dimreepr

No it doesn't, if I attack you, then we're at war; or at least in a fight...

My apologies, it was an attempt to show how AI couldn't be an intellect.

it's not, it's a moral imperative that could lead to our deaths as in "the war of the worlds". The ethical question is, how do we avoid the problems a moral imperative presents?

It's so easy to become a prophet, all you've got to do is read history and learn from it... 😇

I have tried to expand and clarify my point, but you seem determined to pick fault with my initial post, rather than address or answer my attempts to qualify the difference between individual and societal moral output.

Is it: The YouTube video you linked (VPJTE640ogg) is likely a specific instance of a discussion or analysis related to arguments, potentially focusing on critical thinking or the presentation of claims. Based on search results, it may refer to the work of Philip Turetzky, author of "The Elements of Arguments". While a direct summary of the specific video's arguments isn't available, here's a likely overview of themes based on related information: Focus on Logic and Critical Thinking: The video probably explores core principles of logic and critical thinking, including how to identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments. Structure of Arguments: It likely covers the components of an argument, such as premises and conclusions, and how they relate to support a specific claim. Informal Fallacies: A significant part of the discussion could involve identifying and avoiding common errors in reasoning, known as informal fallacies. Distinctions in Argumentation: The video may clarify important distinctions within argumentation, such as the difference between: Propositions and propositional attitudes Propositions and states of affairs Logic, rhetoric, and psychology In short, the video probably provides a foundation for understanding the mechanics of arguments and for assessing their strength and validity. To get a precise summary, watching the video is necessary.

We are all products of our cultures and stoneage people are just as smart as we are now; imagine if heaven is available to all of us, now, and we don't even have to die to get there; all we have to do is be content with what we have now.

I'm not suggesting you're being intellectually dishonest, just that the approach is, but it's ironic that you choose reply to my post in such a way. Assuming we're both atheistic, then Yhwh did nothing and Amos was disagreeing with the wisdom of the age that spawned it's imagery, by hating everything about it without trying to understand why they may have conjured such a being.

It could just mean only listen to our teacher, bc they actually makes sense in this time and culture. I think this approach is intellectually dishonest, if we go back far enough of course we can chery pick the part where we didn't understand the difference between coralation and causation. They were still as smart as we are now and equally susceptible to confirmation bias, the only difference is, now we have cars and traffic light's, and a lot of people flashing their headlight's thinking that will turn the red lights to green bc whenever they're in a hurry it seemed to work.

I'm sorry I'm clearly not making my point, This post is basically my point, the more we interfere (healthcare) the closer we get to the "outside". It's my understanding that ethics is societies version of individually agreed average morals that are mostly tollerable. In this context, what's the difference?

Where does infinity fit in?

This is an ethical question, when is our morals not affordable, to which your answer is, minions who tell lies; get a better butler you idiot...

But they will... 😬

Life isn't binary, it's analog sometimes it's more than 1.

If only we could learn from history instead... No one really wins...

It's being undermined by morning TV, almost everyday they have a guest with a sob story, demanding they get a million pound treatment that will extend their life for 6 month's. WTF, how did you manage to showhorn my 'natural jingoism' into the discussion??? 🙄

Indeed, but since it's mostly written in metaphor and those, including @Hawkll, who don't understand the value of god/s, as a teachable moment, can't know that it's not the truth. If I could I wouldn't, it's fun watching you squirm in your certainty. It makes for one hell of a sitcom. 😅

I'm not advocating we selectively kill people, quite the opposite; H G Wells' "The War of the Worlds" is kind of the thrust of my argument. I believe there's a hypothesis that suggests children exposed to a mild viral disease develops a stronger adult immune system, I'm not suggesting we don't continue to vaxinate against the more lethal strains; anecdotally, having suffered adult chickenpox caught from a child with about 5 little red spot's. The cultural side of the argument, is the NHS a fine institution but one that's imploding under it's own weight, one example is the DNR (do not resuscitate), without one a Dr is obliged to keep that person alive, despite the Dr knowing that in doing so it can only prolong the suffering. The question is, is health, heathy?

If questioned we are sewerage operatives, with a licence to kill....

When we broke enigma, our ethics demanded that we let some people die to keep the secret and win the war; how is this question different?

Fair point, my apologies to everyone... This isn't just a biological question, (hence the ethics forum), evolution is also a cultural phenomena; my question is more about the path our wealth will lead us. I'm suggesting that our moral imperative to keep people alive, is leading us down a cul-de-sac, where the burden on society can only ever increase.

Point well missed... Indeed, but this is an ethical question, not a moral one...

One has to wonder if the noise of the many will crucifie the message of the one...

As promised a tangent to the child mortality thread: As the rich countries continue to develope ever more effective "cures and treatments", and so continue to live despite nature's 'intention' (yes I know, but let's not get sidetracked before we start), aren't we effectively shallowing our own gene pool to the point that we can't survive, for want of a better metaphor, outside?

In the context of 'your' topic, the fact that you don't get it, shows a lack of understanding the subject you chose to introduce (for some reason)... 🤔