Yes. That's what I'm saying.
Because this kind of choice should not be dependant of moral, but ethic. Again, this is the basis of what I've been trying to tell you this past three posts. And something you have been ignoring.
A moral argument is a subjective and absolute one. Like what you are telling to me, it is supposed to be applied to every situations. The problem with that is that this type of philosophy doesn't take reality into account.
> Enters ethic
Ethic is similar to moral but it does something more, it takes the context into account.
As such a person using moral will say that "violence is never the answer" when a person using ethic will say "we should not use violence UNLESS it because necessary".
As such, the person using ethic will deliver arguments that are much more focused on the reality of the context of situations rather than just applying a moral standard to each one of them.
> This is why I'm saying to you : Killing a person who is in coma and and killing a foetus is not the same things when we take into account that the two situations have very different context and parameters. In the case of the baby, there is a person that will be impacted negatively by the pregnency and the birth, in the case of a person in coma, social service are doing the job and no one is suffering physically or mentally because of the existence of the person (it's rather the opposite, people are suffering because that person is in coma).
Hence why we should allow women to have access to health care and abortion but not random killing of people in coma.
The mother doesn't kill, doctor do. And abortion - as explained previously - is legitimated by the context. If you are gonna repeat the same fallacious argument again an again, I will stop discussing with you. I have not time to waste anymore.
Actually sometimes there are. Ethical ones. You have a vision that is moral, that doesn't take context into account.
While it is no good to kill humans, sometimes the context will justify the action and render it inevitable. Without the legitimacy of such action, we would live in a nazi world today. Do not forget that.
Now, the fact that this action can be legitimated by the ethical context doesn't mean that we should accept it. In reality, we should build a world where this action should never become necessary.
And that's what I'm trying to describe to you.
Well, if you want to take it that road we can :
In reality, no one kills. The universe does. Remember > No free will, no agency.
So let's go back to the subabsolute rethoric and let's stop playing dumb now : In our case, the doctor kills. The mother will ask them to do it. And the action is legitimated - again - by the context. This is - again - the ethical thing to do. Let's try to never create a comparison between abortion and the holocaust again please.
1 > No. Murder is a particular form of killing, an anlawfull killing with premiditation.
2 > Yes. But this doesn't change anything. The fish you get in the sea or the insect you smash on your cheek are innocent living beings too, just not from the human specie and they are far more advanced in their development than a foetus (since they are literally breathing our air)
This argument only stands on the moral argument that somehow, human are intrinsically more aluable than other living beings. Sorry, but this will not pass with me.
3 > Again, no. For the reason I have mentionned above.
Yes, but only on very cases to cases as murder has usually very different reasons. But this would only be very few people. Also, it could trigger the change; yes, not be the reason for the change. The change will only happens if there are other parameters applied to the person.That pressure - in those case specifically - could be applied by the person on themselve but those are rare.
In anycase, the death penalty is by defaut unethical as it is not the change that we are looking for, but the potential for good. And if you kill a person, you remove this potential. This become therefore perfectly unethical on a fundamental level because - as I said before - it would mean that we are willingly killing people who changed and who could do good in society because of this change.
This is not acceptable at all.
No.
The example you mentionned above will only work for SMALL changes. The understanding that an action of killing is bad is not a radical change, it's a small one. As usually people do understand that killing is bad, they are just pushed to do it again.
If a murderer was pushed to kill for something else that an impulse, now we would need a radical change. And aradical change would need more than just a death punishment but actual time and data pressured by the person on themselves in order to learn and grow overtime and reduce the tendancies that pushes them to kill. (often created by systemic issues).
You will not be able to change radically a person through the threat of punishment. You will need reconstruction therapies.
You need to understand that the gap between a small change and a radical one is BIG. A radical means rethinking a lot of your vision of the world and a lot of your behavior. If you don't have the data and the help you need to do that, you will not be able to do that yourself.
Indeed. But I can use both arguments based on logic and based on empiric datas to discuss, I'm not locked into just one type.
When I'm asking you datas, I'm making empiric argumentations. When I'm telling you how change work based on the knowledge I have of radicalization and scientific understanding, I'm using logical arguments to make comparison.
Both are legitimated by this debate.
Okay okay...
I think that you really don't have lessons to give when you are the one who is unable to understand the principle of the absence of free will or the difference between moral and ethic mate.
Maybe you should tone down the easily counterable sarcasm if you want us to continue this discussion.
I will do as if I just understood what you just said here and reply this:
There is no will to choose here. All the forces of the universe in this scenario are directed in order for you to push the button, there is no "not pushing" the button. You WILL push it because if you did not, it would be an irrationnal descision which could only be explained by a sudden loss of your mind.
And since I don't think that it can happen to you - i could be wrong, I don't know you - you WILL push the button. There is no "but I could", no you could not.
I specifically create a scenario where you can see that there is absolutely no rationnal reason for you not to push the button:
- You love the person so you would never let them suffer because of your inaction
- You can easily push the button
- The train is coming and you know exactly what will happen.
It's a no win scenario. You are bound by your place in the universe and your material conditions of existence to push this button.
This the logical proof that your free will... is just an illusion.
Don't worry, I sence that it won't be accepted so I won't force this argumentation on you more than that. Let's end this point here.
> A disponibility bias > You are privileging immediate and accessible information
> A recency bias > You do not take the evolution of the rate of crimes in NYC into account
> A Framing effect > You are framing the information as they are the only one available.
In reality and in general the number of murder in NYC has decreased :
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0528/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-september-third-quarter-2024
(Yup, I'm not fun at parties)
Because this kind of choice should not be dependant of moral, but ethic. Again, this is the basis of what I've been trying to tell you this past three posts. And something you have been ignoring.
A moral argument is a subjective and absolute one. Like what you are telling to me, it is supposed to be applied to every situations. The problem with that is that this type of philosophy doesn't take reality into account.
> Enters ethic
Ethic is similar to moral but it does something more, it takes the context into account.
As such a person using moral will say that "violence is never the answer" when a person using ethic will say "we should not use violence UNLESS it because necessary".
As such, the person using ethic will deliver arguments that are much more focused on the reality of the context of situations rather than just applying a moral standard to each one of them.
> This is why I'm saying to you : Killing a person who is in coma and and killing a foetus is not the same things when we take into account that the two situations have very different context and parameters. In the case of the baby, there is a person that will be impacted negatively by the pregnency and the birth, in the case of a person in coma, social service are doing the job and no one is suffering physically or mentally because of the existence of the person (it's rather the opposite, people are suffering because that person is in coma).
Hence why we should allow women to have access to health care and abortion but not random killing of people in coma.
The mother doesn't kill, doctor do. And abortion - as explained previously - is legitimated by the context. If you are gonna repeat the same fallacious argument again an again, I will stop discussing with you. I have not time to waste anymore.
Actually sometimes there are. Ethical ones. You have a vision that is moral, that doesn't take context into account.
While it is no good to kill humans, sometimes the context will justify the action and render it inevitable. Without the legitimacy of such action, we would live in a nazi world today. Do not forget that.
Now, the fact that this action can be legitimated by the ethical context doesn't mean that we should accept it. In reality, we should build a world where this action should never become necessary.
And that's what I'm trying to describe to you.
And Hitler didn't gas jews, the gas did
In reality, no one kills. The universe does. Remember > No free will, no agency.
So let's go back to the subabsolute rethoric and let's stop playing dumb now : In our case, the doctor kills. The mother will ask them to do it. And the action is legitimated - again - by the context. This is - again - the ethical thing to do. Let's try to never create a comparison between abortion and the holocaust again please.
1 > No. Murder is a particular form of killing, an anlawfull killing with premiditation.
2 > Yes. But this doesn't change anything. The fish you get in the sea or the insect you smash on your cheek are innocent living beings too, just not from the human specie and they are far more advanced in their development than a foetus (since they are literally breathing our air)
This argument only stands on the moral argument that somehow, human are intrinsically more aluable than other living beings. Sorry, but this will not pass with me.
3 > Again, no. For the reason I have mentionned above.
Yes, but only on very cases to cases as murder has usually very different reasons. But this would only be very few people. Also, it could trigger the change; yes, not be the reason for the change. The change will only happens if there are other parameters applied to the person.That pressure - in those case specifically - could be applied by the person on themselve but those are rare.
In anycase, the death penalty is by defaut unethical as it is not the change that we are looking for, but the potential for good. And if you kill a person, you remove this potential. This become therefore perfectly unethical on a fundamental level because - as I said before - it would mean that we are willingly killing people who changed and who could do good in society because of this change.
This is not acceptable at all.
No.
The example you mentionned above will only work for SMALL changes. The understanding that an action of killing is bad is not a radical change, it's a small one. As usually people do understand that killing is bad, they are just pushed to do it again.
If a murderer was pushed to kill for something else that an impulse, now we would need a radical change. And aradical change would need more than just a death punishment but actual time and data pressured by the person on themselves in order to learn and grow overtime and reduce the tendancies that pushes them to kill. (often created by systemic issues).
You will not be able to change radically a person through the threat of punishment. You will need reconstruction therapies.
You need to understand that the gap between a small change and a radical one is BIG. A radical means rethinking a lot of your vision of the world and a lot of your behavior. If you don't have the data and the help you need to do that, you will not be able to do that yourself.
Indeed. But I can use both arguments based on logic and based on empiric datas to discuss, I'm not locked into just one type.
When I'm asking you datas, I'm making empiric argumentations. When I'm telling you how change work based on the knowledge I have of radicalization and scientific understanding, I'm using logical arguments to make comparison.
Both are legitimated by this debate.
Low IQ, unable to mentally abstract and reason through concepts, and must visually see a statistic or bar graph
I think that you really don't have lessons to give when you are the one who is unable to understand the principle of the absence of free will or the difference between moral and ethic mate.
Maybe you should tone down the easily counterable sarcasm if you want us to continue this discussion.
I will do as if I just understood what you just said here and reply this:
There is no will to choose here. All the forces of the universe in this scenario are directed in order for you to push the button, there is no "not pushing" the button. You WILL push it because if you did not, it would be an irrationnal descision which could only be explained by a sudden loss of your mind.
And since I don't think that it can happen to you - i could be wrong, I don't know you - you WILL push the button. There is no "but I could", no you could not.
I specifically create a scenario where you can see that there is absolutely no rationnal reason for you not to push the button:
- You love the person so you would never let them suffer because of your inaction
- You can easily push the button
- The train is coming and you know exactly what will happen.
It's a no win scenario. You are bound by your place in the universe and your material conditions of existence to push this button.
This the logical proof that your free will... is just an illusion.
Don't worry, I sence that it won't be accepted so I won't force this argumentation on you more than that. Let's end this point here.
> A disponibility bias > You are privileging immediate and accessible information
> A recency bias > You do not take the evolution of the rate of crimes in NYC into account
> A Framing effect > You are framing the information as they are the only one available.
In reality and in general the number of murder in NYC has decreased :
https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/news/p0528/nypd-citywide-crime-statistics-september-third-quarter-2024
(Yup, I'm not fun at parties)
The New Year barely started and we already got crazy feats.
