What's our official position on this?

What's our official position on this?

My position is that these threads are fucking stupid and you should stop making them.

I use a modified version of the categorical imperative tbh.

Literally read/watch zizek tbqh

100% utilitarian

Ask yourself: What are your goals in life? What sort of world do you want to leave behind? Then do whatever it takes to make it so.

...

Why would you not do something if it was going to make the world a better place?

The only reason that image is dumb is because killing one person to save another nets you nothing.

This.

BEHEAD THOSE WHO INSULT THE UBERMENSCH

Why would you infringe on someone else's autonomy because you have a vague idea it might do some good? Humans should almost never be a means.

The value of autonomy is a large factor in the consideration of utility. Humans seem to take great pleasure in the feeling of being in control of themselves.

I would infringe on someone's autonomy is I was *nearly certain* that it would do good.

One person needs a heart transplant, one person needs a liver transplant, two people need lung transplants, and anther two people need kidney transplants.
Murder one healthy person and distributing their organs can save the lives of up to six people.

Reminder that this is evidence for an inborn sense of ethics. Read some moral psychology.

It's just human nature right? :^)

I'm aware of this. The existence of a biological behavior tells us nothing of what we *ought* to do, just what we have evolved to do. You could make the argument that our genetic predisposition IS the best course of action, but I would say that what was best for a chimpanzee is not applicable to a modern human. Evolution is a lot slower than civilization.

If it was the only way, and they were sure to survive, then why wouldn't you? To not do so would mean that you were responsible for the deaths of five people.

...

Because you're infringing on the autonomy of that person who did nothing wrong. Thats immoral.

no it's not, you are saving 6 people

you have two scenarios
A) 1 person dies
B) 6 people die

Everything else is irrelevant

I'd say that which we call morality is just a description of human behaviour.

you're forgetting something, would people go to hospitals if they kew their organs could be harvested in some king of twisted russian roulette game?

You infringe on the one persons autonomy by killing him…..

I don't know man. I rather the six people die because of X circumstance than have me personally be implicated in murder.

...

We are assuming it is done in secret

Sure.
Anything goes. However, because of ethical systems there might be social consequences for certain acts.
Also, would you *want* to lie, cheat and steal simply because you won't go to hell for it? I for one would not. It brings me no pleasure.

...

evolutionism is a bourgeoisie lie
lysenkoism is the way forwards!
(or lamarckism))))

Read Nietsche or some other existential philosopher.

The laws of physics, mostly.

This comic is silly religious propaganda because it starts from the position that morality comes from religious moral laws, rather than the actual truth, that religious laws come from humans.

In that example, the stakes aren't high enough. Lets reword it:

Would you murder a single person if it was certain to save the lives of 1 Billion people?

Well yes, morality is the question of human behavior. But that would include both learned and innate behavior. So pointing to innate, instinctual-based behavior as a guide is inadequate.

The thing is that, when murder reaches a point of genocide you're no longer comparing murder to murder. If 6 people die, even if they're vital to the core structure of a civilization it will probably continue on but if millions die it will effect a massive portion beyond that. You're not killing an innocent in order to save a larger number of innocents, you're killing an innocent in order to avoid the collapse of society.

Are they all anarchists? What about the person I'm murdering, is s/he and anarchist, too?