0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 14/11/2018 08:11:21To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemFrom those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiATrolley problem is often used to explore human moral values. But even the most basic case produced disagreements among people. Can it be modified to reduce disagreement? Hopefully it can help us finding a common ground to finally construct a universal moral standard.Here's the basic version.Quotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemThere is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it. Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.You have three (and only three) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?All people involved here are strangers to you.Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemFrom those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sl5KJ69qiA
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problemThere is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
First option includes:- do nothing- death of 5 strangersWhile second option includes:- do something, which is pulling a lever- death of a stranger
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 12/02/2022 13:21:27What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.
What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?
Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.You have three (and only three) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?All people involved here are strangers to you.Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?
They turn to follow the sun in order to maximise energy input to the flower mechanism, which determines the survival of the species by attracting pollinators and producing seeds..
Let us naively assume that you don't want to die in a trolley accident.Statistically, if you were among the group of prospective victims and the group were selected at random, it is more likely 5 in 109 that you would be in the larger group rather than the smaller group (1 in 109).Now apply my first test: would you like it to happen to you? Statistically, you would want me to save the larger group because that is more likely to contain you (or your loved ones, if you want to apply the second test) .
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 25/11/2021 10:29:33Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.You have three (and only three) options:Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?All people involved here are strangers to you.Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?A condition can be added to make the options free from conversion factor. It's that the stopping device is going to be expired soon, which will make it useless after the event. So, the options are basically as follow:1. sacrifice 6 strangers2. sacrifice 1 stranger3. sacrifice 5 strangersI think I can safely say that most people will choose second option. But I won't be surprised if there are people who choose first option, because they think that reducing the number of people, especially strangers, is a good thing to do.
I hate this blog, I am putting it on ignore.By the way the answer to the OP is no.
Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 02/03/2022 17:01:05Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?I'm sure you can do the statistics. 5>2 in my world, and 1 = 1.
Where {do nothing} → ndead ≤ nalive, obviously. The moral dilemma is where you have three equal target groups labelled politicians, philosophers and priests, and only one trolley.
The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.Lawyers and bankers work for me when I need them, and oil the wheels of society. The 3Ps are parasites who contribute nothing but friction.
The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.
You might then start on pensioners, but we have a limited life span anyway, and have contributed to the public good through our taxes and investments, so we should be allowed to enjoy our pensions. Companies that rashly introduced early retirement to save money on the short term often found that, within a year or two, everyone who knew anything useful or had acquired a significant skill, had disappeared.