Well? Do you switch it?
no, let one guy feel special.
>>28276659
no, it's more fun this way
ofcourseyoubraindeadsissyretards
Yes. Not acting is still an action. By not pulling the lever you're directly responsible for the death of 5 people. By pulling the level you're directly responsible for the death of 1. Unless you add personalities and character traits to the people then pulling the lever is morally better than not pulling it.
I'm legally obligated to avoid that switch.
>>28276659
If I time it JUST right, can I derail the trolley and kill all 6 of them as well as the people in the trolley? That's the real question.
>>28276790
>he doesn't know how train tracks work
They lock when the train is passing over specifically so that people can't do that.
>>28276809
what if these specific ones allow you to though?
>>28276692
Lol
fpbp, gj anon
>>28276759
This, basically.
While it may be morally looked down upon, non-action IS non-action. You aren't responsible for any of that until you get involved, and once you get involved, you're going to get the shit sued out of you by the family members.
>>28276692
first posting, best posting
>>28276659
It would be morally wrong to pull the lever. Assuming I had nothing to do with the entrapment of the people or trolley, I would be initiating force against the one person by pulling the lever, however, I'm initiating no force by letting the trolley go its path and kill the five people. So it would be morally reprehensible to pull the lever.
I would switch it twice to up my K/D ratio. But seriously I would avoid it due to the legality of the situation.
>>28276753
>morality
Fucking kek, read a book
>>28276659
If I remove myself from the situation, there is exactly 0 blame on me. People should look for the asshole that put those ppor fuckers there in the first place.
If I am being forced to do something, I would pull it, but since apparently nobody is forcing me to do shit, then I would just remove myself from the situation.
Also the real question should be, in case you are interested in the case, which one of those two set is more likely to give you more useful info to find the asshole?
if i pulled the lever right when as the train is halfway across the 2 tracks intersecting.. would it derail?
if yes, do that
kill all 6
>le utilitarianism leddit dillema XDXD
>>28276659
i would just walk away, why should i care about any of that. people die all the time.
>>28276659
get the trolley drivers attention
how are you all this autistic
retarded fucking basement dwellers, man
> none action is still action
no, if you pull the lever you have killed a person, if you don't you've done nothing wrong, it's the fault of whoever tied them up there.
>>28277130
your decision damned five lives
>Let the first tram hit the 5.
>Switch the track.
>Wait for the next tram to hit the one guy.
>Walk away.
>No witnesses.
>>28276659
Isn't this the classic utilitarianism example?
I would.
>>28277153
I'm neither obligate nor responsible for their deaths, if I pull the lever then I am.
Let the one guy die.
NO THIS DECISION DOES NOT DICTATE MY VIEWS ON ETHICS IN ALL OTHER AREAS, IT IS COMMON REASONING THAT MINIMAL DESTRUCTION IS PREFERABLE TO LARGER DESTRUCTION.
>>28276659
No because total happiness is a piss poor metric for determining the value of a life/lives. By pulling the switch and acting I'm effectively involving myself in such a capacity that I do determine who lives and who dies which makes me just as culpable for the final results.
>>28276753
I'm not directly responsible because I was not the one who put those people on the tracks.
>>28276659
Can I pull the lever while half of the trolley is past the switch and derail the trolley?
>>28276692
I wanted to post about how the trolley problem is actually a non-problem and how priorities are relative and there's no objective blah blah, but I take it back. This is the only valid answer.
dy fgrstx5hjkuygv
>>28276659
obligatory pic desu
>>28277250
Fuck you, I can't laugh and let people know I'm awake.
itt: Nobody understands the concept of manslaughter or criminal negligence
>>28277250
hahahahAHHAHA
fuck you spam robot
>>28277250
keked hard
comment totally original ^^
y-you should be able to solve this
>>28276659
No kill all the muslim and christian bitches
>>28277345
Why would I? Knowing that one of the three levers is fake does not suggest which one of the remaining two is fake. How is this even a "problem"?
>>28277474
look up the monty hall problem, it's a really famous problem and it stumped some really smart people
>>28277345
Nope
Just let fate decide who gets to live
>>28277250
https://youtu.be/dv13gl0a-FA
>>28276659
wait till the front two wheels have passed the switching area, then switch it so it does this>>28277250
then i've killed six people deliberately so i don't have to worry about doubting myself for the consequences
>>28277620
basically, if i kill all of them, i won't have that dilema because they all died so no one can pick one choice to fault me
lols no, i dont know which track its on, and if i switch it i may only kill one man
>>28276753
>not acting to save somebodies life makes you responsible for their death
t. somebody who could be donating enough money to save somebody else's life but isn't
if this is a first world country the resource overuse of those people will probably result in the deaths of 5 more people. but guess what? the consequences of an action do not matter for the morality of that action because the long-term consequences are completely unpredictable, and the ultimate consequence of everything is unchanged by your actions: the universe will either big crunch or heat death.
pulling the lever is murder, the action itself, not it's consequences matter.
>>28276659
>throw myself in front of it, or at it
>hope it gets knocked off track
>if not, at least I slowed it down and I'm dead
>>28276659
Of course I do, his sacrifice is necessary
>>28276659
No.
If you don't do anything, it's the same result as if you hadn't been there. You don't have to feel as responsible because you didn't make a change.
If you flip the switch then you've directly interfered in the situation. "Not flipping the switch" is still "participating" but it's not the same
>>28276942
>I'm initiating no force by letting the trolley go its path and kill the five people.
>>28277045
>If I remove myself from the situation, there is exactly 0 blame on me.
>>28277130
>if you don't you've done nothing wrong, it's the fault of whoever tied them up there
>>28277184
>I'm neither obligate nor responsible for their deaths, if I pull the lever then I am.
>>28277210
>I'm not directly responsible because I was not the one who put those people on the tracks.
>>28278604
>You don't have to feel as responsible because you didn't make a change.
...Wait.
Those are bad bait, right? Nobody can seriously think that, can they?
Has anyone actually met a person IRL who thinks that?
Only if there's a reward for touching the lever.
>>28276659
Pull the switch and throw myself on the track in front of it.
An hero while being an actual hero.
>>28276659
I'd switch it to whichever had more niggers.
>>28278697
Cognitive dissonance is very much real senpai
>>28277345
this is brilliant, it's like an unholy matrimony of two classic bait questions.
>>28278697
Why in the goddamn fuck would anyone pull the lever? Just walk away.
>>28276834
That means your question is: "If I this specific track allows me to do X, can I do X?"
Yes, you dip.
>>28278738
I'm not talking about what people would actually do -- obviously most people would be paralyzed with inaction IRL. But those people seem to think 'I'm not doing anything therefore it's fine' is theoretically sound, too.
>>28278726
Really worrying.
>>28277474
Yes it does. Imagine 100 levers and you choose one. Now they reveal 98 others to be fake leaving you with 2 levers. Do you switch?
>>28278816
that makes the problem seem like it makes more sense even though I don't know exactly why
>Try to switch it
>Gets stuck in the middle
>Derails
>Kills everyone on the tracks and in the trolley
>>28278786
I genuinely believe that if you don't pull the lever you've done absolutely nothing wrong. Please explain to me why this is wrong.
>>28278869
>Please explain to me why this is wrong.
Morality is decided not at the moment of physical action, but at the moment that awarenes of choices appears and is resolved. In other words, it's not bodily motions or lack of them that is (im)moral, but mental drives. If you decide to freeze, you've put the future prospect of (I execute no motion, five people die) over (I execute a motion, one person dies). The attractive distinction between 'doing something', which can or can't be fine, and 'doing nothing' which is morally 'not as bad' doesn't translate to the mental realm, in which even behind physical total inaction, total stillness, there is so to say always an active preference of a certain future. If even a physical inaction is fuelled by a selfish active drive, you're committing a wrong.
Sorry for tl;dr.
>>28278869
Right and wrong are manmade things. If you can justify your decision for yourself and find the consequences of your actions acceptable, you made the right choice.
>>28278987
>Right and wrong are manmade things.
Not true, objective right and wrong exists.
Right is fulfilling someone's desires.
Wrong is fulfilling someone's fears.
>>28276659
lsn't it obvious?
>>28278996
In this case you are not aware of their desires and fears. For all you know the one guy wants to live and the 5 guys are in a suicide pact.
You say objective right and wrong exists by stating they fulfil really subjective things like desire and fear. Not a strong argument.
>>28277345
math says to stick with your first choice
>>28279049
Nope, it does not.
>>28279010
Beat me to it. Good post.
>>28279026
>In this case you are not aware of their desires and fears. For all you know the one guy wants to live and the 5 guys are in a suicide pact.
True, but irrelevant. Cf. >>28278962. Morality is decided by awareness. If I genuinely think all want to live, it's obviously always moral.
>subjective things like desire and fear
There is nothing subjective about perceiving a future outcome as positive or negative for someone, the choice to effect which determines morality.
>>28279062
wow brilliant, you just completely shut me down, good job man i dont think anyone else could have done it
>>28276659
Can I pull the lever halfway so it doesn't run past either track and derails?
No, that kills less normies
>>28279085
>mfw i mixed it up and youre right
>>28279078
I believe it is immoral for me to decide to take another persons life which is essentially what I'm doing by pulling that lever. I did not create this scenario, the choice I've been given is to save 5 people by murdering one or let 5 people die by doing nothing.
>>28279145
>it is immoral for me to decide to take another persons life which is essentially what I'm doing by pulling that lever.
No. Morality is not determined by causing a death, but by wanting it. If someone supports a serial killer in their murders, they still do nothing wrong as long as they're exclusively led by genuine attachment to the killer, and not even marginal ill will towards their victims. It's (and that's the part that is subjective) unutilitarian, but it's objectively not wrong. In fact, it's morally right.
>>28279078
Okay, but there are infinite things this that can happen from this point on, the point where you pull the lever or not.
If you really want to talk objectivity then you should let the 5 people die. You cannot be so shortsighted to think only about their lives. 5 less people in this world means less entropy and gives the rest more time before heat death. Also like another anon stated: if these 5 people live in a first world country, the way their lifestyles are sustained will cost the lives of people in Africa.
>>28279201
In other words, I genuinely hold that reason dictates that we should all support serial killers, rapists, and so on. And I do hope nobody takes this out of context.
>>28279213
Gotcha, anon.
>>28276659
I'd just go based on physical attractiveness. If everyone's ugly then I take out the group.
>>28279201
You're saying intentions matter more than actions. I didn't want these 5 deaths to occur neither did I cause them to occur, I simply refused to murder a person to save them.
>>28277267
>Literal 10 year olds occupy this board
What do?
The Originals
>>28279202
>there are infinite things this that can happen from this point on
You're just extending the tapestry of your awareness of factors which could affect the preferences of everyone involved. That's not relevant. From the moral point of view, it doesn't matter how you come to the conclusion that anyone involved wants to live or die (or that anyone else wants them to live or die), how elaborate that reasoning was. The thing that matters is, your choice is moral insofar it prospectively 'catches' anyone's preferences (ranging from the tied people to their families to some only-slimly-involved future africans or aliens), and immoral insofar as it 'catches' their misery. The degree you which you awarely incline to the perception that someone's gonna be (un)happy. A prospective happiness or unhappiness can be a trillion years ahead, but it still morally informs the choice.
>>28279235
>I simply refused to murder a person to save them.
If that was TRULY your sole intention (of course, in reality, there hardly is such a thing as 'sole'), if you truly had no plan either way regarding the people on track, then your action was truly amoral (as opposed to immoral). (I don't think this ever really happens, but for argument's sake.) But this doesn't change the fact that priorities of most spectators will lead them to put (1) the moral right of making other people happy through kicking your ass so to make an example out of you over (1) the moral wrong of making you unhappy through said ass-kicking. In other words, you're probably still going to suffer the consequences.
Again sorry for tl;dr; it's late, and I'll be going soon.
>>28276659
> pull lever
> save five
> leave them tied up to die of exposure/thirst
> go home thinking that was a totally joker move
>>28279350
>(1) the moral wrong of
*(2)
Also.
>>28279235
>You're saying intentions matter more than actions.
Not 'more than'; 'only'.
>>28277345
Easy. First time you have a 1/3 chance of getting the real one. Then a fake on is revealed.
You now pick the other lever. Since its a 1/2 chance of being the correct one. Since 1/2 > 1/3 you have a higher chance of getting the real lever.
>Just start wildly pulling the lever back and forth with my eyes closed and let Jesus decide where it goes
It's on him at that point, not me.
>>28278962
(By the way. The way the thread unfolded, I must clarify that I made a rhetorical shortcut here. Of course, no selfish action can be wrong, because it intends to fulfill someone's desires (yours). I used the word 'wrong' there to refer to the fact that e.g. physical stillness to cause someone's harm's still wrong. Sage.)
>>28278697
>"You don't have to feel as responsible because you didn't make a change"
>...Wait. Those are bad bait, right? Nobody can seriously think that, can they? Has anyone actually met a person IRL who thinks that?
? Why should you feel guilty/responsible for a situation that you're NOT responsible for?
By making a change, you are becoming more responsible than you would have had you not made a change.
You go from being a bystander to being directly involved
>>28279463
This is where I disagree, my lack of action causing someone else harm is not my fault but the circumstances that lead to it.
>>28279350
We agree then that the possible outcomes are immeasurable. That leaves you with only yourself and your own justification of your decision.
>>28279463
>no selfish action can be wrong
Also, >inb4 someone says everyone is ultimately selfish, both egoists and altruists -- obviously true. Right and wrong are about the way that primal, innocent self-serving right, so to say, is distributed by you over other people's preferences.
I'm more interested in how a smart car would handle a similar situation, reducing casualties, etc.
>>28279470
>>28279497
Guilt/responsibility touch the subject of free will, which doesn't exist (morality still exists in a free will-less universe). No one is guilty or responsible for anything in an agentive, personally deserving sense.
That post of mine was about my incredulity that some people would elevate to a decision-shaping priority an irrelevant factor whether their hands touches a fucking lever or not (just why would that matter at all?), rather than keeping to the (in our current society) sane focus of 1 vs 5.
>>28279362
Nothing wrong with that. You just saved their lives from a train. You can't be expected to do everything else for them, too. Where would you stop? Do you have to perform surgery on the one with undiagnosed cancer?
>>28279552
There is literally zero difference at all between a car and a human. Both are machines with preset priorities. This is completely irrelevant.
>bury five bones/collect loot from five npcs vs bury one set of bones/collect loot from one npc
choice is pretty clear to me unless there is an exp bonus from using the lever in a shitty to grind skill like agility
there's a better use for that switch
>>28279576
>Guilt/responsibility touch the subject of free will, which doesn't exist (morality still exists in a free will-less universe). No one is guilty or responsible for anything in an agentive, personally deserving sense.
Even if free will doesn't exist, we live in a society that holds adults accountable for their actions, guilt/responsibility is still a factor. The question is not 1 vs 5, the question is whether you kill a person and save 5 or you let 1 live while watch 5 die.
>>28279497
Also, I didn't say that physical inaction is wrong in this case! That would make no sense because physical inaction belongs to motions, and motions are amoral. Wrong is physical stillness *to* cause harm (note that preposition I used), e.g. to let someone walk past and fall into a pit, or something. A physical state of affairs can't be morally judged, obviously.
This is really a good thread, but I'm sleepy. Bye.
>>28279670
I'm being as objective as possible here, I did not dig that pit, I did not tell him to walk their, I had 0 effect on what happened. I have no obligation to tell him about the pit. I am not at fault for taking no action.
>>28279652
>The question is not 1 vs 5, the question is whether you kill a person and save 5 or you let 1 live while watch 5 die.
This needs a comment. The terms 'kill' and 'let die' and so on, despite their cultural radicality, are similar and really insignificant in the sense that they all belong to the domain of priorities. Priorities can be very different while still being right/wrong. For instance. You want one of the tied guys to die so to spare him the suffering of seeing his girlfriend leave him in a couple of years? That's moral. You want one of them to live so to have him suffer from a common cold in a week? That's immoral. Arbitrary ideas of inherent wrong of someone dying, that overrules all other factors are incorrect. Morality and immorality infuse every decision.
I'm really sleepy.
>>28279701
I already said in >>28279350 that if you truly had no intentions either way, your action was amoral.
I think you're still making some mistake or attributing something to me, but I'm going to bed in which I'm sitting.
>>28279576
I disagree. I do believe in free will to an extent.
Maybe not "free will"- but I do believe that there is a component of human identity beyond just genetics and circumstance. Obviously both have a large influence over development, but I believe that we have unique perspectives. Babies, for example, are not just blank slates. Even newborns have very different "personalities". You could argue that those differences are just due to differences in brain structure/chemical balance, but I believe that there is an added component that makes each human unique. Maybe you cannot "change who you are", but you kind of can. If you want to change then you can change. Humans are too sophisticated to blame things on their circumstance. The mind in unpredictable and complicated, and the way that the brain develops is a reflection of one's "soul"- in my opinion.
If you answered "yes" to the question "would you pull the lever", here's another question:
You are a doctor. In one room you have 10 patients who are all in desperate need of various organ transplants.
In another room, you have a patient who is completely healthy.
Assuming you would not face legal consequences for your actions, is it "right" to take the organs from the healthy patient in order to save the lives of the other 10?
My answer is still "no".
The way I see it- those people were dealt a bad hand by fate. Although it is unfortunate, I don't think it is my place to take the good fortune that has been fated to one man and give it to the others.
It is not my place to do such a thing.
>>28276659
Depends on who that one person is. Also they're all drawn as guys in that pic, which is wrong. In the actual question the gender of the people involved isn't mentioned.
But anyway, if they're all dudes and the one guy there is a Chad then I pull the lever.
>>28279701
>not at fault
No? You could have prevented the fall with no risk or loss on your part and no further danger to them. There's no reason not to help them.
>>28279746
I think I don't completely understand your definition of morality. For example I consider murder wrong but it seems under your "morality" it can be justified as long as the person believes the murder will be for the good of the person. I believe it's wrong for me to decide the outcome of another's life against his or her will. I might offer a person a better life and it may do them wonders but it's is wrong for me to force it upon them.
>>28279785
>I do believe in free will to an extent.
No, belief in free will is a measure of short-sightednes, hubris, and laziness resulting in you attributing (a varying measure of) your current successes and failures to 'yourself' rather than assuming the scientific, causal knowledge-building perspective that EVERYTHING is determined by nature or by nature, no exceptions, and meticulously relating every facet of your current life to environment and the genetics, so to never waste time blaming either yourself or anyone else for anything, but just amassing empirical knowledge about how you came to be, which can be used to improve other people's lot more effectively than 'just apply your free will mate!', too.
>Assuming you would not face legal consequences for your actions, is it "right" to take the organs from the healthy patient in order to save the lives of the other 10?
As always, right/wrong is decided by intent. You don't want to cause the wrong of making the man unhappy by harvesting him? That's moral. You want to cause the right of saving the 10? That's moral too. Two choices both being moral, it's impossible to quantify them objectively (and, again, it's only here that subjectivity comes). At this point, it's unsolvable and we can only point to the consensus, the average person, having evolutionarily and socially come to think that, say, the ten should be let die.
You're still confusing the priority realm with the moraliy realm.
>>28279845
It doesn't matter, I'm not OBLIGATED to help them, I am not at fault for the circumstances that led to their predicament.
>>28279865
>confusing the priority realm with the moraliy realm
>>28279818
>Depends on who that one person is.
This phrase, by the way, epitomizes this confusion. 'I-I need more factors to decide!'
>>28276659
No.
If I do anything i will make myself guilty.
I will just go away tell myself that i couldnt have done anything.
>>28279848
>under your "morality" it can be justified as long as the person believes the murder will be for the good of the person
...Which person?
Actually, it doesn't matter. Murder is right insofar as the murderer wants to do it (if he didn't want to kill his victim, it would be wrong, because he'd be causing himself pain), and it's wrong insofar as the victim doesn't want to be killed.
>>28279870
True, you didn't cause what happened or do anything that made it.
But I would argue that you are obligated. You aren't expected to go out of your way and/or risk your own safety. But if you can help someone with no cost to you then you should.
>>28279920
>Murder is right insofar as the murderer wants to do it
Huh?
>>28276753
>By not pulling the lever you're directly responsible for the death of 5 people.
No.
That is just nor true.
No one has the moral right to choose which person has to life or which person has to die.
You are only responsible for not saving 5 lives and because the only other option is to take someones life I have no responsibility for their deaths.
>>28279950
I'm sorry about your limted abstraction capacity.
>>28279946
No, you are not obligated, you may act out of kindness or some other reason, but if you decide not to you haven't done anything wrong.
>>28279961
you're right I'm intellectually inferior to you, now please enlighten me
>>28279950
>>Murder is right insofar as the murderer wants to do it
I just can't understand how you've come to rationalize this.
>>28278962
>the moment that awarenes of choices appears
And that's what I'll be arguing in court.
"I wasn't aware"
"I thought it was for a movie and I'd stumbled onto set"
"I didn't clearly see the situation and didn't notice anyone was there"
no-one can prove I was aware of the situation.
I'd feel most comfortable letting things happen as if I weren't there.
If I see a guy about to jump off a roof, I'll just continue walking to the shops like nothing happened, what's wrong with that?
>>28279848
>I might offer a person a better life and it may do them wonders but it's is wrong for me to force it upon them.
By the way. Morality remaining solely determined by intent being one thing, I actually agree: I think there's a separate judgement axis so to say, next to (I thought I mentioned it ITT...) preserving vs destroying information stored in people's brains, whether an action pressures someone to e.g. adopt a decision or a priority or just tells them about such a possibility. The coercive axis you could say. But that's a digression and I REALLY must go.
>>28279946
>You aren't expected to go out of your way and/or risk your own safety. But if you can help someone with no cost to you then you should.
The error here 'no cost' is subjective/prioritative. Rationally speaking, a person can't be punished for finding making a couple of steps towards someone 'a cost' as opposed to 'no cost'. Imposing such a distinction would be arbitrary and arbitrariness is incompatible with reason. Where would the limit be? A hundred steps? A kilometre?
>>28279986
Just read the thread. Every action is good insofar as it serves (someone, incl. you) and bad insofar as it disserves (someone, incl. you). That's objective. What's subjective is the relative importance of serving someone (incl. you) vs anyone else. Beware the arbitrariness.
>>28279951
I think this poster is deeply confused, but it's too late to dig in.
See you all. Good thread.
>>28280006
I dont believe there would be any court in the world that would sentence you for not pushing the lever.
I cant imagine they declaring you guilty for NOT killing someone.
Else they would basically value lives against each other and be justifying murdering a person.
>>28280004
(See >>28280088.)
>>28280006
(This is irrelevant because what matters is that absence or presence of awareness is *no less* provable than 'extracranial' so to say facts. Last post damn it!)
>>28279865
>EVERYTHING is determined by nature or by nature, no exceptions
I'm very familiar with that, which is exactly why I cannot believe it as fact.
Can you absolutely PROVE that it is directly related to either nature or nurture?
1) we don't know enough about the brain to say, without a doubt, that brain chemistry/structure is the main thing that is responsible for the way someone interprets things. To say that it is would mean that by changing or destroying parts of the brain, you could fundamentally change the way someone thinks, interprets, and grows from things.
Perhaps this is true- but we simply don't know enough to actually prove it at this point.
Additionally, things have to begin somewhere, right? When do things start influencing your personality? When your brain starts to develop? Would that mean that babies with very similar brain structures and experiences are similar during birth? What about twins? Twins are generally very unique as newborns, even though they are genetically similar and had a very similar experience in the womb.
(1/2)
>>28280088
>Every action is good insofar as it serves
I could justify every action of mine with this definition of good and bad. I think I just disagree with your definition of morality.
>>28280157
Appeal to ignorance is retarded, but appeal to ignorance used to argue free will is just a level of confusion I don't think I've seen yet.
>>28279865
>You're still confusing the priority realm with the moraliy realm.
But it's very similar to the lever example.
You're risking making the one man "unhappy" and making the other five "happy" if you do pull the lever.
How do you measure happiness? Is it the same for each person? Does happiness relate to value? Can you even measure the value of a person? Assuming that you can measure their value by how much they contribute to society, would it change your answer? Would you still pull the lever and kill the one man if he were a visionary and a scientist? Is his life more valuable that the lives of the five ordinary people because he may touch/influence more people in his lifetime? But arnt we all constantly influencing eachother, even with simple actions like buying groceries or calling a friend? In that case, wouldn't the sum of the actions of the 5 people add up to more of an "impact" than the scientist? It's literally impossible to measure because you're assigning value that's based on your biased perception.
The point that you're arguing MAY be true- I'm playing devil's advocate by arguing the opposite.
But even so, you cannot seperate things like "guilt" and "morality" from "priority". They're all indefinetly intertwined.
To me, it seems that by changing the "fate" the the universe has designated without your direct involvement, you are doing the "wrong" thing if the consequences purposefully negetivly impact someone who was previously uninvolved.
>>28280171
>I could justify every action of mine with this definition of good and bad.
There is no total morality that is positive or negative; such tallying, putting together the good and the bad in e.g. a muder and seeing of which there's 'more', is a function of a quantifier: a brain or a machine. Subjective. Only such a machine will find an action 'justified' (in case of a positive) or not.
>>28280269
>a muder
*a murder
>>28276659
act like I didn't see anything
>>28280183
There's simply not enough evidence to accurately say that there isn't a third component.
If we fully knew how the brain worked and how to manipulate the brain in a way that supported the non-existence of free will, then I'd probably believe it.
But it's amazing how little we know about brain chemistry.
Until we see more evidence and scientists can confidently say that free will does not exist, there is no use in making assumptions
>>28280214
>How do you measure happiness? Is it the same for each person? Does happiness relate to value? Can you even measure the value of a person? Assuming that you can measure their value by how much they contribute to society, would it change your answer? Would you still pull the lever and kill the one man if he were a visionary and a scientist? Is his life more valuable that the lives of the five ordinary people because he may touch/influence more people in his lifetime? But arnt we all constantly influencing eachother, even with simple actions like buying groceries or calling a friend? In that case, wouldn't the sum of the actions of the 5 people add up to more of an "impact" than the scientist? It's literally impossible to measure because you're assigning value that's based on your biased perception.
A stupid, telling 'biased' aside, serving to connote a vague political/religious sentiment of yours that 'human perceptions are flawed', that was my point all along. You're elaborating on what I said in the post you're replying to: infinite factors whose occurrence and manner of perception of (as good vs as bad to the person in question) imbues a decision with right and wrong.
>>28280171
I could walk outside and shoot someone and that would be moral.
It would be unethical though.
Morality is how you act to people you know, ethics to those you don't.
>>28280171
>I could justify every action of mine with this definition of good and bad.
Indeed you can.
>>28280348
Yes, but you argued that those infinent occurrences and their perceptions are pretty much predetermined.
I don't agree with that idea, but even if they were predetermined by fate, that would not relieve that person from accountability and the consequences that come from the decisions. One cannot do something bad and then say "well, I really had no control over this situation since a billion factors beyond my understanding and comprehension ultimately influenced me to make this decision"
>>28280157
>Can you absolutely PROVE that it is directly related to either nature or nurture?
>>28280157
>we don't know enough about the brain to say
>>28280157
>we simply don't know enough
>>28280310
>There's simply not enough evidence
>>28280310
>If we fully knew how the brain worked and how to manipulate the brain
>>28280310
>it's amazing how little we know
>>28280310
>Until we see more evidence
>>28280310
You're just a run-of-the-mil 'science doesn't know everything' religious person. You don't even realize that you have no criteria for 'okay, now knowing enough', and that you'll literally repeat that argument forever, no matter how much neuroscience et al. learns.
You also don't realize that belief in vs rejection of free will strictly *is* the issue of whether one chooses to nurture the notion of, and in practice locate causes of human behaviour in, that 'third slice' of human agency, 'it's possible that he, like, just wanted to do it', or whether one's dissatisfied with that intellectually lazy pseudoanswer and boldly relates everything to nature and nurture.
(Which are, incidentally, the only things empirically possible to relate a behaviour to; you can falsifiably relate e.g. being angry to upbringing and to genes, but how would you relate it to 'one's own choice'? Those are tautologies, 'one is angry when one chooses to'. Idiotic.)
tl;dr you're retarded. Simply.
>>28276659
I'd go multi-track drifting
>>28279892
>This phrase, by the way, epitomizes this confusion. 'I-I need more factors to decide!'
Yeah, and? There's no point in asking the question otherwise because then everyone would choose to let the single person die (unless they're edgelords).
>>28280269
This "morality" seems useless if anything can be justified with it.
>>28280461
>you argued that those infinent occurrences and their perceptions are pretty much predetermined
I don't see how that's related, but yes, everything's determined.
>One cannot do something bad and then say "well, I really had no control over this situation since a billion factors beyond my understanding and comprehension ultimately influenced me to make this decision"
What do you mean, 'cannot'? Where exactly sits that 'cannot'? It doesn't belong in reality. Of course no one ever has any control over their actions, and the sooner the society realizes that, the faster it will let go of blame, resentment, and retribution (and no, prisons and perfectly allowably even torture would still exist), focus on learning the causes of behaviour, incl. of remediable mental conditions, rather than reacting angrily to it, let go of meaningless 'just try harder' advice in favour of falsifiable empirical data which to use, begin to comprehensively relate various habits and life choices to future life outcomes as opposed to broadly dissmissing their consequences as 'it depends on you how you let it affect your life', and a lot more I don't remember.
tl;dr read more... or don't, most writers are shit.
>>28280593
A parsimonious view of reality does not abide to your personal set of concepts you think should belong in it. Morality is not 'useless' or 'useful', nor are things to be 'justified'. Get fucked.
>>28280665
the basis of all your idea seem to lie at the heart that people don't have free will and therefore are not to blame for their actions. Even though I agree with the fact that we don't have free will, people must still be accountable. How will a society in which individuals are not responsible for their actions function?
>>28280569
Well, apparently some people find their hands magical, because they perceive touching the lever with them as suddenly imbued with some arbitrary 'participation' that 'makes a difference'. I have no idea why, but if they choose to single out this factor as important, who am I to object.
>>28280471
I'm actually not religious at all.
I believe in evolution, and other scientific theories that are supported by EVIDENCE.
We know almost nothing about the brain. We've made observations, but we have no idea how to manipulate, control or fully analyze a brain.
You're the retarded one here. You have like three pieces of a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle and you think you can tell what the final picture would be just by looking at the pieces in your hand.
You seem so ASSUME a lot of things, just like you ASSUMED I was religious.
The way you're thinking actually limits scientific discovery because it causes you to think inside the box. You're assuming that something is indefinetly true when there's literally almost no research based evidence to support it.
>>28280735
>people must still be accountable
>must
Anon...
>How will a society in which individuals are not responsible for their actions function?
Don't worry about that, because the society CANNOT NOT function. We cannot not make choices, judge, and react. Realizing nonexistence of free will inherently has no power to make us completely passive (such a thing doesn't exist), and doesn't even have the practical power to make us not stop an aggressive person (and in no way implies doing so). We simply should realize the arbitrariness of our choices. When there's a criminal, we shouldn't retribute rashly; we should realize coolly and empirically that he can't have helped it, but if we don't lock him up, then he'll in most likelihood, telling from what we know about his natural-nurtural composition, recommit -- so we're going to sacrifice the priority of his right to murder for the priority of others' rights not to be murdered (the proportion of which is subjective). This will result in a society that's calmer and more scientific, but not laxer or severer at all -- rejection of f.w. doesn't imply letting criminals go.
Sorry for verboseness. It's very late.
>>28280650
So you don't believe in accountability, then?
You're getting too philosophical without applying things to real life.
In theory I agree with you, but from what I've seen and experienced it just does not add up.
People always have control over their actions. Maybe certain ideas stick in their heads more than others, and those ideas influence their personality.
Is it brain chemistry and structure that dictates what is more likely to stick and what's not for each individual? Perhaps- that would make sense. But it's not something that can be assumed as true because there isn't enough actual evidence to support it. We simply do not know enough scientifically about the human mind yet.
I agree with you that there needs to be a bigger focus on examining the human mind and trying to understand mental illness and thoughts in order to prevent tragedy.
But as you said yourself, there is still much left that needs to be learned about the way the human mind works and how it links to behavior. For that verybreason, I cannot accept that free will does not exist yet.
>>28280776
'I allow for existence of a concept which enables people to evade any kind of scientific falsification by positing that behaviour self-originates acausally! I'm so scientific-minded!'
Leave the thread.
>>28276659
I switch it to the one person and then rape the 5 others on the track, then I go back to dead demangled corpse and rape them too
>>28280088
>Where would the limit be? A hundred steps? A kilometre?
I tried to cover that by saying you don't need to go out of your way.
A kilometre in the wrong direction is out of your way. Having to change your path is to go out of your way.
You know that letting someone walk past you and fall into a pit thing that was mentioned before? You could give the guy a warning without going out of your way.
It is subjective, yeah. It's up to you to decide what qualifies as going out of your way. But there will be certain small acts that people could all agree anyone would be able to do without much effort. Warning someone about a risk is something you can do while walking past them.
>>28280944
>>28280776
In other words, you cretin, you're exactly like the rest of the herd who doesn't realize that in your nonsensical calls to 'first prove free will doesn't exist' or whatever you are exactly throwing away *the apparatus in which it is possible to prove things in the first place*. You can only prove things insofar as you subject humans to determinism. Insofar as free will exists, proof is replaced by tautological self-origination, 'he did it because he did it'.
Meanwhile though, I don't even want to point at the idiocy of your pseudoquantifications of us knowing 'very little' about the brain. Just leave.
>>28280963
Best reply in the thread
>>28280936
>But it's not something that can be assumed as true because there isn't enough actual evidence to support it. We simply do not know enough scientifically about the human mind yet.
Oh Jesus--
Read >>28280944 and >>28281027 and go to bed.
>you said yourself, there is still much left that needs to be learned about the way the human mind works
I never said something as meaningless.
>>28280871
I wouldn't want to lock someone up if they couldn't help but commit a crime. If they committed a crime solely due to their experiences/genetic predisposition, then the fault/blame falls on society or on others.
Where does the "blame" fall when you make EVERYONE a victim of circumstance? That serial killer only murdered those women because he was predisposed to violence genetically and his mother didn't give him enough attention as a child. The argument is that anyone with his brain chemistry/structure and experiences would have done the same thing. So is it his fault then? Did he really have any control in this situation? Why should he have to suffer for something that was out of his control?
Society would not function because there are an enormous amount of people (like me) who would be opposed to making someone suffer if they were not in control of the situation.
It's like how people can plead insanity and not get as harsh of a sentance. By "proving that you weren't in control", it's not your fault as much and you shouldn't have to suffer as much as someone who "was in control"
>>28278697
5 people were going to die not because of you.
you interact with the system which results in you letting 5 people who would be dead if you didn't encounter the situation live, but you kill one person.
I'd not interact with the system, resulting in me killing 0 people and letting 5 people die as if I were 10000 miles away.
What's wrong with that
>>28281002
>You could give the guy a warning without going out of your way.
What about the work (or whatever) performed by the vocal system? The respiratory system to inhale to speak to warn him? Still an arbitrary point of equalizing 'almost no effort' with 'no effort'.
I'm sorry, but I firmly believe arbitrariness must be rejected completely.
I can't make a decision without knowing more about those people. Race, gender, age and so on.
>>28280944
please- show me the studies that demonstrate how we know all there is to know about brain function/chemistry/structure, how each catagory relates to behavior, and how each can be manipulated.
Until we know those things, you cannot assume that there is no such thing as free will.
If you can find those sources then I'd be happy to read them and change my opinion.
I'm not even trying to argue that the lack of evidence for one should be used as evidence that the other exists.
I'm just saying that it shouldn't be counted out as a possibility until we have more pieces of the puzzle.
>>28281098
>I never said something as meaningless.
You said we should "focus on learning the causes of behaviour, incl. of remediable mental conditions, "
The fact that we don't already "know" all about these things means that we don't know enough about the human mind to assume that the essence of someone's actions can all be traced back to nature and nurture.
Is that what they teach in our uni science classes? Of course. But every single time nature vs nurture is brought up, the professors make sure to mention that we don't know enough about the mind/brain to fully understand the "nature" aspect.
>>28281164
You're just arguing semantics here. Yes, it will take a bit of physical and mental effort but it will be insignificant.
Don't disregard an argument completely on something so simple.
Everything is going to be a little bit like this. You can't talk about abstract concepts using only absolutes. If that makes sense. I don't know how to word that better.
>>28281102
>I wouldn't want to lock someone up if they couldn't help but commit a crime. If they committed a crime solely due to their experiences/genetic predisposition, then the fault/blame falls on society or on others.
First: neither fault or blame. Those are emotionally loaded terms that still imply agency. Cause.
Then: correct. Cause indeed lies in, well, the rest of the fucking universe, because obviously the causal chain contains even the solar systemic/cosmic factors.
>Why should he have to suffer for something that was out of his control?
This is a non-answerable question because 'should' is not a real concept.
You know that he was not in control of himself because you know (hopeully) that free will is a dated, prescientific concept. You know that people will want to react to him to various degrees (lock him/execute him/torture-execute him/release him/...). You know that at present, you also have a reaction towards him, which you'll act upon, e.g. in a jury. You know that your brain is open to external influences just like other people's brains are open to yours, and any word they say will to its particular degree affect your priorities regarding what to do with the man, and vice versa. You know that in a couple of minutes, external circumstances (e.g. you seeing and entering the courthouse) will push the subject of free will from your brain and you'll proceed to exacting your individual exact idea of justice upon the man. You remember that it's possible to remember that the man's actions were determined by his family and take extra, unrelated steps to prevent such familial occurrences as well, one day. You remember that this remembering, and that undertaking of steps, has been determined as well. You are aware that some things you now thought about will, as can be empirically confirmed, affect your nearest steps in some ways as well.
This is the range of meaningful knowledge. Nothing beyond it is real.
>>28281273
>You said we should "focus on learning the causes of behaviour, incl. of remediable mental conditions, "
Exactly. Nowhere did I say what you put in my mouth that we 'know little', because it's a subjective quantification.
>[...] every single time nature vs nurture is brought up, the professors make sure to mention that we don't know enough about the mind/brain to fully understand the "nature" aspect.
(Disregarding the fact that it's irrelevant because the issue is of remaining within the nature/nurture dichotomy as opposed to positing the free-willed blackbox brain...) Has the academia really debased itself to saying completely irrelevant things by now? That's 'generalizations are bad'-tier.
It's clear that you didn't understand >>28280944 and >>28281027 and I have other posts to reply to than to grasp at rephrasings.
>>28281469
>Has the academia really debased itself to saying completely irrelevant things by now? That's 'generalizations are bad'-tier.
(But of course, it's always easier to celebrate 'how little we know', and win applause for stating that harsh revelatory 'truth', than to actually get your hands dirty and learn something new.)
>>28281367
Look I'm glad you majored in philosophy but what you just said is a load of bull in real life.
"Should" is not a real concept? Seriously? You need a dose of reality.
Philosophy is fun to muse about, but you can't argue that certain things are real and others are not real.
And don't you start up again about how "can't" doesn't "sit in reality".
These concepts are used in human communication, so they are just as "real" as any others.
You're assuming that people can still enact judgement on someone who committed a crime but was not in control of their actions. Perhaps you could, but I could not.
I would have no anger toward someone who's actions were not in their control. In fact, I would think it was a "bad" thing to punish such a person, since they couldn't help what happened. But on the other hand, they did something bad and made someone else suffer, and they could do that again if they were not punished or reformed.
I guess the only solution in such a situation that would satisfy me personally would be to reform that person, because doing so would be helping society.
But how do we reform people so indefinetly? It's not ethical in our society to modify someone's brain structurally. Maybe chemically with medication and therapy, but the change needs to be brought about willingly or else it's unethical.
I don't know. It seems very complicated. What do you think?
>>28281323
Your argument, which bears the burden of proof, is that some people have an 'obligation' to those things which require 'no effort' of them (as otherwise a subjective, unresolvable 'conflict of efforts' would take place, help me vs help them). I'm saying that the concept 'no effort' is subjective, because it always relies on clipping, so to say, on subjectively dismissing a slice of factors which to consider before doing something (expending energy, ...). It really is a straightforward argument.
>>28281469
>Has the academia really debased itself to saying completely irrelevant things by now? That's 'generalizations are bad'-tier.
???
That's literally one of the main things that is taught in nearly every science class.
They urge their students not to take everything they are taught as solid fact, because scientific discovery frequently changes things that were previously regarded as fact/common knowlege.
Look at the somewhat recent discovery of DNA and all the new knowlege that discovery has led to. It's completely changed or expanded upon most of what was regarded as fact in biology. I was taught that I shouldn't make assumptions about things that don't have substantial evidence to back them.
And if I do make assumptions, then I try to atleast keep my mind and way of thinking open to the possibility that perhaps I am wrong.
I'd pull the lever and watch as the people scream for joy, and then teleport behind them and slice them all in half with my katana.
>>28281540
I don't study this stuff on that level so I don't really get what you mean. I'm just working on personal values and all that.
If you could help someone easily without going out of your way or expending excess effort, then you should help them and should feel obligated to help them.
What is too much effort will vary for different people. But if you end up thinking everything is too much effort then you're too lazy to help people and that makes you a pretty bad person.
>>28278784
Thats how this thread was started you stupid donut
>>28281624
>They urge their students not to take everything they are taught as solid fact, because scientific discovery frequently changes things that were previously regarded as fact/common knowlege.
I admit that I cringed before I became terrified.
If teachers literally indoctrinate students with appeal to ignorance at universities, 'anything I'm telling you can be wrong', I... I don't know. It's hardly an eye-opening moment anymore; it's just another spiritual blow.
Oh well. Religion creeps everywhere. Hardly anyone realizes the simple truth that the more purported 'limitations of science' are talked about, the less actual science is getting done, or remembers the principle of 'show, don't tell'.
Is it legal for me to make this decision?
Will I face any consequences?
Oh too late the train ran those poor souls over.
If only society had taught me the legal repercussions of such a situation maybe the 5 organ donors would be alive instead of the homeless heroin addict!
>>28281734
>'anything I'm telling you can be wrong'
What's wrong with that? That's wisdom, anon. It can be wrong and you need to accept that and learn to deal with it.
If you want total absolutes then do mathematics. Not the freaky top tier maths that doesn't make sense. I mean the bulk of mathematics where there will only ever be a right answer or a wrong answer. Some things can have two answers but both will be equally right while the wrong answers will still be wrong.
>>28281734
You sound very confused.
The purpose of that "disclaimer" is not to discourage scientific discovery, it's to encourage it.
For example: hundreds of years ago, scientists believed corpses began to TURN IN TO bugs if they were not buried or burned. This belief came from observation- there were always bugs on old corpses so it made sense that the corpses were turning in to bugs- as the body started to disappear, bore bugs appeared.
Obviously we know now that this doesn't happen. The point is that if no one had ever questioned this "fact" and done expiraments to actually test it and gather evidence, then we would have kept on believing that dead bodies turn in to bugs.
And you need to hop off this whole religion thing. I agree those people who use "Well, you can't prove that there's NOT a god" and "evolution is a THEORY" are retarded.
There's been so so so much evidence collected that supports evolution, and it's observable on smaller scales- so most people agree that it's scientific fact. When I am writing research papers, I assume that it's a fact, just like I assume that gravity is a law and that nature vs nurture are the two factors that influence people's decisions.
But ultimately, I'm not going to close my mind off to the possibility that there may still be missing pieces of the puzzle. There's a lot that we don't know about the universe, the mind, etc. We're taught to use the information that's been presented to us while always questioning it and thinking outside the box.
>>28281510
>You're assuming that people can still enact judgement on someone who committed a crime but [who I held the incorrect belief that] was not in control of their actions. Perhaps you could, but I could not.
Meaningful so far, if a bit ambiguous in terms I mentioned above -- it's biologically impossible for someone even continuously aware of nonexistence of free will not to make judgements and steps -- cf. getting hungry eventually and taking food from mom's fridge -- consciously or not, you're committing the judgement that your right of having more food > her wrong of having less food. But yes, it's possible that some people will refuse to make *some kinds* of judgements that they subjectively find momentous.
>how do we reform people [...] indefinetly?
What kind of question is that? By telling them stuff. By rewarding them. By punishing them. Whatever has been empirically found to statistically work. Whether a certain kind of person (defined in some way or another) adopts any of those methods in any particular situations, to which degree and how exactly, is of course also an empirical question. I only know my future steps insofar as I know my past behaviour and those of people similar to me; every time I resolve e.g. to influence other people gently, I understand that some external factor must have come in the past and only surfaced, resulted in mellowing me, now. I know there's an infinite sequence of choices before me what to do to the people I meet, more or less ethically, and that any idea to intercept such a choice as it takes place and, for instance, incorporate an extra factor in my judgement of them or change its outcome... has also been determined, and can also be related to my nature vs nurture.
Continued possibly.
Horribly verbose and probably missing a lot. I'm falling asleep.
>>28281785
this, the whole situation is just a retarded thought experiment without any meaning
>>28277240
Gotta have the loop-da-loop
>>28281510
>It's not ethical in our society to modify someone's brain structurally.
Every choice regarding another person affects their brain. (Hell, it's quite possible that EVERY choice affects EVERY brian.) If there's an 'every', then the exact choice of decision depends on mere personal priorities, because you're going to affect them either way. Yours are different from mine. You can (or rather: in certain circumstances, you will have been found to) ask me about mine. Or change them, for instance, by telling me 'don't modify other people' brains!'; it will have a statistical effect on brains such as mine. Of course, not after I have realized such a possibility; now the statistical preconditions have changed, and it will be accordingly harder to intimidate me into being less accepting of influencing other people. Statistics, statistics, statistics.
>>28281655
>I don't study this stuff on that level so I don't really get what you mean.
No no no, I overphrased it. I meant simply: don't impose your definition of 'excess effort' on others. That'sunethical.
>if you end up thinking everything is too much effort then you're too lazy to help people and that makes you a pretty bad person
Can't agree though, laziness is self-preservation and self-preservation (selfishness) is right.
Considering that I hate humans because of women I wouldn't pull it even though I know it's not nice.
If you want to blame me then blame the women.
>>28281835
>>28281871
You're embarrassing for not realizing the bullshit you're fed.
That cliche was designed for two reasons: (1) to sow distrust in science, and (2) to cowardly reject responsibility for the teacher's possible mistakes ('I told you to be critical, it's your fault that I accidentally misled you!'; of course the students should be critical/rational/skeptical/..., but a teacher must NEVER say this, otherwise he's blaming the student for his fuckups; criticism must only be taught by example).
>>28281981
I meant more in a structural way,
Like- if you went in to someone's head surgically and snipped around and physically changed their brain structure, that is looked down upon.
If you faggots want the morally correct answer to this, then listen to the first 10 minutes of darkside by Tom stoppard.
Its a radio play about moral actions, with great storytelling, and it incorporates music from pink Floyds darkside of the moon.
___
Basically happiness at its core is being alive, instead of dead. By flipping the switch, you're still increasing the overall moral happiness of the world.
Wouldn't letting the trolly kill the 5 people cause enough of a "tragedy" that people might do something about all these god damn runaway trolleys so this shit doesn't keep happening every other God damn wednesday
>>28282024
What if I said that helping other people was self-preservation? What if helping others so they, in turn, will help you is a form of self-preservation?
Everyone helps each other out so we can be sure that if we get in trouble ourselves, then someone else will help us.
>>28282125
Yes well, that's just an arbitrary subset of all ways to modify a brain. A fucking choice of intonation or spelling affects the recipient's brain. So again, why arbitrarily limit the discussion to surgical modifications? In a way, even uttering a word is surgical -- too tampers with your cortex.
>>28282141
Why should I care about the happiness of the world when the world gave me nothing to be happy about?
>>28277221
Then you kill the 7 people on the trolley.
>>28282141
>Basically happiness at its core is being alive, instead of dead
load of horseshit right there
>>28282144
Inb4 nogunz
>>28281728
No, that guy was asking about multi-track drifting. Stop trying to derail (lol) the thread.
>>28282147
>What if I said that helping other people was self-preservation? What if helping others so they, in turn, will help you is a form of self-preservation?
Nothing. You'd be right. I actually said it ITT ~2 hours ago. That would just make it doubly moral (as long as you also awarely have your own satisfiaction in mind too).
>>28282141
>you're still increasing the overall moral happiness of the world.
Wew.
What if those 5 people are all deeply depressed and want to die? Then you've made them all miserable and made the world more miserable because now the world will have to deal with another 5 downers.
>>28282182
You cannot be happy if you're already dead anon. At that point your a corpse, no different than any other animate object.
By being alive, a person has a chance to be happy, and the chance to make others happy.
At its core being alive is required to be happy.
>>28282158
You don't have to care, but at that point, why are you even in a thread about moral philosophy?
>>28282232
You're making too much assumptions, those 5 could be miserable for the rest of their lives while that one guy could win the lottery.
>>28282141
>Basically happiness at its core is being alive, instead of dead. By flipping the switch, you're still increasing the overall moral happiness of the world.
Nonsense. 'Happiness' cannot be quantified and it's meaningless to say that 100,000 people alive = more happiness than 1 person alive. You can claim about the amount of neurotransmitters or whatever, but not of happiness.
>>28282245
Just because I hate the world doesn't mean that I hate talking about interesting stuff.
I love watching humans, I just don't like to physically interact with them.
I'm pretty sure there is no right answer to the troll(ey) problem. Doesn't mean it's not useful to talk and think about it.
>>28282231
Thats also a counterpoint made in the play I suggested. It's a flip of the coin. Whose to say the 1 guy that would be killed isn't the guy that would go on to cure cancer? You can't.
But there's a 1 to 5 ration here. There's a mathematically higher chance that 5 people could do more good in the world, than 1 person.
>>28282097
I'm sorry but you're wrong. I believe I must not be explaining it properly to you or you're being overly defensive.
Look- this is the basic idea.
Academia is not always right. That idea is not meant to delegitimize what you're taught, it's meant to- as you said- make you "critical/rational/skeptical".
the teacher is teaching material that he believes is true, and the students are learning it and trusting that it's true. Both the teacher and the students preserve some level of skepticism- not enough to interfere with what they've been learning, but enough that if there's a new scientific discovery that changes what they've been learning, they think "oh cool, I see how it is now" instead of "NO, BUT THIS IS WHAT I LEARNED FIRST SO I REJECT THIS NEW INFORMATION BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTANT WITH WHAT I HAVE DESIGNATED AS AN ULTIMATE TRUTH". That's the kind of reactions that you'd have if someone tried to tell you that addition isn't actually addition and like changes the rules of something that you had previously set in stone in your mind.
But the students are not responsible if science makes a discovery that changes things- it's not their fault neither is it the teachers fault. They were teaching/learning with the information that was available to them at the time.
And it's not meant to "sow distrust in science". That's not the purpose, that's a consequence.
And even if I do trust science less- that's not such a bad thing because science is not always right. How we think of several scientific ideas right now at this point in time is not accurate. We may think that it's accurate now, but as we discover new things in the future, it will change what we know right now. We only have part of the puzzle, and as we collect more pieces we can more clearly see the picture, or the "truth" of the universe.
So in a sense, it's unwise to blindly trust science when the picture isn't complete yet. It might sound weird but it really is a good thing for science
>>28276659
yes because utilitarianism
a more difficult moral problem might be murdering someone so you can harvest their organs and save 5 people's lives, I'd have to go with "no" on that one even though in the abstract it is little different from this
>>28282232
You cannot be sad if you're already dead anon. At that point your a corpse, no different than any other animate object.
By being alive, a person has a chance to be sad, and the chance to make others sad.
At its core being alive is required to be sad.
>>28282291
And 5 people could also do more bad. You can make the decision to save those 5 people by pulling the lever, but if you justify it on something unquantifiable like happiness, goodness or badness you are pretty much a retard.
>>28282273
Winning the lottery doesn't always male someone haply.. But there's a higher probability that 5 people will do more for society than 1.
>>28282284
Fair enough. Whatever the world has done to wrong you, I'm sure it's the worse that's ever happen to anyone one person. Cheers.
>>28282314
Sadness isn't the opposite of happiness. It's usually the lack of happiness.
>>28282301
This. I'd still probably harvest the organs if it were to save people of worth, though.
>>28282345
>Sadness isn't the opposite of happiness. It's usually the lack of happiness.
Proofs?
Happiness isn't the opposite of sadness. It's usually the lack of sadness.
>>28282299
>That idea is not meant to delegitimize what you're taught
>>28282299
>And it's not meant to "sow distrust in science". That's not the purpose, that's a consequence.
I shall express a moral wish for you to become cynical.
And realize that it is much, much easier to make a living out of writing the things you wrote, how the word 'truth' purportedly should always be written in quotes, how 'science is built on mistakes', how 'there is no ultimate truth', and so on... writing things that are conveniently always strictly speaking true, but connotatively degenerate people's sense of urgency to learn and immediacy of that learning... than out of doing science.
>moral philosophy
>/r9k/, home of amoral faggots
>>28282431
>>28282299
In blunt, people don't want to do or read science. People want to read and hear that 'it has its limitations'. Or, as the supercliche goes, 'is not everything'.
If anyone here enjoys the topic of moral philosophy or just likes to think in general.
Listen to this - https://m.soundcloud.com/thechrisgregory/darkside-a-play-by-sir-tom
I usually listen to it before bed, but it's something nice to listen while browsing r9k.
It really makes you think, and it gives you a lot of topics/possible conversation starters when talking to like minded individuals.
>>28282491
Transcript to ascertain that it's shit?
>>28282345
>I'm sure it's the worse that's ever happen to anyone one person
>ITT: you don't have it worse so you shouldn't complain
So you're that kind of person? Good to know, explains your posts.
>>28282491
It starts at around the 1 minute mark. It's hosted on SoundCloud, so you can easily multi-task with it open.
>>28276659
Switch to 1 person lane untie them asap
>>28282509
Can't find it famu, just donate a few minutes of your time and listen to it while you do something else.
>>28279644
ON THE EDGEST EDGE
>>28282491
I don't agree with some of the points so far, but it's a good listen so far. Kinda confusing right now, but I'll listen to it again afterwards.
>>28282481
>>28282431
I disagree.
I do want to read science.
I like science, and I'm surrounded by people who like science.
People want to read whatever reinforces their own schema. Often times new scientific discovery specifically goes against most people's schema and they don't know how to catagorize the information so they simply reject it.
That's one of the reasons why we're taught not to trust what we know so stubbornly. Your own disapproval and reaction to this change to academia is an example of why the change was made in the first place.
It's humility. They are teaching humility in schools now so that people are able to more open mindedly consider and discuss ideas.
>>28282491
So.. The transindental (the juggaler) is supposed to be "god"?
Smarties and licorice torpedoes are an analogy for medicine and needles right?
Words and thought are eachother in different tuning means that they are the same entirely however the tuning (voice/sound waves versus thought waves) right?
>This play is comfy
>>28282603
>humility
Seems a term quite capable of in time joining 'open-minded' as a red flag, 'if you disagree with my (insert religious idea of choice), you lack the scientific humility to consider views different from your own'.
Oh wait, you used 'open-minded' in that very sentence. Fuck me.
>>28282491
Is anyone else listening to this?
Depends what kind of people are on the tracks. If its any combination of five niggers, mexicans or muslims let it rip or if its one nigger, mexican or muslim pull it.
>>28282655
BRAAAAAAAAAAAP? No.
>>28279423
Im an idiot so im confused. Doesnt this also mean that the lever you chose also has a 50 percent chance of being the right one now because its now 1 of 2 levers?
>>28282676
Interesting... Familia
>>28282655
I am. 19 mins in. Good stuff so far.
>>28282641
You seem to think that crazy religious people can be "reached" with logic and "fact"
They cannot be reached in that way.
Take plate tectonics for example. That's an observable phenomena that is constantly happening, and it explains why there are fossils of prehistoric fish on the tops of mountains.
If you tell a "crazy religious" person this, they'll blame it on the flood, or "God put them there" or "God can do anything".
So what if they can say "science doesn't technically PROVE anything", or "Science isn't ALWAYS right"
They'd just make up another excuse , even if science WAS always right. "Oh, well you SCIENTISTS are the devil because you're trying to steer us away from the truth!!"
It's better to just agree to disagree. Some people are just idiots. You literally cannot reach them. It's human psychology. They formed a strict schema and anything that goes against it must be rejected.
Also, respecfully disagreeing is not lacking humility.
in fact, if you respectfully disagree, then you're being very scientifically humble.
We should always try to consider other people's views. I've considered things from Christian views, Muslim views, Hindi views- I've read the passages and there's actually a lot of wisdom. But scientifically, I respectfully disagree with a religious perspective. I've exposed myself to it, considered it, and disagreed with it.
If everyone was actually willing to do that, there's be a lot less close mindedness.
You didn't tie them you didn't set ram on that route.
> walk away get chipotle
>>28282491
>there's someone else in my head, but it's notcme
>>28276659
Switch the track then rush to free the one guy on the track. It's much quicker untying one person from a track than 5
>>28276659
this thread sucks and you all suck for posting here
>>28278816
I pick the same one twice. First choice is 1 in 100, second is 1 in 2.
>231 replies
Wow.
Well I just came to say I'd rather have the 5 normies that decided to tie themselves up together and happened to fall on the tracks than the one robot who was just feeling kinky.
>>28282711
Exactly.
This is the same for that autistic goat door problem, congratulations on working it out though.
>>28276659
Quick question. What color are they?
>>28279336
kill the feminists of course
bros before hoes amirite xpp
>>28276659
Nah, too high of a risk of getting a goat
>>28285166
You see a trolley coming over at high speed. On it's track are 5 goats. You see 3 levers. Two of the levers have no effect and let the trolley continue on its path killing the 5 goats. 1 Lever makes the trolley go on another track where it kills one person and you will get that person's new sportscar. You must choose a lever and before you pull it one of the other two levers is revealed as fake. Do you switch your choice?
>>28285822
*its
bloxxy
Ask the one guy what to do
>he says not to pull the lever, thinks he should live instead of 5 others, I won't feel as bad pulling it.
>he tells me to pull it, I do
Which one is your favorite robots
>>28286110
The top right corner one is pretty cool.
>>28283981
Second one is 2/3 if you switch, retard
