[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

Most of those deductions also come from premises like "less deaths is better". Where people have disagreements when it comes to moral questions isn't usually the deduction itself or flawed logic, but the premise.

One of the most misunderstood concepts is that logic or reasoning can solve all problems. Logic is a tool. It’s our most powerful tool but it doesn’t work in all scenarios, especially ethical dilemmas.

We are human & by definition we behave irrationally. This is just one of the areas where logic is misleading. Game Theory often fails to predict human actions due to this human, all too human, characteristic.

[removed]

How does the driver decide that one situation is “safe enough” while the other one isn’t? What’s the right choice if the odds of an accident were somewhere in the middle like 0.01%?

I’m not saying that there’s an objective mathematical answer to what “safe enough” means. There isn’t one—it’s a sort-of-arbitrary threshold that’s going to depend on your own values and theory of ethics. However, these situations do exist in real life, and if your theory of ethics can’t work with math and probabilities to at least some extent, you’re going to get stuck when you run into them.

[removed]

[removed]

Its not really a mthematical calculation though … the driver thinks one course is safe enough and the other not.

You could i suppose do some kind of statistical study to try to get some parameters but that is independent of the driver’s thinking

Yeah historically that is what Christmas meant , now Christmas is barely a religious holiday , millions of atheists and people of other religions celebrate it purely for the joyous and therapeutic atmosphere it brings .

[removed]

If you're arguing for lack of free will then I'd agree but it makes the whole point moot. A moral theory is generally independent of any specific persons so not sure why that's relevant? Furthermore you absolutely could reduce a persons actions to an algorithm just maybe a complicated one.

[removed]

[removed]

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

I recommend reading the book "Weapons of Math Destruction". The author describes several mathematically sound algorithms that produce terrible outcomes.

Here is an example: An algorithm helps judges decide if someone should get probation. Part of the calculation includes the likelihood that they will be arrested again.

The problem is that currently, your more likely to be arrested if you're black.

The algorithm becomes racist accidentally. This is just one example of how dangerous it is to base all of your choices on "logic and reason".

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

True, but I’m at the gap in between kids and grandkids: Empty-nester.

A person's morality is simply their sense of right and wrong behaviors. It doesn't matter if you have an algorithm or not. That would only let you be more consistent with your actions. My point is that you don't get to choose your morality any more than you get to choose your sexual orientation.

If you can describe a precise way of determining what is most moral or even just more moral of 2 choices then you have an algorithm. If it is not precisely defined then it's ambiguous in which case it's not justified I'd argue? Since you haven't even defined what it even is.

Lol good to hear I'm not alone in my weird tastes!