I feel like the problem is that people hate contrived examples. "You have to choose whether to kill one person to save five." Well, I don't want that choice, so the first thing I'm going to do is look for alternatives that don't kill anybody. In the hypothetical that isn't allowed but in real life it is. A sufficiently clever person can in many cases figure out a way to save everybody, and either way the person who tries is justifiably more valued than the person who doesn't.
So what's wrong isn't choosing to save five people at the expense of one, it's the easy acceptance of killing anyone as a reasonable option.
I don't think it is impossible for a situation to occur where one has no option that saves any of the five without killing the one.
Perhaps not any situation that ever has or ever will happen, but I don't think that there is not any situation that ever could happen like that. And therefore, while it might not have a high priority, I think it is a valid question.
The question lacks nuance; its black and white, more than people's supposed morality. In reality, the World is complex. Maybe there isn't a way to save everyone, but people aren't going to take your word for it. The real-world answer is to look for a way. Ask black-and-white questions; get stupid, black-and-white answers.
See "Perhaps not any situation that ever has or ever will happen, but I don't think that there is not any situation that ever could happen like that [I.e. I think that it is /possible/ for such a situation to happen.]. And therefore, while it might not have a high priority, I think it is a valid question."
So, yes, I agree, such situations (where, upon looking, one finds no option better than either of the two) would be extremely rare. I still think the question of "If it does happen, what should you do?" is a valid one.
You read stories about WWII and other military decisions which followed this sort of logic and sent millions of people to death or tested chemical weapons on their own troops. It was exactly this sort of contrived sort of logic. And you are absolutely right we always have other options available, if we just tune the axioms in our logic to look for those answers.
It's funny but we see superheros in comics and movies deal a lot more effectively with these questions then we do some of our leaders. Who frame it in terms of win and lose, and the worst part is when they go against people that use that sort of logic, they are locked into these sorts of zero sum games.
I'll admit I haven't and won't read the article. I would bother if it didn't really bother me. I'll reply to the essay in itself that is the title. Really, people favor black and white because of distrust. They don't trust others, or even themselves, with what they evaluate as slippery slopes. Maybe you need to differentiate. Maybe you can exercise good judgment and know when what. People, in practice, do this. They'll never hit a person who has good reason to be physically weak, unless the unthinkable and only reactable happens and that person starts aggressing their child. And boom, hard and fast describes the response, not the rules followed. And it doesn't count, and they don't feel guilty. But talking about this is difficult.
Also, look at it from the perspective of debt. The concept and many realities of debt permeate everything in modern life, especially morality. Black and white is really red and black: what I mean is that the concepts of evil and good :: heaven and hell :: serving and receiving interest are linked. Spending leads to debt / Serving yourself is evil: in death, you'll fall to hell, which is nothing other than payment for an unpayable debt that compounds faster than one can serve it. And heaven is not only the opposite, but the counterpart too: you have so many debtors paying you interest for all your good done or goods sold you are living off the interest.
Downvoted because it's quite selfish to feel entitled to reply to an essay based entirely on its title - because I _did_ read the essay, and you're talking at a tangent about something that is interesting, but doesn't really belong in this thread.
Because you're talking about people lying about their actual morals, even to themselves - whereas the article is talking about how much people trust people with different stated moral positions.
Disappointing to see such a supposedly august institution jumping on the current 'science communication' bandwagon of trumpeting minor psych results under clickbaity headlines. This is just trolling for REF impact points.
I don't think you have to bring evolution into it to explain why people like absolute moral rules. Take 'do not steal' vs maximise human happiness. Go with the latter and someone will nick your kit and claim it was for social good.
It provides (or exhibits, or is indicative of [I'm not sure on any direction of causality]) maximum motivation for (especially collective) action.
I don't know about anyone else, but the more I see in shades of grey, the more I devolve into Hamlet-like indecision ("the best lack all conviction" is a self-flattering way to put it).
12 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 35.6 ms ] threadSo what's wrong isn't choosing to save five people at the expense of one, it's the easy acceptance of killing anyone as a reasonable option.
Perhaps not any situation that ever has or ever will happen, but I don't think that there is not any situation that ever could happen like that. And therefore, while it might not have a high priority, I think it is a valid question.
You either act, or you do not, but you must choose.
So, yes, I agree, such situations (where, upon looking, one finds no option better than either of the two) would be extremely rare. I still think the question of "If it does happen, what should you do?" is a valid one.
It's funny but we see superheros in comics and movies deal a lot more effectively with these questions then we do some of our leaders. Who frame it in terms of win and lose, and the worst part is when they go against people that use that sort of logic, they are locked into these sorts of zero sum games.
Also, look at it from the perspective of debt. The concept and many realities of debt permeate everything in modern life, especially morality. Black and white is really red and black: what I mean is that the concepts of evil and good :: heaven and hell :: serving and receiving interest are linked. Spending leads to debt / Serving yourself is evil: in death, you'll fall to hell, which is nothing other than payment for an unpayable debt that compounds faster than one can serve it. And heaven is not only the opposite, but the counterpart too: you have so many debtors paying you interest for all your good done or goods sold you are living off the interest.
Because you're talking about people lying about their actual morals, even to themselves - whereas the article is talking about how much people trust people with different stated moral positions.
I don't know about anyone else, but the more I see in shades of grey, the more I devolve into Hamlet-like indecision ("the best lack all conviction" is a self-flattering way to put it).