The Thirteeth Floor

[Aoi Magi]

But in my moral system, survival of my own species takes priority over virtual beings or even other species, thus if the virtual world is to collide with what I see as the real world, I'd side to protect the real world.

But the unanswered question in the movie, where is the real world?  And is a simulation more 'real' than the simulation's simulation?  Would the ethics and morality be applied by the order of the simulations?

In case of three layers of simulation
A contains B contains C

And assuming I exist in B as well as C, and I am aware of both B and C, my priority would be the B reality as C is contained with B and I can still exist with C gone.

If however I am only aware of one simulation, that is where my moral priorities would be.

The point I am trying to make is, for me, whichever option, within my limited knowledge, would best serve the survival interest of me and my species, is the more moral and ethical option from my perspective.

[IATIA]

The point I am trying to make is, for me, whichever option, within my limited knowledge, would best serve the survival interest of me and my species, is the more moral and ethical option from my perspective.

I can fully appreciate the 'survival instinct' decision, but is that truly the "more moral and ethical" choice? Just because it is in one's best interest, does not automatically make it moral or ethical, let alone, more moral or ethical. If anything, it borders on selfishness. A thousand lives ended to save one?

I realize that there is no easy answer. Take the trolley problem for instance.

[Faith No More]

D'onofrio is good in most movies he stars in. If you like his style, that is. Which I do.

He is good in most stuff. I don't know if you've ever seen the TV series Law and Order: Criminal Intent, but I find his acting off-putting in that.

[abaris]

I don't know if you've ever seen the TV series Law and Order: Criminal Intent, but I find his acting off-putting in that.

I have seen it and didn't get that feeling. In fact, I liked the series because of him.

[Excited Penguin]

I'll have to watch the movie and get back to you. Just so I'm in the loop.

That, in particular, is enough to make me watch it:

Despite receiving generally negative reviews upon its release, the film is now considered a cult classic.

[Sappho]

The point I am trying to make is, for me, whichever option, within my limited knowledge, would best serve the survival interest of me and my species, is the more moral and ethical option from my perspective.

I can fully appreciate the 'survival instinct' decision, but is that truly the "more moral and ethical" choice?  Just because it is in one's best interest, does not automatically make it moral or ethical, let alone, more moral or ethical.  If anything, it borders on selfishness.  A thousand lives ended to save one?

I realize that there is no easy answer.  Take the trolley problem for instance.

Why does the choice have to be moral? 
In the end, morality is just a bunch of unwritten rules to fit in society.

[bennyboy]

The point I am trying to make is, for me, whichever option, within my limited knowledge, would best serve the survival interest of me and my species, is the more moral and ethical option from my perspective.

I can fully appreciate the 'survival instinct' decision, but is that truly the "more moral and ethical" choice?  Just because it is in one's best interest, does not automatically make it moral or ethical, let alone, more moral or ethical.  If anything, it borders on selfishness.  A thousand lives ended to save one?

I realize that there is no easy answer.  Take the trolley problem for instance.

I agree. In general, I'd even say that choosing on the basis of what is best for oneself is generally UN-ethical, ar at least amoral. I'd define ethics as the attempt to understand and act on the greater good, without a bias toward oneself.

[Aoi Magi]

The point I am trying to make is, for me, whichever option, within my limited knowledge, would best serve the survival interest of me and my species, is the more moral and ethical option from my perspective.

I can fully appreciate the 'survival instinct' decision, but is that truly the "more moral and ethical" choice?  Just because it is in one's best interest, does not automatically make it moral or ethical, let alone, more moral or ethical.  If anything, it borders on selfishness.  A thousand lives ended to save one?

I realize that there is no easy answer.  Take the trolley problem for instance.

I can fully appreciate the 'survival instinct' decision, but is that truly the "more moral and ethical" choice?  Just because it is in one's best interest, does not automatically make it moral or ethical, let alone, more moral or ethical.  If anything, it borders on selfishness.  A thousand lives ended to save one?

I realize that there is no easy answer.  Take the trolley problem for instance.

I agree. In general, I'd even say that choosing on the basis of what is best for oneself is generally UN-ethical, ar at least amoral.  I'd define ethics as the attempt to understand and act on the greater good, without a bias toward oneself.

The thing is, as per my beliefs, morality is subjective. So what may appear "more moral" to you might not fit with someone else's idea of morality at all.

In society we work and determine what is moral and ethical through a consensus of all of our individual moralities. Thus in a society where the notion exists of women being property, abusing them will be seen as moral.

In my case, I take the simple approach of survival of my species as the basis for my morality, or as I say it to myself, "survival of the maximum to the maximum". Under this, with your trolley problem, the moral course of action would be to save more lives instead of one. Similarly, abusing other humans or causing needless harm to other creatures actually hampers our own survival as a species in the long run and thus should be avoided. Saving oneself instead of multiple lives also goes against this principle and thus not moral, as far as I am concerned.

[bennyboy]

The thing is, as per my beliefs, morality is subjective. So what may appear "more moral" to you might not fit with someone else's idea of morality at all.

In society we work and determine what is moral and ethical through a consensus of all of our individual moralities. Thus in a society where the notion exists of women being property, abusing them will be seen as moral.

Ethics isn't the science of doing everything perfectly, imo. It's the attempt to understand the greater good and to act on it, in particular when doing so doesn't seem to give any advantage to oneself. You can be wrong, or even act in a way that maximally harms others without knowing it-- but the attempt to understand the greater good and to act on it is still there.

Let's examine the issue of women's liberation vs. population loss. It is a fact that in countries where women commonly attend and finish university, the population goes into decline. If the country's security is at threat, or its economy harmed by having a too-old population, then that's a problem. However, telling women that they have to be breeders is a problem, as well. I would say a woman who sacrifices her education in order to raise children to productive adulthood is a very ethical person. So is a woman who thinks that the world is cruel and that having children is therefore wrong. But a person who thinks she SHOULD have children but says, "Fuck you all, I don't care about my country" is acting unethically, as is the woman who really believes there's nothing good to be found in the world but has children anyway.

So long story short-- I think ethics is more about the intent than the act.

[Aoi Magi]

The thing is, as per my beliefs, morality is subjective. So what may appear "more moral" to you might not fit with someone else's idea of morality at all.

In society we work and determine what is moral and ethical through a consensus of all of our individual moralities. Thus in a society where the notion exists of women being property, abusing them will be seen as moral.

Ethics isn't the science of doing everything perfectly, imo.  It's the attempt to understand the greater good and to act on it, in particular when doing so doesn't seem to give any advantage to oneself.  You can be wrong, or even act in a way that maximally harms others without knowing it-- but the attempt to understand the greater good and to act on it is still there.

Let's examine the issue of women's liberation vs. population loss.  It is a fact that in countries where women commonly attend and finish university, the population goes into decline.  If the country's security is at threat, or its economy harmed by having a too-old population, then that's a problem.  However, telling women that they have to be breeders is a problem, as well.  I would say a woman who sacrifices her education in order to raise children to productive adulthood is a very ethical person.  So is a woman who thinks that the world is cruel and that having children is therefore wrong.  But a person who thinks she SHOULD have children but says, "Fuck you all, I don't care about my country" is acting unethically, as is the woman who really believes there's nothing good to be found in the world but has children anyway.

So long story short-- I think ethics is more about the intent than the act.

Umm I don't see the relation to my quote there. I am talking about the basis for my own morality in simplest form I can think of. It has nothing to do with how another person structures his or her morality or intentions.

For example given your educated women scenario, I'd say by my standards, I'd prefer a small and educated population rather than a huge population of illiterates, simply because the former is much more sustainable and thus has much higher chances of survival in the long run.