Dawkins’ train experiment

Because if I do something out of a motive, then it indicates that I am a different person. If I murder someone or kill them because I was forced to, what's the difference? After all, the result is the same? But there is clearly a difference because murderers deserve to be treated differently. They are also more dangerous. In practice, there is a difference between a person who kills out of obligation and a person who murders. A person should be treated differently. It's not just a matter of pure "motive" but a real difference in a person that can also lead to different results in the future, and therefore we should treat them differently, right?

In other words, there is room to argue that there is an evolutionary benefit to someone who did not kill directly over someone who did kill directly, and that this is not just about pure motive without any kind of bias.

I've completely lost you. If you'd like to discuss, please present things in an orderly manner (the case, my arguments and yours) and formulate your question well.

I'll try to explain myself better.
I understood from the train example that you claim that Dawkinsian morality should be measured by the test of the result and not by the test of the motive. After all, what matters in the end is what happens and not what caused me to act. And if in the People's Winery there is a difference in action due to the fact that it is a direct or indirect action, this is a sign that they have a category of morality that differs from the explanation of morality as a result only, but morality in which the motive is also important.
My question is, can the motive itself not be seen as a “result” as well. In other words, instead of seeing here only the result that there are 5 people who are saved and one who dies compared to 5 people who die but one person I did not kill directly, we will add to this consequential system also the fact that there is practical weight to the fact that I did not kill anyone directly (this contradicts what Dawkins says that indirect harm should be the same as direct harm). In other words, the reason why people see a difference between the cases and would prefer not to kill someone directly even though it would save other people is not because of the pure moral motive, but out of an understanding that the motive itself does not have an evolutionary reason and that it is really better not to kill the person directly. I tried to explain that maybe evolutionarily it makes sense because then they would not see me as someone violent towards society or other reasons that I don't know. But the principle is that the motive itself can also be seen as an evolutionary reason, right?

Everything can be attributed to evolution, but there is no basis for it. There is no reason to think that evolution would create a human perception that letting five people die is better than killing one. Evolution is supposed to be consequential.
But beyond all that, if evolution is the explanation, then there is no morality here but human nature, not a consequential explanation nor a motive one. So isn't the discussion a waste?

It's puzzling to me that this isn't the first time that the rabbi doesn't remember things he himself wrote or didn't write. This is something that isn't even found in people's idle talk. All the more so should it be the case with a man who formulated his opinions in a unique way and on world-class issues, especially since the book has undergone endless checks and proofreading by the author as well.

Is this a diary entry? Bring the parents?

A grade that needs improvement on the certificate, or however you want to joke about it. What happens is that he and everyone here
take him very seriously and he simply doesn't remember what he himself said. A mere comment, as is customary here.

I thought a sarcastic comment would clarify the nonsense you wrote, but I see that it doesn't. So I guess I need to clarify more.
On the surface, I see two options:
1. The one that is absurd on the surface: that I did forget. When you write over thirty books, hundreds of articles, hundreds of posts, thousands of answers and debates (dozens every day), and give dozens and hundreds of classes and lectures, it may happen that I forget a comment I wrote in one of the books about six or seven years ago. As mentioned, absurd on the surface, but still possible.
2. The more logical one: that I am an idiot or an advanced scleroderma.
If the first option is true, then it seems to me that the second option (2a) is true for you. And if the second option is true, then you are probably tactless and extremely ungrateful. In both options, your comment was pointless and unhelpful.
Now choose which of the two options you think is right.
I was just making a comment, as is customary here…

I didn't understand who wrote the response. I thought it was someone outside, as I see that it says "team" (and it's not clear why it's written in the first person). The wording is also more blunt and not in line with the rabbi's words in general, so at least the team won't misuse his name. He is usually less vulnerable, if at all, and even likes to hear criticism of any kind. (See the entry about a person who wrote about him being an apocryphal heretic.) That's why I allowed myself more. In any case, regarding reading comprehension, I stick to option 2 that was suggested here, because I emphasized that this happened several times, so why say here that this is a book from several years ago? Several times my friends and I raised topics that the rabbi himself said or wrote, and we had to mention what it was about, even though we were dealing with very central things in his books and words. By the way, not all responses have to have deep meaning, just as one doesn't have to make philosophy out of all nonsense and investigate it and bring divisions and discipleship into it. In short, I wrote a legitimate comment to a person who receives (and sometimes even likes) criticism. If the response is from the rabbi in any way, I apologize. If not, I think it is appropriate for the aforementioned staff member to apologize for giving it a bad name.

Don't get me wrong, I mentioned a team (as you probably will), even though it's always been written that way. I meant the English caption that appears under a name that's not at all like the original, so I concluded what I concluded.

Team = mikyab = Rabbi

I forgot. =mikyab123 = Miky

Tovov, sorry for the things that caused a blunt and unexpected response. I wrote the things out of the fact that I was ”holding” more than the Rabbi (Michi), and when I saw that even in your most famous book you forgot details (unlike in one-off lectures) I wondered about this to you. I thought the response would be more along the lines of ‘this is a relatively minor matter’ etc. (Of course I didn't know exactly the content otherwise I wouldn't have responded…) Instead you responded in a way that only ‘lowered’ me even more. This is in addition to the fact that although you claim to prove everything empirically, you often have hypotheses with which you sharply criticize things despite the lack of even the slightest findings.
Not that it would hurt you I suppose but how many times you state “I completely lost you”, so forever. Thank you, you were helpful, you kept me and my mind busy, it was definitely a nice time.

And to Joseph he said, “When a person ‘kills himself’ in order to give a quick answer to dozens of questioners who challenge him every day with difficult questions in all the subjects of Torah and philosophy that burden the questioners, one must appreciate this and acknowledge the kindness of those who are willing to listen and respond and try to provide an answer to every questioner, and also to those who ‘ask and ask again and again.’

It is clear that with such a scope of consideration, and especially since the questioner is preoccupied with the burden of classes and lectures, studying, researching and writing, and commitments to family and community, there may certainly be situations where the questioner does not always get to the bottom of the questioner’s point, the answer will not always be at the same level of depth and thoroughness, the questioner will not always remember all the details of a topic he has dealt with in the past, and he will not always have the patience to respond with stoic calm to every comment and claim.

A person working under such pressure is allowed to make mistakes, he is also allowed to not remember (and it is good that he is not ashamed to admit that he does not know and does not remember), and he is also allowed to admit that his patience has run out or that he is exhausted. All in all, the debaters here are not ‘followers’ who do not move without the command of the ’Mara Datra’, but independent, opinionated and critical people. If the respondent's words satisfied their thirst and resolved their problems – so be it. If not – at least they violated their words and challenged their thinking.

And if that is not the case, and the questioner did not have a ‘result’ – then he will at least appreciate the ‘motive’ that brought the respondent to the point of answering.

With best wishes, Sch”z Levinger

Yossi, you wrote ” I assume it will hurt you, but as you often say, “I lost you completely,” so forever. Thank you, you were a help to me, you occupied me and my mind, it was certainly a nice time.” It’s really a shame. The rabbi’s door is always open to receive shavim. Sometimes the shavim has to change his name as stated in the books. If you want, just change your name and ask under a different name.

Yossi
That was really both idiotic and disgusting of you.
The question here is about an example he gives in the book. Why does he need to remember every example he wrote a few years ago? People here read the book and ask questions while doing so and think that he remembers every single word written there, and it is clear to any reasonable person that this will not be the case. You can expect him to remember his main arguments, but not examples.
“In short, I wrote a legitimate comment to a person who receives (and sometimes even likes) criticism”. How is this comment supposed to benefit him? Did you want to suggest that he read the advice for strengthening his memory at the end of the season”? Or that he should go to a neurologist to be checked for juvenile Alzheimer's? You present it as if you only made a small remark to a person that he is stupid, and you don't understand why he didn't thank you for the comment.
And if you expected the answer to be “It's a relatively minor matter” (As mentioned, this is an example, and an example is always marginal), so what's the point of the question?
And in the end you still make an offended face because you received a blunt response (a pretty common thing)?!
I guess you wrote without thinking. So now all that's left for you is to realize that what you wrote was disgusting (and stupid, but it's not such a big sin) and apologize.

I just answered all the questions and some I tried to avoid. As mentioned, this is just an example, it happened in many cases.
I didn't know exactly the wording for the answer, so I asked. Because pay attention to the interesting part where the questions are about the idea that you don't really know what they will answer you about… I wanted to draw his attention to the seriousness with which he claims things and then he simply forgets them. (This happens in important points as well, again) And as mentioned, it was mainly for me because I corresponded with many good people and I didn't find anyone who forgets and sometimes contradicts things he said (in my opinion, this shows something about the things themselves, you can argue about that). I wanted to reassure myself that I take it very seriously and completely trust a person who is truly strong and solid in his opinions, when in the end the result was the opposite and only proved to me that there is some impulsiveness in his reactions and words. The bluntness on his part was in a particularly thick insinuation that he actually called me an idiot and more... Maybe you didn't make the effort to understand what you were reading before the series of education you gave me. In any case, I promise to try to improve.

I already explained to you that he didn't forget the argument, but the example.
When you ask a question and you don't know the answer, but you didn't even do that. You said it was puzzling to you, and that's it. You also said later that you were criticizing. Claiming that it was a question is an evasion of taking responsibility for what you did. Criticism is given to insult or to correct. But it seems like you didn't say that you intended to send him to a neurologist (by the way, that could have been a good excuse, I'm sure it hurts if someone tells you that you might have juvenile Alzheimer's, but it could definitely be good advice).
In any case, I'm sure he'll be happy to hear that you've lost trust in him, and now you'll have to rely solely on yourself.

I didn't get to the bottom of your profound thought because of my ignorance. However, I didn't really understand what you were nitpicking about? About the difference between bewilderment and a question. You seem to be a clear student if you analyze simple things that don't require analysis. In any case, I suggested that you stop worrying too much about the little things (is that good advice in your opinion?) By the way, there are many other options to rely on, it's not either me or him, there are other people in the galaxy.

Just to be precise, I don't find anyone in the entire galaxy who resembles our great Rabbi Michai, whose value is priceless and whose refined style must be applied to the method; lust will cover all crimes.

Gil, you exaggerated a bit.
Who would compare and who would compare to the ’Torah-Man’ the savior of the galaxy, whose acts of aggression and heroism are written about every Shabbat in the ‘Kyil Daat’ newsletter.

With greetings, Sh”ts Hafinger

Regarding the problematic nature of ‘Taava’, see Ramada”a's column on the delicacy of the songs of Eretz Yisrael.

Just pay attention to the many other commenters who, if you know Michael Avraham's style a little, can clearly see them.
A new and interesting (but not typical) method of attacking commenters and supporting and defending things and opinions he wrote.

There's nothing profound here. It just seemed like you didn't understand why and how wrong you were.
I think you didn't understand my last comment. I think you think I came to make fun of you for relying on yourself instead of him. But really, to him. This is a very serious comment. He's trying to educate people not to rely on others but to check for themselves, and that includes of course not trusting him.

Yishai is really not my type and I can easily find places where they really fought.
I admit that I am both B and D.

In the Sada Esek and rejoice before the Lord your God, 5778

It is not a novelty that everyone is the same as everyone else, has not the Rabbi Baal Tanya already taught us (Likkuti Amirim, Chapter 22) that all Israel is ‘one soul in divided bodies’. And in fact, these are the words of the Yerushalmi who explains the commandment ‘do not rise up and do not rise up’, that if one hand has struck the other hand, it would be unthinkable that the injured hand would ‘revenge’ on the hand that struck, for all are one organism.

All the more so when everyone comes with a common goal, to understand profound things in Torah and wisdom, and each one contributes his part to the common thinking. Such is the nature of a joint study that is done with the passion of the Ritcha of Torah, and as described by the sages, the father, his son, the rabbi, and his student, who engage in Torah together and grow stronger in a sharp debate, ultimately come to love, for each one has new questions and evidence that lead to new insights.

The fact that people with different opinions and different personalities meet and confront each other is what brings about the passion of the debate, but this passion is a “good passion” 🙂

With blessings of Shabbat Shalom and a Happy New Year, Sh”tz Levinger

They came after me.

No Pierre! Why wasn't I identified with Michi?? Hello, is there anyone up there?! I'm Michael Abraham too! I'm Michael Abraham too! We are one!!

As we know, reduction is not as simple as it seems.
(The Hitchhiker to the Galaxy)

From mikyab123's words that the Tzimtzum is not as simple as it is (as the Chabad view) – it appears that he is not Rabbi Michael Avraham, who is a well-known Litvak who insists that the Tzimtzum is as simple as it is and vehemently denies the Chabad method.

Greetings, Dr. Schatzius von Loewenhausen, a critic of the so-called

Wait, so am I Rabbi Michael Avraham or mikyab123?
I suggest calling the Litvak source E and the Hasidim J.

And of course they were all given by one shepherd. The Lord of all deeds…

It seems I've joined the group of ‘jokes of anonymous philosophers’ (or not anonymous, the identities here are used as a …Arabia…)

I always remain me.