Youre not playing devil's advocate, youre ignoring the question and diverting the discussion. If you are going to argue that all actions are amoral and/or equally ethical, then we have no basis to continuing this discussion. To put it in your terms, why bother being a "humanist" if all actions are equally healthy and increasing well being?

All youre saying is that because we dont know, we shouldnt subscribe to a single belief. While I think that position alone is contestible, thats not the question Im asking, and truth be told, is a little tautological. Obviously people cant do what they dont know.

To reiterate it a third time, if we DO know a universal ethical theory, why shouldnt everyone follow it?

Everything that you say makes sense if you assume capitalism. Switch to a different economic system and your argument becomes nonsense. Agreed?

Are you ask how a neighborhood gets better while the population remains Latino? Lol.

Or if you're ask how it gets better while they remain poor, the answer is that you give them money so that they stop being poor.

I've always had this sneaking suspicion a lot of our worldview differences are simply neurological.

Anecdotally noticing other scientists reports and journals, such as the world science festival discussions on autism and corpus collosum development, I can't help but think there's some kind of additional reference point other than a simple Kalman Filter to navigating our environment that's heavily influenced by things such as religion and common myths.

The tune of a religious answer is very convincing when you don't possess the correct mental facilities or neuron length to parse out data wrapped in a veil of control.

Worldview changing psychedelics such as DMT and Ayahuasca possibly use and modify the brains natural resonance oscillations to change subconscious thoughts... kind of like re-calibrating an electronic device that has electronic references. (DMT increases 5hz brainwaves while silencing other oscillations)

The Trimodal brainwave entrainment [Increases inter-hemispheric coherency] device I use while under dissociative medication has shown me time and time again that this theory I have isn't complete nonsense. But like all good science, proof proof proof is required

[deleted]

I wouldn’t think so. QM is probabilistic but things don’t randomly swerve like in Epicurean physics.

What is "good"? Why should it be maximized? You sound like a zealous utilitarian.

Playing devils advocate here: why isn't killing a good thing? What's so obviously wrong about it? Perhaps, one may consider human life evil and seek for it's complete extinction. PETA members come to mind. Perhaps, human life isn't as valuable as capitalist profit is. Economy > humanity. There's some that would die on that hill to enforce these ethics.

Obviously, I dont subscribe to these ideas. I consider myself a humanist that wishes to maximize humanity's health and well-being. However, even the question of what is "health" and "well-being", is up for debate.

Whether or not something should be universally followed, is an opinion. Particularly, the "should" implies subjectivity. It's completely dependent on your personal beliefs and goals. In the real world, not everyone shares those beliefs and goals. Morals and ethics seem objective, until they face contradicting counterparts. Leading to war.

Unless you just bite the bullet and say, “Hell yeah! Hook me up to the machine!” These sorts of hypotheticals rely on intuitive response and emotion. When those factors line up contrary to the desired conclusion, then the hypothetical loses its power as an argumentative device.

Or a George-style land value tax. (Overview for those unfamiliar with the concept)

It's not a non-sequitur, I spelled out why that applies to the issue. I was clear on this point, I don't know how you could have possibly missed it. And merely participating does not make them willing.

Like i said i think you are way off the mark, not to mention the assumption that poor people own houses in the neighborhoods they live in.

Youre avoiding the question, or assuming Im saying something different.

A correct ethical theory is one that maximizes good, a wrong one is one that does not.

Again, Im not trying to define what THE correct ethical theory is. But we can say that some ethical theories are better than others. For example, the ethical theory "Murder every single person you encounter" is obviously not a good one. So it seems a logical conclusion that one is the best. What it is, I dont know.

But lets assume it exists, and is known: a system that maximizes good with no downsides.

Why shouldnt it be universally followed?

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.

Ahh so you're just messing. Glad you could clarify for us, sometimes it's hard to filter out the BS responses but you made sure we knew

You say > but these Scenarios are deceptive ..........."

Is it impossible for some of these experiments to actually capture the subtle aspects you refer to (context and individual)?

While I cannot point you to a classification of types of thought experiments, there are of course several kinds which may involve group decisions or individual decisions.

There is no reason why individual responses are not to be considered.

With respect to context, as an example a thought experiment that entails having to imagine something familiar isnt fat fetched and can be said to be within a realistic context.

What you have not done with your question is specify why you presume that context and individual responses are not considered or left out of thought experiments,

Then state that on this basis, these scenarios (i.e thought experiments) are deceptive.

I could swear I had read a very insightful comment/article in this regard, but I cannot find it anymore...

Anyhow, I see where you are coming from. But then you aren't talking about thought experiments "per se" anymore (this dude even lowkey criticizes Gettier somehow!) but just warning not to talk out of one's ass like in any other kind of argument.

Like, those atrocious "should the car kill the elderly or the baby" are either more of an engineering problem than truly philosophy, or they are ethics from somebody that thinks either too sanctimoniously about people or too stupidly about computers.

It can be personally correct to you (or your group), as in it's consistent with your beliefs and desires. It may be a correct ethical theory, not the correct ethical theory (which is what "objective morality" is attempting to establish). However, using the word "correct" to define an ethical theory, is ridiculous. There's no way to prove it's correct, it doesn't make any sense to assume it can be correct. How would you define a wrong ethical theory?

Remove real estate as a form of investment then. Why would you rent to low income in a good market area when you could charge more to more wealthy people.

Or could turn USA into a communist country with designated living quarters for everyone that look exactly the same.

Another solution, goverment susbsidied housing like the massive tiny apartments in hong kong where a bedroom is literally just a bed.

Well, 1) your second sentence almost exactly just mirrors what the title already says in a tone that for some reason thinks it contradicts it, and 2) only refers to thought experiments as pedagogical devices to clarify issues rather than their broader use in philosophical literature, and the more general use of intuition, to actually arrive at allegedly correct solutions.

Thats not the question. I am not listing what makes a correct ethical theory, I am asking why a correct ethical theory should not exist.

"The continuation of humanity is inherently valuable" is not objective. Yes, it is a value that most people hold, but that does not make it an objective truth. At best, that makes it a common axiom.

That you had to qualify "nearly everyone" holds that value itself demonstrates that it is subjective, not objective.

There is no fundamental universal property that makes humanity inherently valuable. Humanity can cease, and the universe will continue on just fine. We can say that's bad, and construct our morals around that axiom, but that doesn't make the axiom objectively true.

Robert Nozick's Experience Machine thought experiment seems to be a good rebuttal to Epicureanism.

Isn't the point of thought experiments to challenge our intuitions in the first place?

I believe most of what goes on is unconscious, so to claim you know yourself completely is like knowing the future. You can make predictions and be good at it but only the future can tell you what it holds. Only after death can your entire story be told.

The mind is an emergent property of brain stuff. It's like a game that emerges from a rule set. Can the game break the rules? Even when one of the rules is to follow the causal chain? I don't think the chain can be broken. It's my assumption.

I think the only reason anyone would assume the chain can be broken is a feeling. The feeling of agency, the feeling of self. Things that we absolutely unconsciously construct in our minds to be able to make decisions. It's decision making machinery.

Imo. I'll always assume that the causal chain cannot be broken. I guess until I don't

I think he should have focused more on why it could be problematic to apply thought experiments to real world applications such as AI or self-driving cars. That would be a much more interesting conversation imo.