Could you explain?

What Matt?

I didn't understand Rohit's idea

A few vs many would you sacrifice a few to save many

Ohhhh

Right, sorry

Exactly

I think it would also apply to the "is the one to die my son"?

Or related or loved

Or valuable to me?

I mean, it sounds almost ridiculous from an alien perspective

But until it happens to you...

But if ur a strictly utilitarian logical person ur response shouldn't change as we see in many situations of war and other extremes it often comes to sacrificing or putting ones own or loved ones lives at risk

Sure

But are se really strictly utilitarian?

We*

I mean in a context where I don't know anybody, I think I would pull the lever

""Think""

I'm not yet sure

> Matt, if existence is not moral, it means it is imoral, or is it outside Morality? What u think ?
@Yussuki ₪ morally neutral to exist

If unnecessary suffering is evil, and conscious existence is commonly needless suffering... well, I've heard some argue no longer procreating as a species is the most moral thing we can do, that or all die peacefully in our sleep in the same night.
Not promoting these ideas. Just sharing them for perspective.

Ya that's the idea behind antinatalism

The lecture series rohit is talking about is by professor Michael sandal of Harvard university. Very good one as an introduction to moral philosophy

And the fact that you choose differently when it’s about killing your son vs a random kid to save 100s who provide for potentially 1000s is what opens the question of ‘intrinsic values’

@Empty - Mark I think a good rebuttal to that would be that living has a potential for a great deal of pleasure

So utilitarianism alone is clearly not enough. There is something more to how humans assign value to things. Same with the individualism vs collectivism.

Guys. I noticed you bring up Morality a lot. Why is it so important ?

Can't it just emerge naturally from good behavior and common understanding? Why does it need to be Absolute and tied up to unchanging principles?

Morality passes through our stomachs first. It's absurd to have a morality pretention from a hungry man.

As I see it, morality is subject to change and context. Constantly adjustable.

How humans ought to behave and ground the ‘ought’ is an important question I would say.
No - it cannot because we all might commonly understand killing zino. (Or his group identity) is good behavior
Nothing needs to be absolute or unchanging

Morality is based on societal well being, so no, destroying all humans is immoral

Zino, I think that a lot of religious people are grasping at theological straws recently. We know that Adam and Eve didn't exist. We know that the Earth is pretty old, and we even know how it came about. We know that the universe is super old, and some great models of it's origins are out there.

One of the last few things the religious folks have is to claim that God must exist because morals exist.

Pwr, agreed, but read Zino’s question again, doesn’t assume what morality is based on, in fact suggests that it doesn’t really need to be.

And I never said all humans.

Ok good point. Now I have a question. Im glad Malachi brought that up : That some people claim that God must exist because Morality exists.

Some people claim that...

I love that zino gave you a pretzel Malachi, I wonder if it’s a prize or saying you need to balance the drunkenness 😂

I'm pissed that I didn't get any mustard.

> Can't it just emerge naturally from good behavior and common understanding? Why does it need to be Absolute and tied up to unchanging principles?
@Yussuki ₪ common understanding is entirely subjective, and if its not absolute than terrible things like murder rape etc are not absolutley wrong

So my questions is: Do you think that both of this statements can be true at once? 1. God exists because morality exists and 2. Morality can exist even if God does not exist? What you say ? Thanks Malachi.