New Testingstan

I don't think moral argumens re useful guides to action
I'm more interested in outcomes and quality of outcomes than a county fulfilling morality quests to fill up its paragon bar at the expense of short sighted hypocrisy that create more problems

Frankly the entire internet just seems interested in winning the argument about morality, which should be a side issue to actual results (and even expieces results)

starku wrote:Do you think the problem is more that america tends of only use one tool in the box or that they don't bother fully understanding a situation

Because a guy hanging his fist on the table saying BUT WE MUST DO SOEMTHING should remember that someones the best thin you can do is nothing

So at what point when large groups of people are being raped and murdered would Prime Minister Stark declare "enough is enough" and try to provide some form, any form, of aid or intervention in one way or another (not excluding but not limited to the use of armed forces)?

Your impotent emotive arguments don change results

But your selfish need to MUST HELP NOW might actually create negative outcomes

So may e you should use your brain and think about the situation rather than fulfilling your own desire for morality points

actually for the disabled

if you make a 'morally right' decision and it turns out bad, it was the wrong decision
if you make a 'morally right' decision and it turns out good, it was the right decision

maybe this shows morality doesn't matter and only results do

unless i mean you're doing things just to make yourself feel better

A disabled person, here :

What is this "morality" thing you all keep talking about. I mean, it seems important for people to constantly bring it up here or on TOB, but I don't even know what it is...

its something that gives you a warm fuzzy feeling inside when you leap to emotive responses

the road to hell is not paved with good intentions ok

So, "morality" is some sort of irrational feeling, then ?

cultural conditioning

Hmm, I think I see. But how does it work in practice ? I mean, if it's a decision-making tool for people, it seems pretty unreliable...

oh, metatwaddle, why do you try

Oxymoron wrote:Hmm, I think I see. But how does it work in practice ? I mean, if it's a decision-making tool for people, it seems pretty unreliable...

Morality is basically a system where you can make 'right' decisions and differentiate them from wrong decisions. Working out what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' is a complicated process that isn't easy for anything other than black/white thinking (i.e. good and evil worldviews for example, which is anything but complete or useful).

Stark is arguing a kind of consequentialist viewpoint, where the results of a decision determines whether the decision was moral or bad. 'The ends justify the means', although that is a loaded term that often gets misinterpreted. In this case, Stark would be looking at what are the likely or probable outcomes from action - and thus, determining what is likely the best course of action. The trouble is, complicated situations often don't have all the variables known to those making decisions, so you sometimes have to 'best guess' what the consequences will be. It is not hard to see that taking a non-interventionist or limited interventionist approach falls naturally into this category of morality/ethics.

Darth Fanboy is more into a values argument: somethings are just wrong and we should intervene to put a stop to it. If people are getting raped and murdered wholesale, then those things are bad and intervening to put a stop to it is good. If Gaddafi is a terrible human being then he should be removed from any position where he can cause suffering. The problem with this is the whole 'unintended consequences' thing, where bad things can result from trying to do a good thing like putting a stop to tyranny. I'm not saying this applies in this particular situation, but as a hypothetical example let's go with 'what if you depose one dictator, which only enables a bigger set of assholes to take over?'

edit apologies in advance if i am simplifying people's arguments too much, or if i have misinterpreted people's positions

they probably would've signed up with the terrorists anyway

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_dro ... _mourners/

The information/understanding element is key

Nobody can make good decisions when hey don't know what's going on
And I don't think moral blinkers (or moral imperatives) help information gathering

Giving money to poor people can sometimes produce bad outcomes, so you have to understand the situation, what you want to achieve and how to do it rather than just press the CHILDISH MORALITY SAYS GIVE THEM CASHUMZ

Unfortunately given the west's history of such we're probably better off just leaving it be, cause we almost always fuck it up.

they probably would've signed up with the terrorists anyway

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/05/u_s_dro ... _mourners/

lovely

Even with bad track records and failures, the failures might still be better than the alternatives

Which is what you have to consider

And not just what makes you feel better about your social guilt/feelings of impotence/desire to control

Stofsk wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Hmm, I think I see. But how does it work in practice ? I mean, if it's a decision-making tool for people, it seems pretty unreliable...

Morality is basically a system where you can make 'right' decisions and differentiate them from wrong decisions. Working out what's 'right' and what's 'wrong' is a complicated process that isn't easy for anything other than black/white thinking (i.e. good and evil worldviews for example, which is anything but complete or useful).

Stark is arguing a kind of consequentialist viewpoint, where the results of a decision determines whether the decision was moral or bad. 'The ends justify the means', although that is a loaded term that often gets misinterpreted. In this case, Stark would be looking at what are the likely or probable outcomes from action - and thus, determining what is likely the best course of action. The trouble is, complicated situations often don't have all the variables known to those making decisions, so you sometimes have to 'best guess' what the consequences will be. It is not hard to see that taking a non-interventionist or limited interventionist approach falls naturally into this category of morality/ethics.

Darth Fanboy is more into a values argument: somethings are just wrong and we should intervene to put a stop to it. If people are getting raped and murdered wholesale, then those things are bad and intervening to put a stop to it is good. If Gaddafi is a terrible human being then he should be removed from any position where he can cause suffering. The problem with this is the whole 'unintended consequences' thing, where bad things can result from trying to do a good thing like putting a stop to tyranny. I'm not saying this applies in this particular situation, but as a hypothetical example let's go with 'what if you depose one dictator, which only enables a bigger set of assholes to take over?'

edit apologies in advance if i am simplifying people's arguments too much, or if i have misinterpreted people's positions

Wait wait wait waaaiiiit...

No you're trying to tell me there's different kind of morality that may or may not be interoperable ?

Who the fuck designed this system...

starku wrote:Even with bad track records and failures, the failures might still be better than the alternatives

Which is what you have to consider

And not just what makes you feel better about your social guilt/feelings of impotence/desire to control

Aye. And it remains to be seen what will change in Libya.

With Afghanistan I suppose we could say that what they have is marginally better then the Taliban with girls being able to attend school and a miniscule level of the population being involved in the government. But again, it'll probably take decades to see.

There's no easy answers here, which is what people want.

Oxymoron wrote:Wait wait wait waaaiiiit...

No you're trying to tell me there's different kind of morality that may or may not be interoperable ?

yes

problem?

Who the fuck designed this system...

humans did

Stark's right that understanding is the key. You need the right information to make the right decision. Arguably not doing anything when you don't have all the facts or you have an incomplete picture is a moral decision to make than rushing in when you only know a fraction of what's going on. The problem is that what do you do when people are dying and getting gassed or brutalised or whatever while you're sitting around gathering information. Although, stuff like that is pretty easy to condemn, and the guys who run governments employ thousands of people in various agencies whose sole job is to collect information and analyse it and have it ready to brief the President/Prime Minister etc at a moment's notice when shit hits the fan at Someplaceiveneverheardofistan.

Stofsk wrote:

Oxymoron wrote:Wait wait wait waaaiiiit...

No you're trying to tell me there's different kind of morality that may or may not be interoperable ?

yes

problem?

Who the fuck designed this system...

humans did

Stark's right that understanding is the key. You need the right information to make the right decision. Arguably not doing anything when you don't have all the facts or you have an incomplete picture is a moral decision to make than rushing in when you only know a fraction of what's going on. The problem is that what do you do when people are dying and getting gassed or brutalised or whatever while you're sitting around gathering information. Although, stuff like that is pretty easy to condemn, and the guys who run governments employ thousands of people in various agencies whose sole job is to collect information and analyse it and have it ready to brief the President/Prime Minister etc at a moment's notice when shit hits the fan at Someplaceiveneverheardofistan.

let's use an analogy

suppose you hear a woman screaming in an alleyway and rush in to beat up the man standing next to her without considering your surroundings

if she was being assaulted, then congratulations, you're her hero

if she was just being surprised by her boyfriend, then congratulations, you're going to jail for assault

but you don't know which situation is the case when you rush in until it's too late

So, in the words of a true American hero :


http://youtube.com/watch?v=pele5vptVgc

Edit : I guess in the end you'd some kind of inverse prime directive :

When shit hit the fan, you intervene [however you chose to intervene], knowing that you'll have to sort the mess later when the situation is stabilized.

thats why people have measured responses

you can rush to the scene and then pause to consider instead of making your entire decision based on one fragment of information

this is pretty much making decisions 101 :V

Life is not a series of simplistic binary choices ?

Have I been lied to ? Inconceivable !

starku wrote:thats why people have measured responses

you can rush to the scene and then pause to consider instead of making your entire decision based on one fragment of information

this is pretty much making decisions 101 :V

Maybe they should start teaching risk management in high school.

Oxymoron wrote:Life is not a series of simplistic binary choices ?

Have I been lied to ? Inconceivable !

To much time on the internet.

Aaron wrote:Maybe they should start teaching risk management in high school.

dude even on tv people rush and say HEY WHAT IS GOING ON HERE

that's raelly all that is required :V