🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@AncientGood Thanks. It was really a bit of a test to see if people picked 1-3 vs 4, though seeing the 1-3 breakdown is also interesting.

@robertnorlyn For me morality/ethics are simple in principle, complex in application.

In principle that which is moral is that which minimizes net suffering and maximizes net happiness (net being the total effect in the world).

Simple to define, and even objective (as happiness and suffering is, in theory, measurable in ones brain).

In practice though actually figuring what will or will not have that result isnt always easy :)

@robertnorlyn So that was basically my assumption that any of 1-3 is valid, #4 isnt

@robertnorlyn So you are saying the only reason you should do it is risk assement?

Ok so if no one is obligated to agree, and there is no risk, then is it morally ok?

@robertnorlyn

Ok the contract is "we agree not to kill eachother".. pressuming we are talking about someone that is completely incapable of posing any risk to you, what would be your reason to agreeing to enter into such a contract? Would it be wrong for me to reject such a contract? Why am I obligated to agree to such a contract at all?

@robertnorlyn No jargon is fine, sometimes its needed. So we are talking ethics and morality here specifically, not philosophy except so far as it involves those two points.

@robertnorlyn

I do expect a good deal of variation in nuance int he answers...

My supposition was that most people will answer with 1 - 3, basically that the immorality of murder has some link to the human mind, it is the extinguishing of the mind that is immoral, if there is no mind there is no immorality to it.

If a human had its head cut off but somehow was kept alive on life support I cant see any immorality on any level in killing it.

however @realcaseyrollins seemed to think people would likely answer "because its human" which seems to suggest a more metaphysical answer. But I doubted that would be most non-religious peoples reasoning.

@doomsdayrs@mastodon.ml

@robertnorlyn that just sounds like a round about way of refering to law, or at least our cultural assumptions.. namely that society deems it so.

But thats not what is being asked. I am not asking what society allows, or the law. I am asking why it is **morally** wrong **to you** (if it is).

@robertnorlyn

While ultimately it may define personhood, thats a legal term, and isnt really whats being asked.. im asking when/why its wrong, not when someone has a particular legal status.

@doomsdayrs@mastodon.ml

@robertnorlyn So if i am ok with people trying to kill me, is it ok for me to kill others? I mean, contracts need to be entered into as you say.