883 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

Ok, if you don't torture this child I will detonate a nuclear bomb in every city around the world containing more than one million people.

And I'm supposed to trust that someone that sets that up as my options would not detonate a nuke anyway?  So if I do torture the child (horrible again to use this), then how do I know you won't still do it?  And why in hell should I ever enter into such a bargain with someone that would do this anyway?

And personally, what I choose to do is my responsibility.  What you choose to do because of what I do is yours.  If I do what you want, I have reduced life to something vile.  Further I have entered into some new demented future where anything is allowed based upon the threat imposed.  What's next?

[Liamv2]

The reapers are not natural something/someone made it so it is not a natural disaster

[3DandBeyond]

Liamv2 wrote...

The reapers are not natural something/someone made it so it is not a natural disaster

Yeah and I can call them a lot more dire things than terrible natural disasters.  I just can't use some of the words here.

[Argolas]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Arguing against a consequentialist philosophy by saying that negative consequences will follow from it is kind of missing the point.

No it is not. If you go all the way with consequentialist philosophy , that has bad consequences. It's true. You lose every barrier, cross every border, throw everything away in order to get to the best outcome. I said it before- it sounds right, but that is not how reality works. There are so many inherit problems if you try to go all the way. You can't predict every consequence, you waste time calculating them, you completely ignore principles that deserve being upheld, you ignore many values such as justice, you have to evaluate everything accurately in a way that is universally accepted in order to judge the outcomes even if you successfully predict them in the first place... it's a mess.

Blaming consequentialism for a world where ruthless people dictate
everything is a little silly as well, which is why I hope that's not
what you're implying - can you clarify?

Consequentialism states that any means is justified if it leads to the desired end. That is not only what ruthless people benefit from (You will accept every kind of bargain with me, no matter how tainted it is, as long as it pays off), accepting any means is also ruthlessness in itself.

Modifié par Argolas, 24 avril 2013 - 05:32 .

[Eckswhyzed]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

Ok, if you don't torture this child I will detonate a nuclear bomb in every city around the world containing more than one million people.

And I'm supposed to trust that someone that sets that up as my options would not detonate a nuke anyway?  So if I do torture the child (horrible again to use this), then how do I know you won't still do it?  And why in hell should I ever enter into such a bargain with someone that would do this anyway?

And personally, what I choose to do is my responsibility.  What you choose to do because of what I do is yours.  If I do what you want, I have reduced life to something vile.  Further I have entered into some new demented future where anything is allowed based upon the threat imposed.  What's next?

So your objection is to just ignore the hypothetical? I can replace myself with a brain scanner hooked up to an automatic detonation signal if you want.

A hypothetical situation was asked for and I provided. No-one stipulated anything about realism. I also took it for granted that you followed the rules of hypothetical simulations.

Think about the least convenient possible world. Doing evil thing X will save one million trillion billion lives, what do you chose?

[Endurium]

Repears are the galaxy's Broom & Dustpan

[Eckswhyzed]

Argolas wrote...

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Arguing against a consequentialist philosophy by saying that negative consequences will follow from it is kind of missing the point.

No it is not. If you go all the way with consequentialist philosophy , that has bad consequences. It's true. You lose every barrier, cross every border, throw everything away in order to get to the best outcome. I said it before- it sounds right, but that is not how reality works. There are so many inherit problems if you try to go all the way. You can't predict every consequence, you waste time calculating them, you completely ignore principles that deserve being upheld, you ignore many values such as justice, you have to evaluate everything accurately in order to judge the outcomes even if you successfully predict them in the first place... it's a mess.

Blaming consequentialism for a world where ruthless people dictate
everything is a little silly as well, which is why I hope that's not
what you're implying - can you clarify?

Consequentialism states that any means is justified if it leads to the desired end. That is not only what ruthless people benefit from (You will accept every kind of bargain with me, no matter how tainted it is, as long as it pays off), accepting any means is also ruthlessness in itself.

That is a gross misunderstanding of consequentalism.

If you say that taking a certain action (e.g. being a consequentialist) has negative consequences, consequentalism says you shouldn't do that.

And any means is not justified if it leads to the desired end! It depends on the means!

Try giving this a read.

[robertthebard]

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

I read your post, and I quoted it for my initial reply.  I realize that some on BSN are used to reading one sentence and then going haywire with a reply, but I'm not one of them.  You felt the need to "win" the discussion so bad that you went to torturing children.  I find it abhorrent that you would go there, so you bump the post I initially quoted as proof that you're not abhorrent?  I'm frankly surprised you didn't just buy into the endings and aren't staunchly defending them.  You seem to share the Kid's capacity for logic.

[robertthebard]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

That is a gross misunderstanding of consequentalism.

If you say that taking a certain action (e.g. being a consequentialist) has negative consequences, consequentalism says you shouldn't do that.

And any means is not justified if it leads to the desired end! It depends on the means!

Try giving this a read.

this is a very interesting point, considering the sidetrack I find myself on.

robertthebard wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Fandango9641 wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

I think this has to do with a fundamental difference in our ethical systems. You're deontological, I'm more teleological and utilitarian. I believe that the best action you can undertake in a given situation cannot be immoral, because I believe that outcomes are more important than the intrinsic morality of actions.

Splendid. Would you like to reveal to us all then the set of circumstances under which you consider it perfectly fine to torture a child for fun…..without compromising your morals or ethics I mean?

Bumping for Robert.

I read your post, and I quoted it for my initial reply.  I realize that some on BSN are used to reading one sentence and then going haywire with a reply, but I'm not one of them.  You felt the need to "win" the discussion so bad that you went to torturing children.  I find it abhorrent that you would go there, so you bump the post I initially quoted as proof that you're not abhorrent?  I'm frankly surprised you didn't just buy into the endings and aren't staunchly defending them.  You seem to share the Kid's capacity for logic.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

This discussion is truly off-the-rails right now.

[Argolas]

Eckswhyzed wrote...

Try giving this a read.

I looked a little into that and I can tell you that this FAQ does not really adress the problems I mentioned above.

Here's the best example, right at the beginning of the "problems and objections" section:

 

7.1: Wouldn't consequentialism lead to [obviously horrible outcome]?

Probably not. After all, consequentialism says to make the world a better place. So if an outcome is obviously horrible, consequentialists wouldn't want it, would they?

AHEM.

Argolas wrote...

There are so many inherit problems if you try to go all the way. You can't predict every consequence, you waste time calculating them, you completely ignore principles that deserve being upheld, you ignore many values such as justice, you have to evaluate everything accurately in order to judge the outcomes even if you successfully predict them in the first place... it's a mess.

If you need to make consequentialism work all the way, you need to be omiscient and capable of knowing the future.

Also extremely hilarious: This FAQ tells us to submit to the reapers.

7.6: Wouldn't utilitarianism mean if there was some monster or alien or something whose feelings and preferences were a gazillion times stronger than our own, that monster would have so much moral value that its mild inconveniences would be more morally important than the entire fate of humanity?

Maybe.

Imagine two ant philosophers talking to each other about the same question. “Imagine," they said, “some being with such intense consciousness, intellect, and emotion that it would be morally better to destroy an entire ant colony than to let that being suffer so much as a sprained ankle."

But I think humans are such a being! I would rather see an entire ant colony destroyed than have a human suffer so much as a sprained ankle. And this isn't just human chauvinism either - I think I could support my feelings on this issue by pointing out how much stronger feelings, preferences, and experiences humans have than ants (presumably) do.

I can't imagine a creature as far beyond us as we are beyond ants, but if such a creature existed I think it's possible that if I could imagine it, I would agree that its preferences were vastly more important than those of humans.

[Argolas]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

This discussion is truly off-the-rails right now.

Eh.. you are right.

I'm out. Sorry for my part in derailing.

[SpamBot2000]

robert, I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Fandango brought up the most vile thing he could think of and accurately called it such. There is context on BSN for doing this, since a very common line of defense for the endings is that they are "great" because they require people making choices that violate their basic morality. You know, "Tough Choices are too much for wimpy whiners of BSN" and such. It is a valid question to wonder if there is a limit to what people find the kind of "tough choices" they feel like applauding as their beloved "brutal calculus". 

This is the kind of territory that comes with glorifying those kinds of moral defeat. Yes, it is disturbing, and I for one would like my video gaming entertainment without having to wade through this stuff. But BioWare and certain cheerleaders of theirs do not feel that we deserve that.

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 24 avril 2013 - 06:01 .

[3DandBeyond]

Eckswhyzed wrote...


So your objection is to just ignore the hypothetical? I can replace myself with a brain scanner hooked up to an automatic detonation signal if you want.

A hypothetical situation was asked for and I provided. No-one stipulated anything about realism. I also took it for granted that you followed the rules of hypothetical simulations.

Think about the least convenient possible world. Doing evil thing X will save one million trillion billion lives, what do you chose?

Yes, of course in the stated options you presented as well as the ME3 choices, I am ignoring and yet expanding upon the hypothetical at the same time.  I can walk and chew gum.  Because I don't agree with your scenario which is more analogous to the ME3 choices, you change it to try and now force me into complying.  And I won't. 

No matter what, you will not force me to commit an act that is not connected to the threat you hold over me, nor that assures me that the threat will be removed, nor one that debases the reason for living itself.  If today you force me to choose one child's life, tomorrow what then will I be forced to relinquish for some other reason?  Or, what will others see as allowable?  It's like killing the geth to save organic life.  The hierarchy of the value of some life over others has been created in such an act.  If today, the most innocent of all human life, a child, can be tortured to stop you from nuking the world, then what next?  The old?  The mentally challenged?  Where then does it stop?

You are making it be about numbers, but it isn't.  Because as humans one individual's life carries the weight of innumerable others.  It's why the Coast Guard may lose ten people in saving one.  Or why soldiers sacrifice themselves in order to bring back a dead compatriot.  It's never about numbers.  It's about all of us pulling together as one, and knowing that losing any one of us diminishes all of us.  You are unique.  I won't kill you because my enemy says he will save others because I do this. 

Again, you're setting up some scenario that you're trying to change into a known outcome.  No outcome is ever known and the ramifications of what we do are not just shortterm but last on into the future and can evolve into something horrid.  Your example sets up this idea that you give into threats always.

[Eckswhyzed]

@Argolas

Oh, that's your objection? Really?

The problem is that every decision making system we have relies on data we receive, which may be flawed. So instead of dealing in certainties, we deal in probabilities instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "screw this, I can't predict every single consequence so I better discard my entire paradigm".

Also, 99.99% of the time I don't compute all the consequences for making a decision. I use heuristics like "killing people is usually bad" "stealing tends to have negative consequences" etc. And they work! The problem is deciding when these heuristics, which serve us very well, don't apply. If trillions of lives are at stake I'm going to think things through with a bit more care.

As for submitting to the reapers, I really don't see the relevance. Under the Catalyst's control, do the Reapers have any preferences? Shouldn't we then choose Synthesis or Control, freeing the Reapers while simultaneously fulfilling some of our goals?

[robertthebard]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

robert, I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Fandango brought up the most vile thing he could think of and accurately called it such. There is context on BSN for doing this, since a very common line of defense for the endings is that they are "great" because they require people making choices that violate their basic morality. You know, "Tough Choices are too much for wimpy whiners of BSN" and such. It is a valid question to wonder if there is a limit to what people find the kind of "tough choices" they feel like applauding.

This is the kind of territory that comes with glorifying those kinds of moral defeat. Yes, it is disturbing, and I for one would like my video gaming entertainment without having to wade through this stuff. But BioWare and certain cheerleaders of theirs do not feel that we deserve that.

So the best response is to buy into it then?  What's disturbing to me is that somebody would even think to compare the two.  I thought I had made that rather plain.  It's one thing to want to say "you people are monsters", which feeds right in to what you're addressing here, and it does happen far too frequently, but it's another to become the monster, and then act indignant when somebody says "you're a monster".  I think I pointed it out too, they went to the darkest place they could imagine for "shock value" and then are surprised when it worked?  Over the course of my input into various ending discussions, I have never felt the need to draw this comparison.  Maybe because I'm a parent, and know what I would do if my kids/grandkids were tortured? 

Maybe it's because my step daughter went missing for a few hours one day, and all I could think of was her being tortured for some sadistic maniac's pleasure, and then find that "hey, it's the same thing as choosing an ending in a video game"?  Turns out she was just at a friend's house, and she got grounded for a month for not bothering to call and let us know, but until one faces the reality of that situation, one doesn't really understand what goes through a parent's mind.  So no, I don't think this is really the wrong tree.  The people that really do these things start somewhere.

[3DandBeyond]

SpamBot2000 wrote...

robert, I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Fandango brought up the most vile thing he could think of and accurately called it such. There is context on BSN for doing this, since a very common line of defense for the endings is that they are "great" because they require people making choices that violate their basic morality. You know, "Tough Choices are too much for wimpy whiners of BSN" and such. It is a valid question to wonder if there is a limit to what people find the kind of "tough choices" they feel like applauding as their beloved "brutal calculus". 

This is the kind of territory that comes with glorifying those kinds of moral defeat. Yes, it is disturbing, and I for one would like my video gaming entertainment without having to wade through this stuff. But BioWare and certain cheerleaders of theirs do not feel that we deserve that.

Yes, exactly because it was said that basically the ends justify the means.  So he's asking how low is too low to go to see if anything is.

It's also the fact that in my opinion it is the game that created this sort of discussion where the thought of torturing children is something that might be explored as something someone would think is ok.  And truly it's horrid that some think it is ok.  That's the part that floors me.  I cannot conceive of a situation where that would be ok, ever.  I don't care what the alternative is.

[Eckswhyzed]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Eckswhyzed wrote...


So your objection is to just ignore the hypothetical? I can replace myself with a brain scanner hooked up to an automatic detonation signal if you want.

A hypothetical situation was asked for and I provided. No-one stipulated anything about realism. I also took it for granted that you followed the rules of hypothetical simulations.

Think about the least convenient possible world. Doing evil thing X will save one million trillion billion lives, what do you chose?

Yes, of course in the stated options you presented as well as the ME3 choices, I am ignoring and yet expanding upon the hypothetical at the same time.  I can walk and chew gum.  Because I don't agree with your scenario which is more analogous to the ME3 choices, you change it to try and now force me into complying.  And I won't. 

No matter what, you will not force me to commit an act that is not connected to the threat you hold over me, nor that assures me that the threat will be removed, nor one that debases the reason for living itself.  If today you force me to choose one child's life, tomorrow what then will I be forced to relinquish for some other reason?  Or, what will others see as allowable?  It's like killing the geth to save organic life.  The hierarchy of the value of some life over others has been created in such an act.  If today, the most innocent of all human life, a child, can be tortured to stop you from nuking the world, then what next?  The old?  The mentally challenged?  Where then does it stop?

You are making it be about numbers, but it isn't.  Because as humans one individual's life carries the weight of innumerable others.  It's why the Coast Guard may lose ten people in saving one.  Or why soldiers sacrifice themselves in order to bring back a dead compatriot.  It's never about numbers.  It's about all of us pulling together as one, and knowing that losing any one of us diminishes all of us.  You are unique.  I won't kill you because my enemy says he will save others because I do this. 

Again, you're setting up some scenario that you're trying to change into a known outcome.  No outcome is ever known and the ramifications of what we do are not just shortterm but last on into the future and can evolve into something horrid.  Your example sets up this idea that you give into threats always.

Ah, the old slippery slope chestnut. I was wondering when that one would crop up. Carry on!

I don't really have any interest in continuing this discussion if any example I bring up is going to be met with "Yeah, but, contingent factor X!" I'm not really interested in principles. If principles are leading to bad outcomes, the principles need to be examined (see Refuse).

Seeing as you don't want to address the hypothetical, that's fine by me. That's the great thing about these situations - I highly doubt that either of us will hold trillions of lives in our hands, so I see no reason to be concerned

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

SpamBot2000 wrote...

robert, I really think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Fandango brought up the most vile thing he could think of and accurately called it such. There is context on BSN for doing this, since a very common line of defense for the endings is that they are "great" because they require people making choices that violate their basic morality. You know, "Tough Choices are too much for wimpy whiners of BSN" and such. It is a valid question to wonder if there is a limit to what people find the kind of "tough choices" they feel like applauding as their beloved "brutal calculus". 

This is the kind of territory that comes with glorifying those kinds of moral defeat. Yes, it is disturbing, and I for one would like my video gaming entertainment without having to wade through this stuff. But BioWare and certain cheerleaders of theirs do not feel that we deserve that.

Yes, exactly because it was said that basically the ends justify the means.  So he's asking how low is too low to go to see if anything is.

It's also the fact that in my opinion it is the game that created this sort of discussion where the thought of torturing children is something that might be explored as something someone would think is ok.  And truly it's horrid that some think it is ok.  That's the part that floors me.  I cannot conceive of a situation where that would be ok, ever.  I don't care what the alternative is.

...and I carry that one step farther, in that I don't think even bringing it up is ok.

[Argolas]

Soooo, that one thread that seival made a few pages ago...

it's nice, isn't it?

Modifié par Argolas, 24 avril 2013 - 06:15 .

[Eckswhyzed]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It's also the fact that in my opinion it is the game that created this sort of discussion where the thought of torturing children is something that might be explored as something someone would think is ok.  And truly it's horrid that some think it is ok.  That's the part that floors me.  I cannot conceive of a situation where that would be ok, ever.  I don't care what the alternative is.

On the contrary, I do enjoy discussing these hypothetical situations.

You also need to have a more twisted imagination, like me

[Liamv2]

Argolas wrote...

Soooo, that one thread that seival made a few pages ago...

it's nice, isn't it?

I have never seen a seival thread not get derailed 

[dreamgazer]

Argolas wrote...

Soooo, that one thread that Seival made a few pages ago...

it's nice, isn't it?

It's its own terrible natural disaster.

[robertthebard]

Argolas wrote...

Soooo, that one thread that seival made a few pages ago...

it's nice, isn't it?

Hint taken:

No, they are not a force of nature.  They are manufactured, and manufactured by an AI that was, by definition, also manufactured.  So, no, they aren't a "Terrible Natural Disaster", they are an abomination.