Ahpay Amah.

> It would allow for one to express themselves

How so? What kind of expression?

And what type of conflict are you thinking of? Doesn’t conflict allow for violence and soffering? Is it possible for those to be ideal?

This is when an autistic person comes and tells you but what the hell are you saying, I don't understand you

Why do you keep responding if you're not gonna answer the question?

Morality is subjective and is of a fungible nature. You can theorize all you like, but reality and history tells us this is true.

As an example, the psychopath agrees to be moral not out of a sense of need or community, but as a result of his own self interest and his or her desire to avoid the cost of ignoring laws and social norms. But does that then mean morality involves nothing more than making a self-interested choice?

Not necessarily, just that that's the interface at which they would act iif that were the case. But by definition its not what we can currently examine - it's what our model of physics defines elementary by the energy mass defintion.

> I think learning to articulate your moral assumptions, then to interrogate them and resolve any contradictions as they arise are all useful, and really the whole point of philosophy.

Again, not what most people are using thought experiments for, and "it's good practice for when you actually have to make a moral judgement about something completely unrelated" is hardly a ringing endorsement for their usefulness.

> the factors they have identified as morally relevant will remain relevant across a range of issues

I don't think they will be. People are weird, inconsistent, and illogical. You don't have some smooth culpability function for wrongdoing that justifies punishment once it rises above a certain threshold, you've got an arbitrary collection of competing criteria that includes morally irrelevant details like how well you slept last night and how long it's been since you last ate.

I had another reply very much like this, but it looks like it was deleted for some reason. This was my response. It seems applicable to your comment.

I think my main issue here is that I don't think "generalizable" is the same as "useful". I think learning to articulate your moral assumptions, then to interrogate them and resolve any contradictions as they arise are all useful, and really the whole point of philosophy.

Beyond that, I think a lot of the factors people come up with are in fact generalizable, at least for them. That is, once people have resolved the trolley problem to their own satisfaction, the factors they have identified as morally relevant will remain relevant across a range of issues. The trolley problem doesn't reveal much that is generalizable for people as a group, but because morality is inherently subjective, we wouldn't really expect it to.

This doesn’t say anything about free will. Are you trying to surmise that there are free-will-endowing agents at scales smaller than we can currently examine?

Hey thanks I appreciate the kind words

You, dear redditor, have a beautifully inquisitive and reflective soul.

Is hunger not a physical act of harming some one?

If only morality wasn't subjective they may have a case. And assigning emotions to viewing something is a recipe for failure.

While i get where you are coming from I fundamentally disagree with your last paragraph about how a lot of people are " willing citizens" . Unfortuantly it can not be said that many people are actually " willing" in fact it can be said said many people are coerced into participating or more specifically has coercive violence( specifically financial coercive violence) where many citizens feel like if they dont participate then they are worthless to said society and could lose their livilhood( ex. A young mother having to work for full time jobs to support her family and pay rent or else she and her family will be kicked out. ).

Plus it need to be considered that in our society we have been ideologically conditioned to believe that this reality is the only reality to fully satisfy us internally and that a lack of participath is equivalent to death of self. Even though ironically one might find ones self if one distances themselves from this monetary system if its possible.

It’s a good thing. Cleans up shit neighborhoods. We need more of it.

No, it's not - the ordinary concept is vague and contradictory

Because I think it is indeed a useless philosophical technicality.

There are many objective facts we accept as objective facts because we use our senses to perceive then. Our senses are subjective. Nothing we detect using them is truly objective, from colors, to shapes, to anything at all.

But we set a standard of objectivity based on our senses anyway.

So in the absence of the word of a deity, what kind of objective reality could we possibly expect beside what we can to the best of our ability calculate is in the best interest of all humanity and the ecosystem we are a part of?

The fact that it is usually better to eat than to starve is as objective as me looking up and observing the color of the sky.

Just to extend a bit further, I think it is actually more immoral behavior that societies ingrain into people. I think immoral behaviour is more learned behaviour and loss of self. As examples I will point to hatred racisim war selfishness. These things when created propogate themselves. I dont think any baby is born racist or wanting to invade another country.

I will put fourth the idea that there is some form of innate morality. Best described by the golden and silver rules. I put this forward based only on my on personal experiences in life. Though being good vs feeling guilt and shame; seem obvious. I know you could argue that those are societally ingrained into me and I would say yes that is part of it. Though I would in turn point out that if there was not also a physical aspect that caused a natural sense of morality societies would have been very difficult to form. The understanding of mutual benefit comes from a sense of morality I think.

I gave examples of both as well as the only disturbing logical argument I could think of for not pulling the lever.

Morality is difficulty especially in a case like this as you decide life and death. I think there could be arguments for both. By acting you kill someone and kind of save 5. Through inaction you hold some responsibility for the death of 5. I think what would be most relevant in the decision making process is what if any knowledge of the 6 people you have.

Do you know any of them? Do any of them have a visual appearance that you can relate to from your own life experiences. Theses could impact the decision making process. Excluding knowing the 1 man I think you probably just switch the the tracks. My reasoning for thinking this is simple greater good.

If 1 man dies one family and one set of relationships suffer. Where as if 5 die 5 families and relationships are hurt. I do not say this is the morally correct decision and would have to accept that I had killed a person by my actions. If I had to make a choice between letting 5 die or killing a different one by pushing a button. I would push the button. Though again this excludes all other possible relevant factors. (Though if someone did not make a choice but froze in indecision I would not call that immoral.)

The only arguments I could see for not pushing the button would require more information than provided. Excluding if you believe population reduction is actually in the greater good. Which one could make for an argument for that though its kind of a dark one.

> There's a bunch of ways to do it, but hashing out which one you prefer is absolutely worthwhile and teaches you about yourself.

But again, it doesn't teach you anything generalizable. Someone who might balk at pushing the fat man might have no problem demanding a pre-vaccine end to COVID restrictions for economic reasons. So it might be intellectually stimulating, but not actually useful.

Also that order changes outcomes of responses. These things are an insight into language and processing that we are nearly blind to. They may actually have more pattern than we believe they do. It is easier as an outsider, something different, to see patterns rather than seeing them from within.