4 ms·

Gambling itself isn't immoral.

by jtreminio 10y ago

solotronics 10y ago
some people think it is morality is subjective
- akvadrako 10y ago
  If morality is subjective is itself up for debate. I personally think morality is absolute. There is only one system of morality which isn't arbitrary and allowing morals to be arbitrary strips the word of any meaning.
  - brokenmachine 10y ago
    Do a google search for "moral dilemma" and you will find many examples where it is very difficult to come up with simplistic black and white opinions. Such dilemmas leave me with the idea that it is very naive to think there is some kind of absolute morality.
    - akvadrako 10y ago
      That's because you are using an inconsistent set of morals. It's like saying "there is a largest number" and "for every x, there exists the larger number x + 1". So most things people consider morals cannot all be simultaneously morals. Without self-consistanty you will end up with paradoxes like you mention.
      - brokenmachine 10y ago
        OK, this is sure to be a waste of time, but I'll bite... http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/ http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/ Let's just start at the top. Please give your absolute morality solution that has "self-consistanty" (sic) to "The trapped mining crew". > Heather is part of a four-person mining expedition. There is a cave-in and the four of them are trapped in the mine. A rock has crushed the legs of one of her crew members and he will die without medical attention. She’s established radio contact with the rescue team and learned it will be 36 hours before the first drill can reach the space she is trapped in. She is able to calculate that this space has just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36 hours, but definitely not enough for four people. The only way to save the other crew members is to refuse medical aid to the injured crew member so that there will be just enough oxygen for the rest of the crew to survive. Should Heather allow the injured crew member to die in order to save the lives of the remaining crew members?
        akvadrako 10y ago
        I'm not going to explain my whole moral system here and derive all the consequences out of it relevant to this scenario. Maybe if you point out what aspect of my claim you take issue with, I could answer it briefly.
        brokenmachine 10y ago
        Well I've already said that I think it's naive to think there could be an absolute morality, and I've also given you a specific example of a situation where I suspect your moral system probably falls down. You've just declined to offer any explanation of what your system would propose in that situation. So I guess the aspect of your claim that I doubt is the mere existence of your self-consistent and absolute moral system at all?
        akvadrako 10y ago
        Okay, there are 2 parts: 1. The consistency: it's just one rule, so it should be able to drive decisions without much ambiguity. 2. The "absoluteness": if it's unique as the only workable self-consistent moral system, that should suffice. Perhaps there are others, though I suspect they have one of these features: a. they drive equivalent decisions FAPP b. they are unstable and eventually won't be able to continue; either the hosts die or move onto another system I admit I haven't proven this to be the case, but I suspect it's true, or at least something along these lines. Certainly the opposite hasn't been proven.
        brokenmachine 9y ago
        >1. The consistency: it's just one rule ...Which is?

Gambling itself isn't immoral.

solotronics 10y ago

some people think it is morality is subjective

akvadrako 10y ago
If morality is subjective is itself up for debate. I personally think morality is absolute. There is only one system of morality which isn't arbitrary and allowing morals to be arbitrary strips the word of any meaning.
- brokenmachine 10y ago
  Do a google search for "moral dilemma" and you will find many examples where it is very difficult to come up with simplistic black and white opinions. Such dilemmas leave me with the idea that it is very naive to think there is some kind of absolute morality.
  - akvadrako 10y ago
    That's because you are using an inconsistent set of morals. It's like saying "there is a largest number" and "for every x, there exists the larger number x + 1". So most things people consider morals cannot all be simultaneously morals. Without self-consistanty you will end up with paradoxes like you mention.
    - brokenmachine 10y ago
      OK, this is sure to be a waste of time, but I'll bite... http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/ http://psychopixi.com/uncategorized/25-moral-dilemmas/ Let's just start at the top. Please give your absolute morality solution that has "self-consistanty" (sic) to "The trapped mining crew". > Heather is part of a four-person mining expedition. There is a cave-in and the four of them are trapped in the mine. A rock has crushed the legs of one of her crew members and he will die without medical attention. She’s established radio contact with the rescue team and learned it will be 36 hours before the first drill can reach the space she is trapped in. She is able to calculate that this space has just enough oxygen for three people to survive for 36 hours, but definitely not enough for four people. The only way to save the other crew members is to refuse medical aid to the injured crew member so that there will be just enough oxygen for the rest of the crew to survive. Should Heather allow the injured crew member to die in order to save the lives of the remaining crew members?
      - akvadrako 10y ago
        I'm not going to explain my whole moral system here and derive all the consequences out of it relevant to this scenario. Maybe if you point out what aspect of my claim you take issue with, I could answer it briefly.
        brokenmachine 10y ago
        Well I've already said that I think it's naive to think there could be an absolute morality, and I've also given you a specific example of a situation where I suspect your moral system probably falls down. You've just declined to offer any explanation of what your system would propose in that situation. So I guess the aspect of your claim that I doubt is the mere existence of your self-consistent and absolute moral system at all?
        akvadrako 10y ago
        Okay, there are 2 parts: 1. The consistency: it's just one rule, so it should be able to drive decisions without much ambiguity. 2. The "absoluteness": if it's unique as the only workable self-consistent moral system, that should suffice. Perhaps there are others, though I suspect they have one of these features: a. they drive equivalent decisions FAPP b. they are unstable and eventually won't be able to continue; either the hosts die or move onto another system I admit I haven't proven this to be the case, but I suspect it's true, or at least something along these lines. Certainly the opposite hasn't been proven.
        brokenmachine 9y ago
        >1. The consistency: it's just one rule ...Which is?