The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 12:03 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 11:10 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 10:18 pm But my point was that feelings and wild guess-making aren't two of them.

"Wild guess" and "feelings" should not be grouped together.

It makes less sense to consider why you make a particular wild guess than to to consider why you might have some particular feeling. Especially when the topic under discussion is morality.

Your insistence on wanting a rational argument is missing something very important bout how neural nets work (what they can do). If a neural net is "trained" on situation A (the correct answers right/wrong used for training might have rational reason), likewise for situation B, C, D, .... (some reasonably large number of them) and you then ask the neural net for situation X (not something it was trained on) it likely WILL be able to decide right vs wrong. << our brains are emulating a neural net >>

THAT doesn't supply a rational explanation for what answer was given for situation X. Looking at what the answer was (right or wrong) you might or might not be able to come up with rational explanation of why you agree with that answer.

Now consider yourself. You may have rationally analyzed situations A, B, C ,...... justifying your answers as to what choice of action right or wrong. But all of a sudden you are faced with situation X and told CHOOSE. You likely will be able to choose which action right and which wrong, it will FEEL like an obvious choice. Should you care to look back later, you MIGHT even be able to come up with a rational explanation.

Well, maybe that's just "rationalizing," not rational. A rational solution is quite different from one that is being artificially excused, ex post facto. There are plenty of people who make grossly immoral choices, like murdering their children, because they felt like doing it, and then try to invent "reasons" why it was okay for them to do.

However, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not what they did was actually a moral thing to do. And it doesn't make what they did rational, no matter how desperately they work to "rationalize" after the fact.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 2:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 12:03 am

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2026 11:10 pm

"Wild guess" and "feelings" should not be grouped together.

It makes less sense to consider why you make a particular wild guess than to to consider why you might have some particular feeling. Especially when the topic under discussion is morality.

Your insistence on wanting a rational argument is missing something very important bout how neural nets work (what they can do). If a neural net is "trained" on situation A (the correct answers right/wrong used for training might have rational reason), likewise for situation B, C, D, .... (some reasonably large number of them) and you then ask the neural net for situation X (not something it was trained on) it likely WILL be able to decide right vs wrong. << our brains are emulating a neural net >>

THAT doesn't supply a rational explanation for what answer was given for situation X. Looking at what the answer was (right or wrong) you might or might not be able to come up with rational explanation of why you agree with that answer.

Now consider yourself. You may have rationally analyzed situations A, B, C ,...... justifying your answers as to what choice of action right or wrong. But all of a sudden you are faced with situation X and told CHOOSE. You likely will be able to choose which action right and which wrong, it will FEEL like an obvious choice. Should you care to look back later, you MIGHT even be able to come up with a rational explanation.

Well, maybe that's just "rationalizing," not rational. A rational solution is quite different from one that is being artificially excused, ex post facto. There are plenty of people who make grossly immoral choices, like murdering their children, because they felt like doing it, and then try to invent "reasons" why it was okay for them to do.

However, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not what they did was actually a moral thing to do. And it doesn't make what they did rational, no matter how desperately they work to "rationalize" after the fact.

There are not "plenty of people" who make "grossly immoral choices" like "murdering their children".

Or are you here trying to say that the millions upon millions of people who have chosen to have legal abortions have all made "grossly immoral choices" and are "murdering" their children?)

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 3:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 2:48 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 12:03 am
Well, maybe that's just "rationalizing," not rational. A rational solution is quite different from one that is being artificially excused, ex post facto. There are plenty of people who make grossly immoral choices, like murdering their children, because they felt like doing it, and then try to invent "reasons" why it was okay for them to do.

However, that doesn't answer the question of whether or not what they did was actually a moral thing to do. And it doesn't make what they did rational, no matter how desperately they work to "rationalize" after the fact.

There are not "plenty of people" who make "grossly immoral choices" like "murdering their children".

Or are you here trying to say that the millions upon millions of people who have chosen to have legal abortions have all made "grossly immoral choices" and are "murdering" their children?)

"Trying to say"? No, I'm declaring it obvious.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 6:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 3:26 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 2:48 am

There are not "plenty of people" who make "grossly immoral choices" like "murdering their children".

Or are you here trying to say that the millions upon millions of people who have chosen to have legal abortions have all made "grossly immoral choices" and are "murdering" their children?)

"Trying to say"? No, I'm declaring it obvious.

What about civilians being bombed in the Iran war? Is the Trump...

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 6:38 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 6:31 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2026 3:26 pm
"Trying to say"? No, I'm declaring it obvious.

What about civilians being bombed in the Iran war? Is the Trump...

I'm going to say it again. I'm not American. I don't owe you any opinion of your political activities.

But murdering babies is murdering babies. It's grossly immoral, no matter who does it, where, or with what excuses.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2026 12:24 pm ........ An example is this thread. Instead of using mental energy to find creative ways to destroy capitalism, the State, the church, etc., what intelligent working class atheists do instead is argue with the religious half about abortion. That is, whether or not it is moral to kill a clump of cells.