|
rudatron posted:i already did that, itt, and the response i got was that the situation was too 'improbable' and therefore no answer had to be provided. do you remember that? whoa i'm smarter than u
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
Rudatron, you are presented with a scenario where maybe you are wrong, or maybe everyone else is wrong. Which group is more ethical to get behind? :V But seriously here, I answered a part of what your hypothetical was getting at in a manner that doesnt have the same ethical concerns your example does. I met you halfway, engage me, and I will create additional hypotheticals to answer in the place of yours. Do you understand the ethical obligation to resist being complicit with evil actions? Why did you leave middle position as an option if you didnt want people to take it? Why, when you ask for ethical justifications, are you so hostile to those you receive? Why, if you didnt want this question to be about the agency of the evil aliens, did you introduce a sub question centered completely 100 percent around their having agency, making it impossible to ignore? Do you understand why people might be a bit oppositional when you introduce a moral dilemma with only one ethical outcome and then saying that people arent allowed to choose that one, esp. when the only ethical choice is literally resisting any being that says you must choose evil? Do you understand why people are calling you the aliens in this scenario, with how firmly you have set yourself in their shoes, and thus created a situaton where we are ethically obligated to resist your hypothetical? Are you really surprised we would follow said ethical obligations in a thread specifically titled to encourage us to act in the most ethical way? I mean jeez. Come on man. Dont you see that you were the bad person ALL ALONG?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:14
|
|
|
I mean really I'm one of two people who were engaging you philosophically instead of just instinctively blowing off the situation but this isn't a classroom with expectations of decorum so, uh, i don't know why you thought i'd feel the need to follow them to the letter when nobody else was or take it like this. I was going to jab further that you should go to reddit but given that you really are taking this personally that might not be a bad legit suggestion. You'll get the straightforward engagement you're looking for there from somebody at any rate. Well, assuming you still want to read this while in cat jail. p.s.  I don't have hate or smugness in my heart towards you, i really just want the best for you. I even went and added capitals and punctuation because I want you to know I'm not trying to tear you down and I really hope you feel better later.I just like to poke fun at goofy things and well, your aliens really sucked so I had to tear them down. But not you, you are not them. Well, as far as I know anyway. Please don't abduct me and put me in a murder-suicide pod, my mother needs me. Ignatius M. Meen has issued a correction as of 05:26 on Dec 13, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
Yay, we achieved the ethical outcome!
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:17
|
|
|
baloogan was the man in front of the lever 
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen, I am pretty sure sending people to reddit is not ethical
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
rudatron posted:no, what they told me was they didn't like having to provide an answer with the confines of the problem Not making a choice was an option that you specifically placed within the confines of the problem. Holy poo poo how are you so bad at your own thought experiment?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:baloogan was the man in front of the lever The hero we knew he was from they very beginning. An inspiration to us all. I am gonna name a recruit after him in my Liberal Crime Squad LP
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:20
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Ignatius M. Meen, I am pretty sure sending people to reddit is not ethical Point, but subjecting D&D to this isn't either.  Actually the most ethical thing rudatron should do is not post bad trolley experiments anywhere, but I'm not sure we can convince him to do that.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Point, but subjecting C-SPAM to this isn't either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Point, but subjecting D&D to this isn't either. So you are saying the most ethical thing is for us to contain him here, to keep getting him angry and probated even though we are hurting ourselves in the process? How... relevant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
i'm pretty sure D&D is actually the containment pod and not this place, the hallowed land abandoned by neoliberals shortly after the day of the Final Election
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:Point, but subjecting D&D to this isn't either. Actually I think you'll find that punishing the wicked is in fact very moral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:37
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:So you are saying the most ethical thing is for us to contain him here, to keep getting him angry and probated even though we are hurting ourselves in the process? well, i think his meltdown was funny so it's not really painful for me to do that
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
i'm not sure if he was fyad-reject ironyposting (not that it matters because melting down while doing so is just as good as doing it genuinely) but i thought of the crumbling building problem in like 15 seconds with 3 mutually exclusive outcomes, two of which require a timely response he can't even conceive of that problem for over a page's worth of posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:44
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually I think you'll find that punishing the wicked is in fact very moral. Okay how about this? I will post an insane trolley thread in D&D since I must be punished too for reading it. Only thing is I know you post there too so you'll be credited along with rudatron for inspiring the post. Sound good?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
clearly i should have made this thread and most of the answers would still be "im gay goku" except being goku would save both people which also makes it a legitimate answer in which case i will accept it because it's a loving hypothetical who gives a gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:i'm not sure if he was fyad-reject ironyposting I assure you Rudatron is very real E: Ignatius M. Meen posted:Okay how about this? I will post an insane trolley thread in D&D since I must be punished too for reading it. Only thing is I know you post there too so you'll be credited along with rudatron for inspiring the post. Sound good? It's not as funny if he doesn't post it himself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I bow before the superior moral reasoning of the last several posts. I need some more ethical advice though. I found a guy with an outfit I want to wear and accidentally twisted off their head. I am too fat to fit in his suit though. Is it more ethically correct to kill myself and return to life after attaching my head to his body, or to eat the body and leave the suit behind unworn? I am not hungry, and i really want his outfit, if those feelings factor in
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
the correct answer is, actually, "sell the suit and graft his penis onto yours so you have a double penis"
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Anime Schoolgirl posted:the correct answer is, actually, "sell the suit and graft his penis onto yours so you have a double penis" A double penis doesn't come in handy as often as you might think. Now quad balls, on the other hand
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
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 You derp, the ethical choice most posters are making is that there is no ethical choice except resistance. With the choices presented the only ethical choice, for which I would take responsibility, is to refuse to engage the artificial dilemma and resist to the utmost. I would allow all three of us to die for that purpose. Its not refusing to engage the scenario you've set up. Its engaging the scenario in the only ethical fashion possible: resistance. Thats the answer. No oath, no switch, lever in the middle, howl defiance as the pods engage. Why do you refuse to accept that as a viable answer, if not the one you were looking for? Nothing in the scenario *forces* action. In fact, if it did wouldn't that invalidate everything? Refusal to choose is also a choice.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
rudatron posted:which ideology is that the one that reduces humans to rational agents
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
Pfffft.
Princess Di has issued a correction as of 23:27 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Rudatron, you are presented with a scenario where maybe you are wrong, or maybe everyone else is wrong. Which group is more ethical to get behind? :V the rudatron argument method is generally "keep increasing the scope until it doesn't matter and therefore i'm right"
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
Meh.
Princess Di has issued a correction as of 23:27 on Dec 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2016 09:49
|
|
|
I think op is mad because in his trolley problem you can't refuse to do anything, but he somehow doesn't realize that being forced totally removes the onus from the forced person. Good thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
Kraps posted:I think op is mad because in his trolley problem you can't refuse to do anything, but he somehow doesn't realize that being forced totally removes the onus from the forced person. Good thread. You could refuse to do something, though, that was one of the three valid choices he gave. Then he got mad when people actually picked it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You could refuse to do something, though, that was one of the three valid choices he gave. Then he got mad when people actually picked it. oh odd
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Actually I think you'll find that punishing the wicked is in fact very moral. To walk through the valley of D&D, amidst the gibbering hordes, to face down the walls of text and bear the lashes of the beasts that dwell there--there could be no fitter penance for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
My sincere and detailed answer: shoot the hostage
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
free will doesnt exist OP, nobody is good or evil
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
didn't read the thread i'd sacrifice myself for the selfish reason that i'd go down in history as one of the most important humans to ever live. if the aliens knew i was being selfish i'd be important because i was the fucker who permanently cursed the human race with original sin and got himself killed for the privilege which is p cool
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:35
|
|
|
Commerz posted:free will doesnt exist OP, nobody is good or evil
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:39
|
|
|
the reason the 'middle' exists is there to punish you for not making a choice the lever has to start somewhere, and wherever it 'starts', there's going to be the temptation to absolve responsibility, pretend that it's just something happening to you, and do nothing which is fine, except it didn't really care about that, i wanted to make you commit because i wanted to see what people's reaction to the lever & switch is but no one seemed to care, and they got hung up on the aliens i've redesigned the scenario in my head, to remove some of the problems (fame as a self-interest and the issue of being 'attacked' by aliens and wanting to gently caress up the experiment out of spite), but i'm not sure i'm going to ever get a good answer, even if i do post it
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
suppose you decide that for some reason you must commit suicide even though you don't really want to die you could slice your wrists but you are worried that you might discover that you are a coward and give up halfway through so instead you jump off a building that is your switch, and you have not given up agency by using it
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
rudatron posted:i've redesigned the scenario in my head, to remove some of the problems (fame as a self-interest and the issue of being 'attacked' by aliens and wanting to gently caress up the experiment out of spite), but i'm not sure i'm going to ever get a good answer, even if i do post it Maybe you could tip your hand and explain why you think the hypothetical was interesting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? the answer of the thread was unanimously: aliens bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? what is goodness anyway, if you look at it from a broader point of view im not actually doing anything wrong and you're the evil one for stopping me from stabbing this large-breasted woman 47 times, what now officer
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 03:19 |
|
|
rudatron posted:can 'goodness' be distinguished from sufficiently advanced rational self-interest (so long as people fear death), is it actually ethical to constrain choice through agreement, and can a promise made without consequences have any value or substance to it? some premises: * none of these people want to die * all things being equal, if anyone has to die at all it is better if only one does instead of two or three * earth joining this federation would be of such great benefit to humanity that a person might be willing to give their life to make it happen so how can we get earth into the federation, well, we have to convince the aliens we are ethical, okay. hey here's a thing which we can do to convince the aliens that we are ethical! but wait, what if this thing isn't really ethical and we have only tricked the aliens? that's where it breaks down, because the alien judgement isn't what decides what's ethical, it's my judgement that does that. and my judgement says the ethical thing to do, is to get earth into the federation with a minimal loss of life, and if that means somehow tricking the aliens then so be it. (but in reality, my judgement says this alien experiment sucks so their federation sucks so gently caress them). so the validity of the alien judgement factors out of it. and we've agreed that we want to get earth into the federation and that it's better for only one person to die doing so. we can either agree to trust that whoever that person turns out to be will follow through on the agreement in the future, or we can agree to follow through right now. the reasons we might not trust them are, they might be lying, or they might lose their nerve when the time comes. i do not think using the switch is unethical, it does not remove agency, we are all exercising our agency when we choose to use it. whenever you choose to do something you are changing what choices may be available in the future, that doesn't mean you have no agency. the thing you seem to be driving at here is, i can use my reason right now to determine and agree that if i find myself to be the one in the pod that i should sacrifice myself, but that when i actually get there i might be so distressed that i won't go through with it, and that means i'm not really a good person, because a good person would not be a coward. so to prove that i am a good person, i have to forgo the switch, make the oath, and sacrifice myself. i say gently caress that, if you don't trust yourself then arrange it so that you don't have to trust yourself. fake it till you make it. nobody else actually gives a gently caress what's going on inside your head. edit: the difference between swearing and using the switch is, if you aren't willing to use the switch then you aren't really committed to the agreement, so your oath doesn't mean poo poo deadgoon has issued a correction as of 19:14 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 18:48
|
|