clearly sinful from the getgo. I mean, let's be serious.

On the other other hand, one of my Klingon interrogators (the cute one with the extra bump on her forehead) has told me that if they can only find Artie and take his crops and his women, they will finally have enough booty to stop their piratical ways and will settle down and even petition the US government for statehood. They consider 51 a lucky number and want to get in before Puerto Rico. Imagine how much pain and suffering I can save humanity, not to mention supporting the Fatherland, just by telling them 'R' and 'F'!

So anyway, Artie, I'm tired of thinking about all this. Could you please just inform me of the Correct Moral Choice in this case? Please try to avoid any personal bias in your analysis -- just because it happens to be your women and your crops, I mean. My regular prophet is tied up with some kind of goings-on in Tibet or some weird place, which is why I'm asking for your help on this one.

Of course you're welcome to ask any clarifying questions about the Klingon situation in order to process everything and arrive at the Actual And Real Correct Moral Choice.

Thanks in advance.

 

[John Martin]

Is there such a thing as a universal morality? If you think so, how does one determine what it is? Can such a thing, if it even exists, be determined objectively?

I do not think that there is such a thing called universal morality that can be objectively defined. The most important thing is to realize our oneness of consciousness with God, with one another and with creation. It means whatever we do to others we do to our self. This realization also gives inner freedom to do what is the best in a particular situation. The way one reacts also depends on the type of people one encounters. This is not a mechanical and free determined life. The actions come from the higher self. For example killing is bad, but a mad person starts killing people indiscriminately and there is no other way to stop him, the only way can be to kill him. There is no universal morality but there is a level of consciousness that goes moral and immoral. It is the state of unity and freedom. Whatever action comes from that unity and freedom can be said a good action. Any action that comes from the fragmented consciousness or divisive consciousness has evil inbuilt in it. In the biblical tradition there is story of two trees: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The tree of life is the oneness of consciousness where there is harmony between the leaves, branches, trunk and the roots. The tree of knowledge of good and evil is where consciousness is fragmented either at the level of leaves or at the level of branches and even at the level of trunk. When people act either at the individual level or collective level there is evil in built. So if we want to speak of Universal morality we can speak of oneness of consciousness, to eat the fruit from the tree of Life.

 

[ArtieE]

Actually -- between torture sessions as I've had more time to contemplate the problem -- I have thought that it might be a good thing for humanity if Artie is busy chasing the Klingons around trying to get his crops and his women back. That way, he can't be in the RF spreading his dangerous notion that such a thing as objective moral truth actually exists.

On the other hand, from the way that Artie writes, I feel that he is an American, and America is obviously the Promised Land and Americans are the Promised People! So betraying a fellow American is clearly sinful from the getgo. I mean, let's be serious.

Isn't the medication working yet? Actually, I'm Norwegian. OK, since I have some time to spare and like hopeless cases why don't we try a little scenario:

Two people are alone in the woods completely isolated. One has been in an accident and is horribly injured and in horrible pain and begs to be shot. There are no other alternatives. Shoot or let him suffer. Are you going to tell us that the correct moral decision depends on whether the other guy subjectively feels like shooting him or not? You don't think the correct moral decision would be to shoot no matter what the shooter might subjectively feel like? "Sorry, I can't shoot you no matter how much agony you are in it's not moral for me to shoot you because that is my subjective feeling that it's better to let you slowly die in agony for who knows how long." I can just imagine what his relatives would say when he finally had to tell them that he spent hours dying in agony because morality is subjective and I didn't think it was moral to shoot him. You really think whether it's moral or not to shoot in any way shape or form depends on some subjective feelings of the shooter?