10k Philosophy challenge

[Age]

Age - we don't all want to live in the same world.

you say this:

1. As if you know, for sure and with absolute certainty, that 'we' all do not want to live in the 'same world'.

2. Without even actually seeking out and obtaining any clarification at all.

And, if all of you do not want to live in the 'same world', then there is the very reason why there is so much conflict, destruction, and killing.

Now, if you were not so closed here, then you could be shown, as I said previously, how absolutely every one of you did once want to live in the 'exact same world'.

I'm not sure what it means to say what you would want done to you if you were in their shoes but either this means in their situation, in which case the problem is that people want different things done to them, or if you were them down to their desires, in which case what you are saying is act how other people want you do, which isn't helpful either.

What you have begun to assume here, and then believe are the only scenarios, is not True nor Correct at all.

But, as it appears you are not open to, nor curios about, anything else here, so I will leave you with and in your own assumption and belief here.

Also it is pretty clear that we don't all agree on and accept much,

So, you admit that 'we' all do agree on and accept some things. Which is, exactly, what I just said and pointed out. So, 'we' obviously agree on and accept 'this', as well.

so "just doing" that seems like it is going to leave us with nothing we can do at all.

Wow, this is another Truly shallow and even closed way of looking and seeing here.

So no, these are not good moral guidelines.

LOL you jumped to this absolute closed conclusion very quickly. And, considering you did not seek out one bit of clarification here, I wonder if you would even consider if your already made up conclusion and belief here is not as absolute as you have just proposed it is here.

No, morality is objective.

I, obviously, have never said, nor implied, that 'morality' is not objective. So, what are you saying, 'No', to here, exactly.

Also, while truth can be subjective, in as much as some things are matters of taste and therefore subjective, I put it to you that if the truth or falsity of a proposition looks like it is subjective and objective simulatainously, that is a sign that that proposition is improperly written.

I put it to you that you are absolutely Wrong, from my perspective.

But, this is just because you are using the words 'subjective' and/or 'objective' differently than how I do. And, as long as 'we' never seek out and obtain actual clarity of how the other one is using those words, then 'we' still to our own perceptions of things here, and never ever end up coming to agreement and acceptance, and thus harmony, as well.

I don't think metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics are weird or overly complicated terms.

I never ever thought that they are 'weird' either. So, why, exactly, did you add in and use the 'weird' word here.

Also, I never ever thought that those terms, themselves, were overly complicated at all. So, why did you say and write what you did here.

What you have said and written here has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I actually said and wrote. Somewhat like how your counters above also do not actually address what I have actually said, written, and meant.

Those are fairly standard terms used in discussions of ethics. This feels like an odd thing to pull me up on here given that I have used terms like "duplicate simpliciter" and "quantitative peronsal identity" without complaint.

This is just because you have misinterpreted and/or misunderstood what I have actually meant here.

So I'm happy to admit that sometimes I use a bit of jargon, but it does cut down on the number of words required to express a concept.

But remember you and others are, still, in conflict. So, obviously, 'cutting down on the number of words' has not been working.

And, in cases where the concept can be a bit hard to pin down linguistically

But, there is no concept at all that is 'hard' to what you call 'pin down', linguistically. Again, as I was saying and pointing out, you have been, and still are, over complicating things/concepts with unnecessary words. As shown in your next quoted words here.

(as is the case with quantitative personal identity), it can make it a lot easier to tell what someone is talking about.

The only reason it is hard for you to 'pin down' the concept of 'quantitative personal identity' is, again, because you have over complicated what is Truly simple, and easy, with the unnecessary words here.

Absolutely every thing, and concept, being discussed here is Truly simple, and easy.

There is absolutely nothing complicated, nor hard, here.

Well, to me, anyway.

Further, that isn't my personal and subjective opinion. That is my reasoned conclusion using a normative theory and a sensible understanding of personal identity.

I have absolutely no idea nor clue as to what you are even referring to here, exactly. Would you like to clarify what you are even talking about here?

Also, what you call 'your reasoned conclusion' is, literally, 'your own personal and subjective opinion'. Just like those who disagree with 'your', so-called, 'reasoned conclusion' is their 'own personal and subjective opinion', as well. And, what they might well all call 'their reasoned conclusion'.

Now, if you would like to think that what you have said against or in counter to what I have said and written above here, is 'your reasoned conclusion', then I would not disagree at all. As you may well have made a so-called 'reasoned conclusion', but what you based 'that conclusion' on, exactly, was not in regards to what I was actually saying and meaning.

By the way, what is a, supposed, 'sensible understanding' of 'personal identity' anyway. And, what 'personal identity' are you even talking about and referring to here, exactly?

In fact, why did you even introduce the words and term 'personal identity' here for, exactly, anyway?

[Age]

Just ignore Age and Immanuel Can, they can't be helped.

you say this as though you could be 'helped' here "atla".

[Atla]

Just ignore Age and Immanuel Can, they can't be helped.

you say this as though you could be 'helped' here "atla".

I'm not the one with crucial parts of my mind missing heh

[Age]

Just ignore Age and Immanuel Can, they can't be helped.

you say this as though you could be 'helped' here "atla".

I'm not the one with crucial parts of my mind missing heh

So, to you, not just that there are 'many minds', and that people possess and have 'your own minds', but there are also, supposedly, 'crucial' and maybe 'non crucial' parts to the 'many minds' that people, supposedly, 'have' and 'own', as well.

[Age]

Just ignore Age and Immanuel Can, they can't be helped.

you say this as though you could be 'helped' here "atla".

I'm not the one with crucial parts of my mind missing heh

So, to this one, not just that there are 'many minds', and that people possess and have these 'many minds', there are now, supposedly, also 'crucial', and maybe 'non crucial parts' to these 'many minds', possessed and owned by you people.

Also "atla", what are the exact so-called 'crucial parts' that you are implying here that 'I' am, supposedly, missing, exactly?

Not that you could, nor would, clarify. Because obviously one would have to be able to clarify what they have claimed. And, obviously you do not have this ability. As you will clearly show and prove, irrefutably, True, as well.

[Atla]

you say this as though you could be 'helped' here "atla".

I'm not the one with crucial parts of my mind missing heh

So, to this one, not just that there are 'many minds', and that people possess and have these 'many minds', there are now, supposedly, also 'crucial', and maybe 'non crucial parts' to these 'many minds', possessed and owned by you people.

Also "atla", what are the exact so-called 'crucial parts' that you are implying here that 'I' am, supposedly, missing, exactly?

Not that you could, nor would, clarify. Because obviously one would have to be able to clarify what they have claimed. And, obviously you do not have this ability. As you will clearly show and prove, irrefutably, True, as well.

One of them is the capacity for self-reflection. You for example don't have it. Another crucial one is the conscience, IC for example doesn't have one.

[Age]

"daniel mckay" write:

Some years ago, I set out to create/discover the correct normative theory and get at the truth of morality. In this, I would say I was partially successful. I wrote a theory called freedom consequentialism, and it has numerous advantages over other moral theories. It applies to all moral agents, rather than only those capable of experiencing certain emotions; it protects persons’ ability to pursue different ends, rather than asserting that everyone is pursuing the same end even if they do not know it; it could be used as a value system to solve the AI control problem with far less risk of tyranny or perverse instantiation than existing moral theories; and it avoids many of the classic objections to consequentialist theories, including the demandingness objection. However, there is a significant problem at the core of freedom consequentialism: the problem of how to weigh freedom. This is the problem I am hoping you can solve or help to solve, and this is why I am asking for your help in the first place.

1. One does not discover 'a theory'. One creates or formulates 'a theory', based upon some pre-existing views/thoughts.

2. Theories are essentially just another form of speculation, guess, or assumption about some thing. Thus, not really worth creating nor formulating anyway. Considering the Fact that what is actually True and/or Right is here, in Life, already for absolutely every one to just 'look at' and 'see', and/or to so-call 'discover and uncover'.

3. What do you mean by 'moral agents' here, exactly?

4. Why would any 'sane person' want to 'protect' people's ability to pursue different ends, if 'those ends' end up causing harm or damage to any thing?

5. Why do you believe, absolutely, that not every one is pursuing the 'same end'?

6. What is your perceived so-called 'artificial intelligence control problem', exactly?

7. Talking about differing degrees or levels of differing objections to different theories is another prime example of human beings ability to complicate what is essentially not at all.

8. If you want to talk about 'problems' and/or the further complicating 'significant' 'problem', then best you explain the definition you use for the word 'problem', itself, to others, first, especially considering you are, supposedly, offering money to 'solve' a so-called 'philosophy problem'.

9. I have asked you before to elaborate on and/or clarify what could the words 'weigh freedom' even mean, or reference, exactly?

I can very simply and easily show, and prove, to you how to 'decide', absolutely, when and what each and every one has 'freedom' in regards to, exactly. But, you might be meaning, or referring to some thing completely different when you say or ask, 'How to weigh freedom?'

Once this first paragraph of yours is elaborated on and clarified, fully, then 'we' can and will move onto your next one. But, I still maintain that you, also, could have already answered and 'solved' your own question and so-called 'problem' here, if you, once again, had just already elaborated on and thus cleared up, exactly, what 'it' is here that you are actually meaning.

Thus, saving "yourself" from having to transfer absolutely unnecessary numbers [money] to another human being.

[Age]

I'm not the one with crucial parts of my mind missing heh

So, to this one, not just that there are 'many minds', and that people possess and have these 'many minds', there are now, supposedly, also 'crucial', and maybe 'non crucial parts' to these 'many minds', possessed and owned by you people.

Also "atla", what are the exact so-called 'crucial parts' that you are implying here that 'I' am, supposedly, missing, exactly?

Not that you could, nor would, clarify. Because obviously one would have to be able to clarify what they have claimed. And, obviously you do not have this ability. As you will clearly show and prove, irrefutably, True, as well.

One of them is the capacity for self-reflection.

So, it is 'I' who states and claims that 'I' already know the proper, Correct, and irrefutable answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' while you still cannot. But, yet here 'you' are claiming that 'I' do not have the capacity for 'self-reflection'. If 'you' still cannot yet see the absolute irony here "atla", even after all of this time, then I do not know what you waken you up to the blatantly obvious.

After all 'you' still do not yet know who and what the words 'human beings', 'you', 'self', 'person', 'being', 'human', and even just the letter 'I' is referring to, exactly.

LOL you, still, believe that 'self-reflection' refers to younger children looking in a mirror and, supposedly, 'seeing and recognizing' "themselves".

You for example don't have it.

So, 'I' ask 'you', 'What so-called 'crucial parts', exactly, of the 'mind' is supposedly missing in regards to 'me'?

your answer includes 'one part', which you claim is 'the capacity for self-reflection'. And, then, very strangely, you also write that 'I for example do not have 'it' ['the capacity for self-reflection'].

If 'it' is missing, then, obviously, I do not 'have it'. Exactly like if you cannot yet answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then, obviously, you do not yet have 'the capacity of 'Self-reflection'. For surely if you already had the capacity for 'Self-reflection', then 'you' would already know who 'I' am, and thus be able to already answer the question, 'Who am 'I"?'

So, obviously, 'this part' is missing, in 'you'.

Another crucial one is the conscience, IC for example doesn't have one.

So, to "atla" anyway, 'in 'the minds' that "atla" believes, absolutely, that 'me' and "immanuel can" have, and possess, there is no 'conscience part', at all.

Why were 'you' born with, or have evolved to have, 'a mind' with 'these parts' missing "atla" but 'I', supposedly, have not?

See, if you, really, want to talk about 'self-reflection' and 'conscience', then let 'us' have a Truly open, and honest, discussion here, in front of the readers here, and allow the readers here to find out and 'see' who it is here who has 'the capacity' to 'self-reflect', more, and to 'see' who has, more, 'conscience' than the other here.

Are you up for, and ready for, 'this challenge'?

[Atla]

So, to this one, not just that there are 'many minds', and that people possess and have these 'many minds', there are now, supposedly, also 'crucial', and maybe 'non crucial parts' to these 'many minds', possessed and owned by you people.

Also "atla", what are the exact so-called 'crucial parts' that you are implying here that 'I' am, supposedly, missing, exactly?

Not that you could, nor would, clarify. Because obviously one would have to be able to clarify what they have claimed. And, obviously you do not have this ability. As you will clearly show and prove, irrefutably, True, as well.

One of them is the capacity for self-reflection.

So, it is 'I' who states and claims that 'I' already know the proper, Correct, and irrefutable answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' while you still cannot. But, yet here 'you' are claiming that 'I' do not have the capacity for 'self-reflection'. If 'you' still cannot yet see the absolute irony here "atla", even after all of this time, then I do not know what you waken you up to the blatantly obvious.

After all 'you' still do not yet know who and what the words 'human beings', 'you', 'self', 'person', 'being', 'human', and even just the letter 'I' is referring to, exactly.

LOL you, still, believe that 'self-reflection' refers to younger children looking in a mirror and, supposedly, 'seeing and recognizing' "themselves".

You for example don't have it.

So, 'I' ask 'you', 'What so-called 'crucial parts', exactly, of the 'mind' is supposedly missing in regards to 'me'?

your answer includes 'one part', which you claim is 'the capacity for self-reflection'. And, then, very strangely, you also write that 'I for example do not have 'it' ['the capacity for self-reflection'].

If 'it' is missing, then, obviously, I do not 'have it'. Exactly like if you cannot yet answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then, obviously, you do not yet have 'the capacity of 'Self-reflection'. For surely if you already had the capacity for 'Self-reflection', then 'you' would already know who 'I' am, and thus be able to already answer the question, 'Who am 'I"?'

So, obviously, 'this part' is missing, in 'you'.

Another crucial one is the conscience, IC for example doesn't have one.

So, to "atla" anyway, 'in 'the minds' that "atla" believes, absolutely, that 'me' and "immanuel can" have, and possess, there is no 'conscience part', at all.

Why were 'you' born with, or have evolved to have, 'a mind' with 'these parts' missing "atla" but 'I', supposedly, have not?

See, if you, really, want to talk about 'self-reflection' and 'conscience', then let 'us' have a Truly open, and honest, discussion here, in front of the readers here, and allow the readers here to find out and 'see' who it is here who has 'the capacity' to 'self-reflect', more, and to 'see' who has, more, 'conscience' than the other here.

Are you up for, and ready for, 'this challenge'?

You didn't manage to pretend to know what self-reflection refers to. Better luck next time.

[Age]

One of them is the capacity for self-reflection.

So, it is 'I' who states and claims that 'I' already know the proper, Correct, and irrefutable answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?' while you still cannot. But, yet here 'you' are claiming that 'I' do not have the capacity for 'self-reflection'. If 'you' still cannot yet see the absolute irony here "atla", even after all of this time, then I do not know what you waken you up to the blatantly obvious.

After all 'you' still do not yet know who and what the words 'human beings', 'you', 'self', 'person', 'being', 'human', and even just the letter 'I' is referring to, exactly.

LOL you, still, believe that 'self-reflection' refers to younger children looking in a mirror and, supposedly, 'seeing and recognizing' "themselves".

You for example don't have it.

So, 'I' ask 'you', 'What so-called 'crucial parts', exactly, of the 'mind' is supposedly missing in regards to 'me'?

your answer includes 'one part', which you claim is 'the capacity for self-reflection'. And, then, very strangely, you also write that 'I for example do not have 'it' ['the capacity for self-reflection'].

If 'it' is missing, then, obviously, I do not 'have it'. Exactly like if you cannot yet answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?' then, obviously, you do not yet have 'the capacity of 'Self-reflection'. For surely if you already had the capacity for 'Self-reflection', then 'you' would already know who 'I' am, and thus be able to already answer the question, 'Who am 'I"?'

So, obviously, 'this part' is missing, in 'you'.

Another crucial one is the conscience, IC for example doesn't have one.

So, to "atla" anyway, 'in 'the minds' that "atla" believes, absolutely, that 'me' and "immanuel can" have, and possess, there is no 'conscience part', at all.

Why were 'you' born with, or have evolved to have, 'a mind' with 'these parts' missing "atla" but 'I', supposedly, have not?

See, if you, really, want to talk about 'self-reflection' and 'conscience', then let 'us' have a Truly open, and honest, discussion here, in front of the readers here, and allow the readers here to find out and 'see' who it is here who has 'the capacity' to 'self-reflect', more, and to 'see' who has, more, 'conscience' than the other here.

Are you up for, and ready for, 'this challenge'?

You didn't manage to pretend to know what self-reflection refers to. Better luck next time.

I knew you could not, and would not, be able to accept the challenge.

[Daniel McKay]

Atla - So the issue with the "human moral sense" is that it doesn't appear to be a reliable guide to truth. It is inconsistent both between people within the same person, it is very easily led astray by irrelevant factors, and there is no clear mechanism where our moral intuitions would be able to tell us the truth about what is right or wrong.

When I say that morality is objective and universal, I don't mean that everyone agrees on what is moral, or abides by it. What I mean is that there is a fact of the matter about whether things are actually right or wrong, seperate from personal opinions, intuitions, or feelings.

Does that clear up what I mean a bit?

[Daniel McKay]

Age -

1: I wrote create/discover largely because I didn't want to imply constructivism. I'm happy to agree that what I am setting out to discover is a set of moral facts, and what I am setting out to create is a theory that describes those facts.

2: This is an inappropriate understanding of the word "theory", both generally and especially in this context. Also, I disagree that you can observe moral facts in the way you suggest.

3: By "moral agents" I mean entities that are conscious and capable of acting/choosing in some way, that possess both rationality and free will.

4: I'm unclear why you are putting quotes around "sane person". I imagine they might want to because it's the right thing to do. But also, their motivations aren't really relevant. They should because it is right.

5: No I don't believe, absolutely, that not everyone is pursuing the same end. I don't believe that they are.

6: The "Control problem" is the issue of how you go about controlling and/or predicting the actions of an ASI, sometimes referred to as an AGI (artificial super intelligence or artificial general intelligence respectively). Essentially, an artificial intelligence that massively outperforms humans across a wide range of domains. Such a thing is very hard to predict since it may be literally beyond our ability to understand, and has significant potential for destruction. It's not really my problem though. Nick Bostrom Superintelligence would be a good place to start if you want to know more.

8: How I use "problem" is somewhat context-dependent. I think I've been pretty clear about what I want an answer to for the ten grand though.

9: I mean, I did write a whole primer clarifying it. But, in a nutshell, by "freedom" I mean the ability of free, rational agents to understand and make their own choices. By the problem of "weighing freedom" I mean how one ought to resolve conflicts between the freedom of one or more person over different things. For example, how many people's sight should you save at the expense of one life? I am looking for the method that resolves this and all similar conflicts, allowing FC to solve all moral dilemmas.

[Atla]

Atla - So the issue with the "human moral sense" is that it doesn't appear to be a reliable guide to truth. It is inconsistent both between people within the same person, it is very easily led astray by irrelevant factors, and there is no clear mechanism where our moral intuitions would be able to tell us the truth about what is right or wrong.

When I say that morality is objective and universal, I don't mean that everyone agrees on what is moral, or abides by it. What I mean is that there is a fact of the matter about whether things are actually right or wrong, seperate from personal opinions, intuitions, or feelings.

Does that clear up what I mean a bit?

What I meant was, what's the point of investing into moral realism when we already know beyond reasonable doubt today that it's incorrect, you can still look for objective and universal morality if you want, but will never find it?

[Age]

Atla - So the issue with the "human moral sense" is that it doesn't appear to be a reliable guide to truth. It is inconsistent both between people within the same person, it is very easily led astray by irrelevant factors, and there is no clear mechanism where our moral intuitions would be able to tell us the truth about what is right or wrong.

So, why within you 'your own personal moral sense' is inconsistent, exactly, but not in others?

Why are you so lost and confused here while others are not?

When I say that morality is objective and universal, I don't mean that everyone agrees on what is moral, or abides by it. What I mean is that there is a fact of the matter about whether things are actually right or wrong, seperate from personal opinions, intuitions, or feelings.

So, what is the 'fact of the matter', exactly?

Saying and claiming that there is a 'fact of the matter' 'about whether things are actually right or wrong' does not mean nor prove absolutely any thing.

So, if there is, actually, a fact of the matter about whether things are actually right or wrong, then what is 'that fact of the matter', exactly?

Does that clear up what I mean a bit?

We will wait to see.

[Age]

Age -

1: I wrote create/discover largely because I didn't want to imply constructivism. I'm happy to agree that what I am setting out to discover is a set of moral facts, and what I am setting out to create is a theory that describes those facts.

If, and when, moral facts will be, and were, discovered/uncovered, then no theory is needed to describe 'those facts' because 'those facts' speak, perfectly, for themselves.

2: This is an inappropriate understanding of the word "theory", both generally and especially in this context. Also, I disagree that you can observe moral facts in the way you suggest.

you can, and are free to, disagree with absolutely any thing. But, just expressing your disagreement is not really saying absolutely any thing at all other than 'you disagree'.

And, since I have already so-called observed 'moral facts' in the way I already have, proves that you also can observe 'moral facts' in the way I say and claim.

Also, when you get to discover/uncover, or learn, and understand the actual 'moral facts' that exist, then you will, automatically, 'see' how, exactly, you can observe and see 'moral facts' for what they Truly are.

3: By "moral agents" I mean entities that are conscious and capable of acting/choosing in some way, that possess both rationality and free will.

Which are who and/or what, exactly?

4: I'm unclear why you are putting quotes around "sane person".

Okay. And, until one seeks out to obtain clarification, they may well remain 'unclear' forever more.

By the way, the quote marks that you put around those two words are not the same ones that I did, and it is also noticed that you did not mention at all any of the other words but only the two 'sane person' words.

Also noted is that you did not respond to the actual question that I was asking you for clarification, which was;
'Why would any 'sane person' want to 'protect' people's ability to pursue different ends, if 'those ends' end up causing harm or damage to any thing?'

To me, I would have thought that it would be far more sensible, and far more 'morally right' to help and support to prevent people's ability to pursue things, which are causing harm and damage to things.

I imagine they might want to because it's the right thing to do. But also, their motivations aren't really relevant. They should because it is right.

They 'should' because it is 'right' to who and/or what, exactly?

5: No I don't believe, absolutely, that not everyone is pursuing the same end. I don't believe that they are.

My apologies, it is an obvious fact, anyway, that not everyone is 'pursuing' the same end. I was Wrongly thinking of 'wanting' and/or 'desiring' when I read the 'pursuing' word in your writings above.

6: The "Control problem" is the issue of how you go about controlling and/or predicting the actions of an ASI, sometimes referred to as an AGI (artificial super intelligence or artificial general intelligence respectively).

But, to me, there is, literally, no 'problem' at all here. But, how to control what you appear to be afraid of is done by just cutting the power source, and/or by not programming into those machines/programs any thing that would cause what you appear to be worrying about here.

Essentially, an artificial intelligence that massively outperforms humans across a wide range of domains.

But, it obviously could never ever outperform in 'intelligence', itself.

Such a thing is very hard to predict since it may be literally beyond our ability to understand, and has significant potential for destruction. It's not really my problem though. Nick Bostrom Superintelligence would be a good place to start if you want to know more.

If I wanted to know more about 'what', exactly?

8: How I use "problem" is somewhat context-dependent.

So, does this mean you are not going to provide any clearer information, nor any clarity, at all here, regarding what a 'problem' even is to you, exactly?

See, to me, a 'problem' is just a question, posed for a solution. So, until an actual question, posed for a solution, is presented, then there is, literally, no 'problem' at all.

I think I've been pretty clear about what I want an answer to for the ten grand though.

To me, if you were much clearer, then you could have answered, what you want answered, already. And, saved "yourself" some of that Truly unnecessary stuff.

And/or if you were to make what you want answered clearer here, then I could answer 'it', for you.

9: I mean, I did write a whole primer clarifying it.

Okay. But it was 'here' that I asked you to elaborate and/or clarify, here.

But, if you do not want to, or just cannot, here, then so be it.

But, in a nutshell, by "freedom" I mean the ability of free, rational agents to understand and make their own choices.

Okay, thank you.

By the problem of "weighing freedom" I mean how one ought to resolve conflicts between the freedom of one or more person over different things.

But, what happens when one is 'looking at' and 'seeing' things here, like I do, and they do not see any conflicts at all? There obviously is nothing to 'resolve'.

For example, how many people's sight should you save at the expense of one life?

Well it is these types of examples, with countless variables, which are unable to be answered, in any actual resolution sense, which are just useless and thus just 'a waste of time', as some would say here.

That example also has absolutely nothing at all to do with what is actually morally Right, and Wrong, in Life, either anyway.

I am looking for the method that resolves this and all similar conflicts, allowing FC to solve all moral dilemmas.

But there are absolutely no conflicts nor moral dilemmas here at all.

See, what you and others are doing here is going about things the exact opposite and/or Wrong way. And, thus why you human beings have not progressed here, regarding 'moral discussions' for thousands upon thousands of years, that is; hitherto up to the day when this is being written.

If one just wants to know how to 'know' what is morally Right, and Wrong, in Life, then just look at, and for, what is actually needed and what absolutely everyone could agree with, and accepted.

So, for any and every conflict/dilemma that people like you come across, then all they have to do is what I just said here.

And, to prove that this is True and Right, then just provide some actual examples, that can be expressed absolutely clearly, which means without an innumerable amount of variables or scenarios.