[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 39 KB, 992x262, meme.exe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6562702 No.6562702 [Reply] [Original]

Regardless of what you believe to be the right thing to do here, what would you say in order to impress a philosophy professor?

>> No.6562754

>>6562702
I would say that pushing the man onto the tracks is more morally troubling than throwing the switch so that the train squishes the one tied up guy.

While the single tied-up guy is already a part of this scenario, presumably having been placed there by some sort of Joker-style villain, as it stands in these pics, the fat guy is not "in play" as part of the scenario unless you choose to put him in play.

If you choose to throw him into the path of the train, your action would be equivalent not just to having turned the switch on the track, but also to having tied up that person and put him on the tracks. Clearly that represents a greater level of personal culpability.

>> No.6562775

>>6562702
1. I would throw myself onto the tracks
2. I would waggle the switch so much as to cause the train to derail

>> No.6562777

>>6562702

Look at both the good and bad sides of both positions as neutrally and fairly as you can. Conclude without really picking one side over the after. After class (and during for that matter), ask the professor broad, simple questions. Don't try to impress by asking really smart or original questions! The longer you can get them to talk, the more they will be impressed by you. All this is very sad, but true.

>> No.6562784

>>6562775
This is not how you approach a thought experiment

>> No.6562788

Is the second scenario even supposed to be a debate? Assuming the people in question are strangers, why would any rational person not switch the train to avoid unnecessary loss of life?

>> No.6562789

>>6562784
So now you're going to tell me how to think and what I can and can't do

You'll get far with that

>> No.6562795

>>6562789
What you're doing is the equivalent of 'green texting' on facebook. Yeah you can do it but it's cringe.

>> No.6562797

>>6562789
You won't get far with the opposite, in regard to thought experiments, they have pre-defined boundaries.

>> No.6562805

>>6562788
The idea is one of purity. People as moral agents want to avoid 'responsibility' for the act. Its one thing to say "Its better for 10 people to die so that 10,000 may live", its quite another so actually have the conviction necessary to put such actions in motion.

People fear that by putting themselves into play, they are subjecting themselves to possible moral contamination, whereas by remaining a bystander their purity is maintained, they are *safe* from the horrible burden of "I did this", protected by the illusion that the events were inevitable. "It happened"

Better a great tragedy then a small crime I suppose.

>> No.6562806

>>6562702
first scenario: do nothing, it's not my responsibility, obvious it's sad but it's not my fault they are on the track so I have no reason to feel guilt

second scenario, i am involved and implicated, by already having grasped the lever, I would squish 1 person rather than 4

>> No.6562810

>>6562788
Presumably because you would be the one killing that one dude, while if you did nothing, the five dudes would have been killed by whoever tied them to the tracks.

The question is whether you take a utilitarian view of morality where the only important thing is maximizing the number of people alive at the end of the scenario, or whether you take a more personal view of morality where obeying the general prohibition of "thou shalt not kill" is more important to you than the overall outcome.

>> No.6562819 [DELETED] 

>trying to impress a philosophy professor
if someone as stupid as me can impress him he's not worth impressing. Most of the good ones are cynical assholes.

>> No.6562823

>>6562797
Well as long as we acknowledge the experiment's irrelevance to reality then all's well

>> No.6562827

>>6562823
That's the whole point.

>> No.6562830

>>6562795
I'm sure you would know all about greentexting on facebook

>> No.6562836

>>6562827
Why not have a thought experiment that embraces choice?

>> No.6562839

>>6562830
Unfortunately I do, I dunno why I liked the needle drop's page. Fuck moo

>> No.6562852

>>6562836
If you're using it to test responses between say 2 ethical theories anything else is irrelevant.

>> No.6562857

>>6562806
>responsibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6-ZGAGcJrk

>> No.6562861

>>6562852
I'd much rather a trolley experiment that encompasses as many choices, and therefore theories, as possible.

>> No.6562867

>>6562852
Meaning that they're a means to an end

>> No.6562879
File: 51 KB, 500x650, 1423511748896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6562879

>>6562867
More like memes to an end, amirite

>> No.6562891

the whole purpose of these is to reduce the complexity of life to a numbers game so you can calculate the numbers (5>1 WOW)

they're dumb as hell but if you can't work out 5>1 I feel like you've missed the point. the right answer is to reject all this trolly shit as out of control autism but if you're actually going to answer the question obviously you always kill one dude to save five.

>> No.6562905

>>6562891
Oh look you solved the trolley game. Indisputably. How could anyone ever disagree?

>> No.6562912

>>6562905
ty

>> No.6562975

>>6562702
Don't push the fat guy, jump off myself

Don't flip the switch, run in front of the trolley myself

>> No.6562992

>>6562975
>implying that your skinny ass would stop the trolley

>> No.6562994

>>6562702
>scenario A
Give him a belly rub; he looks unhappy.
>scenario B
Whistle a happy tune while working on the railroad.

>> No.6563010
File: 17 KB, 225x225, 1411048728941.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6563010

>>6562992
I didn't say it would

>> No.6563407

Memes.

>> No.6563422

>>6562702
"Wow, this looks like a tough problem."

>> No.6563435

>What prevents me to do this or that ?
>What pushes me to do this or that ?
>I can basically give meaning, and-

And while I was saying that, the trolley was already gone. I tied myself to the tracks but it never came back.

>> No.6563465

>>6562702
I tell him that I do not recognie the principle of life which has been indoctrinated for several centuries

>> No.6563509

>>6563465
So what does that mean and what do you do in the scenario?

>> No.6563518

>>6562702
Principle of double effect says that #1 is wrong and that #2 isn't necessarily.

Gib philosophy degree pls

>> No.6563519

>>6562702
The antimoral decision, so they can lecture you on why you're wrong and feel like they're Socrates IRL

>> No.6563521

>>6562775
"I beat le problem xDDDD"

>> No.6563538
File: 69 KB, 992x500, morality.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6563538

>> No.6563580

>>6562702
I'm not sure if anyone actually answered you, but depending on the the professor you would:
>pull the switch
Greatest happiness for greatest number of people aka Muh utilitarianism.
>not pull the switch
Because you have a moral duty not to kill anyone AKA Kantian ethics
>weigh up both options depending on a number of visceral factors, and do the thing you feel is right
Moral Sense Theory.

>> No.6563588

>>6563580
These are the standard answers, and are never going to impress a prof unless you provide some novel reasons for your position.

>> No.6563607

>>6563588
Well yeah, but so far all people had said was: "I make the train do a flip" and "I kill myself." Which will just earn you an eye roll. Better to clarify the basic positions, and then work on your answer from there.

If the Prof hates utilitarianism, he's going to hate any answer down those lines no matter how well thought out. Same is true for Kantian ethics. OP needs to ascertain which position his professor prefers, and then build his answer from there.

>> No.6563641

>>6562891
this guy right here gets it

once again, the answer to the question is the reason that the question is being asked

if i professor was somehow not impressed with that answer, then frankly i wouldn't be impressed with him

the problem is completely uninteresting ethically

it is far more interesting as a meta-philosophical demonstration of how a simplified model of a particular aspect of ethics can tell us absolutely nothing about ethics

>> No.6563681

>>6563538

a trolley can't make that turn like that
so it's the same choice
also you can just jerk the lever and try to derail it without squishing a person

this a dumb question, why'd you even ask this

>> No.6563719

>>6562789
this fucking kid

>> No.6563745

>>6562810
well, moral precepts or commandments are ridiculous, so I think in that situation I'd be naively utilitarian to allow more people to live. I see no real reason not to, but I'm not well acquainted with ethics theories, but I don't think this experiment is a good context to exemplify most.

>> No.6563756

>>6562857
>responsibility
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JVILrFjemQ

>> No.6564142

>>6563509
it means that I am probably smart enough not to be in this scenario (just like the kantian imperative to give up your friend to some soldier)

as usual, these little problems forget all the events beforehand.

>> No.6564562
File: 328 KB, 1353x976, DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6564562

Living is suffering

>> No.6564575
File: 92 KB, 600x777, sup_gayboy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6564575

>>6562823
>being this autistic

>> No.6564687

You kill one over four in both situations. The fat guy is an option and to pretend he isn't because you are the one pushing him on the tracks is silly.
The problem at hand deals specifically with Moral Dumbfoundedness. We can pretend that pushing the fat guy into play is wrong of us, but that is dumb because when an option has presented itself to save the lives of four people at the cost of just one there is no valid reason not to do it.

So always one over four. The fat guy is inherently in play because he is a cheaper solution to what would be a more expensive outcome.

>> No.6565513

i would ask the fat guy to sacrifice himself for the greater good
that's his call, really

>> No.6565528

one day, i was walking across a bridge, and i saw four people tied to the train tracks below. a train was coming and was sure to kill them, and i considered throwing myself in the path to stop it. unfortunately i calculated that i was a few pounds too light to be able to stop it in time, however there was a fatter man leaning over the railing watching the scenario, so although i had no reason to think that he had anything to do with creating the predicament, i decided to throw him in the path of the train in order to halt its progress and save those other four strangers.
my split second calculation was correct and the obese gentleman i murdered instantly clogged the wheels of the train, which ground to a bloody halt right before it would have run over those other guys. i rushed to untie them only to discover that they were in fact store dummies, tied to the tracks for a movie that was currently being filmed. i was soon surrounded by the horrified film crew and explained my reasoning with the help of a simple diagram and they all agreed that my logic was sound, so they let me go. to this day i wonder if i did the right thing.

>> No.6565536

>>6562702
Only push the fat guy if you know it won't stop the train.

>> No.6565537

play rock paper scissors with the fat guy to determine who will jump
flip a coin: heads: leaver stays the wasy it is; tails: pull the switch
put the responsibility in the hand of god

>> No.6565546

>>6562702
Is the point of the fat guy to be pushed and hit by the trolley, stopping it and saving the other four?

Assuming a human body will stop the trolley, why not throw yourself on front of the trolley to save a total of five people at the expense of your life? It's ultimately the noblest choice. Or does it only work because the man is a fatty?

>> No.6565552

>>6565537
what

>> No.6565568
File: 91 KB, 1872x203, christianity.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6565568

There are no prescriptive facts so there really isn't an answer to give other than what you'd personally do and no one can give that answer until they're put in the situation.

>> No.6567398

>>6562754
how can you defend this view objectively? is there really any concrete difference? I don't think so, I think it's an illusion.

>> No.6567418
File: 7 KB, 168x244, Penn-Jillette.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567418

>>6562702
>"It's a spook."

>> No.6567429

>>6564562
>kill 6

great success

>> No.6567438

>>6565552
>God exists, and is able to control anything, but does not interfere with free will
>If I do something that "randomizes" the decision, the decision is in the hand of God
>I am blameless, God decided

>> No.6567580

>>6562702
Just watch Schindler's List.
The story follows the same premise.

>> No.6567618

Route the train to hit as many people as possible, then walk over to the other one and stab the shit out of him with a rusty knife.

>> No.6567625
File: 65 KB, 566x478, 1426919174395.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567625

>>6567438
Have a reply

>> No.6567634

>>6567438
>if I shoot a random person then God did it!

At least now we know how these people think

>> No.6567639

Philosophical "problems" are trivial and genetics and the environment determine what my stances on a given philosophical "problem" will be. That professor should quit his job and study pure mathematics.

>> No.6567665
File: 126 KB, 959x573, 1430425241103.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567665

What now, losers?

>> No.6567673

Learn what school of thought the professor most sympathizes with or subscribes to first.

Some are deliberately ambiguous and try to give a neutral survey, but their biases are usually moderately easy to suss out after a while.

>> No.6567729

>>6565546
>Assuming a human body will stop the trolley, why not throw yourself on front of the trolley to save a total of five people at the expense of your life?
If a single person is enough to stop the trolley, then only one of those four people would die anyways.

>> No.6567757

>>6562702
I have an above averagely long, but more importantly very thick penis.

>> No.6567772

>>6567729
A body won't just stop the trolley dead in its tracks, pun intended. it'd probably still fuck the other three up.

>> No.6567827

Do nothing on A and B

>> No.6567839

>>6562702
blatant homework thread

>> No.6567847

>>6567839
Homework a month after the university year ended?

>> No.6567850

Impress a philosophy professor? I guess I would just explain the utilitarian perspective, then maybe explain what Kant would say.

Then say this exercise is a massive waste of time and in the end solves nothing, answers nothing, explains nothing.

>> No.6567880
File: 190 KB, 959x573, I'd rather just not if that's okay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567880

>>6567665

>> No.6567911

>>6563538

this is so deep

>> No.6567920

You leave it as it is, human beings are individuals and cannot be added to form a greater being.

It is not 1 v 4, its Joe v Matt, Joe v Brian, Joe v John and John v Kenny.

>> No.6567924

>>6567665
pull the lever
have sex with the five tied up people while they're tied up
do a sick loop-da-loop on my skateboard

>> No.6567934

>>6567920
This is what spooked people actually believe.

>> No.6567946

>>6567934
>anti-collectivism is now a spook

>> No.6567963
File: 78 KB, 770x740, 1411374928356.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567963

>>6567946
>isms, anti-isms included, ever not being spooks

>> No.6567966
File: 83 KB, 462x262, 1432073336796.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6567966

>> No.6568097

>>6567966
MSPaint should pay you money for your contributions to society.

>> No.6568127

>>6567966
C-c-curious George?

>> No.6568190

>>6567665
going for the loopty loop and see awesome blood shreading bruh

>> No.6568215

>>6567625
>>6567634

i thought greentext was sarcasm

newfaglihood i guess

>> No.6568295

>>6568215
It's okay, just lurk more

>> No.6568327

>>6562702
1 Fat people are mass murders so I would push the fat fuck over regardless.
2 Pull the lever half way so it derails and kills no one.

>> No.6568434

>>6567963
>being anti-spook is now a spook

>> No.6568457

>>6568327
If you pull the rail halfway, the inner cog will pop out the rail split and you'll kill someone still

>> No.6568460

>>6568434
It can be if anti spooks becomes an absolute spirit for you

>> No.6568601

>>6567847

Summer semester is going on right now, you know

>> No.6568654

>>6568327
Nothing guarantees that train will derail. It can actually be long enough and, instead, do a multi-rail drift and kill everyone.

>> No.6568667

>>6562702
>trying to impress other people

that's your first mistake.

>> No.6568671

>>6562702
Reverse the trolley

>> No.6568712

>>6568654

At least they can take solace in the fact they took the other fucker(s) down with them

>> No.6570147

>>6562702
>implying I take practical philosophy

Normative ethics is a pointless pursuit.

>> No.6570165

GOD IS NOT DEAD

>> No.6570182
File: 53 KB, 800x514, dd877f41b3ebbcbc2833a8eed9949752.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6570182

I'd say that what is considered moral is a product of the biological construction of human brains combined with the circumstances that humans find themselves in, so that with adequate understanding of both we can predict what most people will consider moral in a given situation.

If this is true then moral argumentation becomes irrelevant, because you can just plug the data into the formula and get what "most people" will believe.

>but couldn't argumentation change their mind??
Name literally one time that has worked. Ever.

>but muh slavery, muh democracy, muh this that or the other thing
Take a closer look and you'll see that the moral arguments used at that time were in existence for centuries. What actually changed were the *circumstances*. The environment allowed (or even forced) people to behave differently. They weren't convinced. They were "coerced by nature" into changing their morality.

I know it would impress a philosophy professor because I've already brought it up with mine and he reckons I should do a thesis on it.

>> No.6570199

>>6562810

I don't see how inaction is different from action in that specific situation. No matter what you decide you are deciding who lives and who dies.

Generally speaking we view someone who "didn't do anything" to cause a situation to happen as not being responsible for the situation. But that view is applied to people who were not making active decisions to cause the situation and were not aware of the outcome.

Here we have a person who is perfectly aware and will make a decision about other people's lives. Imagine a scenario where you see a toddler walking towards the edge of a canyon, not realizing the danger. If you coolly stand by watching him, doing nothing, what you're essentially doing is making the decision that "through my inaction, I will cause this child to die". The same applies here, inaction doesn't mean that you're not responsible because you are still making a decision about the outcome. Whether you actually move your limbs or not is a complete red herring and I've never understood why people place so much weight on that.

>> No.6570209

>>6562879
i love you

>> No.6570224

>>6562754

Why can't the fat man decide?