[JumpCrisscross]

> locked down solid ethics that always follows right vs. wrong with right (not politically right or left) guiding everything this entity stands for and is guided by

As in?

People can legitimately disagree about what is right and wrong, or what even falls on a moral continuum. Nailing down a moment’s broad truth is among the most revered roles in any society.

[paul7986]

Can they ... poll a group of people (right and lefties) and ask...

If vandalizing a Telsa and vandalizing the US Capitol are both wrong and my focus is only the act of vandalism in asking this question. Overall, both acts are clear cut wrong!

Those who refuse to say both are wrong their brains are driven now by political emotional mind control babble where they've thrown out knowing and standing for right over wrong.

[lostdog]

What are your feelings on vandalizing shipments of tea?

[paul7986]

Not driven by feelings or political emotional babble as it's hard to believe anything when it comes to politics. Im all about clear cut right from wrong and clear cut facts, as well that was a wrong act! It was something that led to the revolutionary war, which is a clear cut fact!

I guess you showed that your mind is driven/controlled by political emotional babble & narratives made up by the right (tho maybe your left or an independent who leans right) & it's media (right or left .. all make up narratives) you consume. But I don't want to jump to conclusions.

[JumpCrisscross]

> you showed that your mind is driven/controlled by political emotional babble & narratives made up by the right

I rest my case that models that cast the world in black and white are the wrongest of the bunch, as they’re essentially a hard default for legalism and the status quo.

[wqaatwt]

They are not the same though. Equating both acts is disingenuous and at the very least distasteful. One is destruction of private property other is an attempt to overthrow the government and possibly murder politicians the mob does not agree with.

The closest equivalent would the a mob breaking into Tesla’s HQ while shouting stuff about hanging Musk.

[atoav]

I can easily imagine a myriad of situations where vandalizing a car is ethically the right choice, e.g. if it is made by someone who is the sieg-heiling number one supporter of an president struggling to overthrow democracy.

And I studied ethics. Meanwhile you have supporters of Trump vandalizing the capital because they couldn't accept the result of a democratic election with the goal to force their minority opinion onto the majority.

Those who don't equate the two simply realized that context matters in ethics. Example: Stealing is wrong. Not stealing when a child is starving and no one can help is more wrong. However stealing from someone whose child is starving is more wrong than stealing from a faceless multinational corporation that exploits millions. This is btw. something you can also observe in real life ethical decisions. That doesn't mean the excuse people find for themselves is always factually correct, but in US politics one side sees actively making shit up as a strength now, so that should tell us something about how much care is given for reality.

You likely tricked yourself into equating the two (vandalizing a symbol of a unelected fascist billionair VS a mob trying to force the senate to ignore the will of millions) by drawing a mental bubble around the word "vandalized" and assuming two acts are the same because their description may contain the same word. This is quite frankly an astonishingly simplistic stance to take. Words are things used to describe reality, yes, but reducing real acts down to one word, removing all the context and then equating words is not how ethics work.

Maybe you remember the trolly problem craze from a while ago. The original trolly problem premise is that murder is wrong and you have a lever where you can save 5 lives by switching the lever to a track with only one person stuck. The variations on the trolly problem are essentially a mental experiment to explore the ethical context of a decision. Our ethics prof e.g. liked to propose a variation where you have to push one person off a bridge in order to stop the trolly, suddenly everybody would deem it wrong. Turns out whether it is a lever or you have to touch a person makes a huge difference in how close to murder it feels.

[dornan]

I'm not sure you've really demonstrated the ethics of vandalizing the car. In this trolley problem there's a billionaire that you're upset about riding in the trolley and the lever you suggest pulling just destroys some random dude's car without affecting the billionaire. Elon Musk doesn't own the Tesla cars you see driving down the street, they're owned by people who wanted a car that doesn't create smog.

Consider the point the parent of this side conversation was trying to make: What if there was a party with the guiding principal of keeping the country together and pursuing policy based on sound principals rather than "what will own the libs" or "stop the fascists"? The things you complain about are happening because of divisive politics. Trump is powerful because he listened to people who were being ignored or attacked by the political hegemony, and it turned out that was a small majority of the country. It's a shame that someone with admirable personality traits didn't think of it first.

How would you reform the political and voting system to improve the total happiness in the united states?

Another ethical question for you: that mob believed the election was rigged and that the senate was ignoring the will of the nation. Based on that belief, were they acting ethically? Keep in mind that this is bigger than the trolley problem. Sort of an iterated trolley problem, if you will.

[wqaatwt]

Not that it justifies burning random cars but it’s not entirely irrational. If some people stop buying Tesla just because they are afraid that someone would vandalize it etc. that does achieve something..

[paul7986]

Im being downvoted by those who love the division and do not want unity! They've all lost sight of being able to stand for clear, cut right and wrong as if i told any them a story saying my friend's car got vandalized then they went into their office building where they work and that was vandalized too they'd definitely agree that is wrong. Yet add politics into the mix and they lose their minds/ability to properly judge/stand for right and wrong cause they allow their minds to be bought and sold to poltical emotional babble/narratives in which they have zero way of verifying if any are true!

I think AI should be the next party where people and all their b.s. cant affect it's rock solid moral and ethical code. It follows clear cut right over wrong, it is all about unity, peace/love for all human beings of all different types of backgrounds and it uses massive amounts of data to adjust how its ethics changes over time. So, it's M.O. (one i described) remains updated to per how society changes. Of course that could lead to an even worse system but just thinking out of the box as i do and getting downvoted for such thinking as usual lol

As well AI could be used to monitor all politicians day and night routine to ensure veracity in everything they do/push for and ensure those politicians are following the AIs ethical code of law and they're serving the people not the politician or any of the politicians cronies or interest groups that do not serve the people as a whole!