Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tiberiusmoon t1_iylkxsd wrote

Its usually critical thinking that solves moral problems.

Like so:
To address the subject of morals we must consider the broader spectrum of which it covers.
The end goal is to live in a way that is rational, as such it must be considered for all life because life lives.
With consideration to unbiased critical thinking we must challenge our own cultures which influence assumptions and biases, because such man-made constructs have no meaning to living things other than humans.
As such you must consider what it is that influences unethical behaviour in our decision making so that we may avoid it.

Unbiasedly we must strive for an unbiased ethical approach to morals because the study of such a subject requires critical thinking.
To simplify the goal: You can't value a social construct or object over the lives or wellbeings of others.

2

Nymphe-Millenium t1_iylmxmc wrote

I really do agree it's critical thinking, but it's even even more moral values/laws/schemes ingrained in an individual, that may use maths like a tool, not pure maths that solve the moral problem.

It's easy to prove, because you may consider other criteria than the number as the age, the gender, the weakness, the social "utility", according to your moral internal scheme (moral values).

This article decide you will always use the number to decide, but it is totally wrong, one can save 5 children and let the adult to drown, because it's their moral value, or save 5 people because they are of their family. Or even from their ethnicity. Or because their moral value is "to help weak people first", they could try to save disabled people first, or save the guy who is a doctor, an artist, a politician, etc...

There are a lot of possibilities because there are a lot of moral schemes guiding the logical decision of a person, and they could take several different "logical" paths according to their own logics.

Of course, if you ask the solution of this problem with disembodied people that are only imaginary silhouettes, people will use the pure logics, the mathematical one, but in real situations, where the people to saved are "embodied" and real, the moral choices can be different.

So, it is a really big simplification, It's really simplistic to consider maths alone, detached from the internal moral schemes (that have more weight than theorical pure logics) the main determiner for moral choices.

Pure maths can also lead to decisions that would be judged as really non moral in some cultures or situations (culture: people with common moral schemes), if used as a pure tool, like the villain in movies deciding to sacrifice some lives for the good of a greater amount of individual.

If this article was true, and mathematical really so important as a pure tool for chosing moral decisions, nobody would frown upon having some economic slaves for exemple for the great good of more people than there are slaves or exploiting ethnic minorities.

Maths are really not a moral tool, especially if taken alone, as the article tries to suggest.

8

InspectorG-007 t1_iym4dcl wrote

Assuming humanity reached peak extractive resources(oil, copper, etc) is it Moral to implement Population Control and if so do you lead by example?

1

Tiberiusmoon t1_iyo46gd wrote

Well yeah because either way people will die.
If choosing to die over another person starving to death for example, it is that person starving that has to live through the pain.

Its like choosing to die slowly or quickly.

1