answers about morality?

[Segev Moran]

I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

So the answer of theists (that i have met so far) to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.
We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

 

[David1967]

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one

Have you been watching the NATGEO series "Year Million"? It has been exploring that possibility.

 

[Nakosis]

I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

So the answer of theists to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.
We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

For entertainment purposes only...

Scruples - The Game of Moral Dilemmas
Moral Machine

 

[sun rise]

For entertainment purposes only...

Scruples - The Game of Moral Dilemmas
Moral Machine

That appears to be Apple only which makes it useless to me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I Have yet to come across a situation that involves a "morality" dilemma, that cannot be easily solved if you had more details about the situation.
I find it to be very contradicting with the question of objective moral.

How so? it feels perfectly compátible to me.

So the answer of theists to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.
so in a way they believe (or hope) that somehow one day we will have a knowledge of 100% of everything.

Oh. that? No, I don't find that at all likely. either.

We will know everything that you can possibly know about any situation or event. (i assume it is also the belief of most religions, what you will call "enlightenment" in a way - becoming one with knowledge).

Not my take on it. I don't think that is what most Buddhists understand by enlightenment, but I could be wrong.

However, I do believe that morality is ultimately objective once we make honest assessments of our own ability to learn of the situations and choices and their likely consequences.

By that I do not mean that it is possible to write a consistently useful book of moral rules, though. Morality is the application of reason over what can be discerned. It is inherently transcendental to written rules.

It is possible, btw, that our "near" future can be like that, if all our brains will be connected in one giant "brain grid" or some sci-f concept like this one

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

Not really.

 

[bobhikes]

You are in a room with another man secured firmly to separate chairs on opposite sides of the room. Your family and his are locked in rooms watching you. You have 2 buttons 1 kills you and lets everyone else free, 1 kills hims and lets everybody else free. If you do nothing at the end of one hour everyone dies. Choose logically.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So the answer of theists to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.

It would be nice if you didn't generalize about theists.

 

[SomeRandom]

So the answer of theists to the objective morale question, is a deity that dictates our morality, and it is our "quest" to figure out what it is.

In many ways I suppose that is correct. But then again do all theists think this way?

 

[shunyadragon]

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

Good question! Most arguments from morality by apologists, propose that morality cannot originate naturally, and propose some form of the necessity of 'objective morality,' and consciousness and the mind cannot be explained naturally, because of the subjective nature of things like 'qualia.'

These arguments are plagued with circular assumptions for the necessity of an 'outside source' to explain these human qualities, and 'arguments from ignorance' that science cannot at present explain some things, therefore . . .

 

[joe1776]

Can you provide me with one moral question that cannot be solved without knowledge?

All moral questions can be solved without knowledge (except knowledge about the facts of a specific case).

All knowledge begins with an observation of the senses. Since our ancestors couldn't see, hear, taste or smell it, they must have felt something wrong when a member of the tribe was murdered. But, when the killing was in self-defense, it didn't feel wrong. From those observations, our ancestors, proud of their ability to reason, wrote useless laws about killing.

Today, we have comprehensive laws on murder that are still useless. And we still have those feelings that our ancestors learned from. We refer to them as "our conscience." So we don't need those laws.

 

[Segev Moran]

Have you been watching the NATGEO series "Year Million"? It has been exploring that possibility.

Thanks for the tip. I'll watch it soon
And it is indeed possible, and one can even argue probable.

 

[Segev Moran]

For entertainment purposes only...

Scruples - The Game of Moral Dilemmas

Is there an equivalent for android?

Moral Machine

wow... its going to be long

I Would have to assume that a self driven car will do billions of calculations per second that will allow it to calculate in an instant any possibility to avoid any loss of life.

If for the sake of the examples, all its systems are failing, and there is nothing but a pure "decision" of the machine itself, it would react randomly.

but lets assume this cars "mind" is still active and it can only choose one of two outcomes.

this logic (or "mind") will be based upon a "cold" decision that human life is worth saving than any other specie.
this will drop the affect of none humans from the equation.

as for a decision regarding non humans life in both scenarios, this, again, will be based on a "cold" logic that humans will program the system to follow.

it will probably be based on statistics of possible such events and the impact of loss of each animal on the population.

i believe today it seems people are more empathetic towards dogs rather than cats for example (i love both btw ).

as for human to human loss. i assume the "cold" decision would lean towards saving our young over adults. i believe many share the same belief as me that nothing is more important than the life of our (each his own) children.

as the majority of people share this feeling, it is probable that the lives of children will be spared at a higher priority.

As for a question of two children of a different life status for example, it will be clearly immoral (imo) to even have such a factor in the decision making mechanism.

comparing children to children, or males to females and things like that are not a moral question that can be objective. and if such an improbable event will happen, the self driven car should have a fail safe mechanism to avoid such scenarios anyways

 

[Segev Moran]

How so? it feels perfectly compátible to me.

Curious

Oh. that? No, I don't find that at all likely. either.

Even more curious

Not my take on it. I don't think that is what most Buddhists understand by enlightenment, but I could be wrong.

It is similar to become one with the light. the universal thought concept.

However, I do believe that morality is ultimately objective once we make honest assessments of our own ability to learn of the situations and choices and their likely consequences.

It will still be based upon human POV. it will not be literally objective. it will be objective to humans understanding of reality, not based on a "morality" that was there before humans ever existed.

By that I do not mean that it is possible to write a consistently useful book of moral rules, though.

The book of morals

Morality is the application of reason over what can be discerned. It is inherently transcendental to written rules.

I Would say an objective morality can be true, though, if humans will have so much knowledge that we will be able to predict the consequences of each decision we make, and we will have the will to have the most optimal result in each decision we make. and we will have those "laws" "written" in everyone's brain, or something like that.

Not really.

Agreed

 

[Segev Moran]

You are in a room with another man secured firmly to separate chairs on opposite sides of the room. Your family and his are locked in rooms watching you. You have 2 buttons 1 kills you and lets everyone else free, 1 kills hims and lets everybody else free. If you do nothing at the end of one hour everyone dies. Choose logically.

the only logic that can act here is the the third option is a no go. I cant see any reason to kill everyone just for the sake of not making a decision, that, for me will be immoral.

As for the other choices, there are no moral dilemmas here. no one will be accounted as immoral for choosing his own life over the other's. (unless it took him like a second to decide and when he was release was whistling in enjoyment to celebrate his victory, this will probably be counted as immoral).

As for me, it really depends how much i know of the other person.
If i know he is some low life, i will probably choose to save my own.
If i know he is a loving and caring father and treats his family well, the decision will become really hard to solve.
I guess at the bottom line it will be based on the exact logic i will act upon in those adrenaline rush moments. in such times, the brain floods you with so much assumptions, that no decisions can be really predicted or considered logical.

I can assume that one of my thoughts will be how hard it will be for me to live with the knowledge i have killed someone, that will battle the question of "i didn't really kill him".
I Will battle the question of whether or not my kids will suffer more seeing their father die, or suffer more than knowing their father chose his own life over other.
I would probably see what everyone reactions are, to try and asses the situation as possible as i can.
I would cry, and scream and try to come up with any possible solution until in an instant i will make a decision that will have devastating results, none of which can be measured as better than the other, thus no morality can be relevant here.

 

[Segev Moran]

the only logic that can act here is the the third option is a no go. I cant see any reason to kill everyone just for the sake of not making a decision, that, for me will be immoral.

As for the other choices, there are no moral dilemmas here. no one will be accounted as immoral for choosing his own life over the other's. (unless it took him like a second to decide and when he was release was whistling in enjoyment to celebrate his victory, this will probably be counted as immoral).

 

[Nakosis]

Is there an equivalent for android?

Unfortunately not. I'm an android user myself.

wow... its going to be long

i believe today it seems people are more empathetic towards dogs rather than cats for example (i love both btw ).

Yeah, I might weight the coding a little different....

as for human to human loss. i assume the "cold" decision would lean towards saving our young over adults. i believe many share the same belief as me that nothing is more important than the life of our (each his own) children.

as the majority of people share this feeling, it is probable that the lives of children will be spared at a higher priority.

As for a question of two children of a different life status for example, it will be clearly immoral (imo) to even have such a factor in the decision making mechanism.

comparing children to children, or males to females and things like that are not a moral question that can be objective. and if such an improbable event will happen, the self driven car should have a fail safe mechanism to avoid such scenarios anyways

Yes, how about killing the engine and hitting the brakes for God's sake. The problem with such dilemmas I suppose, limiting the possible solutions causes the dilemma in the first place.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Segev Moran

Morality is not quite arbitrary, nor could it ever be. It is directed and limited by circunstances of various natures, many of them beyond any individual's power to change. Economic, ecological, physical, biological circunstances.

On the other hand, it is both limited and expanded by the intellectual and rational prowess of individual people and their ability to change circunstances. One of the chief moral imperatives is, in fact, to expand its boundaries.

 

[Segev Moran]

In many ways I suppose that is correct. But then again do all theists think this way?

So far, all the ones i debate, do think it (or a form of it).

 

[Segev Moran]

It would be nice if you didn't generalize about theists.

You are correct, i fixed the thread. 10x

 

[bobhikes]

the only logic that can act here is the the third option is a no go. I cant see any reason to kill everyone just for the sake of not making a decision, that, for me will be immoral.

As for the other choices, there are no moral dilemmas here. no one will be accounted as immoral for choosing his own life over the other's. (unless it took him like a second to decide and when he was release was whistling in enjoyment to celebrate his victory, this will probably be counted as immoral).

As for me, it really depends how much i know of the other person.
If i know he is some low life, i will probably choose to save my own.
If i know he is a loving and caring father and treats his family well, the decision will become really hard to solve.
I guess at the bottom line it will be based on the exact logic i will act upon in those adrenaline rush moments. in such times, the brain floods you with so much assumptions, that no decisions can be really predicted or considered logical.

I can assume that one of my thoughts will be how hard it will be for me to live with the knowledge i have killed someone, that will battle the question of "i didn't really kill him".
I Will battle the question of whether or not my kids will suffer more seeing their father die, or suffer more than knowing their father chose his own life over other.
I would probably see what everyone reactions are, to try and asses the situation as possible as i can.
I would cry, and scream and try to come up with any possible solution until in an instant i will make a decision that will have devastating results, none of which can be measured as better than the other, thus no morality can be relevant here.

The morality will be determined by the survivors. Your family and his family. You could very much kill him and be charged in a civil suit or nothing may happen. You could take your life and be hated by family members for abandoning them. Morality is not determined by us but by how others view the result. For the religious the others would be God. For the non-religious others would be society. Was Hitler moral. What do you think he believed. Again Logically what is the correct step to take.

No you will not know anything about the other person he like you and your families were trapped by a psychotic person.