Aspies For Freedom - Impaired emotional processing affects moral judgements

"Oh, oh! Look at me, I'm agonizing! I'm going to let millions of people die so I can feel all warm and snuggly about myself! I'm so superior for letting millions die because it meant that I didn't actually have to take direct responsibility for an act!"

I have no respect for moral weaklings.

Ryuujin Wrote:

Lol Dog's brain, that's exactly what they mean... it's all philosophical which is right. The moral highground and what is good for the many is often at odds and both are the right and wrong answer at the same time.

It's a matter of moral cowardice.

Shnoing Wrote:

hit the switch = punishable

Punishable, but MORE MORAL.

Quote:

kill the crew member = punishable

Punishable, BUT FAR MORE MORAL!

Quote:

pull the trigger = punishable

Punishable, but INFINITELY MORE MORAL, BY FAR!!!

Quote:

Conclusion: You can learn the difference without using emotions. … But I've no idea which decision I would take without my knowledge ot the law.

Conclusion: Morality and the accidents of legalism often have nothing at all to do with each other.

It IS possible to be moral and break the law of men. At times, it is REQUIRED to break the law of men in order to be moral. In Nazi-occupied France, it was ILLEGAL to conceal Jews from the authorities. If Jews came to you wanting to be hidden, you legally had to turn them in. In order to be moral, you HAD TO BREAK THE LAW.

Please prove, citing evidence OUTSIDE OF the law that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not moral, that law can NEVER ERR in moral terms.

Ryuujin Wrote:

I can understand the logic, the one guy YOU chose to die previously was safe, it was your decision that he was to die instead of the 5 other guys. So the burden of guilt passes to you, whereas previously it would have been whoever failed to maintain the brakes on the trolley

Then let me shoulder that burden, for the sake of the lives saved.

Quote:

But through inaction, you allowed 5 people to die who could've been saved, 5 families who will now have lost family members and 5 times the anguish. But because you didn't intervene the blood isn't on your hands

Isn't it? Is not sin through inaction still a sin? Is not the choice to kill five through inaction still the choice to kill them?

Who is so foolish and naive as to look to something as petty as mere "law" for moral guidance?

Quote:

what kind of a world is that where you get jailed for trying save someone's life?)

A world run by neurotypicals, of course.

Shnoing Wrote:

DogBrain Wrote:

It IS possible to be moral and break the law of men. At times, it is REQUIRED to break the law of men in order to be moral. In Nazi-occupied France, it was ILLEGAL to conceal Jews from the authorities. If Jews came to you wanting to be hidden, you legally had to turn them in. In order to be moral, you HAD TO BREAK THE LAW.

The example is not quite to the point. How about this one: After you've hidden the above mentioned Jew, a policeman wants to search your place in order to arrest him. Kill the policeman? The answer would be YES, because in this case (occupied France) he represents "unlawful law".

"Unlawful law"--that's a pile of steaming doubletalk legalese if ever I saw one. What if I were living in GERMANY and the Gestapo came over to arrest Jews and send them to extermination camps? Unfortunately, Herr Hitler did follow the letter of the law when it came to him seizing power--he exploited critical weaknesses in the German constitution.

"Unlawful law" is nothing but weasel words.

Quote:

There's no proof. But you can't run a society on the basis of moral terms because they are not universal. The law – at least in theory – has been agreed upon.

The law has not been agreed upon. If the law were agreed upon, there would be no amendment to laws and no laws would ever be overturned by any court.

Pages: 1 2 3