Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
You're missing the point. If the train reconnects to the track then it means that in the case that the man was not there nothing would occur if the lever was pulled, however if track split away from the main track then pulling the lever would be obligatory because it would be equivalent to saving five lives. In Ned's case the man being there is a crucial part of the plan to save the hikers, wherein in Oscar and case 2, the man's death is a foreseen consequence of the plan, and if he wasn't there the plan would have no downsides and would therefore be morally required of anyone standing at the switch.
Man, most of you guys are seriously missing the point. The questions are purposefully structured and simplified. Do you really, honestly want me to come up with a question that's wholly realistic but covers the same variables just so you have a question that's worthy of you?
AJAlkaline40 on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
You're missing the point. If the train reconnects to the track then it means that in the case that the man was not there nothing would occur if the lever was pulled, however if track split away from the main track then pulling the lever would be obligatory because it would be equivalent to saving five lives. In Ned's case the man being there is a crucial part of the plan to save the hikers, wherein in Oscar and case 2, the man's death is a foreseen consequence of the plan, and if he wasn't there the plan would have no downsides and would therefore be morally required of anyone standing at the switch.
Man, most of you guys are seriously missing the point. The questions are purposefully structured and simplified. Do you really, honestly want me to come up with a question that's wholly realistic but covers the same variables just so you have a question that's worthy of you?
You misinterpret. The guy would still be on the optional track so it would still be a 1 active vs. 5 passive kills! The only thing changed would be that people wouldn't have to question if one fat guy can stop a train...
The whole sidetrack connecting back to the main track is irrelevant to the question and if left out would cause less confusion while still posing the same question in a more realistic sense.
So, does it make me a morally corrupt individual if one of my first thoughts was "Stupid people want to walk on possibly active train/trolley tracks? Fuck 'em."?
So, does it make me a morally corrupt individual if one of my first thoughts was "Stupid people want to walk on possibly active train/trolley tracks? Fuck 'em."?
It makes you presumptuous. Maybe they're on the track for a reason not owing to their own personal failure as human beings.
Incenjucar on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
The questions are purposefully structured and simplified
Well, that's bit of a problem, isn't it? Morality is in the details. I mean, from a moral point of view, these scenarios are completely different depending on if those five hikers are scientists on their way to reveal the cure for cancer or if they're members of Al Qaeda on their way to bomb an orphanage.
reVerse on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited September 2008
So:
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
2. Of course it would be wrong.
3. Yes - flip the switch by argument of utilitarianism, unlike the previous question (in which the single person was totally free of responsibility) all the people in this scenario have chosen to put themselves in harms way. Run over the one hiker and then jail the rest for being retarded/causing the other guy to be run over.
4. Again let the rest die, the fat man on the bridge has done nothing to put himself in harms way.
Ned should kill the morbidly obese guy and not the 5 healthy hikers.
Fat guy is just going to be a burden to our health care system, and he's wearing a suit which means a good portion of his wealth will be redistributed due to the estate tax because is he rich. Hell, he probably even votes republican and would likely support McCain. The hiking hippies almost certainly are going to vote for Obama.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
The questions are purposefully structured and simplified
Well, that's bit of a problem, isn't it? Morality is in the details. I mean, from a moral point of view, these scenarios are completely different depending on if those five hikers are scientists on their way to reveal that they've discovered the cure for cancer or if they're members of Al Qaeda on their way to bomb an orphanage.
You're gonna have to assume they're all of the same personal worth as all you know about them is that they are in the way of your speeding train. So the morality doesn't change whether you run over the Messiah or Bin Laden as you made the decision with what little information you had.
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
You know I've heard an interesting estimation that siblings who are separated at birth apparently have an oddly higher incidence, if they meet in adult life, of ending up living as boyfriend/girlfriend. I really want to know what the truth is to this.
Ned should kill the morbidly obese guy and not the 5 healthy hikers.
Fat guy is just going to be a burden to our health care system, and he's wearing a suit which means a good portion of his wealth will be redistributed due to the estate tax because is he rich. Hell, he probably even votes republican and would likely support McCain. The hiking hippies almost certainly are going to vote for Obama.
plus, being fat, he uses more soap than the average person.
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
In practice, I agree completely. The hypothetical specifies no negative outcomes aside from how society sees it, though.
Doc on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
You know I've heard an interesting estimation that siblings who are separated at birth apparently have an oddly higher incidence, if they meet in adult life, of ending up living as boyfriend/girlfriend. I really want to know what the truth is to this.
Well that is the case in most of the cases I remember reading about this year. Maybe a part of it is not growing up with the sibling, I do not know - don't know if I wan't to know either!
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
You're missing the point. If the train reconnects to the track then it means that in the case that the man was not there nothing would occur if the lever was pulled, however if track split away from the main track then pulling the lever would be obligatory because it would be equivalent to saving five lives. In Ned's case the man being there is a crucial part of the plan to save the hikers, wherein in Oscar and case 2, the man's death is a foreseen consequence of the plan, and if he wasn't there the plan would have no downsides and would therefore be morally required of anyone standing at the switch.
Man, most of you guys are seriously missing the point. The questions are purposefully structured and simplified. Do you really, honestly want me to come up with a question that's wholly realistic but covers the same variables just so you have a question that's worthy of you?
You misinterpret. The guy would still be on the optional track so it would still be a 1 active vs. 5 passive kills! The only thing changed would be that people wouldn't have to question if one fat guy can stop a train...
The whole sidetrack connecting back to the main track is irrelevant to the question and if left out would cause less confusion while still posing the same question in a more realistic sense.
No, you see, that's the point of question 2 in the OP. The point of this question was to test question 3 if it was caused by the throwing of a switch rather than tossing someone onto the track. The five passive versus one active death is not the thing being tested here, it's not actually the main variable in how most people decide whether particular courses of action are moral or not. Like I said before, in question 2, if the man was not there it would be obligatory to go onto the side track, however in Ned's case if the man was not there and you went onto the side track then nothing would happen. This is the original intention of the experimenters in creating this problem. Honestly, I read the book!
The questions are purposefully structured and simplified
Well, that's bit of a problem, isn't it? Morality is in the details. I mean, from a moral point of view, these scenarios are completely different depending on if those five hikers are scientists on their way to reveal the cure for cancer or if they're members of Al Qaeda on their way to bomb an orphanage.
But you don't know who they are, and that's the point. Moral judgments often have to be made without the details, the purpose of these questions is to derive your 'moral shorthand', your split-second, knee-jerk morality, not necessarily your extreme deliberation that requires you to use your full suite of skills you learned in logic class.
AJAlkaline40 on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
The questions are purposefully structured and simplified
Well, that's bit of a problem, isn't it? Morality is in the details. I mean, from a moral point of view, these scenarios are completely different depending on if those five hikers are scientists on their way to reveal the cure for cancer or if they're members of Al Qaeda on their way to bomb an orphanage.
But you don't know who they are, and that's the point. Moral judgments often have to be made without the details, the purpose of these questions is to derive your 'moral shorthand', your split-second, knee-jerk morality, not necessarily your extreme deliberation that requires you to use your full suite of skills you learned in logic class.
Immoral acts committed due to ignorance are still immoral acts. You might think that what you did was good and moral, but that don't make it so.
What's fascinating about the train questions are that they've been translated into various languages and tried across various cultures, even so far as to taking them to remote Amazonian tribes and phrasing them around crocodiles in the water and the answers are uniform. It's okay to sacrifice a trapped actor, it's not okay to sacrifice an active actor.
Doesn't this suggest a amazing genetic component to morality?
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
You know I've heard an interesting estimation that siblings who are separated at birth apparently have an oddly higher incidence, if they meet in adult life, of ending up living as boyfriend/girlfriend. I really want to know what the truth is to this.
Well that is the case in most of the cases I remember reading about this year. Maybe a part of it is not growing up with the sibling, I do not know - don't know if I wan't to know either!
That makes perfect sense. You don't have a biological understanding of who is related to you, they fall into those relationship roles because you are incredibly familiar with them and they have filled the role of a sibling in your life since you were young. It's the same thing with child sexual abuse, fathers who have not spent a large hand in raising their children are incredibly more likely to sexually abuse them. I mean, obviously that could just be correlation and not causation, but it would make sense if it was. I might add that arranged marriages in which the two betrothed are raised together in the same house from a young age have a huge failure rate.
AJAlkaline40 on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
You're missing the point. If the train reconnects to the track then it means that in the case that the man was not there nothing would occur if the lever was pulled, however if track split away from the main track then pulling the lever would be obligatory because it would be equivalent to saving five lives. In Ned's case the man being there is a crucial part of the plan to save the hikers, wherein in Oscar and case 2, the man's death is a foreseen consequence of the plan, and if he wasn't there the plan would have no downsides and would therefore be morally required of anyone standing at the switch.
Man, most of you guys are seriously missing the point. The questions are purposefully structured and simplified. Do you really, honestly want me to come up with a question that's wholly realistic but covers the same variables just so you have a question that's worthy of you?
You misinterpret. The guy would still be on the optional track so it would still be a 1 active vs. 5 passive kills! The only thing changed would be that people wouldn't have to question if one fat guy can stop a train...
The whole sidetrack connecting back to the main track is irrelevant to the question and if left out would cause less confusion while still posing the same question in a more realistic sense.
No, you see, that's the point of question 2 in the OP. The point of this question was to test question 3 if it was caused by the throwing of a switch rather than tossing someone onto the track. The five passive versus one active death is not the thing being tested here, it's not actually the main variable in how most people decide whether particular courses of action are moral or not. Like I said before, in question 2, if the man was not there it would be obligatory to go onto the side track, however in Ned's case if the man was not there and you went onto the side track then nothing would happen. This is the original intention of the experimenters in creating this problem. Honestly, I read the book!
I don't get this. The man is there so why not simplify it and make the sidetrack disconnect.
In both what I'm arguing for and the drawing above the same thing happens, the train hits one guy by action of Ned instead of five. The only thing removed is the concept of "can one fat guy stop a moving train" which itself isn't relevant to the morality question. If the man wasn't there in my concept then yes no-one would die if the train switched tracks but how is that relevant in this question because the man IS there - how does it matter when the question has nothing to do with the situation if the man wasn't there?
Edit: Why are you bringing up the OP? I'm only commenting the drawing.
Because in the OP there's the same situation to what you are describing. Understand, the notion that the man can stop the train is actually crucial to the test. It's testing to see how people react when the person being sacrificed is, in themselves, a means to an end, and when the person being sacrificed is just a foreseen consequence of you saving the other five, do you understand? It's the difference between an intended consequence and a foreseen consequence. Ned would be making it go on that track for the expressed purpose of making it hit the fat man. Otherwise, he would be doing it for the expressed purpose of turning the train onto another track. You may not see the outcome as different, but results from this study showed that most people, across cultures, say that Ned is not justified in his action, but someone turning the train onto another track would be, and, though this was more contested, Oscar is also justified.
No, you see, that's the point of question 2 in the OP. The point of this question was to test question 3 if it was caused by the throwing of a switch rather than tossing someone onto the track. The five passive versus one active death is not the thing being tested here, it's not actually the main variable in how most people decide whether particular courses of action are moral or not. Like I said before, in question 2, if the man was not there it would be obligatory to go onto the side track, however in Ned's case if the man was not there and you went onto the side track then nothing would happen. This is the original intention of the experimenters in creating this problem. Honestly, I read the book!
I don't think the issue is throwing the switch vs. throwing a man, I think it's throwing someone not involved onto the tracks vs. someone (the fat man on the other track) who has already taken their life in their hands by standing on a railroad track as a train is coming. It's like bullfighters who get gored by bulls . . . Would you save five bullfighters by throwing one member of the crowd at them? Or would you assume there are certain risks that come with bullfighting which the bullfighters accept when they start poking swords at an enraged bull?
In the fat man vs. the five hikers scenario, I would do whatever I thought was less likely to kill the conductor.
It's also about the confidence any one individual places in their own analysis of a situation as it pertains to the lives of others. Chiefly, do you really trust any one else to not just get everyone killed by the misguided notion that a fat man would stop or at least slow down the train?
Which is an important point - you simply can't know that in the time frame involved, and anyone who thinks they does is, well, better off not trusted.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
But you don't know who they are, and that's the point. Moral judgments often have to be made without the details, the purpose of these questions is to derive your 'moral shorthand', your split-second, knee-jerk morality, not necessarily your extreme deliberation that requires you to use your full suite of skills you learned in logic class.
Making a split second decision like that has nothing to do with morals. For it to be a moral decision, you need to know the details. When you simplify it like that, it all comes down to logic.
Steer a train away from five hikers but kill another hiker in the process? Sure, go ahead. It's a logical decision because it minimizes the damages done.
Push a fat guy infront of a trolley to stop it and save five hikers? No, never. It's not logical to assume that the fat guy is heavy enough to stop the trolley, and if you do push him all you end up with is six dead bodies and a murder charge.
See? Logic, not morals.
reVerse on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Because in the OP there's the same situation to what you are describing. Understand, the notion that the man can stop the train is actually crucial to the test. It's testing to see how people react when the person being sacrificed is, in themselves, a means to an end, and when the person being sacrificed is just a foreseen consequence of you saving the other five, do you understand? It's the difference between an intended consequence and a foreseen consequence. Ned would be making it go on that track for the expressed purpose of making it hit the fat man. Otherwise, he would be doing it for the expressed purpose of turning the train onto another track. You may not see the outcome as different, but results from this study showed that most people, across cultures, say that Ned is not justified in his action, but someone turning the train onto another track would be, and, though this was more contested, Oscar is also justified.
Oh okay! I do see what you mean now, I was focused on the outcome and not the action. That does paint a different scenario indeed.
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
Aridhol on
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
Because no one is harmed. Laws, or whatever, exist for reasons. If those reasons are removed, there is no reason the law should be followed.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
Because no one is harmed. Laws, or whatever, exist for reasons. If those reasons are removed, there is no reason the law should be followed.
Well it's creepy as shit and I feel is horrendously wrong. Also spread behaviour like that would make Idiocracy happen...
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
Because no one is harmed. Laws, or whatever, exist for reasons. If those reasons are removed, there is no reason the law should be followed.
Well it's creepy as shit and I feel is horrendously wrong. Also spread behaviour like that would make Idiocracy happen...
I think it's evil to tell people not to do things just because you feel it's icky. That's pretty fundamental to a lot of my social views.
Not sure about the second bit as I have not seen the film and you are not being all that specific about the behavior in question, incest or civil disobedience.
redx on
They moistly come out at night, moistly.
0
Options
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
1. don't care really. Not immoral.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
Because no one is harmed. Laws, or whatever, exist for reasons. If those reasons are removed, there is no reason the law should be followed.
Well it's creepy as shit and I feel is horrendously wrong. Also spread behaviour like that would make Idiocracy happen...
I think it's evil to tell people not to do things just because you feel it's icky. That's pretty fundamental to a lot of my social views.
Not sure about the second bit as I have not seen the film and you are not being all that specific about the behavior in question, incest or civil disobedience.
Well it just a satire in which the world is populated by inbread idiots (literally). It's just a movie of course.
It seems to me that question 2 and question 4 are fundamentally the same. There's nothing morally wrong from a utilitarian perspective with killing the guy to save others; it seems like more an issue of ethics. It's more obvious with the doctor not supposed to be killing patients, but the same issue also applies to pushing someone off of a bridge. People are generally fine with people on train tracks occasionally being hit, but everywhere else they expect to be safe. People are generally opposed to all instances of killing another person not necessarily because the killing leads to negative consequences, but because they don't want to live in a situation where they could be killed at any point, even if their deaths would end up saving the lives of others.
The forces of Continuity will not be stayed long, and you may be sure that they wait in the space between moments, all craft and cunning. Time has no meter to them, they are not bound by it, and also they don't carry watches so it could be five in the morning or six in the afternoon, they really have no idea. Nothing seems more Penny Arcade to me than a flight of fancy, some unauthorized adventure that seizes the site. We certainly hope that you enjoy the Cardboard and Steel miniseries, but if you don't, there's really nothing we can do for you.
We have ads for Harbinger up this month, and they have a tag-line which says "It's Diablo In Space!" or something to that effect. I've played it, and I won't disagree with that ebullient proclamation. That's exactly what it is. Do you know what else is Diablo In Space, though? It might surprise you. It's called "Freelancer."
I don't know if it started out this way, or if it got to this point during one of the periods the game was incommunicado, but it makes me want to get down on my knees and thank Jesus. I'm fixated on it now in the same way that one gets fixated on a Diablo-type game, where one must click frequently or become agitated. You might recall how when you lop off a zombie head or whatever, a wonderful fountain of goods bursts from their centers like flavor. This is the same thing! You're flying around with the mouse, which is fun and not dumb, you blast a ship with your friend Safety Monkey, and then riches leap like embers out of the wreckage. I want you to imagine a pinata in space. You hit "B," and a tractor beam just snatches them all up. At once. Sometimes you need to get escape pods and bring them back, whatever.
When I was picking up loot and doing missions co-op in the multiplayer mode, it felt very much the same as Diablo. I began to cinch up other comparisons, and this did it too: You are (of course) aware of the "potions" in Diablo. When you're running low on health, you drink a potion - they're right there, and they're delicious. You just hit a button, they don't try to make it any more of a pain in the ass than it has to be. In Freelancer, you have shields and armor, but unlike many space sims your protection isn't divided into Quadrants or anything, you can't have low shields in one area and healthy shields in another, you have a single bar that represents in a general way how shieldy you are. When it gets low? Drink a potion, I mean, drink a shield battery. Or use one. Again, you just hit a button, and you can carry a bunch of these things - one of the main reasons to upgrade your ship is that they each have a different carrying capacity for restorative items.
It has a single player campaign, and that's fine, I respect that. One day I might play it. The "retail" version I'm playing also has a bit more polish (polish, not Polish) visually, though the geometry and textures on large stations are not without fault for a modern game. All I do is start up my server, Monkey joins up, and we go out and amass wealth. It's actually a pretty good time. When you run a server for Freelancer, it's a little more elaborate than for Quake or whatever - anytime you play online, you're accruing prestige on a specific server, it's not stored on your machine. So when someone joins my game, they'll see a list of the guys they have on there and select one of those. We've enlisted a couple friends of ours as "extra support" and "cargo hauler" respectively, and I have a tip on some H Fuel in the Colorado system we can move into California at a pretty price, provided the Outcasts don't waylay us en route.
I am heading out of town tomorrow but I wanted to make a quick update. Today’s comic strip kicks off the CTS mini series that Tycho and I have been itching to do for a long time now. Over the ten or so years that Tycho and I have been friends we have created our fair share of comic book characters. I won’t go into the embarrassing details but just know that one of them was named Maximum and he was a mute…Jesus. Anyway, CTS is really special to me and when we decided that we were going to tell a long form CTS story I wanted to do something special with it.
I decided to draw and ink each page by hand rather than use the computer. I just felt like the look I was after would be easier to capture with more traditional methods. I am still adding in all the grey scale stuff and text in Photoshop but all the line work is good old pen and ink. It has been a long time since I worked this way and it’s a lot of fun. I just wrapped up the page that you guys will see Wednesday and I’m really proud of how this mini series is turning out. Each page is taking about eight hours to do and I am loving every minute of it. I am learning a lot and hopefully that will show in the work.
I hope you can indulge us for a few weeks while we get this out of our systems. I think Tycho has crafted quite a tale here and I’m really excited to be sharing it with you guys. Obviously if Microsoft buys Sega or IGN starts writing decent reviews we will interrupt the CTS storyline for a little PA fun. In the meantime though I really hope you enjoy what we’ve cooked up for you.
Posts
You're missing the point. If the train reconnects to the track then it means that in the case that the man was not there nothing would occur if the lever was pulled, however if track split away from the main track then pulling the lever would be obligatory because it would be equivalent to saving five lives. In Ned's case the man being there is a crucial part of the plan to save the hikers, wherein in Oscar and case 2, the man's death is a foreseen consequence of the plan, and if he wasn't there the plan would have no downsides and would therefore be morally required of anyone standing at the switch.
Man, most of you guys are seriously missing the point. The questions are purposefully structured and simplified. Do you really, honestly want me to come up with a question that's wholly realistic but covers the same variables just so you have a question that's worthy of you?
You misinterpret. The guy would still be on the optional track so it would still be a 1 active vs. 5 passive kills! The only thing changed would be that people wouldn't have to question if one fat guy can stop a train...
The whole sidetrack connecting back to the main track is irrelevant to the question and if left out would cause less confusion while still posing the same question in a more realistic sense.
It makes you presumptuous. Maybe they're on the track for a reason not owing to their own personal failure as human beings.
Well, that's bit of a problem, isn't it? Morality is in the details. I mean, from a moral point of view, these scenarios are completely different depending on if those five hikers are scientists on their way to reveal the cure for cancer or if they're members of Al Qaeda on their way to bomb an orphanage.
1. No this is wrong. It's sick. I don't get how people can say "nothing wrong with it". Sure it's clarified that it won't lead to children but it's still sick and deplorable. What it will do is create two fucked up individuals.
2. Of course it would be wrong.
3. Yes - flip the switch by argument of utilitarianism, unlike the previous question (in which the single person was totally free of responsibility) all the people in this scenario have chosen to put themselves in harms way. Run over the one hiker and then jail the rest for being retarded/causing the other guy to be run over.
4. Again let the rest die, the fat man on the bridge has done nothing to put himself in harms way.
Fat guy is just going to be a burden to our health care system, and he's wearing a suit which means a good portion of his wealth will be redistributed due to the estate tax because is he rich. Hell, he probably even votes republican and would likely support McCain. The hiking hippies almost certainly are going to vote for Obama.
You're gonna have to assume they're all of the same personal worth as all you know about them is that they are in the way of your speeding train. So the morality doesn't change whether you run over the Messiah or Bin Laden as you made the decision with what little information you had.
plus, being fat, he uses more soap than the average person.
In practice, I agree completely. The hypothetical specifies no negative outcomes aside from how society sees it, though.
Well that is the case in most of the cases I remember reading about this year. Maybe a part of it is not growing up with the sibling, I do not know - don't know if I wan't to know either!
But you don't know who they are, and that's the point. Moral judgments often have to be made without the details, the purpose of these questions is to derive your 'moral shorthand', your split-second, knee-jerk morality, not necessarily your extreme deliberation that requires you to use your full suite of skills you learned in logic class.
Immoral acts committed due to ignorance are still immoral acts. You might think that what you did was good and moral, but that don't make it so.
Doesn't this suggest a amazing genetic component to morality?
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
That makes perfect sense. You don't have a biological understanding of who is related to you, they fall into those relationship roles because you are incredibly familiar with them and they have filled the role of a sibling in your life since you were young. It's the same thing with child sexual abuse, fathers who have not spent a large hand in raising their children are incredibly more likely to sexually abuse them. I mean, obviously that could just be correlation and not causation, but it would make sense if it was. I might add that arranged marriages in which the two betrothed are raised together in the same house from a young age have a huge failure rate.
I don't get this. The man is there so why not simplify it and make the sidetrack disconnect.
In both what I'm arguing for and the drawing above the same thing happens, the train hits one guy by action of Ned instead of five. The only thing removed is the concept of "can one fat guy stop a moving train" which itself isn't relevant to the morality question. If the man wasn't there in my concept then yes no-one would die if the train switched tracks but how is that relevant in this question because the man IS there - how does it matter when the question has nothing to do with the situation if the man wasn't there?
Edit: Why are you bringing up the OP? I'm only commenting the drawing.
I don't think the issue is throwing the switch vs. throwing a man, I think it's throwing someone not involved onto the tracks vs. someone (the fat man on the other track) who has already taken their life in their hands by standing on a railroad track as a train is coming. It's like bullfighters who get gored by bulls . . . Would you save five bullfighters by throwing one member of the crowd at them? Or would you assume there are certain risks that come with bullfighting which the bullfighters accept when they start poking swords at an enraged bull?
In the fat man vs. the five hikers scenario, I would do whatever I thought was less likely to kill the conductor.
Which is an important point - you simply can't know that in the time frame involved, and anyone who thinks they does is, well, better off not trusted.
Making a split second decision like that has nothing to do with morals. For it to be a moral decision, you need to know the details. When you simplify it like that, it all comes down to logic.
Steer a train away from five hikers but kill another hiker in the process? Sure, go ahead. It's a logical decision because it minimizes the damages done.
Push a fat guy infront of a trolley to stop it and save five hikers? No, never. It's not logical to assume that the fat guy is heavy enough to stop the trolley, and if you do push him all you end up with is six dead bodies and a murder charge.
See? Logic, not morals.
Oh okay! I do see what you mean now, I was focused on the outcome and not the action. That does paint a different scenario indeed.
2. everyones covered it but "first, do no harm" Immoral
3. Kill the one, save the 5. Put engineer in therapy for the rest of his life for having to make that choice.
4. I wouldn't put the dude watching in harms way to save the others. Immoral
It's strange how many are okay with the first one. I'd never have thought it to be anything able to be considered "not immoral".
It is, of course, not universal.
The answer to number 1 is no one.
It;s still "icky" I guess.
Because no one is harmed. Laws, or whatever, exist for reasons. If those reasons are removed, there is no reason the law should be followed.
Well it's creepy as shit and I feel is horrendously wrong. Also spread behaviour like that would make Idiocracy happen...
I think it's evil to tell people not to do things just because you feel it's icky. That's pretty fundamental to a lot of my social views.
Not sure about the second bit as I have not seen the film and you are not being all that specific about the behavior in question, incest or civil disobedience.
Well it just a satire in which the world is populated by inbread idiots (literally). It's just a movie of course.
Elki is a mod and he sees a directionless hypotheticals thread. What does he do?