As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Which of these two options would you choose?

1468910

Posts

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Who gets hurt when you steal from a company: Every single person who would have gotten that money. Whether it is divided up as profit to shareholders, or payed out as wages, that money belongs to someone. It doesn't just disappear into thin air because at the moment it belongs to a "faceless corporation".
    I'm waiting. How does $200 across thousand or even millions of people cause pain?

    Also, if it is so small that it never even gets accounted, it actually didn't happen as far as shareholders or wages are concerned. The amount of money a company has, the dividends it pays, the salaries it pay, is all in the accounting it does, not in what did or did not appear in a register.
    werehippy wrote:
    My not understanding your argument: I understand it perfectly well, I just find it disgusting, idiotic, and surprising from you. You (and many people that work low level jobs in big companies) seem to prefer to imagine just because you don't meet the people behind the company every time you interact with the company, they must not exist or count.
    No, you don't understand it at all. You seem to think I actually support stealing or the notion of a "faceless, victimless corporation." I don't. Utilitarianism does.
    werehippy wrote:
    There's no magic "corporation" entity that can endlessly absorb punishment and is inherently evil; when you refer to a corporation you refer to the group of people that it represents.
    Not endless. $200. Just $200.
    werehippy wrote:
    I'm not saying the very act of stealing is always wrong, just that in most cases (especially those where it represents "fun" money to the thief) the benefit to the thief is outweighed by the negative to the person who is stolen from. If it's a small amount to save a live, or keep a home or car, then you can make the case that the negatives to the person who needs the money justifies theft. In a case where it represent disposable income for both both the thief and the victim, the person who the greatest benefit lies with the person who the money originally belongs to.
    This is completely illogical. You are hacking the very notion of Utilitarianism by applying principled ethics to it. You still have failed to explain to me in any rational, reasonable manner, how the loss of $200 to Best Buy, that doesn't even get noticed or reported or ever actually end up in their official accounting, hurts anyone. Who does it hurt? How does it hurt more than all of the great enjoyment that clerk gets out of the $200?
    werehippy wrote:
    Your rant about how the corporations deserve to be stolen from: Just because there is ALSO lose that can't be avoided (and I strongly disagree with your claim that each and every day there's accidental lose as large as any possible single theft), doesn't mean that this gives people a free pass to steal everything they can as long as it makes them "happy". Just because the person isn't tackled the second they walk out the door doesn't mean that no one notices it's missing. The receipts turn up wrong, inventory is missing, what ever the sign may be; lose ALWAYS is noticed. It may not be worth investigating if it's not months before it's noticed and its a small amount, but it's still always noticed somewhere.
    If no one notices, how can someone be hurt by it? And no, it is not always noticed. And even if it was, often no one cares and nothing is done or even reported.
    werehippy wrote:
    And, more pressing, what the hell does any of this have to do with anything? While you're absolutely wrong on both the fact that corporations can be victimized without "anyone" being hurt and the fact that this kind of crime will never be caught, even if you were right, how would that change anything? Since when do we apply the "if no one sees it, it didn't happen" to morality?
    It is just an example of how Utilitarianism sucks and fails as a means of making ethical decisions. A person, doing their best to weigh the resulting happiness vs. the resulting sorrow, is often likely to decide something clearly unethical, like deciding that stealing $200 out of the register would be really fun for them and wouldn't hurt anyone. Because to them the act seems to lead to a lot of happiness and not one bit of sorrow.

    More specifically, I was just responding to the question about why employment tests often feature these kinds of scenarios. I am absolutely correct about this - they feature them for the very reasons I describe. People who rationalize pros and cons instead of adopting moral principles are more likely to steal from the register. Get angry all you want, it can't change reality.

    And stop going on and on about how you aren't going to respond. It only makes you look like more of a belligerent.

    Yar on
  • JCMJCM Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Jesus, 4 forums, and all 4 the same question?

    I wouldnt press the buton. I'd just walk away, as

    1) 5 billion killed by another isnt my fault... but the fault os of the guy who set the buttons up. Let his soul bear the guil.

    2) What if only my button works, or what if it was a setup to make me kill? I'd hate to kill 4 billion, the find out the guy's button did nothing. Or have the guy press his button and kill more people.

    3) Its one hell of a way to solve the wars/hunger/overpopulation problems. After 5 billion die, even the Sunnis and Shiites will stop fighting to go and divert their anger to the sod who created the button. and the rest of the ppulation can live off the food pretty fine.

    4) "The lesser evil" has been used as an excuse to kill by everyone from Hitler to Nero, why should I follow their path? Ooops, I invoked Godwin's, time to leave.

    1) So 1 billion deaths (the people who wouldn't have died if you acted) is a fair trade for keeping yourself guilt free?

    2) It's a given that you've done everything humanly possible to determine that the situation is the way is present. This isn't a Encyclopedia Brown book where you try and find the logical hole, it's a choice between Kantian and Utilitarian morality.

    3) What the hell does this have to do with anything?

    4) How is this an argument against pushing the button (leaving aside the fact Nero wasn't that bad, he just got a bad wrap fromhistory)? It MIGHT have been good to pre-emptively kill Hitler (which gets into issues of causality), so all actions taken to get a lesser evil are wrong?

    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    JCM on
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar, why argue from the position of Utilitarianism if you don't agree with it and (seems to me at least) are only doing so in order to prove it isn't an effective ethical theory? Doesn't that run the risk of your argument being nothing more than a straw man hypothetical?

    As for the $200-cash-register-theif example, how can you equate someone weighing pros vs. cons with the resulting causality that they will thus be more likely (appealing to probability there) to do something unethical? One can believe in weighing the pros and cons in a situation and still believe stealing is wrong and not tend towards (as you assert) deciding that stealing $200 from a large company is fine.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    the whole point of these asinine questions is that there are no grey areas.

    the system will work. he will push the button. you can't kill him or talk him out of it.

    the mabey answers are basicly just red herrings. The questions are not ment to reflect reality. Honestly, if you have been posting about it in 4 diffrent forums, and have not had that explained to you... well... you probably are not reading the threads all that well.



    meh, I'd hit the button, cause I'm not worried about my soul. I'm worried about the billion lives I'd save. I'd feel horible about it and it would most like result in my own death(either suicide or it would get out and I'd get lynched) but by taking the action I doubled the number of survivors, and increased the chances of survial of the species.



    Does there really need to be another person there? Does it change the nature of the question if your inaction directly causes the deaths? Like, if you push the button 4 billion die, if you don't push the button 5 billion die? To me it does not.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • AegisAegis Fear My Dance Overshot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    JCM wrote:
    werehippy wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Jesus, 4 forums, and all 4 the same question?

    I wouldnt press the buton. I'd just walk away, as

    1) 5 billion killed by another isnt my fault... but the fault os of the guy who set the buttons up. Let his soul bear the guil.

    2) What if only my button works, or what if it was a setup to make me kill? I'd hate to kill 4 billion, the find out the guy's button did nothing. Or have the guy press his button and kill more people.

    3) Its one hell of a way to solve the wars/hunger/overpopulation problems. After 5 billion die, even the Sunnis and Shiites will stop fighting to go and divert their anger to the sod who created the button. and the rest of the ppulation can live off the food pretty fine.

    4) "The lesser evil" has been used as an excuse to kill by everyone from Hitler to Nero, why should I follow their path? Ooops, I invoked Godwin's, time to leave.

    1) So 1 billion deaths (the people who wouldn't have died if you acted) is a fair trade for keeping yourself guilt free?

    2) It's a given that you've done everything humanly possible to determine that the situation is the way is present. This isn't a Encyclopedia Brown book where you try and find the logical hole, it's a choice between Kantian and Utilitarian morality.

    3) What the hell does this have to do with anything?

    4) How is this an argument against pushing the button (leaving aside the fact Nero wasn't that bad, he just got a bad wrap fromhistory)? It MIGHT have been good to pre-emptively kill Hitler (which gets into issues of causality), so all actions taken to get a lesser evil are wrong?

    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    You're still neglecting the fact that by not pressing any button you are indirectly causing the deaths of 1 billion more people that wouldn't have died had you actually pressed the button. Yes, whomever created the billion-person-killing-machine would be responsible morally for the deaths of those that died through the resulting experiment, but that does not absolve the participants of any moral responsibility had they been in a position to lessen the resulting effects. You would still be responsible for the billion extra deaths that you could have prevented.
    JCM wrote:
    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived.

    Yes I would throw the 1 child in front of the shark to save the 2 about to get eaten provided there are no other options, which is the point of the OP's original hypothetical where you are only presented with those options. Similar to what Yar did when trying to form his conclusion, you are trying to answer the hypothetical by searching out alternatives where none exist in order to completely absolve you of any perceived moral shortcomings.

    As to your shark hypothetical, I believe this would fall under pointless and stupid hypothetical considering you have constructed it in such a way as to present two possible choices, yet in the next sentence fall into an argumentum ad hominem as you present a way out of it that was never indicated as a possible solution in the original hypothetical's bounds; in effect, nothing more than a weak, if not nonexistant, moral hypothetical.

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • JCMJCM Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Then lets put it this way.

    If I was 100% sure that the thing would go off, I would not push the button.
    If I had just 1% of doubt, I would not push the button.

    Nor would I deprive a mother of a kid on land because some dumbass left his kids swimming in the sea.

    Take it as you will, I dont believe actions forced onto people makes things their fault. Maybe I'd make a bad outsourced torturer, but I dont blame myself for the deaths of others because someone wishes to make me kill and I refuse.

    I wont kill, I wont go against my beliefs, and no button will change that, and no, I wont feel guilty for it, nor loose sleep over some button-maker's insane plot.

    I'll leave it at that, and unless youre a brazilian-malay who's been to every damn country and place Ive had been, seen all the shit I have, I doubt you can dispute whether I ( Julio Cezar, aka the poster writing this) will have any guilt in my mind (aka my brain and way of thinking, which is different from your way of thinking) and that my life (aka the life lived by me (aka me again) will be any different, except with less people. :wink:

    Have a nice day!

    JCM on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar wrote:
    It is just an example of how Utilitarianism sucks and fails as a means of making ethical decisions.

    Is this the one that's called begging the question? In any event, no--it is just an example of how Utilitarianism may support stealing in some situations. You'll have to show that stealing is categorically unethical before you prove that Utilitarianism sucks and fails.

    edit: and this Rule Utilitarianism pretty much ushers in collective action, like I said before. Go me, though I should really get some education :(

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • MrMisterMrMister Jesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Yar, you've clearly never heard of Rule Utilitarianism, Mills' own contribution to the philosophy, because stealing from someone richer than you is the textbook example of what it tells you not to do.

    Jesus.

    MrMister on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I love Yar and the Cat. Really.

    I would like someone to explain to me the point of MORAL/ETHICAL hypotheticals. I mean, other kind of hypothetical problems, fine.

    I don't believe this kind of question has ANY practical application. It is simply so abstract that it has become meaningless. All the attacks and changes and possible ramifications that others have put forth directly attack the validity of this question.

    (1) Ethical Hypothetical
    (2) If we ask this question, a whole lot of stupid stuff happens.
    (3) Asking this question is stupid.


    Here's a question: Is mainstream ethical thought, and university-related philosophy, utterly pointless and morally bankrupt?

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    the pratical application is in distinguishing between various ethical modes, and to spark debate.

    they do a good job of that.

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    poshniallo wrote:
    Here's a question: Is mainstream ethical thought, and university-related philosophy, utterly pointless and morally bankrupt?

    Yes. Truly ethical behavior only stems from careful attention to God's Word. Mainstream ethical thought, like so much in today's world, is only an attempt to rationalize away God's Word. Always accept God's Word in your heart, even when Satan appears before you with his honeyed tongue.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    thanks for the answer, redx.

    Sparking debate on a net forum is not something that's ever seemed difficult :lol:

    OK - distinguishing between various ethical modes - is there a point to that? Because I'm afraid I can't see it.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited December 2006
    JCM wrote:
    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    See, werehippy? See?

    Shiny baubles.

    So distracting.

    ElJeffe on
    I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    See, werehippy? See?

    Shiny baubles.

    So distracting.

    I admit it, you thoroughly proved your point, beyond any possibility of argument. Now, can you rebuild my shattered faith in human intelligence?

    werehippy on
  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    poshniallo wrote:
    OK - distinguishing between various ethical modes - is there a point to that? Because I'm afraid I can't see it.

    well, there are isn't really an absolute right answer. A lot of highly respected and a few highly intelegent people have writen about it. If you are going to be looking at things from various diffrent viewpoints, having tools to determine those to which you are predisposed, can be helpful.

    you really can't see that?

    redx on
    They moistly come out at night, moistly.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Mahnmut wrote:
    poshniallo wrote:
    Here's a question: Is mainstream ethical thought, and university-related philosophy, utterly pointless and morally bankrupt?

    Yes. Truly ethical behavior only stems from careful attention to God's Word. Mainstream ethical thought, like so much in today's world, is only an attempt to rationalize away God's Word. Always accept God's Word in your heart, even when Satan appears before you with his honeyed tongue.

    You need to be joking. Please, PLEASE, tell me this is some sort of cunning satire.

    I'm really not sure I can deal with this and Jeffe's shiny bauble point in the same thread.

    werehippy on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ah. So this is about looking at the respondent to see what kind of person they are?

    That's fine, that's valid (ignoring the authoritio coz I've read Kant and lots more supposedly clever people, although quite a lot of it just made me mad, especially the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil... oh and all the Socratic dialogues).

    However, if this is the point, those people who attacked the question, who tried to twist it, who found it nonsensically unrealistic, are doing just fine. They're showing their ethical predisposition (as am I).

    Please don't complain that people are breaking the lovely shiny hypothetical.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    MrMister wrote:
    Yar, you've clearly never heard of Rule Utilitarianism, Mills' own contribution to the philosophy, because stealing from someone richer than you is the textbook example of what it tells you not to do.

    Jesus.

    As much as I hate resorting to "Read the fucking book on what you're arguing against" there's really no other answer.

    I'm done arguing with Yar about it, because apparently company's are magic groups of people that don't (and shouldn't) care if anyone steals anything at any time, as long as it's some mystical amount that makes the thief the happiest person on Earth but is just chump change to those damn rich people that actually run everything (fuck them anyway, since if a theft doesn't ruin you and kill your kids it doesn't count in the first place). For fuck's sake.

    werehippy on
  • Regina FongRegina Fong Allons-y, Alonso Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    The Cat wrote:
    MrMister wrote:
    The Cat wrote:
    No, I think I'd kill the psycho who thought it would be Fun Times to make me choose, which should give you a clue as to my opinion of bullshit hypotheticals, those who think they're at all useful in exploring ethics, and by extension you. Idiot.

    Late. Read the thread.

    I did, and fuck that noise. There's no virtue in the scenario. If you want to talk about tough choices, make an attempt at basic realism. These stupid pseudotraps don't advance any understanding of ethical action, most importantly because they utterly ignore the vital importance of context.

    Yes.

    As I said myself before, dumbing down these scenarios results in them being useless as learning devices. Stupid hypotheticals are only fun at parties, and even then, they should at least be creative stupid hypotheticals (anyone who ever played Zobmondo will know what I mean).

    Oh, and by the way Cat, you'd like Zobmondo (it goes best with alcohol).

    Regina Fong on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    1) A person's worth isn't tied to their pay. What a person earns doesn't dictate what they are worth, only what the work they've done is worth.
    No it doesn't. It indicates how much someone is willing to pay them, which doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with volume or quality of value created.

    Yeah, the value they generate isn't the ONLY factor, it's just the most significant. There's also the availability of the labor and skillset (rarer can demand more money, since there's competition for their work, etc).
    werehippy wrote:
    2) If anything, the correlation between income earned (minus owner's return for resources invested and other costs) is the UPPER bound on the wage the worker is paid. No one will pay an employee MORE than they are earning for the business, but there are plenty of cases where the worker doesn't work as hard as they could/should be. Again, in the long term this evens out with workers who slag being promoted slower or being fired, but you seem to want to focus on the near term.
    It's cute that you think that people only get promoted because they deserve it, but other than that I don't see what any of this has to do with anything. If a person's pay were based on the value they create minus the costs of running the business, however, you're stating that every employee is being blatantly ripped off all the time, as the employees shouldn't be expected to soak up the expenses of running the business they don't own or operate.

    For fuck's sake, this really isn't anything radical, and I know you've had this argument with me and other people before.

    How the hell is it ripping the employee off to take the cost of maintaining the business out of the money coming in before paying the employees. If businesses didn't do that, each and every person in the world would have to be self employed, since no business could possibly exist. Your "soaking up the cost" is naive and clearly uninformed. There is no fucking soaking going on, the employer is making money for providing a venue where the worker can create value and earn money. You're acting as if the business should do this for free, just for the privilege of having someone work for them.

    Christ, if it's so evil to actually expect to not just keep throwing money away so the employee can keep every penny of value they create, how about you just work for yourself. Could it possibly be because there's risks and costs involved with running a business, that the business owner should deserve to make money on? There's a REASON that we have companies instead of the cottage industries of the rest of human history, and it's because it's better for everyone involved. There are more jobs
    werehippy wrote:
    3) If you want an example of a case where the worker's wage is exactly and always tied to the work they are doing, I' already gave you one, any position compensated only on commission. The more money they bring in, the more they are paid.
    Special. Not terribly relavent to a discussion of wage and salary based positions though, since commissions aren't wages or salaries. Most jobs aren't commission anyway.

    It's not my fault you keep using words you don't mean to. Salary means money you get for doing work. Commission is a type of salary structure. No need to act bitchy because you don't want to deal with an example of exactly what you want to advocate, and the fact it only works in certain very specific industries for perfectly valid (and rational, non-evil) reasons.
    werehippy wrote:
    Again, I think we've actually talked about this and I know that you've had tough breaks, but that doesn't change the underlying economic realities.
    Yeah, I'm the only one who has had tough breaks. I'm an exception, not the norm. I'm special. And certainly no one else who has had tough breaks isn't so lucky as me to have a place to fall back to when such toughs get broken or whatever the fuck that expression is supposed to mean. People getting screwed over by their employers also totally isn't an economic reality. Right. :roll:

    I was merely trying to give you an out for acting emotional and clearly having no idea what you're talking about economically. There's no grand conspiracy to fuck the working man, there's simply inevitable economic forces at work.

    People need to do something to generate resources in order to live a certain lifestyle. They can't each work for themselves (because there are costs and risks invovled, and small businesses are almost always inherently less effective than larger ones), so they need to work for other people. The work they do generates a certain amount of value, and they are given an agreed upon share of the value that remains after the business owner has been compensated for THEIR work and resources. No one is holding a gun to anyone's head, and everyone benefits. In a couple millenniums of trying, we've yet to find anything better or more equitable.

    Bitching and ranting doesn't do anything to change a single one of those facts.
    You skipped the on-topic questions and opted to pursue the tangent. Since you believe pay is directly tied to value created, is someone who makes $10 an hour more deserving of being saved than someone who makes $5 an hour, as per the doctors and hobos previously discussed?

    Listen, you clearly have some sort of fucking neurosis about equating wage earned to the value of the human doing the work. No one else is claiming this is the case. It's all you.

    It's fucking retarded to even suggest ranking people according to how much they earn. It's all you. There MAY be a case to be made for people with absolutely unique skillsets (a doctor who has or will find the cure for cancer, a Stephen Hawkings, etc.) being placed ahead of people who don't have as much value to humanity, but that's debatable at best and has fuck all to do with their income.

    werehippy on
  • JCMJCM Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    ElJeffe wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    See, werehippy? See?

    Shiny baubles.

    So distracting.

    My apologies, was that a personal attack in a debate ?

    Im far from a hippie, and have no qualms with hurting someone with a reason. But thas it. If that was a pesonal attack, I express my regrets that the discussion came to that.... but hey, anonymousity over the net right?

    If it wasnt a personal attack, then my apologies, as netspeak is still weird even after 10 years online I still have trouble understanding you guys, sorry for my stupidity.

    JCM on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    JCM - I think he was talking to werehippy. Not calling you a werehippy.

    See?

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Mahnmut wrote:
    poshniallo wrote:
    Here's a question: Is mainstream ethical thought, and university-related philosophy, utterly pointless and morally bankrupt?

    Yes. Truly ethical behavior only stems from careful attention to God's Word. Mainstream ethical thought, like so much in today's world, is only an attempt to rationalize away God's Word. Always accept God's Word in your heart, even when Satan appears before you with his honeyed tongue.

    You need to be joking. Please, PLEASE, tell me this is some sort of cunning satire.

    I'm really not sure I can deal with this and Jeffe's shiny bauble point in the same thread.

    Good news: I'm joking.

    Bad news: This study Bible wasn't.

    Sorry pal. :(

    JCM, that was ElJeffe suggesting that you got distracted by the factors of the hypothetical that were beside the point, and that those factors make the hypothetical bad even though hypotheticals might have their uses. It was a mild personal attack, I guess. werehippy's response to your numbered points, though? Not a personal attack, just a cogent rebuttal. Deal. ;)

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • ImmaculateImmaculate Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    How about I kick the shit out of the other guy and press both buttons?

    Edit: I should have read more than the first post, like 6 posts down. :oops:

    But my opinion still stands.

    Immaculate on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    JCM wrote:
    ElJeffe wrote:
    JCM wrote:
    Whoa, four forums with the same question,and this forum translates "what would you do" means " as "flame the guy's answer"? :roll:

    Does one have 100% certainty that the guy will press his button? That his button works? Nope? See, thats whre the "What the hell does this have to do with anything?" comes in. Those sods did things based on "maybes" and "future scenarios", and paid the price.

    So the person isnt 100% sure, and still killed? neither did many people who justified genocide on "maybes".

    Will you throw 1 child in front of a shark to save 2 about to get eaten?
    Because if youre willing to blow up 4 billion, you might as well toss that kid in the water.

    Im not killing anyone, enjoy the kid's life in your hands,while I'll be looking out for the idiot who let those 2 kids swim in shark-infested waters, or the idiot who created the button.

    Oh,and just maybe, the 2 kids also wouldve survived. :wink:

    Im not pressing any button. :P

    See, werehippy? See?

    Shiny baubles.

    So distracting.

    My apologies, was that a personal attack in a debate ?

    Im far from a hippie, and have no qualms with hurting someone with a reason. But thas it. If that was a pesonal attack, I express my regrets that the discussion came to that.... but hey, anonymousity over the net right?

    If it wasnt a personal attack, then my apologies, as netspeak is still weird even after 10 years online I still have trouble understanding you guys, sorry for my stupidity.

    God DAMN, what the hell is wrong with this topic, that it brings out everyone with no idea what's going on and a certainty they're smarter than everyone else?

    Any time you're done feeling prosecuted, feel free to quit freaking out the second anyone disagrees with you and join the actual discussion. No one is attacking you, and it is possible for us to have a disagreement without tearing into each other (usually).

    Again, to address your points:

    You know the situation is the way it's described because that's the entire point of the discussion. This isn't a "how do you know how you know what you know" it's "what do you do given X". It's absolutely valid to question the premises, but once you've fixated on it (and started getting aggressive about it) you've become nothing but a useless drag on discussion.

    The genocide comment is pointless. Read the first few pages for a discussion that's already more exhaustive than I care to repeat about why that has no bearing here.

    The two kids vs one kid scenario IS the same type of discussion, but it brings up the "shiny bauble element" meaning that the more elements there are in a scenario, the more people will fixate and bitch about completely irrelevant details. If there was absolutely no other way to save the two kids than to kill (or let die) one kid, then yes, saving more people is the better choice. The reason it's a bad example is because it's exponentially less possible to say anything certain about a shark killing some number of kids, meaning you waste more time talking about completely useless facets of the situation.

    werehippy on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Mahnmut wrote:
    werehippy wrote:
    Mahnmut wrote:
    poshniallo wrote:
    Here's a question: Is mainstream ethical thought, and university-related philosophy, utterly pointless and morally bankrupt?

    Yes. Truly ethical behavior only stems from careful attention to God's Word. Mainstream ethical thought, like so much in today's world, is only an attempt to rationalize away God's Word. Always accept God's Word in your heart, even when Satan appears before you with his honeyed tongue.

    You need to be joking. Please, PLEASE, tell me this is some sort of cunning satire.

    I'm really not sure I can deal with this and Jeffe's shiny bauble point in the same thread.

    Good news: I'm joking.

    Bad news: This study Bible wasn't.

    Sorry pal. :(

    Ok, that's fine. I accept that stupid crap like that exists, I'm not ready to deal with someone saying it seriously to my face. :)
    JCM, that was ElJeffe suggesting that you got distracted by the factors of the hypothetical that were beside the point, and that those factors make the hypothetical bad even though hypotheticals might have their uses. It was a mild personal attack, I guess. werehippy's response to your numbered points, though? Not a personal attack, just a cogent rebuttal. Deal. ;)

    No need to respond to this, but I'm including it again just to reenforce the points I made above. Thanks :)

    werehippy on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    if the outcomes of both action and inaction are absolutely certain, then there is no intrinsic difference in value between act and omission. as such, choosing to press the button and choosing to not press the button are equally significant value-laden choices.

    this hypothetical sucks and appeals too much to emotion without really distilling the issue.

    a better hypothetical would be stated thus:

    pressing button 1 give you 4x
    not pressing button 1 gives you 5x

    a rational actor would press the button if x is "negative" and not press it if x is "positive".

    edit: when i say better hypothetical, i mean more clear (and not necessarily "better" in terms of "good").

    Ketherial on
  • ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    This topic makes me sad Casket is no longer here:

    "I'd see if we could time it to press our buttons at the same time and kill 9 billion people. And I would furiously masturbate while we pressed them."

    Zsetrek on
  • METAzraeLMETAzraeL Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Well, if 4 billion die at the minimum, wouldn't you want to max out the gains and let him push his button? I mean, that's almost a fresh start on the world. 'Twould be glorious.

    METAzraeL on

    dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
    sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ketherial wrote:
    if the outcomes of both action and inaction are absolutely certain, then there is no intrinsic difference in value between act and omission. as such, choosing to press the button and choosing to not press the button are equally significant value-laden choices.

    this hypothetical sucks and appeals too much to emotion without really distilling the issue.

    a better hypothetical would be stated thus:

    pressing button 1 give you 4x
    not pressing button 1 gives you 5x

    a rational actor would press the button if x is "negative" and not press it if x is "positive".

    edit: when i say better hypothetical, i mean more clear (and not necessarily "better" in terms of "good").

    You deserve a hug.

    Not from me though.

    But you do deserve a hug.

    Incenjucar on
  • werehippywerehippy Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Ketherial wrote:
    if the outcomes of both action and inaction are absolutely certain, then there is no intrinsic difference in value between act and omission. as such, choosing to press the button and choosing to not press the button are equally significant value-laden choices.

    this hypothetical sucks and appeals too much to emotion without really distilling the issue.

    a better hypothetical would be stated thus:

    pressing button 1 give you 4x
    not pressing button 1 gives you 5x

    a rational actor would press the button if x is "negative" and not press it if x is "positive".

    edit: when i say better hypothetical, i mean more clear (and not necessarily "better" in terms of "good").

    You deserve a hug.

    Not from me though.

    But you do deserve a hug.

    It's simpler, in that this version is the most stripped down possible, but it loses key concept that will change people's choices.

    "Negative" and "positive" are simply too nebulous for most people to wrap their minds around. There is a not insignificant group of people who think that their choice is one thing for a negative like "lose $5" and the opposite for "kill someone". That, and the fact there's really no such thing as four or five positives or negatives, or more accurately that saying that is going to create more bitching than the original scenario, means this is a great summary but not an acceptable replacement.

    werehippy on
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar VChatter Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Ketherial wrote:
    if the outcomes of both action and inaction are absolutely certain, then there is no intrinsic difference in value between act and omission. as such, choosing to press the button and choosing to not press the button are equally significant value-laden choices.

    this hypothetical sucks and appeals too much to emotion without really distilling the issue.

    a better hypothetical would be stated thus:

    pressing button 1 give you 4x
    not pressing button 1 gives you 5x

    a rational actor would press the button if x is "negative" and not press it if x is "positive".

    edit: when i say better hypothetical, i mean more clear (and not necessarily "better" in terms of "good").

    You deserve a hug.

    Not from me though.

    But you do deserve a hug.

    It's simpler, in that this version is the most stripped down possible, but it loses key concept that will change people's choices.

    "Negative" and "positive" are simply too nebulous for most people to wrap their minds around. There is a not insignificant group of people who think that their choice is one thing for a negative like "lose $5" and the opposite for "kill someone". That, and the fact there's really no such thing as four or five positives or negatives, or more accurately that saying that is going to create more bitching than the original scenario, means this is a great summary but not an acceptable replacement.

    That is why you test for variations of X.

    I said hug, not sexing.

    Incenjucar on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    werehippy wrote:
    Incenjucar wrote:
    Ketherial wrote:
    if the outcomes of both action and inaction are absolutely certain, then there is no intrinsic difference in value between act and omission. as such, choosing to press the button and choosing to not press the button are equally significant value-laden choices.

    this hypothetical sucks and appeals too much to emotion without really distilling the issue.

    a better hypothetical would be stated thus:

    pressing button 1 give you 4x
    not pressing button 1 gives you 5x

    a rational actor would press the button if x is "negative" and not press it if x is "positive".

    edit: when i say better hypothetical, i mean more clear (and not necessarily "better" in terms of "good").

    You deserve a hug.

    Not from me though.

    But you do deserve a hug.

    It's simpler, in that this version is the most stripped down possible, but it loses key concept that will change people's choices.

    "Negative" and "positive" are simply too nebulous for most people to wrap their minds around. There is a not insignificant group of people who think that their choice is one thing for a negative like "lose $5" and the opposite for "kill someone". That, and the fact there's really no such thing as four or five positives or negatives, or more accurately that saying that is going to create more bitching than the original scenario, means this is a great summary but not an acceptable replacement.

    my point was that the hypothetical doesnt accomplish anything because it forces act and omission to be of identical value by assuming omniscience.

    hence it just becomes a question of 4 human lives vs. 5 human lives, 4 cakes vs. 5 cakes or 4 dollars vs. 5 dollars. an individual's subjective valuation of x's positive or negative value (whether it be human lives, cake or dollars) doesnt have anything to do with this hypothetical. it's a totally separate discussion.

    the hypothetical would be much, much better (as in good and not just more clear), if you werent provided with absolute knowledge.

    if for example you were put in a room with mr. x, and told that if you dont keep mr. x in this room forever, his sickness (which you are strangely immune to, maybe like how arcs are immune to aids) will spread and kill thousands of people. you have no idea who these people are, who have captured both you and mr. x. mr. x also of course has no idea what you are talking about, feels fine and just wants to go home. now, you are faced with actually having to imprison a person based on imperfect information or risk having that person kill thousands by his ignorance. this hypothetical i think would spark more interesting moral debate, especially because now you are acting on your perception, the situation, your information, your morals, etc., and not just numbers.

    Ketherial on
  • Bliss 101Bliss 101 Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Ketherial wrote:
    the hypothetical would be much, much better (as in good and not just more clear), if you werent provided with absolute knowledge.

    And it would be more relevant to reality, even if you were provided with absolute knowledge of the uncertainties involved, e.g.

    "Your button is guaranteed to kill half of humanity. The other guy's button has an X% chance to wipe out the entire human race, else it will do nothing and you both get to go home. Give a threshold for the value of X, below which you would not press your button."

    Bliss 101 on
    MSL59.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bliss 101 wrote:
    Ketherial wrote:
    the hypothetical would be much, much better (as in good and not just more clear), if you werent provided with absolute knowledge.

    And it would be more relevant to reality, even if you were provided with absolute knowledge of the uncertainties involved, e.g.

    "Your button is guaranteed to kill half of humanity. The other guy's button has an X% chance to wipe out the entire human race, else it will do nothing and you both get to go home. Give a threshold for the value of X, below which you would not press your button."
    Applying Murphy's Law, I would press my button unless the other button had a 0 percent chance of wiping out the human race.

    Couscous on
  • MahnmutMahnmut Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Bliss 101 wrote:
    Ketherial wrote:
    the hypothetical would be much, much better (as in good and not just more clear), if you werent provided with absolute knowledge.

    And it would be more relevant to reality, even if you were provided with absolute knowledge of the uncertainties involved, e.g.

    "Your button is guaranteed to kill half of humanity. The other guy's button has an X% chance to wipe out the entire human race, else it will do nothing and you both get to go home. Give a threshold for the value of X, below which you would not press your button."

    Well--yes and no. It's still Kant vs Mills, where Kant never ever presses the button that will kill people. You've just tacked on some math for Mills.

    Mahnmut on
    Steam/LoL: Jericho89
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    I can't help but think that people don't like these hypotheticals so much in a general way not because there's anything particularly wrong with well phrased ones (which this is not), but because they hate considering a question like this and want to get the hell out of it anyway they can - because they might answer "wrong".

    This is vaguely unsettling in a way, since were the situation so black and white (in which every example otherwise it is not, but on the up side you get more options) then they should have no trouble answering concisely. Instead they run metaphorically screaming in terror from the choice.

    electricitylikesme on
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Electricitylikesme - I assure you the reason I don't like hypotheticals is not because they scare me. If anything it's the opposite - that they are so safe and simple that they are nothing like real-world moral choices. For example, this problem, as some have mentioned, assumes omniscience. In the real world, I am often unsure what the results of my actions will be, as they involve other people.

    I feel that your statement is inflammatory, but I also want to respond in kind - that people who like this kind of moral dilemma are scared of the unanswerable, unknowable difficulties of acting morally in the real world. To be honest I think most people are like this - they believe the news because the alternative (that we know almost nothing about what goes on in the outside world) is too scary. That people believe in God because mortality is too scary. My life is full of people pretending to be sure of things, and the smell of fear is overpowering.

    poshniallo on
    I figure I could take a bear.
  • ForarForar #432 Toronto, Ontario, CanadaRegistered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Hrm, two further questions;

    1) Do I know any of either group of people. Let's face it; if the 5 billion contained strangers, and the 4 billion contained every single person I ever knew, the choice might be a bit harder.

    2) Am I in either group?

    Forar on
    First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
  • JCMJCM Registered User regular
    edited December 2006
    Finally gets whats going on.

    Man sometimes these debates do give me a headache, anyone has ever this book?
    Imagine hundreds of questions, like the OP's one.


    0894803204.01._AA240_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

    JCM on
This discussion has been closed.