Killing Hobos with Epydemic2020

Sorry it's so long.
The videos I'm responding to
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfH0NcuJRKM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDC0TAZ7-6Q&feature=related

Category:

Education

Tags:

• shwanerd
• epydemic2020
• morality
• god
• christianity
• atheism

[NikEmmer]

Finally: Ahaha yes Estan breaking out the classic trolley example, nice. I still want to see you make a video on gay incest, I still have yet to see anyone on youtube tackle that one, or even read any argument for or against it in any text I've read :P .

[ubergossen]

@NikEmmer yeah good points. And yeah lying to the patient, haha. What would be more beneficial, "you have one week to live, make the most of it." One week later "...just kidding you're fine."

Or

"You're fine." One week later, "actually you're gonna die right about now, you really only had one week to live." "WTF, doctor. I could have gone skydiving!"

[eredithM]

hobo is not a very nice term.

you're pretty cute

[schmeckensie]

watched 'Never let me go' last night, left you thinking about similar moral question with different circumstances...who is more important...story about a clone programmed to believe that he is morally right to give himself to save another life

[NikEmmer]

Continuing: IE: can never intentionally compromise patient care in order to benefit other patients, can never lie to a patient even if it will benefit patients health. Basically it's a "though shalt not do x regardless of circumstances" type of model. That doesn't really prove the existence of a higher power, it's simply the set of rules most hospitals have adopted. What we're dealing with here isn't exactly new or controversial, this debate has been kicking around since the 19th century. cont..

[NikEmmer]

Continuing: However I actually do feel as if it's rather a "cowardly" view of morality. It's basically saying I'm not going to take any risks even if there is a huge reward of potential happiness. IMO Utilitarianism is the riskier, but more complete view of morality. With that being said: there is absolutely no way that in the real world a situation where one human life would be legally compromised in order to save the lives of 5 within the medical field. Medicine is based upon deontological law

[NikEmmer]

Classic Utilitarianism vs. Deontology. The reason many devout christians identify so much with Kant's view of morality is because it presupposes a categorical objective imperative (most often assumed to be God or set in place by God) and is basically one big "though shalt not do x". To me deontology is a fairly reasonable position, because utilitarianism is highly subjective in nature (what constitutes "most happiness", how can we predict consequences of our actions perfectly etc..) Continued...

[geffel]

Just one thing - is this an actual proposal the Republicans are trying to pass now that they've taken the House?

Kind of like how they're trying to redefine rape as alright as long as the woman can't prove it..?

[Epydemic2020]

@CognosSquare

I would say that "maximizing happiness" is a rule/value that works well generally. In actuality, I would say that there are several competing values. I think there is a hierarchy of values. When two values conflict, we don't always know which one trumps the other. It just so happens that "maximizing happiness" is likely near the top of that hierarchy, so what is moral coincides with that value a majority of the time.

[CognosSquare]

@Epydemic2020 "murdering an innocent man to save five people is both happiness maximizing and immoral." This is tricky indeed.

Would you say that morals could be a set of rules that are "best practice generally" but perhaps allow some exceptions to the rule set?

I mean Is there no situation where a lie could be "not immoral". Or taking/giving of a life, stealing/appropriating without consent, etc. Or is this just all immoral but can still bring happiness or even be universially good?