4 ms·

>Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. No the point isn't

>Part of the point of having so many different variations of this problem is that it allows you to probe the edges of your own value system. No the point isn't to probe your value system in this way. There are two points to this. 1. The first point is to show inconsistency and irrationality within morality itself. It's to show how random and arbitrary these moral instincts are. 2. Given how consistent the choice is across populations it shows that our moral system is biological. An irrational and inconsistent set of instincts that is biological and genetic as the situation has the same response across different cultures. From these two points, the final point is ultimately that there is no point. Morality is an arbitrary set of biological instincts like hunger or pain. There is no overarching deeper philosophical meaning. Your wasting your time trying to probe the depths of morality just like if you tried to find the deeper philosophical meaning behind your hunger instinct. Pointless. It reduces morality to nothing. It is an instinct like hunger... Nothing more.

ralferoo 3y ago
Except it isn't. People have different perceptions of moral and immoral, largely shaped by their culture and upbringing. There are many examples where people from countries or even the same country but a different period of time have wildly different moral values - just consider slavery, war etiquette, polygamy, cannibalism, eating certain kinds of animals, the death penalty, abortion, socialism, welfare state, age of consent, etc... In all of these areas, there any many viewpoints that are seen as abhorrent and immoral by others, yet either were or still are held by others. I wouldn't even say that it's an instinct not to kill other people, as I'd imagine an infant left in the wilderness to fend for itself probably wouldn't regard an encounter with a human any different to any other unfamiliar animal that may or may not want to kill it. If it seems to present a danger, they'd probably avoid them or kill them. If they killed them, that'd also be a source of food, possibly even an easier source of food than what they normally ate. However, we're taught by those around us the societal norms, including not killing others, from a very early age. It's a desire that most people have for acceptance and wanting to fit into a society that leads to following these rules. Sure, if you grow up in the absence of any kind of societal influence, your moral code might just be an instinctual "I must survive", but that's radically different to most people who have ever lived. What about acts of self-sacrifice for a greater purpose? Maybe it's instinctive for mothers to protect their children, but not so much for self-sacrifice to help strangers. Sure, it happens, but only some times, and only by certain types of people. But in any case, who are you to say that the point isn't to probe your value system? That's certainly one of the outcomes of thinking about these questions and questioning why you make certain choices in some situations that you wouldn't in other situations. There's also no way you can say with any certainty that not one single person who has ever posed this kind of question hasn't had the intention to make people think about their own value system.
- corethree 3y ago
  No. It is biological. Why else does this moral conflict exist across ALL cultures and populations? The basis for morality is biological. We can build high level frameworks on top of that but the core tenets remain genetic. What you're describing is the high level interpretation of our core moral instincts. The attempt to codify morality the attempt to explain it. This like, culture, like religion is made up by the human imagination.

ralferoo 3y ago

Except it isn't. People have different perceptions of moral and immoral, largely shaped by their culture and upbringing. There are many examples where people from countries or even the same country but a different period of time have wildly different moral values - just consider slavery, war etiquette, polygamy, cannibalism, eating certain kinds of animals, the death penalty, abortion, socialism, welfare state, age of consent, etc... In all of these areas, there any many viewpoints that are seen as abhorrent and immoral by others, yet either were or still are held by others. I wouldn't even say that it's an instinct not to kill other people, as I'd imagine an infant left in the wilderness to fend for itself probably wouldn't regard an encounter with a human any different to any other unfamiliar animal that may or may not want to kill it. If it seems to present a danger, they'd probably avoid them or kill them. If they killed them, that'd also be a source of food, possibly even an easier source of food than what they normally ate. However, we're taught by those around us the societal norms, including not killing others, from a very early age. It's a desire that most people have for acceptance and wanting to fit into a society that leads to following these rules. Sure, if you grow up in the absence of any kind of societal influence, your moral code might just be an instinctual "I must survive", but that's radically different to most people who have ever lived. What about acts of self-sacrifice for a greater purpose? Maybe it's instinctive for mothers to protect their children, but not so much for self-sacrifice to help strangers. Sure, it happens, but only some times, and only by certain types of people. But in any case, who are you to say that the point isn't to probe your value system? That's certainly one of the outcomes of thinking about these questions and questioning why you make certain choices in some situations that you wouldn't in other situations. There's also no way you can say with any certainty that not one single person who has ever posed this kind of question hasn't had the intention to make people think about their own value system.

corethree 3y ago
No. It is biological. Why else does this moral conflict exist across ALL cultures and populations? The basis for morality is biological. We can build high level frameworks on top of that but the core tenets remain genetic. What you're describing is the high level interpretation of our core moral instincts. The attempt to codify morality the attempt to explain it. This like, culture, like religion is made up by the human imagination.