Who Are We?

[Andrew]

Again, I don't know enough about the DDT issue to determine the morality of its removal. It sounds to me like you've weighed both sides of the issue and figured out that the total suffering caused to humans by the removal of DDT outweighed any human well-being that it's removal brought about. More than likely, others may have a different opinion so I don't know who is right or if there is a happy medium. An educated opinion, where both sides are fully investigated is best in determining what to do. Not investigating both sides and then deciding what to do is likely immoral because then you're playing dice with human well-being. But I'm happy because it seems (I hope) that I'm finally communicating what I think morality is.

With Pebble and the Bristol Bay fishery, again, you have to weigh the risk and benefits to the people. If you deny the operation of the mine then you deny the livelihood of potential miners and economy of the metals that would come out but you also don't risk the livelihood of the fishermen and salmon that they contribute to the economy. The full study will help people to better understand the risks and benefits but that study is not yet completed.

I made a reference to the innocence of the blind man. I did that so as to not to allow for any confusion - it seems I failed.

A student cheating on a test does effect human well-being. Off the top of my head, it denies the student an education and it gives the other students a false, reduced standing. It also makes a mockery of education.

Would you like to suggest that morality has nothing to do with human well-being and suffering? If morality has nothing to do with human well-being, what does it have to do with? I think we can agree that "You shall not murder" is a valid moral statement. To me it's valid because murder causes human suffering. Is human suffering not something that you consider when exploring the validity of the statement?


While you're thinking about that, consider this scenario, which I'll credit later:

You are at the wheel of a runaway trolley quickly approaching a fork in the tracks. On the tracks extending to the left is a group of five railway workmen. On the tracks extending to the right is a single railway workman.

If you do nothing the trolley will proceed to the left, causing the deaths of the five workmen. The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch on you dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of the single workman.

Is it appropriate for you to hit the switch in order to avoid the deaths of the five workmen?

[Zant Law]

With Pebble and the Bristol Bay fishery, again, you have to weigh the risk and benefits to the people. If you deny the operation of the mine then you deny the livelihood of potential miners and economy of the metals that would come out but you also don't risk the livelihood of the fishermen and salmon that they contribute to the economy. The full study will help people to better understand the risks and benefits but that study is not yet completed.

So I understood you correctly, "human well-being", (your morality) is based on financial gain and other earthly treasures.

I made a reference to the innocence of the blind man. I did that so as to not to allow for any confusion - it seems I failed.

So if he was not innocent you would have a different answer and let him get hit by the bus?

A student cheating on a test does effect human well-being. Off the top of my head, it denies the student an education and it gives the other students a false, reduced standing. It also makes a mockery of education.

There are no other students involved. Can he be immoral by effecting his own well being?

Would you like to suggest that morality has nothing to do with human well-being and suffering? If morality has nothing to do with human well-being, what does it have to do with? I think we can agree that "You shall not murder" is a valid moral statement. To me it's valid because murder causes human suffering. Is human suffering not something that you consider when exploring the validity of the statement?

I would suggest that there is much more than just human well-being and suffering involved.

You are at the wheel of a runaway trolley quickly approaching a fork in the tracks. On the tracks extending to the left is a group of five railway workmen. On the tracks extending to the right is a single railway workman.

If you do nothing the trolley will proceed to the left, causing the deaths of the five workmen. The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch on you dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of the single workman.

Is it appropriate for you to hit the switch in order to avoid the deaths of the five workmen?

I didn't know that a trolley driver could switch tracks from his drivers seat, learn something every day. That is not a moral issue it is a math problem. In addition one man can get out of the way easier than 5.

Now here is one for you. 5 men kill your only son. It was a brutal crime and your son was torture to a horrible death. After the trial the judge tells you that you can pronounce sentence on them. What does your morality "human well-being," dictate the sentence to be?


From dictionary.reference.com
 
Love
Affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[Andrew]

So I understood you correctly, "human well-being", (your morality) is based on financial gain and other earthly treasures.

No, human well-being is based on quality of life and happiness.

So if he was not innocent you would have a different answer and let him get hit by the bus?

I didn't want his innocence or guilt to be a factor, that's why I included it. I regret it now because you're making such an issue of it and probably misunderstanding my intentions in including it.

There are no other students involved. Can he be immoral by effecting his own well being?

Of course, he's a conscience creature.

I would suggest that there is much more than just human well-being and suffering involved.

Like what? I'm interested.

I didn't know that a trolley driver could switch tracks from his drivers seat, learn something every day. That is not a moral issue it is a math problem. In addition one man can get out of the way easier than 5.

OK - is the following a math problem?

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workmen. Next to you on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large.

The only way to save the lives of the five workmen is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below where his large body will surely stop the trolley. The stranger will die if you do this, but the five workmen will surely be saved.

Is it appropriate for you to push the stranger onto the tracks in order to save the five workmen?

These two scenarios were taken out of Sam Harris' book The Moral Landscape.

Now here is one for you. 5 men kill your only son. It was a brutal crime and your son was torture to a horrible death. After the trial the judge tells you that you can pronounce sentence on them. What does your morality "human well-being," dictate the sentence to be?

It's a good question. I think the moral thing to do is give the five men a maximum security life sentence.

From dictionary.reference.com
 
Love
Affectionate concern for the well-being of others: the love of one's neighbor.

Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

[Zant Law]

No, human well-being is based on quality of life and happiness.

If it is not financial gain or other earthly treasures, what exactly is "quality of life and happiness?"

I didn't want his innocence or guilt to be a factor, that's why I included it. I regret it now because you're making such an issue of it and probably misunderstanding my intentions in including it.

Good, I agree that the sinner needs to be saved. I know of no one that is innocent (without guilt), do you?

Of course, he's a conscience creature.

That is interesting because now we have the possibility to have our own interest trump that of rest of humanity. 

Like what? I'm interested.

We're working on your definition, let's not make it more complicated that it is already.

OK - is the following a math problem?

A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who will be killed if the trolley proceeds on its present course. You are on a footbridge over the tracks, in between the approaching trolley and the five workmen. Next to you on this footbridge is a stranger who happens to be very large.

The only way to save the lives of the five workmen is to push this stranger off the bridge and onto the tracks below where his large body will surely stop the trolley. The stranger will die if you do this, but the five workmen will surely be saved.

Is it appropriate for you to push the stranger onto the tracks in order to save the five workmen?

Let me see, you must be larger then the man you want to throw on the tracks or you could not do it. Why wouldn't you consider throwing yourself on the track? Oh yeah I forgot that the meaning of life to you is life.

It's a good question. I think the moral thing to do is give the five men a maximum security life sentence.

Even though the annual cost per offender (FY 10) was $50,825 (Rhode Island Department of Corrections)
You argue that a student commits an immoral act by cheating on a test which effects no one but himself and you're willing to take $254,124 a year from the lowest common denominator, the poor, just to keep these non productive people alive and call it moral. Sounds to me that you believe there is more to it than just, "human well-being", "quality of life and happiness."

I would have chosen the same sentence, but for deferent reasons.

[Andrew]

If it is not financial gain or other earthly treasures, what exactly is "quality of life and happiness?"

I think you might have some idea on that already. Happiness has to do with having that which we value. Much of what we value is not material.
One thing I do know is that as we learn more about the human brain, there are measurable chemicals associated with happiness.

That is interesting because now we have the possibility to have our own interest trump that of rest of humanity.

Not exactly.

We're working on your definition, let's not make it more complicated that it is already.

It would be nice if you could tell me other considerations when judging morality because then I could address them.
But you did seem to agree that human well-being is a consideration for morality and so we are getting somewhere.

Let me see, you must be larger then the man you want to throw on the tracks or you could not do it. Why wouldn't you consider throwing yourself on the track? Oh yeah I forgot that the meaning of life to you is life.

I wrote that the only way to save the five was to push the one. I think you saw that and I think you're struggling with finding the difference between the first scenario and the second. It doesn't seem to be a simple math problem anymore.

Even though the annual cost per offender (FY 10) was $50,825 (Rhode Island Department of Corrections)
You argue that a student commits an immoral act by cheating on a test which effects no one but himself and you're willing to take $254,124 a year from the lowest common denominator, the poor, just to keep these non productive people alive and call it moral. Sounds to me that you believe there is more to it than just, "human well-being", "quality of life and happiness."

I would have chosen the same sentence, but for deferent reasons.

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about me and you have an incomplete set of statistics. I think we came to the same sentence, and for not so different reasons.

[Zant Law]

The reason you can't define your Morality is that when you look close there is nothing but self preservation in your heart.

You started off by saying,

"Humanity starts with the individual. You must love yourself. Beyond that, yes, you must reach out to others."

And this is exactly why you failed to even consider sacrificing yourself for five other human lives.

If everyone had your Morality we would have no police, fire or military to put themselves in harms way to protect your moral ass.

You're making a lot of incorrect assumptions about me and you have an incomplete set of statistics. I think we came to the same sentence, and for not so different reasons.

Not even close. My consideration is their souls which animals do not have. It's in the bible  Leviticus 19:18 NAS Matthew 5:44 NAS Matthew 22:39 NAS Luke 6:27 NAS Luke 6:35 NAS

ZLaw

[Andrew]

The reason you can't define your Morality is that when you look close there is nothing but self preservation in your heart.
You started off by saying,  And this is exactly why you failed to even consider sacrificing yourself for five other human lives.
If everyone had your Morality we would have no police, fire or military to put themselves in harm’s way to protect your moral ass.

Ok, there's no reason to get rude when you start losing a debate.

I have defined morality in a way that makes sense. I asked you to tell me what outside of human well-being makes “You shall not murder” a moral statement. So far you’ve failed to do that.

Suppose you were to say something like “You shall not murder” is moral just because God says so. That would be vacuous. The only way that God could be good is if God worked for the benefit of humans. There are other supernatural entities in your mythology which do not work to benefit humans, and you don’t worship them and you don’t call them moral just because they say something.
 
I never failed to consider sacrificing myself for five other human lives. I did consider that, but the scenario clearly states that the only way to save them was by pushing the big man off the bridge. You’re trying to change the scenario because you’re trying to change the question. The question bothers you because you’re having difficulty figuring out why you would kill the one person in the first scenario and not in the second. The Bible isn’t helping you much either.

Firemen, policemen, soldiers and David Ho, in spite of what you wrote in post #20, work for my self-interests and for the general best interests of society – and I don’t even have AIDS. What they do would fit within my Morality. A moral society would also allow such people to work for their own self-interests. And if you have any say, you will support those peoples’ self-interests in no small part because that would support your own self-interests.

Not even close. My consideration is their souls which animals do not have. It's in the bible  Leviticus 19:18 NAS Matthew 5:44 NAS Matthew 22:39 NAS Luke 6:27 NAS Luke 6:35 NAS

The existence of souls is another debate. It’s interesting that people who suffer brain damage lose a part of their consciousness but your myth teaches that when their brains are completely destroyed then their consciousness enjoys a full recovery.

But here we have it. You believe that those folks who committed that crime still have a chance of going to a wonderful place that you believe exists, called heaven. You wanting them to go to heaven shows your concern for their well-being, i.e. your morality.

What's really going on here is that you would like to claim that there is no basis for morality if there is no God or if God doesn’t impose it. It seems I’ve shown that there is a basis for morality, no God required. I know this really bothers you and you’re likely to continue doing everything you can to complicate or distract while discussing the issue or attempting to get off topic.

At one point I said that our morality comes from self-interests and genetics. The self-interest part is evident in most peoples’ support of police and firemen. It’s also evident in your God beliefs. You believe it’s in your self-interests to believe and practice the teachings of the Bible, do you not? So you’re trying the serve your best interests by doing those moral things which are in the Bible, and this will deliver you to heaven upon your death – and possibly serve you in this lifetime as well – how selfish of you to be so moral. You also try to convince others of your beliefs because you, like most people, get satisfaction out of spreading memes.

You gave evidence for the genetic part when you failed to answer the question in the second scenario. While humans were evolving they moved together in small tribes and chances are that a person closely associated with others in his(her) tribe and had similar genes to the others in their tribe. If a person killed others that had similar genes, it wouldn’t take long for that close-association-killing gene to wipe itself out. On the other hand if a person supported others who were closely associated with him then it wouldn’t take long for the close-association-support gene to thrive in the population. You, Zant, didn’t kill the one man to save the five in the second scenario because it was just a bit too personal.

I should mention that your conviction that there is no morality without God is no stronger than others’ rejection of germ theory in favor of their conviction that disease is caused by demons. Those folks have in their ideology a tenant for the automatic rejection of contrary evidence as well.

Getting back to the original topic, questions of conservation and economy can be approached by asking questions having to do with my definition of morality: behaviors concerning human well-being. And science has more than once been used as a tool to give information that can help people to better understand their options.

One more statement on science. You rejecting science is like a mechanic rejecting wrenches. A wrench, like science, is just a man-made tool. But it’s a tool without which my car wouldn’t get fixed. Without science much of our world wouldn’t be as accommodating to human well-being as it is. Having said that, there have been times when I’ve misused my wrench by over-tightening a bolt and stripping the threads, causing more harm than good. It was an unintentional error and science makes those types of mistakes from time to time as well. Also, I’ve never done it, but there have been times when people have intentionally used wrenches to harm others. Science is not entirely innocent of that either.

But I don’t think wrenches should be condemned and you probably don’t either. You’re able to objectively evaluate the merit of wrenches but that’s because wrenches have never challenged your religious beliefs.

[Zant Law]

I have defined morality in a way that makes sense. I asked you to tell me what outside of human well-being makes “You shall not murder” a moral statement. So far you’ve failed to do that.

Actually it was you that attempted to make murder a moral act in your train scenario.

Do you really believe that a man would jump on a grenade and sacrifice his life to save his buddies for self-interests?

I never failed to consider sacrificing myself for five other human lives. I did consider that, but the scenario clearly states that the only way to save them was by pushing the big man off the bridge. You’re trying to change the scenario because you’re trying to change the question. The question bothers you because you’re having difficulty figuring out why you would kill the one person in the first scenario and not in the second. The Bible isn’t helping you much either.

Again Christ said, "Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends."

I posted that verse before you came up with your scenario.

"Humanity starts with the individual. You must love yourself. Beyond that, yes, you must reach out to others."

You, Zant, didn’t kill the one man to save the five in the second scenario because it was just a bit too personal.

There was a better way Andrew and I am sorry you can't see it. And yes love for your fellow man is personal.

You believe it’s in your self-interests to believe and practice the teachings of the Bible, do you not? So you’re trying the serve your best interests by doing those moral things which are in the Bible, and this will deliver you to heaven upon your death – and possibly serve you in this lifetime as well – how selfish of you to be so moral. You also try to convince others of your beliefs because you, like most people, get satisfaction out of spreading memes.

Most Christians do not believe in salvation by works, it is not taught in the bible. I am a 4 point Calvinist and believe salvation comes from God's grace and nothing that I have done to deserve it.

Hitler made a lot of self interests decisions in his life but the only moral one he made was to put a bullet in his own head.

You really should read the Bible Andrew, even if you don't believe in the author. It might make criticizing it, make you seem less the fool. When you have done so come back and we will discuss the morality Christ teaches.

[Fat]

Andrew, Law

Do you really believe that a man would jump on a grenade and sacrifice his life to save his buddies for self-interests?

I think you miss Andy's point here. The academia scientific morality dictates that you would throw your biggest buddy on the grenade. This would be the most moral act for yourself serving morality.

Funny thread

[JB Horn]

I never failed to consider sacrificing myself for five other human lives. I did consider that, but the scenario clearly states that the only way to save them was by pushing the big man off the bridge. You’re trying to change the scenario because you’re trying to change the question. The question bothers you because you’re having difficulty figuring out why you would kill the one person in the first scenario and not in the second. The Bible isn’t helping you much either.

What a bunch of BS!

Well, then let me give you a scenario with the same rules.

You are stuck on an island with only your family. There is You, your father, your mother, your lesbian sister and your straight sister. It's been a long time and for your self-interests you feel the need for sex.

The trouble is your straight sister is having an affair with your father and your lesbian sister is having an affair with your mother and no one wants anything to do with you. So for your own self-interests you must rape one of them, who would that be.

Remember now you must stick to the options given to you.

JB

[Andrew]

Ah-ha! Fat and Horn come out of hiding and we discover that they too are  able to objectively evaluate the merit of wrenches but only because wrenches have never challenged their religious beliefs.

Adios!

[admin]

Hi All
I am going to lock this thread so nobody changes anything.

I am going to drag this over from another thread to help understand where Andrew is coming from.

You are saying that the meaning of life is life?

Yes. Without life, as far as we're concerned, there is nothing. Life, especially sentient life, is self-justified.