I think this scenario still seems unlikely in the sense that there would be more actors, but in general the story convais a very important risk. so thumbs up to this block post
Nacruno96
Karma: 2
Definitions are about efficiency and consistency with common language.
I am a bit surprised about one of them still being a friend of yours. Do you in a sense forgive him because I don’t know it wasn’t too painful or him being not aware of what he was doing? My intuition was kind of the amount of trauma might be about the amount of pain. If it’s really painful one can of cause get very traumatised as you also point out, it would have been diferent if it would have been very violent
I am no expert in law, but to some extent we treat rape and killing someone similar. I don’t know if the way I think is just fucked up or it is really this way, but breaking someone’s leg and rape are probably more comparable to each other than rape and murder. So I would like to add that in my opinion even the legal code is punishing rape pretty harsh more comparable to murder than comparable to breaking someone’s leg.
Yeah that sums up my problem
I like cars, windows out of comfort. To deal with Linux you need to know more about computation than I know. Which would probably give you utility, but I at least don’t see any immediate utility for my personal life. I like cars mainly because I am more secure and faster with them than with a bike. Also I just don’t enjoy physical activity. Given having enough money I don’t care companies screwing me in small for me insignificant aspects
Lol you are a very wise man
I think there is totally irrational fear going on in society on vaccines. First of all it is really hard to develope a vaccine that is more dangerous than the infection itself. There have been vaccines that were incredibly dangerous to take in the early 19th century and some vaccines in the early 20th century could kill you too, but they would kill you in one of 10 000 cases. But this vaccine can’t kill you under any circumstances. Phizer vaccine will get ineffective if it’s too warm which means nothing will happen if you let it wait outdoors in warm temperatures and inject it later on. virusu, hence components of the in vaccines loose their potency in warmth they don’t get more dangerous. And you just underestimate the danger too. As long you aren’t 12 years old covid is dangerous. There have been one million infections and 10 men between 20-29 died in Germany. Assuming 100 000 men in this age group where infected and that that 2000 of them ended up in a hospital, you are simply better off taking the vaccine. No one who was vaccinated ended up in a hospital. So how dangerous could a vaccine be
I agree with the first statement of yours. But I disagree with the second. As I stated in my text I think that morality is determined by conflicting emotions. If your morality is build around the wish to help and cultural guilt feelings both motivations will end up in being in conflict with each other. I would however agree that that a axiomatic approach in your sense where you choose the axioms also based on where they will lead you down the rabbit hole makes sense in other fields of philosophy or if the aim of once moral philosophy is achieving rationality above arriving at the right morality
That’s true, but is that also your opinion?
To be totally honest most of the academic philosophical discussions confuse me in several ways. I am not sure my position can be called extreme moral subjectivism. I for example know you can define justice. And a certain action can be according to that definition just or not. Hence justice exists. But it exists because humans define the idea of justice. Hence killing someone would not be just. The idea of justice however is of interest because our utility perception holds it necessary to create notions of justice towards satisfying or wish to help or towards controlling guilt and shame feelings. Killing is wrong however is a statement without truth value as long one does not specify what wrong means. It might be unjust under certain created moral systems. This would be my position on that matter. But if you disagree I would really like to hear in what sense you would disagree
It doesn’t make killing people moral for most people but for a nazi it is moral to kill the Jews to give an extreme example. Or another example you hate your boss you would like to kill him, but killing him would make you feel guilty. So you measure your expected utility and decide. But I would really Appreciate if you would articulate your view more because I am not sure I totally understood you
I agree
Thank you for your comment. To some extent I hoped for some kind of constructive criticism of this sort.
first, strictly speaking i think rationality in humans will cause them to lack a precise moral system, precisely because our moral feelings (guilt, shame, pleasure in helping someone) are systems that stand in conflict to each other. Hence a consistent moral system cannot regulate our moral systems efficiently.
your second point or observation is something I am agreeing with. which is why I am advocating a moral system that isn’t strictly utilitarian or deontolgical, because moral systems are one sided in the sense that they just address one moral feeling instead of the whole range of them.
I would define rationality in following abstract terms. An agent is rational if his behaviors maximize his utility function over a prioritized time horizon. I think the true reason why some people support for example abortion or for someone not supporting abortion is in which statements leads to more utility. There is no thing that is violated if we kill another human being or torture one. What is really violated is our taste, our guilty capacity or our sense of shame. For some people this is violated if it’s not bible supported and for some people it is violated if it is just distasteful.
In the second bigger comment section you misinterpreted my text. My whole point in text addresses the impossibility of a moral system for a human being that wants to be rational
My Confusion about Moral Philosophy
I agree. But knowledge was abundant for him too. What wasn’t abundant was critical thinking. And this was the problem from the start
I have the same problem. But I kind of focus on my goals and don’t care so much about what other people say do or recommend. I also doubt that learning about rationality changed you. It was caring about rationality. Because I cared about it most of the time quiet deeply and I was a bit like that all the time. Find people like yourself and if there are no people like yourself just do what you enjoy. And to a certain extent you can enjoy irrational people. They have often some resemblance of humor. Also we are probably not totally rational.
Which gives this person who is asking nothing. Just do what is fun for you wound be a better advice
Okay not knowing your friend I think she could do following:
premise one. God probably exists
premise two. I want to believe in him
conclusion I believe in god. That’s it.
of course it’s weird but if you really want to believe it works. For me and you this isn’t enough. But for her it seems to be
Another karma comment