Nuanced doesn’t mean there are many equally better options, it just means it’s harder to get to it because we cannot see and understand everything, some things are beyond our capacities to see clearly. Even more so when we’re presented with unrealistic scenarios I don’t think anyone yet has ever experienced IRL, lol. But we can both agree with the background moral framework at work (murder is wrong, life should be protected), with the fundamental values.
And just because you cannot bring yourself to do the big right thing doesn’t mean there isn’t one, lol, you’re admitting to its existence by refusing to do it! Not being able to go through it just shows our weakness, that’s all, which is human and all, I’m not saying it would be something easy for me either but the answer is clear. How’s the more moral action letting people die when you can help it? And like I said, everything being equal between participants (it’s not an innocent kid Vs 5 Palantir executives 😅), the decision is clear cut: you wanna be 4 up and not 4 down. And of course with more different participants we would have to analyse it further, that’s all, and maybe we hit a roadblock cause we don’t truly know the individual values of the people involved (only God knows, and going to Heaven or Hell is the final proof of your value) but we can still make working general rules based on this sometimes clouded but still visible moral reality. It’s a mixture of the limitations of our mental capacities and fundamental epistemological issue that permeates everything we can think about and say that involves reality, not just a thing about morals.
Nuanced in the sense that there is no absolute, objective correct answer.
That person may argue that actively causing the death of a human is murder, which is always objectively and morally wrong. Doing nothing is the morally correct option from that perspective. To be clear, I’m not personally arguing in favor or against either choice, because I personally believe that there is no objectively best option.
There have actually been studies that involve this exact scenario, but of course without anyone being in actual danger (unbeknownst to the subject).
Let me ask the question in another way. Do you think that God would judge a person who acted one way or the other?
To answer the last question promptly: yes, but the difficulty behind making that decision would certainly have a softening effect on His judgment.
But again, okay, I’ve given you my views when it comes to the trolley situation involving my kid, or being scared of pulling the lever, I’ve even admitted it would be difficult for me even if the answer, everything else being equal, is obvious: 4 lives up is better than 4 lives down. But you also say you don’t really disagree… so do you just not want to pronounce yourself on the topic? That’s fair/your prerogative but that’s not proof that we cannot, individually and together as well, reach a very good subjective understanding of the objective moral reality, that we can recognise being somewhere there even if our vision is clouded/doesn’t go that far clearly. You just don’t want to take that step which, again, is your right and all of that. You have to take a stand, on my side or whatever other, that is better than the one I proposed in your view, that’s all, to have a productive conversation about any moral issue, you can’t just say “we cannot know so I don’t say A or B” when A or B are presented…
Please try to remove any personal connections from the scenario. Remember, all participants are strangers.
I’m giving a counter argument to your own without taking any stance of my own, because I personally don’t believe that either answer is more or less moral or correct.
Would you say that murder of an individual is always more moral if multiple lives are saved as a result? Would you murder an innocent person in cold blood so that their organs could be used to save multiple lives?
I don’t currently personally believe in God, but if a God does exist, I think it would be foolishness and hubris to assume that any human could ever predict how that God would judge any situation.
It’s not a big prediction, I’m not just freestyling here, it’s founded on Qur’anic and pre-Qur’anic knowledge. And no, you’re not providing a “counter argument”, you’re just refusing to engage. You’re saying “the thing cannot be said, so I won’t” whilst I’m saying the thing, or something close to it, and leaving it open to criticism. And no, everything else being equal I wouldn’t (again, 5 Palantir CEOs and one innocent kid I let the CEOs die, clearly, which actually is something that probably happens IRL but in the opposite direction, sadly), and we all die and the afterlife is more lasting either way and I wouldn’t want to make that decision (this is a crazy scenario meant to stress test the framework either way, not like an actual one that happens often enough like whether we should kill thousands of children because oil is free in the Middle East if you murder the locals, for instance), but that would just be a proof of the limitations of my intellectual and information acquiring and processing capacities. Let’s remember the Socratic truth: “all I know is that I know nothing”.
Perhaps this person was king Leopold and these are 5 Congolese kids, then again the decision is obvious, so we can see which directions these things go and any answer that goes south instead of north is obviously wrong, even if we can’t fully quantify the values of the lives at stake.
Based on that response, it seems to me that you are claiming that your knowledge and understanding of the Qur’an is in fact infallible and prophetic.
I am in no way saying “the thing cannot be said,” I am saying that I agree with both perspectives equally. I believe that murder is wrong and that saving people’s lives is just, but when those two options are in conflict there is no objectively correct answer. The fact that who is on either side of the track results in potentially different answers proves that no choice is always morally correct, in my opinion.
Stress testing the framework is where philosophy is the most interesting in my opinion. There are many parables in God’s word, and these stories also make us consider morality and truth, and in many ways stress test the framework.
No, no it isn’t, but God is the Merciful, the All-Knower, the Pardoner (Qur’anic epithets for God) so I’m just following from there. And you’d have to express what “the other perspective” is because up until now it’s only been mine in display, haha. I think we call this “fence sitting”? And who’s on the track doesn’t prove that there’s not an objectively morally best decision, it just speaks about our shortcomings and our bias, which of course are undeniable. I even expressed how I might fail (if it’s my kid, I’m most likely rescuing him, yeah) at doing the right thing, but that’s because I recognise there was a right thing to do, and may God forgive me. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like we’ll come to a deeper agreement… but it’s been a very nice conversation, at least for me, and I hope you felt the same way. 👍
I feel like I have been expressing the other perspective in great detail, but I also don’t feel like you have meaningfully engaged with that perspective and have instead focused on my personal beliefs. Perhaps that’s an effort to protect your own beliefs, for fear that such engagement might cause you to question things that you consider fundamental to your understanding of the world and your self identity. I can’t say for sure, but I can say that I have personally been in that position and felt that way.
Even if we assume that there is an objectively moral decision in this scenario, we can never know with absolute certainty without asking God directly. Even the wisest scholars of what we do have of God’s word disagree on its interpretation, which leaves humanity with a lot of ambiguity.
I always enjoy discussing philosophy, and agree that this has been an enjoyable discussion. I wish you well, I hope you have a wonderful day, and I hope to engage in similarly enjoyable conversations with you again in the future.
This line of inquiry can’t go anywhere because the answer Monotheist will give to every question is that an objective answer does exist, it’s ordained by god himself, and conveniently lines up with whatever his feelings on the matter are anyway.
You know what’s interesting, though. Monotheist will talk about how we, people, are fallible and sometimes get morality wrong, without acknowledging that this fallibility forces us into a relativistic morality regardless of whether or not an objective one actually exists. And that’s because you’re supposed to read The Bible. Famously impervious to reinterpretation The Bible.
Nuanced doesn’t mean there are many equally better options, it just means it’s harder to get to it because we cannot see and understand everything, some things are beyond our capacities to see clearly. Even more so when we’re presented with unrealistic scenarios I don’t think anyone yet has ever experienced IRL, lol. But we can both agree with the background moral framework at work (murder is wrong, life should be protected), with the fundamental values.
And just because you cannot bring yourself to do the big right thing doesn’t mean there isn’t one, lol, you’re admitting to its existence by refusing to do it! Not being able to go through it just shows our weakness, that’s all, which is human and all, I’m not saying it would be something easy for me either but the answer is clear. How’s the more moral action letting people die when you can help it? And like I said, everything being equal between participants (it’s not an innocent kid Vs 5 Palantir executives 😅), the decision is clear cut: you wanna be 4 up and not 4 down. And of course with more different participants we would have to analyse it further, that’s all, and maybe we hit a roadblock cause we don’t truly know the individual values of the people involved (only God knows, and going to Heaven or Hell is the final proof of your value) but we can still make working general rules based on this sometimes clouded but still visible moral reality. It’s a mixture of the limitations of our mental capacities and fundamental epistemological issue that permeates everything we can think about and say that involves reality, not just a thing about morals.
Nuanced in the sense that there is no absolute, objective correct answer.
That person may argue that actively causing the death of a human is murder, which is always objectively and morally wrong. Doing nothing is the morally correct option from that perspective. To be clear, I’m not personally arguing in favor or against either choice, because I personally believe that there is no objectively best option.
There have actually been studies that involve this exact scenario, but of course without anyone being in actual danger (unbeknownst to the subject).
Let me ask the question in another way. Do you think that God would judge a person who acted one way or the other?
To answer the last question promptly: yes, but the difficulty behind making that decision would certainly have a softening effect on His judgment.
But again, okay, I’ve given you my views when it comes to the trolley situation involving my kid, or being scared of pulling the lever, I’ve even admitted it would be difficult for me even if the answer, everything else being equal, is obvious: 4 lives up is better than 4 lives down. But you also say you don’t really disagree… so do you just not want to pronounce yourself on the topic? That’s fair/your prerogative but that’s not proof that we cannot, individually and together as well, reach a very good subjective understanding of the objective moral reality, that we can recognise being somewhere there even if our vision is clouded/doesn’t go that far clearly. You just don’t want to take that step which, again, is your right and all of that. You have to take a stand, on my side or whatever other, that is better than the one I proposed in your view, that’s all, to have a productive conversation about any moral issue, you can’t just say “we cannot know so I don’t say A or B” when A or B are presented…
Please try to remove any personal connections from the scenario. Remember, all participants are strangers.
I’m giving a counter argument to your own without taking any stance of my own, because I personally don’t believe that either answer is more or less moral or correct.
Would you say that murder of an individual is always more moral if multiple lives are saved as a result? Would you murder an innocent person in cold blood so that their organs could be used to save multiple lives?
I don’t currently personally believe in God, but if a God does exist, I think it would be foolishness and hubris to assume that any human could ever predict how that God would judge any situation.
It’s not a big prediction, I’m not just freestyling here, it’s founded on Qur’anic and pre-Qur’anic knowledge. And no, you’re not providing a “counter argument”, you’re just refusing to engage. You’re saying “the thing cannot be said, so I won’t” whilst I’m saying the thing, or something close to it, and leaving it open to criticism. And no, everything else being equal I wouldn’t (again, 5 Palantir CEOs and one innocent kid I let the CEOs die, clearly, which actually is something that probably happens IRL but in the opposite direction, sadly), and we all die and the afterlife is more lasting either way and I wouldn’t want to make that decision (this is a crazy scenario meant to stress test the framework either way, not like an actual one that happens often enough like whether we should kill thousands of children because oil is free in the Middle East if you murder the locals, for instance), but that would just be a proof of the limitations of my intellectual and information acquiring and processing capacities. Let’s remember the Socratic truth: “all I know is that I know nothing”.
Perhaps this person was king Leopold and these are 5 Congolese kids, then again the decision is obvious, so we can see which directions these things go and any answer that goes south instead of north is obviously wrong, even if we can’t fully quantify the values of the lives at stake.
Based on that response, it seems to me that you are claiming that your knowledge and understanding of the Qur’an is in fact infallible and prophetic.
I am in no way saying “the thing cannot be said,” I am saying that I agree with both perspectives equally. I believe that murder is wrong and that saving people’s lives is just, but when those two options are in conflict there is no objectively correct answer. The fact that who is on either side of the track results in potentially different answers proves that no choice is always morally correct, in my opinion.
Stress testing the framework is where philosophy is the most interesting in my opinion. There are many parables in God’s word, and these stories also make us consider morality and truth, and in many ways stress test the framework.
No, no it isn’t, but God is the Merciful, the All-Knower, the Pardoner (Qur’anic epithets for God) so I’m just following from there. And you’d have to express what “the other perspective” is because up until now it’s only been mine in display, haha. I think we call this “fence sitting”? And who’s on the track doesn’t prove that there’s not an objectively morally best decision, it just speaks about our shortcomings and our bias, which of course are undeniable. I even expressed how I might fail (if it’s my kid, I’m most likely rescuing him, yeah) at doing the right thing, but that’s because I recognise there was a right thing to do, and may God forgive me. Anyway, it doesn’t seem like we’ll come to a deeper agreement… but it’s been a very nice conversation, at least for me, and I hope you felt the same way. 👍
I feel like I have been expressing the other perspective in great detail, but I also don’t feel like you have meaningfully engaged with that perspective and have instead focused on my personal beliefs. Perhaps that’s an effort to protect your own beliefs, for fear that such engagement might cause you to question things that you consider fundamental to your understanding of the world and your self identity. I can’t say for sure, but I can say that I have personally been in that position and felt that way.
Even if we assume that there is an objectively moral decision in this scenario, we can never know with absolute certainty without asking God directly. Even the wisest scholars of what we do have of God’s word disagree on its interpretation, which leaves humanity with a lot of ambiguity.
I always enjoy discussing philosophy, and agree that this has been an enjoyable discussion. I wish you well, I hope you have a wonderful day, and I hope to engage in similarly enjoyable conversations with you again in the future.
Mmm. Well, I guess we did get some shared understanding in the end and that’s nice, haha. Take care, man, hopefully I’ll see you around. 👋
This line of inquiry can’t go anywhere because the answer Monotheist will give to every question is that an objective answer does exist, it’s ordained by god himself, and conveniently lines up with whatever his feelings on the matter are anyway.
You know what’s interesting, though. Monotheist will talk about how we, people, are fallible and sometimes get morality wrong, without acknowledging that this fallibility forces us into a relativistic morality regardless of whether or not an objective one actually exists. And that’s because you’re supposed to read The Bible. Famously impervious to reinterpretation The Bible.