|
rudatron posted:not necessarily, i just had to remove spite because that guy kept using it to try and talk around it, not that it matters I can't parse this. And what you did was remove ethical and moral considerations from the equation and turn it into a simple value judgement. That's not the same as ethics or morality, which only actually matter when they diverge from out intrinsic value assignments.
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
rudatron posted:that's only half of the hypothetical - what do you think about the switch, and the oath? at their core, the idea of them? I gave you as much as you earned. Meet me halfway and maybe I'll give you the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
you know we're just going to put him through torture and autopsy after you're done trying to reason with him right
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
rudatron posted:i can't parse this a good person is one who would choose to sacrifice themselves for others. by acting exactly the same as a person who has made that choice would, you can trick the aliens into believing you have made that choice. is the act enough? to an outside observer there is no difference, but the question still vexes you. christianity is an attempt to resolve that vexation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:you know we're just going to put him through torture and autopsy after you're done trying to reason with him right Of course, of course, wouldn't stand for anything less really at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
No.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 17:56
|
|
rudatron posted:why does it have to be believable to be a valid hypothetical? it's just as absurd as suggesting 'imagine magic exists', yet people read stories with wizards and such. 1. just to get it out of the way, i'm partly being ridiculous to make my posts halfway readable and partly to highlight how crazy this would sound coming out of someone actually present, which leads into my real point... 2. ...that you have missed - i believe that a person who goes along with your situation and treats it without intentionality is serving a bad example through the logic i provided. the correct answer is not actually to play along even with all the 'evidence' in the world that this is a fluke of bad luck because having that example of playing along with something so contrived just means, again, anyone who can sufficiently make a contrived situation look spontaneous can make anyone do whatever they wanted. believing that your hypothetical is likely to occur or makes sense to accept is a critical point of how i will decide to handle an ethical situation. for instance, if i believe i am on some copy of the truman show, i won't interpret the situation of an old lady begging for help to cross the street the same way i would if i believed i were not being watched constantly for reality TV. i might decide to do the same thing, but there will be entirely different motivations at work. similarly, if i believe it's impossible for something like this to arise spontaneously, and that even if somehow it did it wouldn't be ethically sound to treat it that way, i will not choose to do something that can be transferred over to how i'd behave in a more conventional accident. 3. you know what would be accessible and easy to talk about for all those things? hitchhiking. make a topic about the ethics of hitchhiking instead and i bet you'll have better luck
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Okay guys here is my new ethical dilemma: You are posting in a thread. You can choose to probate everyone in the thread, including the OP, but you'd also have to probate yourself and a bunch of innocent posters as well. You could also choose only to probate yourself and close the thread, letting the OP get away with his crimes but letting the innocent posters go free. What do you do? Warning: Spoilers! Trick question, there are no innocent posters
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
blowing up the internet would do the trick
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
You're a police officer. You pull up to a liquor store, where a robbery is in progress. Do you A) shoot everyone in the store to death, including the robber; or B) Disembowel yourself in the parking lot. Please discuss your ethical reasoning in as much depth as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
oh also "are you a good person?" is kind of inflammatory so if you're disappointed by the response having a decidedly antagonistic tone you have no one to blame but yourself
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:You're a police officer. You pull up to a liquor store, where a robbery is in progress. Do you A) shoot everyone in the store to death, including the robber; or B) Disembowel yourself in the parking lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
A and then eat the corpses and then B. Reasoning: thread consensus
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:A and then eat the corpses and then B. If you don't disembowel yourself slowly while chowing down on the bits that you've removed, you've missed a trick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
I'm objectively the best person.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
It seems this thread is in the wrong forum. Were I to have access to the switch in pod #1 I'd ensure this thread ended up in the right forum, the gas chamber, along with the OP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Okay guys here is my new ethical dilemma: Give everyone that's posted in C spam in the past 48 hours a sixer
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
i'm a goon person
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
Has anyone ITT considered killing all of the aliens by putting them in their own stupid murderpods?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
There is no such thing as ethical choice under experimentation. Resistance is the only rational choice. Middle position + middle finger. Do not go quietly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:40
|
|
|
The enders game solution works pretty well imop
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 00:53
|
|
Who What Now posted:Has anyone ITT considered killing all of the aliens by putting them in their own stupid murderpods? the aliens are rear end in a top hat enough to put emotion blocking chips in sentient brains so they probably are rear end in a top hat enough to keep everyone locked in stasis pods that prevent freedom of movement but not 'rational' communication that's easily monitored. if they aren't though it'd be much faster to just figure out a way to shank them or snatch away one of their weapons and start blasting
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
deadgoon posted:christianity is an attempt to resolve that vexation. oh don't give me that poo poo, you're doing what you're doing because you want to 'show me up', you enjoy being a dick, if were you purely committed to 'pointing out the issues' you would have simply made this point from the start i also already constructed the situation such that it is believable if it were to happen, right in front of you, that you think it's highly unlikely given that it has not happened is irrelevant - if you are there, regardless of how unlikely it is to happen, there should be a bar of evidence such that i can prove it did happen, right in front of you, so long as the probability of this event occurring is non-zero (you explicitly rejected this when i brought it up, remember?) hitchhiking doesn't work because it doesn't have the agency dilemma - it's the switch & the oath that matters to me most. but you're correct that a situation where you're placed into it by 'nature' rather than something with intent dodges the 'kill the aliens' thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:36
|
|
rudatron posted:oh don't give me that poo poo, you're doing what you're doing because you want to 'show me up', you enjoy being a dick, if were you purely committed to 'pointing out the issues' you would have simply made this point from the start bad philosophy is fun to dunk on. but the fact is that even if i am right there and it's happening right in front of me right this second my arguments stand, i still have a reason not to act as if it is happening by chance and instead as the result of something worth resisting entirely no matter the evidence because i do not believe it is moral to act on it otherwise. i don't see what's hard to get about evidence not actually mattering when i feel i have an ethical obligation to discount all evidence for a case that feels contrived still arising randomly because my example by not doing so will contribute to a worse world, not a better one if you want agency dilemmas, how about the hippocratic oath? there might be something to a discussion of whether it really makes doctors more ethical or not. if you need both the oath and the switch poo poo together, you might discuss community service vs. more traditional prison sentences for handling various crimes. e: actually, thinking about it there is no normal, everyday way to replicate your switch. laws do not force ethical choice within society's rules, they just serve as a guarantee of punishment if you break society's rules, whereas your switch forcibly removes agency from someone after they agree to do so. it's got more in common with involuntary committal to a mental hospital, which is kind of hosed up in a way p.s. no matter how much of a dick you may feel i'm being i'm still not the one who would remove your saltiness in the effort to help you think and act rationally Ignatius M. Meen has issued a correction as of 03:57 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 01:57
|
|
|
rudatron posted:but it doesn't actually do that though neither does the ideology you are pushing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Isn't your whole dilemma the trolley problem but you're on one of the tracks?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:19
|
|
Qwazes posted:Isn't your whole dilemma the trolley problem but you're on one of the tracks? yes, also aliens put you on the tracks
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
that's half of the dilemma but i couldn't think of a good way to include the switch (not the lever, the switch) & oath into the trolley problem deadgoon posted:neither does the ideology you are pushing. Ignatius M. Meen posted:e: actually, thinking about it there is no normal, everyday way to replicate your switch. laws do not force ethical choice within society's rules, they just serve as a guarantee of punishment if you break society's rules, whereas your switch forcibly removes agency from someone after they agree to do so. it's got more in common with involuntary committal to a mental hospital, which is kind of hosed up in a way
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
The switch scenario seems pretty complicated, so as long as no one I know is involved I'm okay just not messing with it, however many people that kills.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
So I'm a masochistic dipshit and actually went back and read the thread and Ignatius is 100% right that the most moral option is to tell Rudatron's idiot hypothetical to go gently caress itself and the more contrived he tries to make it the more moral it is to resist against it. Also if your knock-off trolley problem requires you to lobotomize the participants in order to get the answer you're fishing for you should have already realized your hypothetical is hot garbage, but whelp.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So I'm a masochistic dipshit and actually went back and read the thread and Ignatius is 100% right that the most moral option is to tell Rudatron's idiot hypothetical to go gently caress itself and the more contrived he tries to make it the more moral it is to resist against it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:45
|
|
rudatron posted:do you see the dilemma now? there is no dilemma, i said it was kinda hosed up to include for a reason let me pose a hypothetical situation: a man approaches you on the street and claims that he can ensure you will never make another ethical mistake in your life again; all you have to do is sign a consent form and he will implant a chip in your brain that will force you to act correctly for the rest of your life. he will not tell you how it works or indicate at all what kind of ethical system is used, and he refuses to produce results of tests he claims are unethical in one way or another, but he will happily show you things like other volunteers not hesitating to help an old lady cross the street or give a few bucks to homeless people and so on. is this really an ethical thing for him to offer you? if yes, why? if no, is it starting to make sense why the switch is equally unjustifiable?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:do you see the dilemma now? I still don't. How is the conscious and unanimous choice to remove a future choice morally deficient?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
jesus gently caress, i'm not telling you people what the right choice is, i am asking for well laid out reasoning as to what you think, and why you think that. talking about 'resisting' is to assume i'm trying to force you to make a specific choice, i'm not every contrivance i'm throwing in is to try and get you to make a choice, and take loving responsibility for that choice, yet you essentially keep shirking that responsibility, by shoving the blame onto me i don't care how terrible you think the situation is, that you're having to make a choice, i don't care what you think about me, those pieces of information are not relevant to me, they do not stir a single emotion the information i'm 'fishing' for is your inner loving philosophy, to your own loving life, which you are refusing to provide or elaborate on, on some misguided idea that by doing so, that you're a loving edgy mother fucker, too far about any of that poo poo to actually have to actually take a stand
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:55
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:there is no dilemma, i said it was kinda hosed up to include for a reason demonstrating that you have no loving clue what i've been trying to ask of you you piece of poo poo
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:58
|
|
rudatron posted:jesus gently caress, i'm not telling you people what the right choice is, i am asking for well laid out reasoning as to what you think, and why you think that. talking about 'resisting' is to assume i'm trying to force you to make a specific choice, i'm not but we are telling you exactly what we think. we would choose to resist the situation instead of fall into the choices the situation presents to us because none of them satisfy our ethical code  maybe if you want our philosophy you should just ask us directly?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
i'm have been nothing but nice, reasonable and agreeable, and i have been met by open hostility and contempt from the bottom of my heart, take your edgy poo poo and shove it up your prolapsed rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
perhaps if you constructed the problem in the form of acts of nature instead of external actors and factors the participant can do practically anything with there would be an actual dilemma but aliens can't think outside the box so this will go over you're head so continue  sobbing for the last minutes of your life before you are processed
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
rudatron posted:jesus gently caress, i'm not telling you people what the right choice is, i am asking for well laid out reasoning as to what you think, and why you think that. talking about 'resisting' is to assume i'm trying to force you to make a specific choice, i'm not People have told you what their moral philosophies were, and you didn't like those answers because they weren't one of the ones you were expecting or would have chosen for yourself. So you kept trying to change the scenario in order to get one of the two answers you wanted. It's like a toddler that just learned a card trick and is trying to show it to you, but every time you pick a card he says "no, not that one, pick another one". And he keeps doing that over and over and over again until you pick the marked card or you tell the kid to go bother his mom because daddy just wants to drink his beer and watch the game in peace you and goddamnit Barbara I told you not to get him that loving magicians kit for Christmas and this is exactly why! Edit: lmao: rudatron posted:i don't care how terrible you think the situation is, (...), i don't care what you think about me, those pieces of information are not relevant to me, they do not stir a single emotion rudatron posted:but you're too far up your own smug rear end in a top hat to frame it in any other way than as a hostile jab at me rudatron posted:from the bottom of my heart, take your edgy poo poo and shove it up your prolapsed rear end in a top hat Yeah, not a single emotion stirred at all.  Who What Now has issued a correction as of 05:08 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:06 |
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:perhaps if you constructed the problem in the form of acts of nature instead of external actors and factors the participant can do practically anything with there would be an actual dilemma Who What Now posted:People have told you what their moral philosophies were, imagine if every trolley problem was answered with 'i wave my magic wand and nothing bad happens, i get everything i want'.'what you mean i don't have that choice? gently caress you shitlord'. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:09
|
|