|
|
|
|
|
|
by umanwizard
2777 days ago
|
|
|
There is no argument here other than an appeal to emotion. Yes, it's true that no normal person would actually avoid jumping into a pool to save a drowning child, even at the cost of $5000 that could save 100 other people. That is the entire point -- human moral faculties are not based on logic, and overweight the interests of people you can see, or whom you can help in obvious, concrete ways, relative to diffuse total global happiness. But the fact that humans are wired to think in a particular way doesn't prove that it's rational or correct. |
|
|
Emotion, character and reason are all valid in this discussion.
Let me put it to you just a bit more directly:
An aggrieved mother and father are there, facing you and their dead child.
Now, having made this call to let their kid die, what do you say to them?
I will wait...
Actually, I won't. It is one thing to speak of optimal choices when one is seperated from, or above, disassociated.
Real life, where the actual humans are plays out much differently.
Above, when I asked, "Seriously?" it was this I was getting at.
The claim of strange morals, based on some 100 to one, as if!
I found the whole thing deeply disturbing. Not a negative to the participants. Not my intent.
No, what I found disturbing was the detached nature of the whole thing.
Maybe Liberal Arts education remains more relevant than I realize.
Again, not a negative toward anyone. Context matters, that's all.
I very seriously question the general wisdom in having some percentage of us so far isolated from people overall, and any sort of meaningful policy, moral debate being beneficial.
You completely failed to make a meaningful rebuttal. Correct... ?
Like I said, seriously?