Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (74884)	2/21/2000 10:26:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Good questions, and I think I see some issues raised in "Run, Lola, Run," not that you wouldn't have thought of them on your own, but I think they were raised there. You think you're doing something really good, or maybe even doing nothing much at all, and it has unforseeable consequences, that may be very harmful. I know that the Nazis thought they were doing the right thing when they killed the Jews and the Gypsies and the homosexuals and the insane and the mentally deficient, just like we think we are doing good when we go to the doctor to have him cut out cancer. They thought their society would be better if all these defective people were purged, like vomiting out poison. Just because someone thinks they are doing the right thing, that's just not good enough.

To: epicure who wrote (74884)	2/22/2000 1:10:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Of course, most of the time you can't prove that what you did was right. But does it matter? If you continue to "feel good" about what you did, you probably did the right thing, but this is not something that is subject to rational proof. I submit that it doesn't even matter whether one believes, in theory, that values are absolute or totally relative; whether they spring from divine law, natural law, simple custom, or whatever. In practice, we are all faced with ethical ambiguities in many of the situations we face; and we all have to try to do the best we can to sort it out, and hope that practice (in ethical decision-making) may make perfect -- or near-perfect, anyway. :-) I have the impression that I burst into an argument that was proceeding along different lines. I don't see any real difference between the position you state and mine. Joan

To: epicure who wrote (74884)	2/22/2000 5:22:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think the "Greatest happiness principle" is the only consistent reliable guide to morality, as represented in some versions of Act Utilitarianism. I. The expanded objective is to look at the sum (U) of human satisfaction, pleasure of everyone living and likely to be living in the rest of eternity. Some of the rules -- each sentient creature counts as 1. (Singer and others will argue about what a sentient creature is. Nihil thinks all dogs are sentient and daily sacrifices wealth that he could spend on suffering humans to keep them warm, and well, and fed. Nuni thinks her cat is sentient. Neocon thinks Ku Kluxers and Nazis are sentient. Each to his taste.) The rate of discount of future pleasures is a kind of social interest rate. How much should we consume today (big trees, energy) at the expense of the future? I think the discount rate should be slightly greater than one, but there must be a premium for risk, since we may kill ourselves and never enjoy anything at all (sort of like owning MSFT). I know most of us gladly save to help our kids and grandchildren survive. It's a little harder to save for some Rwandans' great grandchildren's welfare (unless we have Rwandans relatives. True, future happiness is impossible to measure, but we must approximate, incrementally improving our measures as we learn more and more. We must decide what sentient creatures are. I don't think embryos or first third fetuses are. I know ova and sperm are not. I am sure brain dead people aren't. I am pretty sure that old people who must be kept asleep to keep them from screaming for relief and trying to kill themselves should be put to sleep permanently. I am not sure how profound child mental disability must be for them to be killed. Children missing most of the cerebra I think should be let go now. Maybe in a few years with improved repair facilities, maybe more should live. The problems raised here are not settled, nor will they soon be. But there is much much more that must be discussed to understand Act Utilitarianism. Any Singerians or Benthamites here?