Quote from: Tsirist on September 26, 2015, 08:43:48 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PM

I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is [seemingly] impossible for them to [humanly] experience negative [human] emotions.

edited appropriately

GET YOUR SPIRITUALISM OFF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEE

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 06:57:41 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PM

Banking on the high probability of a very beneficial outcome is not irresponsible. It's the wiser choice when given the option in this circumstance- your philosophy about this is so extreme that it borders on outright pessimism. From your perspective, it could be argued that curing somebody's depression would be a morally irresponsible act, because there's a chance that as a result, they will go out live their life more exploitative and happily, and therefore end up being killed brutally in a car accident while on their way to a social event that they would not have attended if they were still depressed. The worry of "Yeah, but x could happen" is rationally acceptable if the chance is high that no harm will come to them.

I don't think it's fair to compare those two when one is leaving someone in a state of misery and the other is putting them in a state in which it is literally impossible for them to experience negative emotions.

That didn't change anything, your situation is fundamentally different because depression is characteristically different than being dead. The alternatives to your preferred actions here are therefor characteristically different too, a depressed person suffers, while a dead person does not.

And please don't repeat again that the inability to experience happiness is somehow a negative experience in itself.

The conditions the subject is left in should your preferred actions not take place are most certainly relevant concerns when considering the morality of making a decision on someone's behalf.

Quote from: eggsalad on September 27, 2015, 12:20:41 AM

The conditions the subject is left in should your preferred actions not take place are most certainly relevant concerns when considering the morality of making a decision on someone's behalf.

That's the entire point of this, and I never divulged from that discussion. I think you need to reread what I hypothesized, because I think you've lost the point of it. This argument is convoluted and pointless, we need to return to the original problem.

Actually, no, I'm just going to simplify it. I'm not running the risk of you misinterpreting my posts:

This is the hypothetical-

Somebody is depressed.

You are presented with two options in this situation.

A. Help them out of their depression through support, medication, etc, but run the risk of marginally increasing their chance of being mangled and their life destroyed in a possible car accident down the line because of their increased social activism

B. Kill them right now and terminate the chance of their potentially ruined life.

Now you tell me. Which do you chose? And don't say "But this is isn't relevant, because x, y, z." That isn't the point. Just answer the question.

The importance of the idea I was talking about was less centered on the idea of killing them as an alternative, and more so centered around your supposed philosophical hold on the idea that helping them increases the chance of a possible outcome. To me, this negative outcome is so outlandish and ridiculous that it needn't be considered when weighing options. To you, it seems like it is. I fundamentally disagree with your perception of this type of decision-making- Which is almost certainly a pessimistic one. I never stated that the decisions were on, "Opposite ends of the moral spectrum." I said one was clearly better than the other, and that inference can be made without one being the polar opposite of its alternative in terms of possible outcome.

And you still didn't answer the question, because your response included in it the existence of foresight; as if you were looking back on it. That isn't how real-life decisions work- you cannot predict the future that accurately. Tell me what you would do in the situation I gave you. Do you help them, or kill them now?

Just as it's morally acceptable to dump the responsibilities of the pups onto a shelter rather than taking care of them himself, the fact that something isn't "as moral as can possibly be" does not make it an immoral choice or not acceptable.

but I'm not the one claiming that one action is objectively wrong while another is not based on a personal assessment of risk. You are using subjective values to conclude objective morality.

I can't say definitively which is the right choice which was my stance from the very beginning of the topic. I can however assert that both choices solve the problem and (minus the circumstances of external harm done by the depressed persons death to loved ones, because that isn't present in the pup situation) don't cause anyone harm.

Then why is it acceptable to dump the responsibility of the pups on a shelter, meaning resources that could be utilized elsewhere have to be allocated to them, when instead the man could opt to raise the pups himself. Why isn't dumping them on a shelter a not acceptable choice in comparison to that just as killing them is apparently not an acceptable choice in comparison to the shelter?

So you are saying that the man's action in this situation were objectively wrong given the circumstances? Because when you say that something is "not acceptable", that implies that there is a sense of authority on the matter that the man defied.

The "personal" assessment is where you draw the line of what is acceptable probability. Obviously, if there were a 50/50 chance of a negative result, your consideration of that action is drastically altered. But where does that begin? Surely you also wouldn't be so eager to take a 40/60 split, or even a 25/75 split. Where then do we draw the line? The truth is that is a personal assessment one has to make in relation to their values. That personal assessment, because it relies on your values, cannot be rationally applied to other party's who may not share your values.

If there were a game of chance where it was a 999/1000 chance of winning a billion bucks, but included a 1/1000 chance of instead having your legs chopped off with a rusty spoon, you could make that decision all you want for yourself, afterall, it's most likely to produce a positive result is it not? But most sensible people will realize that that is not a decision you should be making for other parties.

I was making that conclusion off the assumption that the unlikely negative outcome does not happen, which should at least favor your side. Both scenarios eliminate suffering.

but the same dynamic exists between raising them himself and the shelter. the shelter is obviously morally inferior because it needlessly consumes the shelter's resources when the man could raise the dogs himself.

yet, you do not say that the shelter is an unacceptable option, even though it is morally inferior to other alternatives.

a double standard exists here, either you have to recognize that it is unacceptable to dump them on a shelter, and that he ought to raise them himself, or you say that giving them a quick painless death is an acceptable solution.

That boils down to "this is unacceptable because the majority of people think it is". Which is a purely toxic mentality.

I think I'm going to pass on respecting a judgement that garners its authority from being commonplace rather than being rational.

So far all you have established is why one option is morally superior, but that's not why we're talking.

We're talking because you made the claim that the decision to kill them is unacceptable. You did not substantiate anything that justifies when a decision that is morally inferior becomes unacceptable other than through popularity.