|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
moral relativism
#19217323 - 12/02/13 01:39 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
recently NPR had a pretty nice piece where they polled a bunch of people the following questions.
1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.
9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.
2) same scenario, except this time you are on a bridge overlooking the train tracks and the 1 person is standing next to you. the only way to save those 5 people is to push the guy onto the tracks to stop the train.
9 out of 10 people said they would not push the guy.
now that is odd, because ultimately they are the exact same things, with the exact same outcome. why do the majority of people, regardless of background, ethnicity, even culture overwhelmingly choose the same answers to those questions?
why would we choose to drastically change the outcome of two almost identical situations? the act of pushing someone is somehow worse than pulling a lever.
it works like that in many situations... I am sure it would be considered inhumane if instead of the "throwing of the switch" in electric chair death row situations was replaced with a person directly electrocuting them with some overpowered cattle prod.
I wish they would have delved deeper into the concept of "the lever" rather than focusing on why, when and how the moral centers of our brain become more active in these situations.
i wish that they would keep polling variations of the same question with slightly different minutia to pinpoint the very exact point at which a "lever" no longer has us making a moral distinction.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
For one thing it is physically harder to push someone off a train then to pull a lever, also your own life could be put at risk trying to throw someone off a train, so maybe that has something to do with it as well. Also it isn't very realistic to have to throw a guy off the train, when you could ask him to move.
People are probably considering how unrealistic the situation is as well.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I would not act. I'd not want that on my conscience. Seriously. I'd let them all die. I did not create the situation and I'm not responsible for the outcome. That's in the creators realm and I'm not about to meddle in its affairs. For all I know those five people would start the next Nazi like society.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19217417 - 12/02/13 01:58 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yeah, but what if inaction meant that you would die too?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: teknix]
#19217421 - 12/02/13 01:59 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
That wasn't part of the scenario. I'd likely act to save myself.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19217425 - 12/02/13 01:59 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
In both scenario's right?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: teknix]
#19217492 - 12/02/13 02:17 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Of course. I come first in all cases even if I give up my life.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19217584 - 12/02/13 02:41 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
now i remember why i quit posting in here...
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
I don't remember but I'm sure I agree with your absence.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19217720 - 12/02/13 03:11 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
eh, that wasn't really directed at you. just the overall nature of this forum. everything descends into arguing semantics. People treat hypothetical situations like they are loophole riddles rather than get into actual discussion about what it presents.
its ok though. I did that shit the entire time i was here posting regularly.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 16 hours, 42 minutes
|
|
It's a question that's simply full of loopholes, How bout taking your clothes off and throwing them on the track. Throwing a person on the tracks isn't going to stop a train unless the engineer engages the brakes. Why doesn't the respondent just jump on the tracks along with the psychologist who created this question.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: falcon]
#19217768 - 12/02/13 03:21 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
the questions weren't posited at you. I presented the data from an informal poll. that was what we were supposed to be discussing. but this forum is full of people who spent a little too much time "being introspective" and cannot imagine any situation beyond themselves.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 16 hours, 42 minutes
|
|
Alrighty, then maybe, when you're pulling the lever, it's likely you're an employee of the rail line, you're part of the team that moves the trains around, it's likely the respondents feel more responsibility when imagining themselves in this situation than when they are an onlooker.
Also the guy on the bridge hasn't put himself in harms way by being in a position to be run over by a train unless someone throws someone else in front of the train, while in the other question, you've have to chose between saving one or five reckless people.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: falcon]
#19217822 - 12/02/13 03:34 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
yeah, i am not asking you what you and Wiley Coyote would do in those situations. I was asking why the majority of people make that distinction.
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 16 hours, 42 minutes
|
|
I'm supplying reasons why people may have responded the way they did these situations are not equivalent IMO and I think most people would view it the same way the me an Wiley do.
|
teknix
πβπ
’ππ
π°π‘ πΌπ⨻



Registered: 09/16/08
Posts: 11,953
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: yeah, i am not asking you what you and Wiley Coyote would do in those situations. I was asking why the majority of people make that distinction.
Then post the scenario correctly, because it is pretty half-assed, so what do you expect?
|
BlueCoyote
Beyond


Registered: 05/07/04
Posts: 6,697
Loc: Between
Last seen: 3 years, 17 days
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: yeah, i am not asking you what you and Wiley Coyote would do in those situations. I was asking why the majority of people make that distinction.
Because everyone wants to save their own ass first. Too much physical interaction equals too much risk of failure.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery


Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: eh, that wasn't really directed at you. just the overall nature of this forum. everything descends into arguing semantics. People treat hypothetical situations like they are loophole riddles rather than get into actual discussion about what it presents.
its ok though. I did that shit the entire time i was here posting regularly.
That's just how humans behave most of the time. It's not special to this forum that's for sure. But here you are posting again. Welcome back the prodigal son.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19218497 - 12/02/13 06:00 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I would not act. I'd not want that on my conscience. Seriously. I'd let them all die. I did not create the situation and I'm not responsible for the outcome. That's in the creators realm and I'm not about to meddle in its affairs. For all I know those five people would start the next Nazi like society.
Doesn't work that way. No man is an island and you are always responsible for your actions which includes inaction. In the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
#19219294 - 12/02/13 08:31 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I didn't say anything about not making a choice. I just told you what my choice would be and why. Quote:
Seriously. I'd let them all die.
And that's my choice.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
absols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
#19221017 - 12/03/13 08:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DieCommie said:
Doesn't work that way. No man is an island and you are always responsible for your actions which includes inaction. In the words of Rush, "If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice"
on the contrary, it does work exactly that way ! he is proving indirectly how truth and lies are being on the same space for now, true freedom rights exist as him and more, and evil means through lying wills are alive by reversing truth knowledge first in jumping on what exist
you pretend to reason though I am sure you didn't say it out of experience ...
you pretend that for others, as an argument to climb on their arguments .. thinking that they are meaning good without having the way to justify it, so good must be free thing to take from them
your argument is clearly on the base of no one else exist ... if no one else then you exist, then yes you would have to keep justifying everything objectively done as being an effect of your presence ...
but sorry it is stupid thinking ... which is not thinking at all ..
because if else do not exist, it means that there is no truth, if there is no truth there cant be objective thing of same basically truth out true present... if there is no present then not only anything out of you so not totally subjective cannot be, but even you cannot be present ... then definitely moving for a perception would be totally wrong in truth and in lies
then it is all like we know truth is through being real with else recognitions being right first and lies is through jumping on what is known existing else fact
so when he says it is not his business, when he would never mean to kill anyone ... so it is about else and infinite that has to in such situations show being ..when his being is by recognizing else reality first .. anyway for sure, else presence is much more truth then mortal being ... if truth is criminal then any objective move is to be criminal ... when he is not criminal it is best to stay out still
when the situation is showing an absolute positive end out of right move ... it is different story,,then who wont move would be evil, as all is always clearly seen in truth, and absolute answers are the most obvious
another story is also when moving by taking risks of dying ownself for caring about someothers rights more then oneself as a fact, like own children or people really caring about, or some other things, like else everything rights... or objective rights more then oneself.. it should not exist.. but it exists a bit when true beings are objective rights living relatively ... so it is about defending own true selves existence being the only right way ...but of course it is blabla ... how far that can be sustainable in such situation that cant be bearable a second.. only if there is no other way to react constantly ...
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19221577 - 12/03/13 11:08 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I didn't say anything about not making a choice. I just told you what my choice would be and why. Quote:
Seriously. I'd let them all die.
And that's my choice.
Good answer. As long as you dont insist you can separate yourself from your situation and the consequences, I have no complaint.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
#19221589 - 12/03/13 11:11 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I've been letting people die all over the place lately. Serves em right. They were obstructing my view.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
DieCommie

Registered: 12/11/03
Posts: 29,258
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icelander]
#19221596 - 12/03/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icelander said: I've been letting people die all over the place lately. 
Happens every time I buy a cup of coffee rather than donate to africa... or so the TV claims.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: DieCommie]
#19221603 - 12/03/13 11:12 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I vastly prefer coffee.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
deCypher



Registered: 02/10/08
Posts: 56,232
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: 1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.
9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.
2) same scenario, except this time you are on a bridge overlooking the train tracks and the 1 person is standing next to you. the only way to save those 5 people is to push the guy onto the tracks to stop the train.
9 out of 10 people said they would not push the guy.
now that is odd, because ultimately they are the exact same things, with the exact same outcome.
Are they really the exact same scenarios, though? Even though the same outcome is guaranteed in the setup, I feel like most people are visualizing the scenario in their mind and asking themselves what they would do before they know any kind of certain outcome. With the lever, you at least know with pretty good certainty that the train WILL switch to the second track, saving lives overall. With the pushing a man over the bridge, I don't see that as being able to stop the train with any great certainty at all. I'm pretty sure a train wouldn't stop from one person being dropped in front of it, anyway. So when asked to judge what they would do by visualization and common sense, only the first course of action seems like it would with high certainty save lives. The second only provides certain death for the single individual, and low probability of stopping the train. So despite the fact the researchers told the participants the outcome would be the same, I don't think the participants really took that into consideration when visualizing themselves having to make that decision.
-------------------- We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars.
 
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: deCypher]
#19222285 - 12/03/13 01:36 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
in the scenario they gave on NPR they elaborated a lot more about that, saying that you are far off and the conductor would stop the train if they hit someone. stop the train in time to not hit the other people.
I wish they would have come up with a better scenario to poll people with because i can think of lots of other things that wouldn't lead to this kind of "well if the train...." talk.
they later went on to talk about how throwing sugar cane into chimpanzees habitat results in chaos followed by the alphas evenly distributing it among all, claiming that sharing is an inherent quality if even it is to merely avoid the consequences of not sharing.
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: recently NPR had a pretty nice piece where they polled a bunch of people the following questions.
1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.
9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.
I don't think I would.
First of all, it is a strange situation and I am much aware that to answer to this is to accept this strange predicament occurring.
So why would I not? Is it up to me to decide who lives or dies. To pull the lever means I intervene in what is to come. What is to come could mean that one of these five people looks up in time to warn the others. All will survive. But if you insist that this can never occur, that the situation you set up cannot be altered, amended or changed in anyway, you are doing something impossible. You are forcing an impossible situation because reality does not work that way. And morality is a function of reality and how we deal with that. So the starting point can never be.
You are forcing reality to behave differently than what it is based on. You are asking me choose between a wave and a particle, but the situation you describe is forcing me to see two particles. A situation where one particle dies or where 5 particles die. That is to say, if to be a particle means death, that is what you are saying, then the single person and the five must all be particles.
What you want to describe is a situation of indeterminism. And that the lever represents the choice to create a wave or a particle. And the group or the individual can be particle or wave.
If that is the case, anything can happen. So I would not pull any lever. The universe unfolds as it may. The track is set to bring the train into that group of five. They might notice and jump to safety, but if I pull the lever, I killed a person. And I still would not know 100% certainty that in doing so the train would not crash over 6 others behind the one, that I didn't see, or that a car holds toxins, that would spread and kill many more. Your situation suggest there won't be consequences along with the choice.
What if that one person will do much good in the world.
If you think that intervention in the natural flow of things will bring optimal results, you go on a path of constant having to question everything because to have the optimal outcome means you have to keep intervening. And in doing so you cause what you want to avoid.
So I have no moral problem with letting the train drive into the group. And it matters little if someone stands next to me that I have to push to save others.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
I would not act. The sole man was never in any danger - you're the only danger to him. Perhaps people don't fully realize this when they're pulling a lever, and are able to focus on the utilitarian action of saving five people, because they're not getting their hands dirty. When you have to push the guy onto the tracks, that's gritty and visceral. It shifts their focus from being the hero who pulled the lever to the uglier truth, that they're sentencing somebody to death that had nothing to do with this.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
Icyus
KavitΔrkikasiαΉHa



Registered: 11/07/13
Posts: 3,502
Loc: Inbetween.
Last seen: 8 years, 27 days
|
|
Well.. if I were to push someoneto thekr death I would like to know them first..
-------------------- And thus begins the reverse-fusing of our one-dimentional understanding, and adds ever-expanding perspectives, in depth and number; splitting our perception, and in so doing, seemingly irrationally, creates yet more one-ness, with all that ever was, is and will ever be, streching across the infinite, inunderstood concept of everything, percievable and not.
|
absols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
|
what I always reacted within myself like to that type of questions, is the realization of how it is impossible to say
that is why I think those kind of questions are traps to what you are for everything .. like saying yes I will go to the other track, is being a criminal in everyday life
and who says I would leave it to kill everyone there.. is like the selfish type who in danger would think only to save himself out
so two opposite ways of being wrong anyway
the sincere answer is we cant know because we know that we are not objective reasons nor forces, the right answer is ask me about something that did happen really, a thing even oneself is only the present free still sense, and we are free to speculate about things or for something it doesn't say us nor make anything, and fuck the powers interests that seek to abuse our freedom rights by willing to prove that we are wrong beings constantly out of what is not real nor that we do nor did
gods or supernatural powers don't want to accept that we are superior in truth, because we realize our conscious perspectives objectively right
when we mean positive or present perspective, we mean it in terms of value we must relatively being too to mean being present else too because we are aware of being existing individual value too, so we know how to look at existing things, in real ways not like nothing but infinite nonsense of none ...those gods and powerful entities are opportunists of infinite fact ... and who says opportunist is talking about inferiority in depth.. that is why they love to appear free so stay alone for that ... complete nonsense
that is why gods give a lot of animals awareness to be humans.. so they can possess them and compete with us to kill us and keep their powers on all
it is absurd that we cant say a thing, unless we have to keep saying everything for nothing .. we cant even say a word to each others ... it is freaking insane ... without any drug !!
Edited by absols (12/08/13 07:29 AM)
|
absols
Stranger

Registered: 11/10/13
Posts: 986
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Vaipen]
#19243863 - 12/08/13 07:47 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vaipen said:
I don't think I would.
First of all, it is a strange situation and I am much aware that to answer to this is to accept this strange predicament occurring.
So why would I not? Is it up to me to decide who lives or dies. To pull the lever means I intervene in what is to come. What is to come could mean that one of these five people looks up in time to warn the others. All will survive. But if you insist that this can never occur, that the situation you set up cannot be altered, amended or changed in anyway, you are doing something impossible. You are forcing an impossible situation because reality does not work that way. And morality is a function of reality and how we deal with that. So the starting point can never be.
You are forcing reality to behave differently than what it is based on. You are asking me choose between a wave and a particle, but the situation you describe is forcing me to see two particles. A situation where one particle dies or where 5 particles die. That is to say, if to be a particle means death, that is what you are saying, then the single person and the five must all be particles.
What you want to describe is a situation of indeterminism. And that the lever represents the choice to create a wave or a particle. And the group or the individual can be particle or wave.
If that is the case, anything can happen. So I would not pull any lever. The universe unfolds as it may. The track is set to bring the train into that group of five. They might notice and jump to safety, but if I pull the lever, I killed a person. And I still would not know 100% certainty that in doing so the train would not crash over 6 others behind the one, that I didn't see, or that a car holds toxins, that would spread and kill many more. Your situation suggest there won't be consequences along with the choice.
What if that one person will do much good in the world.
If you think that intervention in the natural flow of things will bring optimal results, you go on a path of constant having to question everything because to have the optimal outcome means you have to keep intervening. And in doing so you cause what you want to avoid.
So I have no moral problem with letting the train drive into the group. And it matters little if someone stands next to me that I have to push to save others.
very true, exactly the right points !
Edited by absols (12/08/13 07:47 AM)
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Icyus]
#19243884 - 12/08/13 08:00 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Icyus said: Well.. if I were to push someoneto thekr death I would like to know them first..
I'd kill em all, but leave one to tell the tale.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
hmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: eh, that wasn't really directed at you. just the overall nature of this forum. everything descends into arguing semantics. People treat hypothetical situations like they are loophole riddles rather than get into actual discussion about what it presents.
its ok though. I did that shit the entire time i was here posting regularly.
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
...
I would answer as 9/10 people answer both questions. I think the best action is to turn the switch and push the guy - assuming that I know nothing about the relative value to society of all people involved. I assume that the hypothetical is implying that all the people are of equal excellence.
Why wouldn't I push the guy to save 5 others? There are much greater emotional barriers to taking the right action in the second hypothetical.
This brings me back to Sneezing Penis's initial question: what's up with levers? In what ways does this same psychological mechanic of the lever arise in our lives?
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
|
I have never seen this many people miss the point.
if i walked up to you and asked you "why did 90% of people vote for that candidate?" and you answer "I didn't vote for him!".
that isn't an answer to the question, it is a reaction of a person unable to imagine a situation that didn't involve them and therefor placing themselves in the aforementioned situation rather than think of a proper answer to the question or keep their mouth shut.
|
CosmicJoke
happy mutant


Registered: 04/05/00
Posts: 10,848
Loc: Portland, OR
|
|
Pardon? I attempted all of the above, to think hypothetically about what I would do in the situation as well as others' motives who'd choose differently. :/
Quote:
CosmicJoke said: I would not act. The sole man was never in any danger - you're the only danger to him. Perhaps people don't fully realize this when they're pulling a lever, and are able to focus on the utilitarian action of saving five people, because they're not getting their hands dirty. When you have to push the guy onto the tracks, that's gritty and visceral. It shifts their focus from being the hero who pulled the lever to the uglier truth, that they're sentencing somebody to death that had nothing to do with this.
By all means link the episode of the radio show if you want a more in depth discussion.
-------------------- Everything is better than it was the last time. I'm good. If we could look into each others hearts, and understand the unique challenges each of us faces, I think we would treat each other much more gently, with more love, patience, tolerance, and care. It takes a lot of courage to go out there and radiate your essence. I know you scared, you should ask us if we scared too. If you was there, and we just knew you cared too.
|
Mr Person



Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: hmmn]
#19244589 - 12/08/13 11:38 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hmmn said:
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
I think this is definitely the wrong attitude. People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas. The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating. I like that the bar is kept so high here.
Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times. So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.
|
hmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Mr Person]
#19244863 - 12/08/13 12:54 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
hmmn said:
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
I think this is definitely the wrong attitude. People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas. The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating. I like that the bar is kept so high here.
Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times. So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.
It's not about my topics (I haven't made any, haha); rather, I've given my observation of how people generally treat each others' and their own topics here. People commonly miss others' points and prefer clever one-liners and fallacious arguments aimed at confirming their existing views to a genuine examination of ideas on the basis of their merits. 
I have no interest in a forum whose purpose is to confirm what I already believe. What a waste time that would be! 
I do love good debate, though. Hope to see more of it...
|
Beanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX


Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said: recently NPR had a pretty nice piece where they polled a bunch of people the following questions.
1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.
9 out of 10 people said they would pull the lever as I am sure most of you would.
2) same scenario, except this time you are on a bridge overlooking the train tracks and the 1 person is standing next to you. the only way to save those 5 people is to push the guy onto the tracks to stop the train.
9 out of 10 people said they would not push the guy.
now that is odd, because ultimately they are the exact same things, with the exact same outcome. why do the majority of people, regardless of background, ethnicity, even culture overwhelmingly choose the same answers to those questions?
why would we choose to drastically change the outcome of two almost identical situations? the act of pushing someone is somehow worse than pulling a lever.
it works like that in many situations... I am sure it would be considered inhumane if instead of the "throwing of the switch" in electric chair death row situations was replaced with a person directly electrocuting them with some overpowered cattle prod.
I wish they would have delved deeper into the concept of "the lever" rather than focusing on why, when and how the moral centers of our brain become more active in these situations.
i wish that they would keep polling variations of the same question with slightly different minutia to pinpoint the very exact point at which a "lever" no longer has us making a moral distinction.
I'd be running away from the incoming train. How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.
Edited by Beanhead (12/08/13 01:10 PM)
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 16 hours, 42 minutes
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: hmmn]
#19245183 - 12/08/13 02:01 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
NPR page
Link to Harvard's moral test found on the NPR page.
Good idea to have some links. I was curious to see the questions in their original form.
I took a look, the questions rotate, I'm guessing they try to give new questions to every one who takes the test, the trolley question isn't on the survey I took. Most of the questions are IMO flawed, I answered only to move to the next question. I don't feel the need to contact the researchers and let them know that their questions are flawed as their inability to see that their questions are flawed or their purposeful asking of flawed questions makes me think they are narrow minded and wouldn't consider my criticism or duplicitous and would disregard my criticism and/or are trolling for feedback on their flawed questions.
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Mr Person]
#19245704 - 12/08/13 03:53 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
hmmn said:
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
I think this is definitely the wrong attitude. People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas. The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating. I like that the bar is kept so high here.
Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times. So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.
I am one of those people. I was here when this place was called Philosophy & Spirituality (or were they flip-flopped?). I too was guilty of having philosophical hubris (probably still am), but after the semantics and calling out of logical fallacies (by use of logical fallacies) we could eventually get down to some really good discussions/debates about metaphysical shit. relatively good... i guess one could equate a few years in here and watching donnie darko a few times to a college credit towards philo 101.
btw, is orgone still around here? or diploid? or the red panda obsessors?
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Beanhead]
#19245727 - 12/08/13 03:57 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beanhead said: How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.
what makes them wrong? in the subjective realm of morality, the stark polarity of answers given by the overwhelming majority shows that one of the answers is in fact not wrong. after all that is what morality is governed by: a collective agreement of where the arbitrary line is drawn on certain issues.
|
hmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
|
|
Orgone is definitely here, but seems to abandon any thread in which a valid line of inquiry into one of his boldly stated but ill supported positions is opened...
|
Mr Person



Registered: 02/02/12
Posts: 551
Loc: inner circle of fault
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said:
I am one of those people. I was here when this place was called Philosophy & Spirituality (or were they flip-flopped?). I too was guilty of having philosophical hubris (probably still am), but after the semantics and calling out of logical fallacies (by use of logical fallacies) we could eventually get down to some really good discussions/debates about metaphysical shit. relatively good... i guess one could equate a few years in here and watching donnie darko a few times to a college credit towards philo 101.
btw, is orgone still around here? or diploid? or the red panda obsessors?
I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the semantics issue, and I empathize with everyone who finds it frustrating trying to have a real discussion here. Stupid me, I just keep thinking there are diamonds in all this rough.
|
Beanhead
IS IRONIC PARADOX


Registered: 10/11/08
Posts: 17,257
Loc: Geospatial inversion.
Last seen: 3 years, 5 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Mr Person]
#19248872 - 12/09/13 06:05 AM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
SneezingPenis said:
Quote:
Beanhead said: How does fruitful debate arise from two wrong choices.
what makes them wrong? in the subjective realm of morality, the stark polarity of answers given by the overwhelming majority shows that one of the answers is in fact not wrong. after all that is what morality is governed by: a collective agreement of where the arbitrary line is drawn on certain issues.
Because the initial hypothesis is flawed and two wrongs don't make a right:
1) imagine that there are 5 workers, working on some train tracks and a train is coming. the only thing you can do to save them is pull a lever to make the train switch tracks, but there is 1 person working over there. Basically, your choice is to pull the lever, kill 1 guy and save 5, or do nothing and 5 people will die.
-> There are 5 people yet it's possible to kill one and 5 remain = does that mean i'm a trainworker too?
IF No: i'm not allowed around/on the traintracks and there is no lever to pull here, that's something that gets decided by the driver of the train, otherwise camera's follow the movement and the grid is automated.
I'd be shocked, with no feeling of guilt.
IF yes: I worked there for years? i'd know my fellow trainworkers and i'd call the person in danger or i'd yell his/their name(s). Waving my arms, screaming my lungs out.
Basically you make it seem like a simple choice but i'm not a hero nor do I need the power of life and death in my hands. I guess instead of the lever i'd make the automated grid my excuse.
Hypothesis 2: Be it through mechanical means or by your own hands, the blood sticks... Also on my hands (grid-excuse).
At the harbour I worked last summer there was a guy who couldn't work for over a year due to medical issues, when I started there he just came around and he would show me the ropes. He was so happy to be working again, like the harbour was his life and he finally returned! Then he got squashed by tons of steel.
Now I feel bad for this however death is inevitable and I can cope with that. Apply your hypothesis (read: murder) to this situation and i'd end up an addict or killing myself because of your "moral relativism"
TLDR: semantics-bs, murderer-society, i'm dumb and I don't get it.
Edited by Beanhead (12/09/13 06:09 AM)
|
hmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Beanhead]
#19249965 - 12/09/13 12:44 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The train hypothetical suffers from a lack of realism, but is still a useful hypothetical.
I have to wonder, though, whether you understand the role of hypothetical situations in analytic philosophy...
|
SneezingPenis
ACHOOOOOOOOO!!!!!111!

Registered: 01/15/05
Posts: 15,427
Last seen: 6 years, 8 months
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Beanhead]
#19250117 - 12/09/13 01:21 PM (10 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Beanhead said:
TLDR: i'm dumb and I don't get it.

|
hmmn


Registered: 01/09/13
Posts: 372
|
|
Lol, that was brutal
|
MarkostheGnostic
Elder



Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida
Last seen: 3 years, 2 days
|
|
I heard that show, it began a lively discussion with my Lady.
-------------------- Ξ³Ξ½αΏΆΞΈΞΉ ΟΞ±α½ΟΟΞ½ - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself
|
Vaipen
Psychonaut

Registered: 01/15/12
Posts: 782
Loc: Europe
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Mr Person]
#19367117 - 01/04/14 07:37 AM (10 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
hmmn said:
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
I think this is definitely the wrong attitude. People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas. The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating. I like that the bar is kept so high here.
Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times. So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.
And why is that humorous? All of us are at different levels of understanding when we come here. A teacher gets new students every year and has to repeat the same stuff again and again. And when a child doesn't get it, he needs to work with that child one on one so he gets it.
What you are saying is that once something has been discussed, the thread becomes a manual or textbook and no more replies are really needed. But that is not how a forum works. A forum is a dynamic process whereby people subscribe and unsubscribe and in the meantime participate on various levels of interaction and knowledge level. It is the interaction, the communication that is the reason we are here, not the content. We can look up content in a non-forum website. A forum by definition is a place of interaction between members.
I don't see why old timers should have some protection against newcomers, not why do they should feel above the rest because they have already discussed at length some topic or another. If you do not wish to rehash, then do not participate in a discussion, it is that simple. When they do, how is that different from a newbie wanting to explain his ideas and hoping for a platform? Both could be in it for the acknowledgement or the ego trip. The only difference is that the old timer feels he has more right to be annoyed for not getting the ego-boost he beleieves he deserves, while the newbie believes he has the right to have his fair say about the issue.
I also don't see why there should be a limit on whether or not something falls above some unseen and arbitrary line of discussion for it to be allowable to be discussed. I don't see it cannot be expected that from a rehashing some newbie will enter a new argument or come with a nice insight. Indeed, if we dismiss all noobs, referring to ancient topics, the purpose of interaction is diminished. Ideas and inspiration come from this exchange, not by checking off arguments already discussed before.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: Vaipen]
#19367190 - 01/04/14 08:16 AM (10 years, 27 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Vaipen said:
Quote:
Mr Person said:
Quote:
hmmn said:
I notice a lot of this as well. This forum would be a far more fruitful philosophy / debate forum if the culture shifted toward genuine consideration of ideas on their merits and away from egotism.
I think this is definitely the wrong attitude. People who think this way seem to believe that PS&P is a tool for them to hear what they want to hear about their own niche ideas. The painful truth is that not every hypothetical scenario is worthy of pages of good faith debating. I like that the bar is kept so high here.
Keep in mind also that this forum has been around for over a decade (along with some of it's members), and the ideas brought forth for discussion are rarely fresh or novel. If you use the search function, or the related threads feature at the bottom of each thread, you'll see that most topics have been discussed many times. So it's humorous when new members walk into the tail end of a 12 year conversation and expect everyone to get solemn and sincere for their pet topic.
And why is that humorous? All of us are at different levels of understanding when we come here. A teacher gets new students every year and has to repeat the same stuff again and again. And when a child doesn't get it, he needs to work with that child one on one so he gets it.
What you are saying is that once something has been discussed, the thread becomes a manual or textbook and no more replies are really needed. But that is not how a forum works. A forum is a dynamic process whereby people subscribe and unsubscribe and in the meantime participate on various levels of interaction and knowledge level. It is the interaction, the communication that is the reason we are here, not the content. We can look up content in a non-forum website. A forum by definition is a place of interaction between members.
I don't see why old timers should have some protection against newcomers, not why do they should feel above the rest because they have already discussed at length some topic or another. If you do not wish to rehash, then do not participate in a discussion, it is that simple. When they do, how is that different from a newbie wanting to explain his ideas and hoping for a platform? Both could be in it for the acknowledgement or the ego trip. The only difference is that the old timer feels he has more right to be annoyed for not getting the ego-boost he beleieves he deserves, while the newbie believes he has the right to have his fair say about the issue.
I also don't see why there should be a limit on whether or not something falls above some unseen and arbitrary line of discussion for it to be allowable to be discussed. I don't see it cannot be expected that from a rehashing some newbie will enter a new argument or come with a nice insight. Indeed, if we dismiss all noobs, referring to ancient topics, the purpose of interaction is diminished. Ideas and inspiration come from this exchange, not by checking off arguments already discussed before.
You are correct sir. But expect some crankiness when the presentation shows a real lack of potential.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
5-ht
Stranger
Registered: 01/03/14
Posts: 1
Last seen: 10 years, 9 days
|
|
If you want to truly understand what constitutes the moral sphere of the human psyche tuning into any form of media will surly be retarding your progress simply because it has a target audience base it knows it economically must not offend. You can't think of morals as residing as a center in the brain because there relative and conditioned upon us as children. To prove this to yourself all it takes is a reading of history prior to the influence of Christianity and its sister Islam. You may find it surprising that infanticide, ritual and recreational murder, as well as polygamy was practiced on every Continent prior to civilizations forming and consequently requiring a more compliant and cooperative human. This couldn't be done genetic ly like in ants and other species that find it beneficial to work in close quarters, it had to be done through tweaking of the human "mind". In Freudian terms a "super-ego" was developed through conditioning, defense mechanisms and repression of desire.
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: moral relativism [Re: 5-ht]
#19375786 - 01/06/14 04:15 AM (10 years, 25 days ago) |
|
|
Nice entry post. Welcome.
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
|