(November 4, 2021 at 2:53 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: That out of the way, you said something I think is interesting. Do you really think that moral decisions amount to a coin flip? That would suggest you had no moral intuitions at all (this, ignoring and not asserting the accuracy of those intuitions)? Pick some charged scenario, give me the moral pluses and minuses, presumed to be just about equivalent, as you see them? Or, in contrast, give me an example of something you think has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and explain why the presumption fails in that specific case?
Ambiguous moral decisions likely amount to a coin-flip to decide. If it is easy to make a moral determination, then the choice is obviously straightforward.
But to clarify:
A lot of people have strong identifications which help guide their decision-making. They cheer on the home team for example.
I don't have such strong identifications, in part because I don't trust my conditioned emotional responses.
All of that being the case, you might better understand why I avoid ambiguous situations.
Here is a concrete example: I must make a decision between A and B. If I chose A someone dies, but if I chose B someone else dies. I have no way of deciding between the choices given my information, though no doubt if I actually knew the people involved I might be able to make a better determination than by the flip of a coin. However, I would typically avoid such an ambiguous situation altogether because I don't want to make any choice which results in someone dying.
Avoiding morally ambiguous situations seems like a useful choice to me, given the above.