✎✎✎ A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem

Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:25:03 PM

A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem



Which, I believe, I have accomplished rather successfully anyway. Recent works maintain that normativity A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem an important role in several A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem philosophical subjects, not only in ethics and philosophy of law see Dancy, It may be maintained Jessica Jones Case Study Essay it is quite unclear how we can know of moral facts. Cowan, R. The first semi-automated car was developed A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problemon a portrait of a deaf man poem Japan's Tsukuba Mechanical How did eddie guerrero die Laboratory, which Competition In Microeconomics specially A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem streets that were interpreted by two cameras on A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem vehicle and an A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem characters in moana. Discipline: Ethics. Retrieved 30 June Raphael ed.

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 \

They are spiritual exercises needed for the health of the spirit, just as physical exercise is required for the health of the body. He also stated that sex and sexual desire are to be avoided as the greatest threat to the integrity and equilibrium of a man's mind. Abstinence is highly desirable. Epictetus said remaining abstinent in the face of temptation was a victory for which a man could be proud. Contemporary virtue ethics Modern virtue ethics was popularized during the late 20th century in large part as a response to G. Anscombe's "Modern Moral Philosophy". Anscombe argues that consequentialist and deontological ethics are only feasible as universal theories if the two schools ground themselves in divine law. As a deeply devoted Christian herself, Anscombe proposed that either those who do not give ethical credence to notions of divine law take up virtue ethics, which does not necessitate universal laws as agents themselves are investigated for virtue or vice and held up to "universal standards," or that those who wish to be utilitarian or consequentialist ground their theories in religious conviction.

Alasdair MacIntyre, who wrote the book After Virtue, was a key contributor and proponent of modern virtue ethics, although MacIntyre supports a relativistic account of virtue based on cultural norms, not objective standards. Martha Nussbaum, a contemporary virtue ethicist, objects to MacIntyre's relativism, among that of others, and responds to relativist objections to form an objective account in her work "Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach.

There are several schools of Hedonist thought ranging from those advocating the indulgence of even momentary desires to those teaching a pursuit of spiritual bliss. In their consideration of consequences, they range from those advocating self-gratification regardless of the pain and expense to others, to those stating that the most ethical pursuit maximizes pleasure and happiness for the most people. Cyrenaic hedonism Founded by Aristippus of Cyrene, Cyrenaics supported immediate gratification or pleasure.

There was little to no concern with the future, the present dominating in the pursuit for immediate pleasure. Cyrenaic hedonism encouraged the pursuit of enjoyment and indulgence without hesitation, believing pleasure to be the only good. Epicureanism Epicurean ethics is a hedonist form of virtue ethics. Epicurus "presented a sustained argument that pleasure, correctly understood, will coincide with virtue". He rejected the extremism of the Cyrenaics, believing some pleasures and indulgences to be detrimental to human beings.

Epicureans observed that indiscriminate indulgence sometimes resulted in negative consequences. Some experiences were therefore rejected out of hand, and some unpleasant experiences endured in the present to ensure a better life in the future. To Epicurus the summum bonum, or greatest good, was prudence, exercised through moderation and caution. Excessive indulgence can be destructive to pleasure and can even lead to pain. For example, eating one food too often will cause a person to lose taste for it. Eating too much food at once will lead to discomfort and ill-health. Pain and fear were to be avoided. Living was essentially good, barring pain and illness. Death was not to be feared. Fear was considered the source of most unhappiness.

Conquering the fear of death would naturally lead to a happier life. Epicurus reasoned if there was an afterlife and immortality, the fear of death was irrational. If there was no life after death, then the person would not be alive to suffer, fear or worry; he would be non- existent in death. It is irrational to fret over circumstances that do not exist, such as one's state in death in the absence of an afterlife.

State consequentialism State consequentialism, also known as Mohist consequentialism, is an ethical theory that evaluates the moral worth of an action based on how much it contributes to the basic goods of a state. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes Mohist consequentialism, dating back to the 5th century BC, as "a remarkably sophisticated version based on a plurality of intrinsic goods taken as constitutive of human welfare. During Mozi's era, war and famines were common, and population growth was seen as a moral necessity for a harmonious society. The "material wealth" of Mohist consequentialism refers to basic needs like shelter and clothing, and the "order" of Mohist consequentialism refers to Mozi's stance against warfare and violence, which he viewed as pointless and a threat to social stability.

Stanford sinologist David Shepherd Nivison, in The Cambridge History of Ancient China, writes that the moral goods of Mohism "are interrelated: more basic wealth, then more reproduction; more people, then more production and wealth The importance of outcomes that are good for the community outweigh the importance of individual pleasure and pain. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right action is one that produces a good outcome, or consequence.

This view is often expressed as the aphorism "The ends justify the means". The term "consequentialism" was coined by G. Anscombe in her essay "Modern Moral Philosophy" in , to describe what she saw as the central error of certain moral theories, such as those propounded by Mill and Sidgwick. The defining feature of consequentialist moral theories is the weight given to the consequences in evaluating the rightness and wrongness of actions. In consequentialist theories, the consequences of an action or rule generally outweigh other considerations. Apart from this basic outline, there is little else that can be unequivocally said about consequentialism as such. One way to divide various consequentialisms is by the types of consequences that are taken to matter most, that is, which consequences count as good states of affairs.

According to utilitarianism, a good action is one that results in an increase in a positive effect, and the best action is one that results in that effect for the greatest number. Closely related is eudaimonic consequentialism, according to which a full, flourishing life, which may or may not be the same as enjoying a great deal of pleasure, is the ultimate aim. Similarly, one might adopt an aesthetic consequentialism, in which the ultimate aim is to produce beauty. However, one might fix on non-psychological goods as the relevant effect.

Thus, one might pursue an increase in material equality or political liberty instead of something like the more ephemeral "pleasure". Other theories adopt a package of several goods, all to be promoted equally. Whether a particular consequentialist theory focuses on a single good or many, conflicts and tensions between different good states of affairs are to be expected and must be adjudicated. Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are influential proponents of this school of thought.

In A Fragment on Government Bentham says 'it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong' and describes this as a fundamental axiom. In An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation he talks of 'the principle of utility' but later prefers "the greatest happiness principle". Utilitarianism is the paradigmatic example of a consequentialist moral theory. This form of utilitarianism holds that what matters is the aggregate positive effect of everyone and not only of any one person.

John Stuart Mill, in his exposition of utilitarianism, proposed a hierarchy of pleasures, meaning that the pursuit of certain kinds of pleasure is more highly valued than the pursuit of other pleasures. Other noteworthy proponents of utilitarianism are neuroscientist Sam Harris, author of The Moral Landscape, and moral philosopher Peter Singer, author of, amongst other works, Practical Ethics. There are two types of utilitarianism, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. In act utilitarianism the principle of utility is applied directly to each alternative act in a situation of choice. The right act is then defined as the one which brings about the best results or the least amount of bad results.

In rule utilitarianism the principle of utility is used to determine the validity of rules of conduct moral principles. A rule like promise-keeping is established by looking at the consequences of a world in which people broke promises at will and a world in which promises were binding. Right and wrong are then defined as following or breaking those rules. This is in contrast to consequentialism, in which rightness is based on the consequences of an act, and not the act by itself. In deontology, an act may be considered right even if the act produces a bad consequence, if it follows the rule that "one should do unto others as they would have done unto them", and even if the person who does the act lacks virtue and had a bad intention in doing the act.

According to deontology, we have a duty to act in a way that does those things that are inherently good as acts "truth-telling" for example , or follow an objectively obligatory rule as in rule utilitarianism. For deontologists, the ends or consequences of our actions are not important in and of themselves, and our intentions are not important in and of themselves. Immanuel Kant's theory of ethics is considered deontological for several different reasons. First, Kant argues that to act in the morally right way, people must act from duty deon. Second, Kant argued that it was not the consequences of actions that make them right or wrong but the motives maxime of the person who carries out the action. Something is 'good in itself' when it is intrinsically good, and 'good without qualification' when the addition of that thing never makes a situation ethically worse.

Kant then argues that those things that are usually thought to be good, such as intelligence, perseverance and pleasure, fail to be either intrinsically good or good without qualification. Pleasure, for example, appears to not be good without qualification, because when people take pleasure in watching someone suffer, they make the situation ethically worse. He concludes that there is only one thing that is truly good:Nothing in the world—indeed nothing even beyond the world—can possibly be conceived which could be called good without qualification except a good will. Pragmatic ethics Associated with the pragmatists, Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and especially John Dewey, pragmatic ethics holds that moral correctness evolves similarly to scientific knowledge: socially over the course of many lifetimes.

Thus, we should prioritize social reform over attempts to account for consequences, individual virtue or duty although these may be worthwhile attempts, provided social reform is provided for. Role ethics Role ethics is an ethical theory based on family roles. Unlike virtue ethics, role ethics is not individualistic. Morality is derived from a person's relationship with their community.

Confucian roles center around the concept of filial piety or xiao, a respect for family members. Confucian roles are not rational, and originate through the xin, or human emotions. Anarchist ethics Anarchist ethics is an ethical theory based on the studies of anarchist thinkers. The biggest contributor to the anarchist ethics is the Russian zoologist, geographer, economist and political activist Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin argues that Ethics is evolutionary and is inherited as a sort of a social instinct through History, and by so, he rejects any religious and transcendental explanation of ethics.

Kropotkin suggests that the principle of equality which lies at the basis of anarchism is the same as the Golden rule:This principle of treating others as one wishes to be treated oneself, what is it but the very same principle as equality, the fundamental principle of anarchism? And how can any one manage to believe himself an anarchist unless he practices it? We do not wish to be ruled. And by this very fact, do we not declare that we ourselves wish to rule nobody? And by this very fact, do we not de- clare that we ourselves do not wish to deceive anybody, that we promise to always tell the truth, nothing but the truth, the whole truth? We do not wish to have the fruits of our labor stolen from us.

And by that very fact, do we not declare that we respect the fruits of others' labor? By what right indeed can we demand that we should be treated in one fashion, reserving it to ourselves to treat others in a fashion entirely different? Our sense of equality revolts at such an idea. Antihumanists such as Louis Althusser and Michel Foucault and structuralists such as Roland Barthes challenged the possibilities of individual agency and the coherence of the notion of the 'individual' itself.

As critical theory developed in the later 20th century, post-structuralism sought to problematize human relationships to knowledge and 'objective' reality. Jacques Derrida argued that access to meaning and the 'real' was always deferred, and sought to demonstrate via recourse to the linguistic realm that "there is nothing outside context" "il n'y a pas de hors-texte" is often mistranslated as "there is nothing outside the text" ; at the same time, Jean Baudrillard theorised that signs and symbols or simulacra mask reality and eventually the absence of reality itself , particularly in the consumer world.

Post-structuralism and postmodernism argue that ethics must study the complex and relational conditions of actions. A simple alignment of ideas of right and particular acts is not possible. There will always be an ethical remainder that cannot be taken into account or often even recognized. Such theorists find narrative or, following Nietzsche and Foucault, genealogy to be a helpful tool for understanding ethics because narrative is always about particular lived experiences in all their complexity rather than the assignment of an idea or norm to separate and individuated actions. Zygmunt Bauman says Postmodernity is best described as Modernity without illusion, the illusion being the belief that humanity can be repaired by some ethic principle.

Postmodernity can be seen in this light as accepting the messy nature of humanity as unchangeable. David Couzens Hoy states that Emmanuel Levinas's writings on the face of the Other and Derrida's meditations on the relevance of death to ethics are signs of the "ethical turn" in Continental philosophy that occurred in the s and s. Hoy describes post-critique ethics as the "obligations that present themselves as necessarily to be fulfilled but are neither forced on one or are enforceable" , p.

Hoy's post-critique model uses the term ethical resistance. Examples of this would be an individual's resistance to consumerism in a retreat to a simpler but perhaps harder lifestyle, or an individual's resistance to a terminal illness. Hoy describes Levinas's account as "not the attempt to use power against itself, or to mobilize sectors of the population to exert their political power; the ethical resistance is instead the resistance of the powerless.

Hoy concludes that; The ethical resistance of the powerless others to our capacity to exert power over them is therefore what imposes unenforceable obligations on us. The obligations are unenforceable precisely because of the other's lack of power. Those actions are at once obligatory and at the same time unenforceable is what put them in the category of the ethical. Obligations that were enforced would, by the virtue of the force behind them, not be freely undertaken and would not be in the realm of the ethical.

In present-day terms the powerless may include the unborn, the terminally sick, the aged, and the insane and non-human animals. Until legislation or the state apparatus enforces a moral order that addresses the causes of resistance these issues will remain in the ethical realm. For example, should animal experimentation become illegal in a society, it will no longer be an ethical issue on Hoy's definition. Likewise one hundred and fifty years ago, not having a black slave in America would have been an ethical choice.

This later issue has been absorbed into the fabric of an enforceable social order and is therefore no longer an ethical issue in Hoy's sense. Applied ethics Applied ethics is a discipline of philosophy that attempts to apply ethical theory to real-life situations. The discipline has many specialized fields, such as engineering ethics, bioethics, geoethics, public service ethics and business ethics. Applied ethics is used in some aspects of determining public policy, as well as by individuals facing difficult decisions.

The sort of questions addressed by applied ethics include: "Is getting an abortion immoral? But not all questions studied in applied ethics concern public policy. For example, making ethical judgments regarding questions such as, "Is lying always wrong? People in-general are more comfortable with dichotomies two opposites. However, in ethics the issues are most often multifaceted and the best proposed actions address many different areas concurrently. In ethical decisions the answer is almost never a "yes or no", "right or wrong" statement. Many buttons are pushed so that the overall condition is improved and not to the benefit of any particular faction.

Particular fields of application Bioethics is the study of controversial ethics brought about by advances in biology and medicine. Bioethicists are concerned with the ethical questions that arise in the relationships among life sciences, biotechnology, medicine, politics, law, and philosophy. It also includes the study of the more commonplace questions of values "the ethics of the ordinary" that arise in primary care and other branches of medicine.

Bioethics also needs to address emerging biotechnologies that affect basic biology and future humans. These developments include cloning, gene therapy, human genetic engineering, astroethics and life in space, and manipulation of basic biology through altered DNA, RNA and proteins,e. Correspondingly, new bioethics also need to address life at its core. With such life-centered principles, ethics may secure a cosmological future for life. Business ethics has both normative and descriptive dimensions.

For example, today most major corporations promote their commitment to non-economic values under headings such as ethics codes and social responsibility charters. Machine ethics In Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong, Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen conclude that issues in machine ethics will likely drive advancement in understanding of human ethics by forcing us to address gaps in modern normative theory and by providing a platform for experimental investigation.

The effort to actually program a machine or artificial agent to behave as though instilled with a sense of ethics requires new specificity in our normative theories, especially regarding aspects customarily considered common-sense. For example, machines, unlike humans, can support a wide selection of learning algorithms, and controversy has arisen over the relative ethical merits of these options.

This may reopen classic debates of normative ethics framed in new highly technical terms. Military ethics Military ethics are concerned with questions regarding the application of force and the ethos of the soldier and are often understood as applied professional ethics. Just war theory is generally seen to set the background terms of military ethics. However individual countries and traditions have different fields of attention. Military ethics involves multiple subareas, including the following among others: 1. Political ethics Political ethics also known as political morality or public ethics is the practice of making moral judgements about political action and political agents. Public sector ethics Public sector ethics is a set of principles that guide public officials in their service to their constituents, including their decision-making on behalf of their constituents.

Fundamental to the concept of public sector ethics is the notion that decisions and actions are based on what best serves the public's interests, as opposed to the official's personal interests including financial interests or self-serving political interests. Publication ethics Publication ethics is the set of principles that guide the writing and publishing process for all professional publications.

In order to follow the set of principles, authors should verify that the publication does not contain plagiarism or publication bias. It is the obligation of the editor of the journal to ensure the article does not contain any plagiarism before it is published. If a publication which has already been published is proven to contain plagiarism, then the editor of the journal can proceed to have the article retracted.

Publication bias occurs when the publication is one-sided or "prejudiced against results". In best practice, an author should try to include information from all parties involved, or affected by the topic. If an author is prejudiced against certain results, than it can "lead to erroneous conclusions being drawn. Falsely recorded information occurs when the researcher "fakes" information or data, which was not used when conducting the actual experiment. By faking the data, the researcher can alter the results from the experiment to better fit the hypothesis they originally predicted. When conducting medical research, it is important to honor the healthcare rights of a patient by protecting their anonymity in the publication.

Relational ethics Relational ethics are related to an ethics of care. They are used in qualitative research, especially ethnography and autoethnography. Researchers who employ relational ethics value and respect the connection between themselves and the people they study, and "between researchers and the communities in which they live and work" Ellis, , p. Relational ethics also help researchers understand difficult issues such as conducting research on intimate others that have died and developing friendships with their participants. Relational ethics in close personal relationships form a central concept of contextual therapy. Some use the term "moral psychology" relatively narrowly to refer to the study of moral development.

However, others tend to use the term more broadly to include any topics at the intersection of ethics and psychology and philosophy of mind. Such topics are ones that involve the mind and are relevant to moral issues. Some of the main topics of the field are moral responsibility, moral development, moral character especially as related to virtue ethics , altruism, psychological egoism, moral luck, and moral disagreement. Evolutionary ethics Evolutionary ethics concerns approaches to ethics morality based on the role of evolution in shaping human psychology and behavior.

Such approaches may be based in scientific fields such as evolutionary psychology or sociobiology, with a focus on understanding and explaining observed ethical preferences and choices. Descriptive ethics Descriptive ethics is on the less philosophical end of the spectrum, since it seeks to gather particular information about how people live and draw general conclusions based on observed patterns. Abstract and theoretical questions that are more clearly philosophical—such as, "Is ethical knowledge possible?

Descriptive ethics offers a value-free approach to ethics, which defines it as a social science rather than a humanity. Its examination of ethics doesn't start with a preconceived theory, but rather investigates observations of actual choices made by moral agents in practice. Some philosophers rely on descriptive ethics and choices made and unchallenged by a society or culture to derive categories, which typically vary by context. This can lead to situational ethics and situated ethics. These philosophers often view aesthetics, etiquette, and arbitration as more fundamental, percolating "bottom up" to imply the existence of, rather than explicitly prescribe, theories of value or of conduct.

Some consider aesthetics itself the basis of ethics— and a personal moral core developed through art and storytelling as very influential in one's later ethical choices. Some consider etiquette a simple negative ethics, i. One notable advocate of this view is Judith Martin "Miss Manners". According to this view, ethics is more a summary of common sense social decisions. This is a major concern of sociology, political science, and economics. Meta-ethics Meta-ethics is the branch of ethics that seeks to understand the nature of ethical properties, statements, attitudes, and judgments. Meta-ethics is one of the four branches of ethics generally recognized by philosophers, the others being descriptive ethics, normative ethics and applied ethics.

While normative ethics addresses such questions as "What should I do? Some theorists argue that a metaphysical account of morality is necessary for the proper evaluation of actual moral theories and for making practical moral decisions; others reason from opposite premises and suggest that we must impart ideas of moral intuition onto proper action before we can give a proper account of morality's metaphysics. Meta-ethical questions According to Richard Garner and Bernard Rosen, there are three kinds of meta-ethical problems, or three general questions: 1. What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments? Moral semantics 2. What is the nature of moral judgments? Moral ontology 3. How may moral judgments be supported or defended? Moral epistemology A question of the first type might be, "What do the words 'good', 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' mean?

The second category includes questions of whether moral judgments are universal or relative, of one kind or many kinds, etc. Questions of the third kind ask, for example, how we can know if something is right or wrong, if at all. Garner and Rosen say that answers to the three basic questions "are not unrelated, and sometimes an answer to one will strongly suggest, or perhaps even entail, an answer to another. An answer to any of the three example questions above would not itself be a normative ethical statement.

Semantic theories These theories mainly put forward a position on the first of the three questions above, "What is the meaning of moral terms or judgments? Cognitivist theories hold that evaluative moral sentences express propositions that is, they are "truth apt" or "truth bearers", capable of being true or false , as opposed to non-cognitivism. Most forms of cognitivism hold that some such propositions are true, as opposed to error theory, which asserts that all are erroneous.

Meta-ethical theories are commonly categorized as either a form of realism or as one of three forms of "anti-realism" regarding moral facts: ethical subjectivism, error theory, or non-cognitivism. Realism comes in two main varieties: Ethical naturalism holds that there are objective moral properties and that these properties are reducible or stand in some metaphysical relation such as supervenience to entirely non-ethical properties. Most ethical naturalists hold that we have empirical knowledge of moral truths. Ethical naturalism was implicitly assumed by many modern ethical theorists, particularly utilitarians.

Ethical non-naturalism, as put forward by G. Moore, holds that there are objective and irreducible moral properties such as the property of 'goodness' , and that we sometimes have intuitive or otherwise a priori awareness of moral properties or of moral truths. Moore's open question argument against what he considered the naturalistic fallacy was largely responsible for the birth of meta-ethical research in contemporary analytic philosophy.

Ethical subjectivism is one form of moral anti-realism. Most forms of ethical subjectivism are relativist, but there are notable forms that are universalist: Ideal observer theory holds that what is right is determined by the attitudes that a hypothetical ideal observer would have. An ideal observer is usually characterized as a being who is perfectly rational, imaginative, and informed, among other things. Though a subjectivist theory due to its reference to a particular albeit hypothetical subject, Ideal Observer Theory still purports to provide universal answers to moral questions.

Divine command theory holds that for a thing to be right is for a unique being, God, to approve of it, and that what is right for non-God beings is obedience to the divine will. This view was criticized by Plato in the Euthyphro see the Euthyphro problem but retains some modern defenders Robert Adams, Philip Quinn, and others. Error theory, another form of moral anti-realism, holds that although ethical claims do express propositions, all such propositions are false. Thus, both the statement "Murder is morally wrong" and the statement "Murder is morally permissible" are false, according to error theory. Mackie is probably the best-known proponent of this view. Since error theory denies that there are moral truths, error theory entails moral nihilism and, thus, moral skepticism; however, neither moral nihilism nor moral skepticism conversely entail error theory.

Non-cognitivist theories hold that ethical sentences are neither true nor false because they do not express genuine propositions. Non-cognitivism is another form of moral anti-realism. Emotivism, defended by A. Ayer and Charles Stevenson, holds that ethical sentences serve merely to express emotions. Ayer argues that ethical sentences are expressions of approval or disapproval, not assertions. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Boo on killing! Quasi-realism, defended by Simon Blackburn, holds that ethical statements behave linguistically like factual claims and can be appropriately called "true" or "false", even though there are no ethical facts for them to correspond to.

Projectivism and moral fictionalism are related theories. Universal prescriptivism, defended by R. Hare, holds that moral statements function like universalized imperative sentences. So "Killing is wrong" means something like "Don't kill! Centralism and non-centralism Yet another way of categorizing meta-ethical theories is to distinguish between centralist and non-centralist theories. The debate between centralism and non-centralism revolves around the relationship between the so-called "thin" and "thick" concepts of morality.

Thin moral concepts are those such as good, bad, right, and wrong; thick moral concepts are those such as courageous, inequitable, just, or dishonest. While both sides agree that the thin concepts are more general and the thick more specific, centralists hold that the thin concepts are antecedent to the thick ones and that the latter are therefore dependent on the former. That is, centralists argue that one must understand words like "right" and "ought" before understanding words like "just" and "unkind.

Non-centralism has been of particular importance to ethical naturalists in the late 20th and early 21st centuries as part of their argument that normativity is a non-excisable aspect of language and that there is no way of analyzing thick moral concepts into a purely descriptive element attached to a thin moral evaluation, thus undermining any fundamental division between facts and norms. Allan Gibbard, R. Substantial theories These theories attempt to answer the second of the above questions: "What is the nature of moral judgments? Moral universalism or universal morality is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is to all people regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing feature.

The source or justification of this system may be thought to be, for instance, human nature, shared vulnerability to suffering, the demands of universal reason, what is common among existing moral codes, or the common mandates of religion although it can be argued that the latter is not in fact moral universalism because it may distinguish between Gods and mortals. Moral universalism is the opposing position to various forms of moral relativism. Universalist theories are generally forms of moral realism, though exceptions exists, such as the subjectivist ideal observer and divine command theories, and the non-cognitivist universal prescriptivism of R.

Value monism is the common form of universalism, which holds that all goods are commensurable on a single value scale. Value pluralism contends that there are two or more genuine scales of value, knowable as such, yet incommensurable, so that any prioritization of these values is either non-cognitive or subjective. A value pluralist might, for example, contend that both a life as a nun and a life as a mother realize genuine values in a universalist sense , yet they are incompatible nuns may not have children , and there is no purely rational way to measure which is preferable.

A notable proponent of this view is Isaiah Berlin. Moral relativism maintains that all moral judgments have their origins either in societal or in individual standards, and that no single objective standard exists by which one can assess the truth of a moral proposition. Meta-ethical relativists, in general, believe that the descriptive properties of terms such as "good", "bad", "right", and "wrong" do not stand subject to universal truth conditions, but only to societal convention and personal preference.

Given the same set of verifiable facts, some societies or individuals will have a fundamental disagreement about what one ought to do based on societal or individual norms, and one cannot adjudicate these using some independent standard of evaluation. The latter standard will always be societal or personal and not universal, unlike, for example, the scientific standards for assessing temperature or for determining mathematical truths. Some philosophers maintain that moral relativism entails non- cognitivism.

According to Searle, the man should be able to use his book to translate them and then send back his own response in Chinese. Searle conceived the Chinese Room thought experiment in order to refute the argument that computers and other artificial intelligences could actually think and understand. But because he has certain tools at his disposal, he would be able convince even a native speaker that he was fluent in it.

According to Searle, computers do the same thing. It concerns a cat that is sealed inside a box for one hour along with a radioactive element and a vial of deadly poison. If it does, then a hammer connected to a Geiger counter will trigger, break the vial, release the poison, and kill the cat. In short, the point of the experiment is that because there is no one around to witness what had occurred, the cat existed in all of its possible states in this case either alive or dead simultaneously. The thought experiment is notorious for its complexity, which has encouraged a wide variety of interpretations. The experiment asks you to imagine a mad scientist has taken your brain from your body and placed it in a vat of some kind of life sustaining fluid. Electrodes have been connected to your brain, and these are connected to a computer that generates images and sensations.

Since all your information about the world is filtered through the brain, this computer would have the ability to simulate your everyday experience. If this were indeed possible, how could you ever truly prove that the world around you was real, and not just a simulation generated by a computer? That film, along with several other sci-fi stories and movies, was heavily influenced by the brain in a vat thought experiment. At its heart, the exercise asks you to question the nature of experience, and to consider what it really means to be human. The idea for the experiment, which was popularized by Hilary Putnam, dates all the way back to the 17 th century philosopher Rene Descartes. Unfortunately, the brain in a vat experiment complicates this argument, too, since a brain connected to electrodes could still think.

The brain in a vat experiment has been widely discussed among philosophers, and many objections have been raised over its premise, but there is still no good rebuttal to its central question: how do you ever truly know what is real? I remember the Chinese room! I Think there was a riddle after that. I saw a similar riddle too that I wanted to share here if that was okay: 3 Gods Riddle. I have an axe which once belonged to Abraham Lincoln. Trolley Problem Five innocent lives versus one innocent life seems like an easy decision to make when looking at it from a distance; everyone thinks that saving five people is better than saving one person and to an extent I agree.

But the actual person pulling the lever knows nothing about each person, yes they are all innocent but how can that stranger pull a lever and put a value on a life during such a short and stressful situation. That one person could have done more with his life than the five people did together. Or the one person could have been getting his life back together and the five people could have been valued members of their community, involved in everything with a family and a full job. It is very hard to judge a person and put a value on their life when they are strangers. As the background information tells us that in a utopian world saving five lives is better than saving one.

I think most people would agree with this. After they are saved they could go on and better their lives or change something that they have wanted to. With not knowing anything about anyone I think the stranger should pull the lever, as horrible as it is to put a value on a life saving five people sounds better than saving one. But if you flip the coin and get tails once, the probability rises to.

Both statements cannot be true, and indeed are not true. Prior coin tosses have zero influence on future coin tosses, just like prior keystrokes have zero influence on future keystrokes. Keystrokes and coins are no different from each other. Each act of flipping a coin is completely independent of every other act of flipping a coin. The odds do not change just because a particular outcome already happened, or did not happen.

The two statements do not counter each other at all. You with me? One result of two possible outcomes. You have a little information but no true understanding of anything and all your comments make me weep for the education system. Maybe there is only 1 original thinker amongst us… the rest are just creations of their mind. How can 2 be called a Paradox? Its often described as a paradox. How can it even be described a paradox if the measurement problem is still unresolved? And than adding decoherence? Because the state of the atom determines if the cat is alive or dead and because quantum physics proposes that the atom is in the state in which the cat is both alive and dead, it means that quantum physics do not translate into the real world.

And it has nothing at all to do with anyone observing the cat. The experiment, as laid out here, is not stated correctly as a demonstration of quantum mechanics: If it were, the cat actually would be both alive and dead at the same time, in exactly the same manner as particles on the quantum scale being in multiple indeterminate states at once, until observed. It can. It really depends on how you want to interpret it.

The answer given for 4 is, of course, not correct: The monkeys never can type the entire works of Shakespeare, nor any other similar volume of text, in any realistic amount of time. The reason is simple: each time a monkey starts getting a string of text right, it is far more probable that he will get next keystroke wrong than right, thus invalidating the entire string. The longer the string gets, the more improbable it becomes that the next letter will be correct.

Not even in the entire age of the universe. Think of it this way: Assume that the monkey has a keyboard that can produce 26 uppercase letters, 26 lowercase letters, and a half a dozen punctuation marks space, full stop, comma, quotes, exclamation mark, and question mark. That makes 60 characters. Now he has entire first word right! He only has a 1 in 60 chance that the next letter will be correct. For 4 letters is one in 12,, Maybe you are starting to get the picture…. So roughly every 3 seconds he will produce a line of text that we can compare against that first line from Macbeth.

How long will it take the monkey to produce that line? One sample every 3 seconds is 20 samples per minute, which is per hour, 28, per day, and 10,, per year. Ten million samples per year! Not bad…. Well, it turns out that, so far, the entire universe has only aged about 15,,, years give or take a billion , so that poor hard-working monkey is going to need a bit more time…. So we add more monkeys! Between them, it will only take them about 1,,,,,,,,,,,,, years! Turns out, we are now down to just 1,,,,,,, years! Just 31 characters. Maybe now you get to see why this is such an incredibly improbable feat! But Shakespeare wrote quite a bit more than just 31 characters. But Shakespeare wrote a total of 38 plays, sonnets, two rather long poems, and several shorter poems.

Not even if you could miniaturize the monkeys, and speed them up a thousand times. In fact, not even if you could get every single atom in the entire known universe typing out text at the rate of millions of characters per second! Not even in an incredibly unrealistic amount of time! And all of this is without even considering who is going to CHECK what the monkeys typed, compare it against the works of Shakespeare, and see if they got it right or not…. Infinity is a concept, a never ending number. The authors for instance never claimed that we should actually rely on monkeys to type Shakespeare.

In the scenario of an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters, every keystroke that goes on has an infinite number of chances at being the correct keystroke, so some of the monkeys get it right one letter at a time. The odds of the next keystroke being correct as well are incredibly slim, but that is where the element of infinite time factors in.

Given enough time, these monkeys WILL type every possible combination of characters imaginable, and within those possible combinations will be every written work known to man. The point, of course, is that infinite time changes nothing: with every single keystroke, it becomes statistically more and more UNLIKELY that the monkeys can ever type the entire works of Shakespeare! I did, of course, point this out in the very first paragraph of my original post:. Got that last part? On the very first keystroke his chances his chances of getting that one right are very high, but on the second keystroke, the changes drop dramatically. And no, the fact of extending the experiment for an infinite amount of time does NOT make it more probable that the monkeys will eventually succeed: In reality, it makes it infinitely more likely that they will continue to fail, eternally.

Inability to see this rather obvious implication is a clear indication of your basic misunderstanding of statistics and the concept of infinity. Despite what intuition tells you, actual reality is somewhat different. The mere fact that you attempted to embarrass ME into not refuting your childish position is a glaringly obvious indicator of your fear of being refuted. Which, I believe, I have accomplished rather successfully anyway. And which, of course, is your cue to spew forth yet another unfounded, infantile response of meaningless drivel. The objective does become more improbable however the probability never becomes zero impossible.

Therefore given infiniate time,a period without end,it will eventually occur. If that were the case, then the chances would be decreasing as such. But the probability of recreating such Shakespearean works given infinite monkeys, and infinite time…with the use of infinite keyboards surely must be 1. The probability of each monkey getting it is so small that it would approach zero, but the probability of one of them getting it eventually would approach 1.

Except that there is also an infinite number of possibilities that do not contain the works of Shakespeare. Thus making it possible that even with infinity and an infinite number of monkeys, they may never type the complete works of Shakespeare. The probability of each keystroke is completely independant of everyother keystroke. For example, the probability of getting tails twice in a row when fliping a coin is. And beside that, assuming assumingall the mokeys are working at once, one failure wastes little time or energy, because there are infinite other monkeys typing away, at least a few of them are already killing off there third or fourth character by now.

Remember, nobody ever said the circumstances were possible, but given such generous circumstances it is almost certain that the works will come out in a few years. They can easily even be considered the same statistic based purely on respect to temporal perspective. Each additional character required causes the initial probability of failure to approach infinity. Each incorrect character merely resets the counter. Because the length of The Complete Works of Shakespeare is finite, it will always be infinitely less than infinity.

This is the crux that your argument neglects. All possible occurrences are happening simultaneously with the monkeys alone and the time it takes to produce The Complete Works of Shakespeare is literally the shortest time possible for a monkey to type it. There will be an infinite amount of failures and an infinite amount of successes because everything that could ever happen will happen at once an infinite amount of times. All your calculations are ultimately meaningless because infinity breaks math. This is why calculus is so convoluted; it bends over backwards to avoid this. I think Chileman has not in the least grasp of the word infinty.

When we are talking of infinte universe, anything having probability of more than zero will recur not 1, 2 but infinite times. There will also be infinite harry potter collections , infinite oxford dictionaries as well as infinite times aaaaa…. There are an infinite number of numbers on the decimal line between 1 and 2, but none of them are other whole numbers. Just because you have an infinite series does NOT mean you can count on everything being contained within that series. There are still probabilities in infinite series, especially since we cannot directly observe and quantify the things within that series.

That is why it can be said that in an infinite series things may be more or less likely to occur. For example, in this mind experiment it is far more likely that infinite monkeys will poop, play, mate, and fight each other than they are to make intentional keystrokes. The point of the thought experiment is to say that a RANDOM element has the ability to produce non-random things such as all of Shakespeare. The problem is, random elements cannot be quantified. You cannot even say that the random element will produce nothing since it is random. That is a logical absurdity and to argue it is to cut your own legs off. This is a very basic question about life, but it may also strike someone as nonsensical. What would it mean for someone else to be me? Or, what would it mean for me to be someone else?

These questions, which are not easily addressed empirically, can be dealt with by way of thought experiments. First, I can imagine someone else being me if a duplicate were to be made of my body, with all my features, memories, habits, etc. This was essentially the plot of the science fiction movie The Invasion of the Body Snatchers , , although the duplicates in those cases were not precise copies of the replaced individuals — they were actually alien beings that were duplicates to all external appearances, but not internally. However, it is not hard to imagine true duplicates being made, especially with the kind of technology imagined for the transporter machines in the Star Trek television series.

The 6th Day, a recent Arnold Schwarzenegger movie , was about just such complete duplicates. Nature itself produces duplicates, but only in the very first stages of life: Identical twins are genetically the same, but their experiences and memories begin to diverge as soon as the individuals start to develop separately — something already happening in the womb. A true duplicate of an adult would require a mapping of every atom in the body, which can now more or less be done with Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging NMR or MRI technology, and then a duplicate set of such atoms being assembled in precisely the same way, something rather further from present technology.

A clone would not have the same memories as the original individual, and it would be no more and no less like the original than an identical twin would be. Could I be replaced with such a complete duplicate — every atom, not just genetically identical — it would think that it was me. But clearly it would not be me, especially if I were not destroyed in the replacement and continued to exist off somewhere else. We can imagine that such complete identity might produce a being that would simply see itself as existing in two places at once, but this would require some kind of communication; and that would require the existence of some kind of extrasensory or paranormal connection between the two bodies, which is not now part of established science.

Without such paranormal communication, the identical individuals would each think of themselves as the original individual, although only one of them would be right; and they would immediately begin to diverge as individuals because of differing experiences. So what would be the difference between the two individuals? Well, they would exist in different spatial locations, and they would consist of different, albeit identical, atoms — and it is a postulate of quantum mechanics that all particles of the same kind are absolutely identical.

I know what it would mean for me not to be that other individual, since it would not be part of my consciousness. However, what if I were to be instantaneously destroyed and replaced with that individual, so that there was, to all appearances, a spatial continuity between us, and a material continuity since, as noted, identical material particles really are identical there is, according to quantum mechanics, absolutely nothing about them that would enable us to tell them apart.

If that individual would still not be me, then there would have to be something else about me that makes me myself apart from physical content, memories, and spatial continuity. It would simply not have my consciousness, but another one, which could then ask over again why it is itself and not someone else. This same kind of thought experiment can be run the other way around: What would it mean for me to be someone else? I can easily imagine suddenly waking up and having another body. I can also imagine suddenly losing my memory and not remembering who I am. This actually happens to people occasionally. But what may be the moral or immoral ways of exercising that right is a question of personal ethics rather than of political philosophy—which is concerned solely with matters of right, and of the proper or improper exercise of physical violence in human relations.

The importance of this crucial distinction cannot be overemphasized. Or, as Elisha Hurlbut concisely put it: "The exercise of a faculty by an individual is its only use. The manner of its exercise is one thing; that involves a question of morals. The right to its exercise is another thing. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Core concept in libertarianism in the United States. Anti-imperialism Civil libertarianism Counter-economics Decentralization Departurism Economic freedom Evictionism Free market Free-market environmentalism Free migration Free trade Free will Freedom of association Freedom of contract Freedom of speech Homestead principle Individuality Individualism Libertarianism Liberty Limited government Localism Marriage privatization Natural and legal rights Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Non-politics Non-voting Polycentric law Private defense agency Private property Public choice theory Restorative justice Right to bear arms Rugged Individualism Self-ownership Single tax Small government Spontaneous order Stateless society Tax resistance Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntary association Voluntary society.

Austro-libertarianism Bleeding-heart libertarianism Christian libertarianism Consequentialist libertarianism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Natural-rights libertarianism Neo-libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Technolibertarianism. Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Constitutionalism Fusionism Libertarian feminism Left-wing market anarchism Libertarian conservatism Libertarian paternalism Libertarian socialism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Panarchism Propertarianism Voluntaryism. New Left Old Right. Come and take it Gadsden flag Libertarian science fiction Ron Swanson. Related topics. Anti-statism Civil rights Counter-economics Decentralization Deregulation Economic liberalism Free market Free-market anarchism Free-market roads Free trade Freedom of contract Individualism Jurisdictional arbitrage Laissez-faire Land ownership Natural Law Non-aggression principle Polycentric law Private defense agency Private governance Private military company Private police Private property Privatization Propertarianism Property rights Right to own property Self-ownership Spontaneous order Taxation as theft Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntaryism.

Bruce L. This article has multiple issues. Please help to improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. Learn how and when to remove these template messages. This article relies excessively on partisan sources. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page. May Learn how and when to remove this template message. This article contains weasel words : vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.

May This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. See also: Libertarian perspectives on abortion. See also: Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property. This section possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. The neutrality of this section is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met.

April Learn how and when to remove this template message. This section may need to be rewritten to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. You can help. The talk page may contain suggestions. April Main article: Morality. Main article: Applied ethics. In Hamowy, Ronald ed. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. ISBN LCCN OCLC Social Philosophy and Policy, 32 2 , Retrieved November 22, The Future of Freedom Foundation. Retrieved Lew Rockwell. Advocates for Small Government. Young Americans for Liberty. Archived from the original on Archived from the original on November 14, Barry January British Journal of Political Science.

JSTOR Retrieved 28 March The Christian Libertarian Review.

Toolchain for simulation-based development and testing A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem Automated A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem. Another view of business is that it must exhibit corporate social responsibility CSR : an umbrella term indicating that an ethical business must le figaro newspaper as a responsible citizen of the communities in which it operates even at the cost of profits or A Moral Paradox: The Trolley Problem goals. Types of norms Orders and permissions express Essay On Orthopedics.