One thing is becoming clear to me. Those who want to construct algorithms to encode morality in a compact way are dweeby, compulsive, inveterate wankers. As if there were a prize at the bottom of the crackerjack box for having done so.
One thing is becoming clear to me. Those who want to construct algorithms to encode morality in a compact way are dweeby, compulsive, inveterate wankers. As if there were a prize at the bottom of the crackerjack box for having done so.
You left out pretentious, wanna-be parsons who think that watching torture porn like Saw equates to academic research.
These contrived, soporific ‘moral dilemmas’ were already tedious an hour or so after I first heard them in the 6th grade. I suspect that people like the OP who make the tenuous claim that they have a theoretic, detached interest in these matters are actually immature, sick little fucks who quite enjoy contemplating these ‘decisions’.
Not unlike the pimple-faced 13-year-old who strokes his little dick when he raises his magnifying glass over the ants.
I arrive at this conclusion by applying [solipsism alert!] Sander’s razor.
…When trying to explain abstruse human behavior the most vulgar or base explanation is most likely the correct one…….
Not unlike the pimple-faced 13-year-old who strokes his little dick when he raises his magnifying glass over the ants.
I arrive at this conclusion by applying [solipsism alert!] Sander’s razor.
…When trying to explain abstruse human behavior the most vulgar or base explanation is most likely the correct one…….
I will not hesitate to say that I am very uncomfortable contemplating “Sander’s razor” in the same context as someone stroking his “little dick.” This is very disturbing image.
Whether or not the two men believe in gods is irrelevant to the question. The moral arithmetic only involves which death would cause more harm to others. One could reverse the beliefs (the family man doesn’t believe in gods and the scientist does) and the moral arithmetic would be the same.
Also, I still don’t see the potential value of citing an extreme moral dilemma, then contemplating or arguing about how best to resolve it. It would not be possible to cite all possible moral dilemmas, or even to come close. Maybe if your invented example were more realistic and less dread-filled it would amount to something useful. But that’s what people argue about all the time: real-life moral and ethical dilemmas, as with legislatures, courts, police, teachers, parents, etc.
I can see some value in such extreme dilemmas purely as philosophical exercises in examining one’s assumptions about morality, provided that there is some thought into how the dilemmas are constructed. In my elementary school’s program for gifted and talented students, we had an exercise where we had four slots in the bomb shelter and had to choose from among a dozen people from different backgrounds with different talents.
But the question in this thread is not a philosophical exercise at all because of the variable about theistic beliefs. That variable suggests to me that the question was created as a poll with an agenda, sort like restating Pascal’s Wager as a question.
