Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

I don't know why you would want to refuse to address the issue central to the discussion. I can only assume it's because you continue to be wrong.

You haven't proven me wrong to my satisfaction, and you have proven me wrong to your satisfaction. And vice versa. We are clearly coming up against deeply entrenched beliefs on the philosophy of mind, and the relation of the mind to the world. Fair enough. I continue to read, study and appreciate all kinds of philosophers that I think are full of ****, and still glean useful insights from them. Just because we both think the other one is wrong doesn't render 'agreeing to disagree' an invalid course just to keep discussions moving, interesting, and not constantly devolving into you and I posting page after page on a subject that is only lightly connected to the situation at hand.

Not at all. All valuations are inherently arbitrary. If the person doing the valuations happens to weigh "has a vagina and a lolipop" significantly higher than whatever value they infer in the existence of the 200 men, they'll do so. That's precisely what makes weighing the value of human life wrong, it reduces the value seen in life to something arbitrary by necessity.

I was supposing that, as the entire thought experiment is deisgned to illustrate, that most people's valuations would centre around opportunity to contribute to the world, rather than cuteness. I apologise if your'e a sucker for a lollipop.

Then the scope needs to be widened.

Go for it. I just think it is a topic that could warrant its own thread instead of being appended to this one.