Quote from: Tsirist on September 26, 2015, 08:43:48 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PMI 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 appropriatelyGET YOUR SPIRITUALISM OFF MY BOARDREEEEEEEEE
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PMI 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
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.
spiritualism
Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 06:57:41 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PMBanking 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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PMBanking 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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 07:54:05 PMQuote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 06:57:41 PMQuote from: eggsalad on September 26, 2015, 04:47:27 PMBanking 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 actually doesn't matter. To get my point across, I'll just shift the scenario, because the argument permits that. The car accident is terrible brutal, gory, and that person cannot walk, talk, or function properly for the rest of their life. They are a shell of their former selves, and are miserable. Was I still in the wrong for taking the shot at helping them get out of their depression?
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.
It seems like you either ignored, or completely misread my post. Depression isn't the focus of that hypothetical, it's the resulting consequences. You're responding to the wrong aspect.
Where did I say that?
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.
Thread is super DerailedLock please
Quote from: eggsalad on September 27, 2015, 12:20:41 AMThe 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 activismB. 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.
You never explained that the alternative to curing them was killing them but now that I realize that then yes they are similar situstions.And I can solidly say the difference between B and A isnt a matter of absolutes because in the end both solved the problem of his suffering. Sure, one will probably work out better, but it still doesn't make the two choices polar ends of the morality spectrum. Some people are coming to realize this in the real world what with that Belgian woman I think she was who was given the go ahead for assisted suicide for chronic depression.
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.
It does make it not acceptable when there are options that express a greater sense of morality. I don't understand where the confusion is here.
I have yet to use the word "Objectively" throughout this entire argument. I never stated shooting the puppies was "Objectively wrong," there are circumstances where that would be the best course of action. This is not one of them.
I'm not making a "Personal" assessment of the risks involved, I'm being logically sensible. The statistical certainties you're asking for do not exist, and I acknowledge that. But through consensus and study, you can suggest which outcome will have a greater chance of beneficial results. I would care about this argument on your end if this was something more controversial and uncertain, but it isn't. This is a case where one option is quite clearly better than the other.
Stop saying "Both solve the problem" as if you know what's going to happen; you're doing precisely what I asked you not to do while answering the question. The point of the question is that you have no foresight into the future other than your intuition and reasoning. Pick an option. Shoot the depressed person, or help them out of the rut.
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.
Quote from: eggsalad on September 27, 2015, 11:31:46 AMThen 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?The man opting to raise the pups himself would be great, but sending them to a shelter, where they will most likely be picked up and loved by a family, is also nice. Both of those options are fine to me, assuming the man raised them well, which I can't know for sure. So shelter > Other options
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.
There isn't a double standard here, because one option being inferior to another does not make it "Unacceptable" until it crosses that partially-arbitrary threshold into "This is the wrong thing to do, given the circumstances." In this situation, to me, and I would certainly imagine to the vast majority of people put in the man's situation, killing them when you could give them to a shelter crosses that threshold.
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.
My siding with the decision isn't because most people share that view; it's because of the mathematics involved in considering what will most likely happen given the situation. I referenced its popularity because I wanted to establish that it would seem most people share this mentality, contrasting your unique view of the situation. Stop pandering to yourself and acting like there isn't any logical rhyme or reason to what I'm telling you. Choosing on a constraint that involves chance isn't automatically made irrational because of its partial arbitration. You make decisions with this constraint every day, and yet you don't seem to be bothered in the slightest.
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.