Yes math and spiders. Math literally has sin waves. WAVES OF SIN!!!
It may not be fair or just by most current society’s standards, but that’s because fairness and justice are constructs of society’s inability to know whether benefits will outweigh losses. If the benefits do outweigh losses, a society must undertake said action, and if they don’t, then it will be because of any of the following reasons:
- The society does not take action at all, as it does not recognize the need for action, that is, the loss is so small it does not matter.
- The society is unable to certify or that the society is unable to recognize or believe that the benefits outweigh the losses.
The trolley problem is an old one. You state that society would, in effect, not move the lever simply because it wouldn’t be fair to the others.
I argue that society would move the lever, simply because that would help the most people possible. The purpose of a society is to move said lever.
The problem arises when the number of people on either side is unknown.
Let’s take a look at both situations again.
Situation 1
Possible Results:
- The cure succeeds, more people are saved than those lost. Net gain +.
- The cure succeeds, less people are saved than those lost. Net gain -.
- The cure fails, all people involved are lost. Net gain -.
- The attempt is not taken, no one is saved and no one is lost. Net gain 0.
Situation 2
Possible results:
- The prisoner goes on to do good, more people are benefited than harmed. Net gain +.
- The prisoner goes on to do good, less people are benefited than harmed. Net gain -.
- The prisoner goes on to do bad, all people involved are harmed. Net gain -.
- The prisoner is not released, no one is harmed and no one is benefited. Net gain 0.
Thus, is it not logical to not go on with the experiment and to keep the prisoner imprisoned?
Now on the other hand, if we know that any of those results are more likely than others, than the situation changes.
I see no bias in either of the comparisons used.
My analogy: 1st, best option is to do nothing if the likelihood is low, sac if high. 2nd. move if likelihood is high, don’t move if low.
Your analogy: 1st, do nothing if the likelihood is low, sac if high. 2nd, move if likelihood is high, don’t move if low.
Do you want me to state it directly?
I will define the terms used, in case of doubt.
Society: 
The goal of society would be to prevent harm to its inhabitants and to provide benefits to its inhabitants.
Thus, in order to fulfill its goal, a society must utilize a utilitarian framework. It must attempt to acquire a net gain. Let’s look at how it does so in several fields:
- Education. Society attempts to provide a net gain by educating the youth of the society. This comes at the net cost of some resources. However, there is a total net gain if applied correctly. The goal of education programs is to provide the maximum gain at minimum cost, thus it is utilitarian.
- Military. Society attempts to provide protection for its citizens by removing or denying future loss. Wars are fought to prevent the citizens from being damaged. Once a war begins to be detrimental to a society to the point that peace is a less detrimental option, wars end. In the same way, if a potential cost of war is so great that peace is a better option, peace is maintained.
- Justice. If a person is detrimental to society, they must be found and removed from society. In order to find such a criminal, the act of crime is outlawed. Once crime is committed, the person in question is removed from society. However, not all criminals are actually detrimental to society. To prevent such criminals who are beneficial to society from being removed, lesser punishments short of direct removal are instituted.
ha A+ bud
some people in gotham see joker as a hero
others see him as poo villian
The number of possibilities for a situation like this is unquantifiable. You can split one possibility into two possibilities just by adding an extra detail and vice versa so it’s useless to try to estimate the probability of positive gain or loss by counting the number of possibilities with positive or negative results. For example, “we don’t attempt to find a cure and don’t save anyone” could be split into “we don’t attempt to find a cure, some of the people who needed a cure died” and “we don’t attempt to find a cure, all of the people who needed a cure died”. I’m not somehow changing the probability of us not attempting to find a cure by changing how I phrased what could happen because we would never assume that each possibility has the same probability unless otherwise proven. If that was true, it would mean the prisoner is twice as likely to do good than bad and the cure is twice as likely to succeed than to fail as shown here:
Then what was the purpose of your analogy?
I’m not saying society doesn’t want things that make everyone better off but they also value justice and fairness among other things and they factor in those when they make decisions
However, there is nothing inherent in the idea of justice which makes it unable to conflict with the interest of society as a whole. Justice isn’t even very narrowly tailored to achieving utilitarian goals and can sometimes even derail a discussion about what actions should be taken to subjects that have nothing to do with what’s best for society. The reason we have the insanity defense or similar mitigating circumstances in trials isn’t because we think those people will be able to be rehabilitated faster. When they talk about sentencing they’d rather discuss what the criminal deserves instead of how long their tendency to commit crime might endure. Historically, and also in the modern day, what people deserve has been viewed as a separate thing from what’s best for society although they can overlap. You are arguing that society does not think justice or fairness are ends in themselves but evidently, society’s arguments don’t reflect that. Why do so many of us decry the invasion of the americas or our westward expansion to the pacific? In the long-run the standard of living of much of the world is better as a result
I was gone for an hour
Hardly so.
It’s not an infinite series, it converges into a certain number of possibilities. For example, if we have:
“The cure succeeds, we cure some people and some others die”
We can combine that into “The cure succeeds, more people are saved than those lost” and “The cure succeeds, less people are saved than those lost.”
Even if the number of results becomes perfectly even, with half chances of + gain and half chances of - gain, then it’s 50/50 chances in which case it’s better to go for a 0 net gain.
Same with the prisoner situation.
…at this point I’ve forgotten.
Ah yes the insanity defense. Let’s see about the insanity defense. What happens to a person convicted on the insanity defense?
You see, a person who has successfully gone through the insanity defense is instituted, where they’re placed nicely out of society. What’s more, studying them gives society the chance to help others with similar issues, or learn how to care for those people so that they don’t go down the same route. Certainly, people may argue that as they were insane, they don’t “deserve” a harsher sentence, but the results speak for themselves.
When the invasion happens, and quite some time after, it goes against utilitarian values at the time. Certainly improvements might be made from learning, yet if you notice, there’s only a certain amount of benefit that can be achieved under the yoke. Those who are holding the yoke do not seek to improve those underneath it, those underneath learn through osmosis. At a certain stage, it is better for a group to escape the bindings put on it by another. Total benefit over all time is not actually necessarily positive. Had such events not happened, it is possible if not very likely that those people may have been able to achieve greatness and better living conditions on their own.
This is true, but we don’t need the insanity defense in order to put them in a psychiatric hospital nor do we always put people who use the insanity defense in one. Depending on the laws of the country, the insanity defense will work even if the accused wouldn’t meet conditions that would require them to be committed to a psychiatric hospital. The primary purpose of these kinds of things is allocating punishment to those considered to deserve it
It is an infinite series. The number of possibilities is only based on how it’s expressed. I can say as a possibility “we attempt it” which is equivalent in meaning to “we attempt it and we fail or succeed” which is equivalent in meaning to “we attempt it and we fail” and “we attempt it and we succeed” and none of these are more valid than the others because they all mean the same thing. This is why it’s not rational here to assume every possibility has the same probability. The logical consequence of that would be that phrasing something differently changes the probability that certain things will happen
but they improved themselves to more than compensate for the aggrieved natives. I see it as very unlikely that in the less than 600 years from columbus’s landing in the americas to now, that the natives could’ve reached where we’ve gotten to in their place on their own or with only consensual influence from europeans. In some parts of the world, there are hunter-gatherer societies that have not chosen to develop much in spite of opportunities. Why, if today all the incentives of modern civilization can be resisted, do you think these people would’ve rapidly changed their lifestyles and culture and surpassed the settlers who would’ve normally replaced them?
It is subjective lol. Some dude did terrorism and killed some man. Whole world be like - That’s evil
His organization be like- You did the work of god you’re a true hero.
exactly
Well, depends on you define terrorism and if what they’re fighting for to be evil. The US army does about the same as that and get thensame exact treatment and encouragement from Americans and the military, so what’s the difference?
Fighting for religous causes
Uh . . . you would be surprised at how much the two are interwtined in America too.
Unless, of course, you just mean it’s the religion itself that’s the problem. In which case I will staunchly disagree.
In which case society has judged them to be capable of future good and should not be locked away, thus furthering utilitarian goals.
We’re seeing it in different directions. You’re saying “we attempt it and we fail” and “we attempt it and we succeed” prove that “we attempt it” can be split infinitely. I’m saying that “we attempt it and we fail” and “we attempt it and we succeed” can be put together to make “we attempt it” so that we reach a point with a small amount of set possibilities.
The premise here is not necessarily true. Those people are actually being held back due to various reasons. For example, the North Sentinelese people firmly reject outsiders, and society recognizes that forcing them to adjust to modern society is harmful to total utilitarian goals, based off of historical situations, for example that of the Native American tribes. Not only will it reduce the happiness and prosperity of the North Sentinelese, it will also cost a great deal of resources on the part of the society, and it is simply easier to leave them as is, so that all are better off in the long run.
False.
The dude who did terrorism and killed a man is evil because he has killed.
His organization is also evil as they have killed as well.
Thus, your example does not prove that good and evil are subjective.
It’s also completely biased on the presumption that their opposers don’t kill either, which is just untrue
Yes. The term “Good” and “Evil” Is Subjective.
If I were to stab some dude because I wanted to, In my eyes I would be good because I’m doing something on my own accord, but he would think i’m evil for murder
Just saying yes it’s subjective
It doesn’t matter.
Let’s go as complicated as possible, shall we?
A terrorist cell of 5 men kill 105 in a deadly attack.
A counterterrorism agency’s soldiers kill the 5 terrorists.
Every human life has a value of 1, in this situation.
Thus, the 5 men have an average worth of -20, as each has killed on average 21 people. This value is subtracted from their innate value of 1.
Thus, if the counterterrorism group has sent 20 soldiers who killed the 5, then you have 20 - (-100). This gives you a value of 120. Thus, each soldier has on average a value of 6. Thus, they are good for killing evil.
I’d rather not, but in any case I think seeing lives as simple numerics/statistics and all of equal value is incredibly oversimplifying it, nor is it something that’s generally upheld by people.
People will cry far more for a child, idol, or family head than, say, a drug addict or homeless person (or one in poverty).
(lol, wording)
Basically: your entire exercise is based on the idea that people are all completely objective. They are not. If they were they would likely see all lives of equal value with no negatives or positives as they view the reasons for why one fights to begin with, rather than be blinded by bias of “good” and “evil” based on their own personal beliefs and investments.
1 Like
Here we go… complications. Yes that was an oversimplification, but because I didn’t go complicated enough.
Let’s set the value of human loss, that is, if you lose someone close to you. If it’s someone within your inner circle (children, close family, really good friends, etc.) is killed by someone else, the value subtracted from them is not simply 1. They have also caused this psychological damage, so the value itself actually rises. Different lives are worth different amounts. Thus, a child is worth more than a drug addict.
But how much would a child be worth, or a drug addict? Well that’s something I can’t tell you. Nor can anyone short of an omniscient being.