|
rudatron posted:maybe he simply choose not to elucidate, because the post he was in was long enough already I don't think the assumption he makes is even intelligible. Roll your eyes and say "mu." deadgoon posted:these aliens come at us and they say "our forces are irresistible, we can kill you all, but maybe we won't if you behave yourselves..." I'm with this guy.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
i love my dead gay comedy planet
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
so let's flip this around let's only make the 'fame' change to the experiment, but now let's change one other factor the 'aliens' are not sentient they do not have intent, they are actually just machines, following a 'script', written by a long-dead, unknown and forgotten race they have more in common with a force of nature, like gravity, then they do with you, they will simply do, and then stop. Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:I don't think the assumption he makes is even intelligible. Roll your eyes and say "mu."
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_RZJUAQY4
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
you're getting rid of the whole federation thing then? this is just some bunch of rustbuckets abducting sentient beings and removing their emotions so they can mark down the "rational" response on a post-it note nobody's ever going to read? what possible reason could anyone have to want to play along now as opposed to doing everything possible to ensure the destruction of these shitbots?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
no no no, there's no federation, but no brain chips either the 'aliens' are simply soulless parts of the universe, like asteroids what do you do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
rudatron posted:so let's flip this around i hack the robot and make it suck my dick e: doesn't them suddenly being robots just turn it into a weird horrorshow instead of a test, and remove any morality from it at all other than choosing who gets to die e2: wow that poo poo was impossible to parse ed: balls
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
the robots will explode after the experiment maybe you can make them suck your dick after they explode, but some reassembly will be required
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
Are you really going to change the problem rather than consider the moral ramifications of the situation you devised? Can you at least first admit that in your original scenario the middle position was the moral choice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
i read your post glyph gryph, and i'm thinking about it, but i'm not actually too attached to any one formulation of the experimentHeaven Spacey posted:e: doesn't them suddenly being robots just turn it into a weird horrorshow instead of a test what do you do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:56
|
|
rudatron posted:no no no, there's no federation, but no brain chips either there's no brain chips so i agree with my companions to stick up our middle fingers instead of moving the switch at all if we can't break the robots. let the silent universe know that we did not play along with something so dumb and pointless
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
so let's take that logic to natural disasters would it be moral to sink a lifeboat you are in, if you ever forced into preventing one person from getting on, just to 'shove it' to the silent universe?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
thats a complicated way to justify voting for trump
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:so let's take that logic to natural disasters How about we deal with the issue at hand and the important moral questions i honestly expected you to ponder and respond to, rather than move on to irrelevant scenarios? Stop your morality gish gallop, stop shying away from difficult ethical questions because you dont like the answers. After we have dealt with the situation at hand, we can move onto another scenario that is irrelevant to this one. Not a moment before
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:03
|
|
rudatron posted:so let's take that logic to natural disasters there's intent from the long-dead race of philosophy 101 dropouts in your other example and also from you in trying to keep pushing on a hypothetical repeatedly shown to be wanting there is no rhyme or reason in an accident or disaster they aren't actually the same thing despite your really really wanting them to be
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
The only ethical and morally good response is to resist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
okay, let's remove that intent the robots were assembled by random chance, in spite of their complexity the probability was infinitesimally small, but you know that it must have been random what do you do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
i read your response, i'm still thinking about it, that is going to take some time - in the mean time, i would appreciate some answers on these questions. i will provide my response to you, at a later point, but not right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
rudatron posted:why is the assumption unintelligible? do you think there is something contradictory about what he said, and if so, what is that contradiction? He regards the option as "evil," but since his concept of evil has no foundation in the text, there's nothing to be said in response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
if the 'boltzmann robots' is unsatisfying, here is another possibility - they are malfunctioning human robots, caused by a glitch, caused by a random piece of solar radiationTacky-rear end Rococco posted:He regards the option as "evil," but since his concept of evil has no foundation in the text, there's nothing to be said in response.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
paging dr calvin, dr susan calvin
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
If anyone was wondering, the good dog lives. New dilemma, though - I got a person that's basically hooked up to life support, but is in super duper agony. They're not mentally all there though - they keep begging me to save them, they seem to think they are gonna get out of this alive but it's like, dude, you are hosed. Do I pull the plug and let them die, against their wishes, or do I close and lock the door to their room and forget about them?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:that's not what i mean, i mean do you consider it as 'evil' or 'good'? No. GlyphGryph posted:If anyone was wondering, the good dog lives. Kill everyone now. Condone first degree murder. Advocate cannibalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:14
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Kill everyone now. Condone first degree murder. Advocate cannibalism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 03:15
|
|
rudatron posted:if the 'boltzmann robots' is unsatisfying, here is another possibility - they are malfunctioning human robots, caused by a glitch, caused by a random piece of solar radiation neither of those are satisfying or believable. i defy you to come up with a way this tortured trolley problem actually makes any sense to spontaneously arise without just continuing to assert that it's theoretically possible therefore it makes sense for anyone to act on such a specifically bonkers postulate as if it just happened by chance rather than as a product of something's intent
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 04:38
|
|
|
"quantum mechanics and physics say that over an infinite period of time infinitesimally unlikely things become infinitely more likely, therefore since we can't figure out where this machine that tells us we have to choose between eating a baby, shooting a dog, or blowing up a planet of sentient beings we'll never cross paths with came from we have to treat this ethically like a natural disaster and not some insane idiot's toy. no other course of action would be rational in this case" e: "oh god, who let the cockamamie ethics 0.5 robot in here?? i'll handle this... okay, robot? 1. no. 2. no. 3. remember kantian ethics? they're not perfect by any measure but they swiftly handle this case. imagine what would happen if everyone used this logic, any crazy or evil person who was sufficiently good at hiding their methods of creation would be able to make random people do whatever they wanted. how does this result in a better universe?" *robot thinks, sparks fly up and a puff of smoke comes out* "thank god, we're spared from that bullshit for three weeks while the council finds another lowest bidder to buy from and force down our throats. you got the torpedos ready right john?" Ignatius M. Meen has issued a correction as of 11:30 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 11:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:plot twist: as in real life, it's the general that actually knows more about strategy and conflict than the scientist, and the naive scientist gets everyone killed Actually instead of 'real life' you've articulated an important plot point in The Thing from Another World. Except it was the 50's so the general saves the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 11:38
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:what happen when one guy is like "now, by the terms of the thought experiment, we all agree that the left choice is the correct one" and i'm like "no, middle forever, gently caress you" also literally me
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 13:07
|
|
|
Tacky-rear end Rococco posted:Kill everyone now. Condone first degree murder. Advocate cannibalism. Done and done, kill everyone but dogs. Thank you thread for helping me solve my moral dillemas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
house pets should inherit the earth
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
Why?Ignatius M. Meen posted:neither of those are satisfying or believable. like i just don't get why you're so dead set on 'disproving' me or whatever. i don't really care whether or not this situation is likely before the heat death of the universe, that's not important to me i also don't really care how clever you are, or think you are, because you can point out that, yes, the hypothetical can't actually happen, or whatever that doesn't matter to me what matters to me is the ethical problems raised by the conflict between self-preservation, agency and helping others, and i'm trying to use this experiment to bring that to light, in a way that's accessible and easy to talk about which is why i've been kind of disappointed so far, because yeah shitposts are nice and fun, but so far no one else seems to care about that, in the way i do, they just want to talk about how the aliens are clearly evil or whatever i may have to take the nuclear option, and make a thread in DnD, but i really don't want to have to do that Starshark posted:Actually instead of 'real life' you've articulated an important plot point in The Thing from Another World. Except it was the 50's so the general saves the day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
your philosophy makes no sense because you assume the desire to survive is more rational than any other
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:51
|
|
|
Fine, if you will eventually respond to my stuff i will ignore your lovely hypotheticals and go right to the core of it - if you put me in a situation where i can save two other people or myself, i will save myself, because i have other people to whom i hold major ethical obligations and doing otherwise would be wrong. Unless those other people were people to whom i had the ethical obligations, i guess, in which case yeah sacrificing myself would the the right choice. In a vacuum, though. As soon as you add context the ethical calculus would change. Like with the aliens - my ethical obligation to oppose evil is stronger than my ethical obligation to my children, even if my ethical obligation to random strangers is not. GlyphGryph has issued a correction as of 16:22 on Dec 12, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
the angst surrounding the idea that i am only making a legalistic performance of virtue without having made a full subjective commitment to it can only be resolved with the blood of christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:the angst surrounding the idea that i am only making a legalistic performance of virtue without having made a full subjective commitment to it can only be resolved with the blood of christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Fine, if you will eventually respond to my stuff i will ignore your lovely hypotheticals and go right to the core of it - if you put me in a situation where i can save two other people or myself, i will save myself, because i have other people to whom i hold major ethical obligations and doing otherwise would be wrong. I don't think the context changes anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:33
|
|
|
that's only half of the hypothetical - what do you think about the switch, and the oath? at their core, the idea of them?deadgoon posted:your philosophy makes no sense because you assume the desire to survive is more rational than any other deadgoon posted:the angst surrounding the idea that i am only making a legalistic performance of virtue without having made a full subjective commitment to it can only be resolved with the blood of christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:i can't parse this alien scum cannot understand virtue VIGILO CONFIDO
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
it's more the injection of theology than anything else, but i can assure you that aliens probably do not exist, and i am probably not one
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:06 |
|
|
rudatron posted:it's more the injection of theology than anything else, but i can assure you that aliens probably do not exist, and i am probably not one I mean, realistically speaking, I can nearly guarantee you that aliens exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:04
|
|