Need a Topic in Off Topic
If there is only one choice then there is no need to decide which choice, it has been made for you. As for the chances, well, if every chance was fair, it wouldn't be "luck" would it?
I was just picking an example. The point was, the issue with morality is that it depends on feelings, which cannot be reduced to a general form (true for all cases).
What is morality? Doing good (I guess). I need to help the world! So I start by killing off 1 animal every hour. By doing this for an extended period of time, I can effectively save Earth from overpopulation (as long as I am careful in which animals I kill). While I am "saving" the Earth, someone else would argue that I am "detroying it." So who is right?
Here's a choice for you. Using your own example, suppose a litter of kittens was tied to one track, and a baby tied to the other. Which do you save?
Again, I can simply choose to only accept a value 1-x (x <= 6) for the die. It's really not as big of a deal as you're putting it.
Deer are overpopulated (per square mile) Humans are vastly overpopulated (per square mile) You can find quite a few examples of animals that are overpopulated in nature. Killing all animals of course would result in a world without animal life, which works fine really. I was trying to fix animal overpopulation, animal overpopulation fixed.
I guess you're arguing that your feelings determine your morality? Then we have nothing to argue about since I agree. Morality is doing what you feel is the right thing to do. So morality is different for every individual. Which takes us nowhere.
Okay, so you're saying that there are exceptions where what would be considered immoral are in fact not immoral? Rather, you're saying that circumstance is also a factor in morality.
EDIT: But is it moral to give a finite value to a life?
You never offered a solution yourself. You asked me for a solution, and my solution is to let what happen happen, or perhaps, let some external force decide.
Sorry, but I seem to have lost your argument in the mess. My argument should be fairly obvious by now, morality doesn't exist in a general form.
But it does have something to do with your feelings. You feel that this other person is not being immoral because it satisfies certain conditions.
My argument is that there is no "perfect" moral answer because morality is individual dependent. You're saying that we don't know it yet, but there is some sort of "perfect" answer.
Liken it functions. You can have a million functions plotted at once, and some will intersect with one another, but there is no one function that can represent the entire function because if there is one range that differs from another range, the new function would fail the veritcal line test.
It depends on whether I knew the baby or the kittens. If I didn't know either of them, I would refuse to change the course of events, and let whichever is in track A (which the tram was initially headed towards) be ran over. What's the point of this question?
I like to think that until there is enough evidence to support something, it's best not to assume it exists. I know that individual morality exists and that it can differ. There is no reason to assume that there is a perfect set of rights and wrongs because that would imply some special, all knowing arbiter. No such thing can exist.
You have evidence that individual morality exists, since there is an area in the human brain that determines conscience. Unless all humans are the same, there will be variations.
If a person can be convinced that they're doing something wrong that they originally thought was right, then that only means that their individual morality changed. It does not mean that they weren't right to begin with, it means that someone or something else convinced them otherwise.
Because a person can be enlightened to a new way of thinking.
But if you show me something new, I have to adapt my existing information to work with the new information.