/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3960711
>OP has sociopathic tendencies
>OP should feel bad

Does not compute.

>>3960713
Inaction leads to damage to society, leading to punishment for the inaction and/or a less efficient society. No, the effects wouldn't be major, but if all trains on the line stop for a week so enquiries can be held into how it happened, and there's a shortage of engineers for the next 6 months, then there'll be a noticeable economic effect from reduced business, etc.

Also, a lot of people will adopt an ideological stance like utilitarianism, to give them a stand in for an emotional moral system.

>>3960719
Still quite mad, still not providing anything I can even provide evidence against.

>UR AN IDIOT

Quite right, I see the error of my ways.

>>3960704
Do you even know what natural selection is? It sounds like you don't.

>>3960660
Letting environmental pressures decide what is and isn't inhibitory is natural selection, not applying artificial pressures.

>>3960662
Humans go back a long way, and I'm fairly sure we're going to be homo sapiens until our method of defining animals in discrete categories changes. Humans and their evolutionary successors, if you will, are what I'm interested in the proliferations of.

>>3960663
I don't understand why you're quite so mad. Utilitarianism is the default, "good" has no default definition AFAIK.
>>3960666
Yes I do. Nice trips.

>>3960673
And this is the logic for solipsism. I have no explicit refutation of it, I just assume it to be untrue because it's a dead end. Sorry.

>>3960675
>Op, that isn't evidence for psychopathy. a psychopath would gain nothing by doing any action, and so would do no action. He might even enjoy watching 5 men get hit with a train if he were also a sadist.

Evidence would suggest otherwise. http://www.rps.psu.edu/indepth/brainscans2.html
I also question the idea that psychopaths mustn't care about society. One obviously benefits from there being one, after all.

> It is selfish, always, to not act because of how things would reflect on you.

rAmen

>>3960639
This is where it gets opinionated.

My definition of good is "contributory and not inhibitory to the evolution and proliferation of the human race". No circular bullshit.

>>3960628
Doubt it, don't be an unreasonable hypocritical penis about it.

>>3960598
My goal is good, not happiness. straw men everywhere.

And I'm not trying to prove to you that utilitarianism is right- there are several systems, utilitarianism is the default logical method of making non-zero sum moral decisions intended to do the most good possible.

>>3960568
There are more people on the track than there are on the bridge and we have no information about either other than their build. We assume our senses to be valid.
>>3960574
Cite that.

>>3960575
So they should be rejected?
>>3960584
Apparently pointing out flaws in your opponents arguments by using the same argument against them and getting them to refute it themselves makes me wrong. This is interesting.

>>3960554
>He thinks I don't understand science because I pointed out he didn't understand science

Lawdeh me.

>>3960557
They were forced onto the track by a natural disaster, that pushed rocks in front of and behind the car. The doors locked through a design fault that can be traced back to a copy error in a korean work shop, the error was made due to a machine malfunctioning, the machine malfunctioned due to a quantum fluctuation.

>>3960552
>Except now you are living in a society where you may be arbitrarily picked up off the street and murdered for the use of your body parts. That will likely raise anxiety levels society-wide.

At the moment I live in one where 5 of the most important people in the world, who will in turn save many thousands of lives, will die for the sake of one person who is essentially of little worth to society. This worries me more than the idea that people are willing to make utilitarian decisions that disadvantage me.

Remember that the only situations in which this kind of thing would be allowed are ones in which it has a blatant benefit, and ones in which inaction has worse effects for society and for most individuals.

>>3960547
Show me objective evidence, admit that I don't need it, or get the fuck off of my science board. It's not difficult, by any stretch of the imagination.

>>3960514
You didn't respond personally :D

>>3960520
Give me some objective evidence of anything, or get the fuck out of my science board and learn what the scientific method is.

>>3960523
It is, yes.

>>3960530
>Nothing objective exists so nothing can be known to exist

You can also GTFO my science board. Seriously, people?
>>3960533
In the problem you know with absolute certainty that he does. You're avoiding the question.

It's not supposed to be totally realistic, if it was then there'd be no out of control trolley and there'd be no workers on a line that was in service and there'd be no manual level that could be used to change the train's direction and there'd be no bridge you could just push a guy off over the line. The problem itself is what's important.

>>3960511
>Nope. the trolley already killed them. They just wont know it for a few more seconds. Or more specifically the 5 peoples lack of attention killed them. In no way should the worker, a man whose duties include working on the track, be sacrificed to save trespassers. Especially if the worker is on a downed line.

A car stuck in on a crossing containing 5 civilians who cannot get out for whatever reason.

You're actually saying that in the first case, you would stand by? I'm kinda taken aback by that, we've talked before and you haven't struck me as the kind of person who would do that.

Assume both tracks are active. I mean, if the lever's in place then they must be. Also, nobody ever goes to work on an active track, the workers on the one the train will continue down from inaction are no more to blame than the single worker on the other track.

>>3960500
We cant meet the standard of having objective evidence gravity exists, and we can't measure adherence to the standard because we can't verify our senses are in any way reliable.

Maximising happiness is not the same as utilitarianism. Maximising good is utilitarianism. If I wanted happiness for everyone, like I said, I'd be putting dopamine in water supplies and heroin in flu jabs.

>>3960487
Relevant name.

What if you're responsible for the trolley rolling and didn't intend to be?

Like, if you wrongly estimated the ability of the carriage's brakes and as a consequence it rolled after you parked it, consequently putting you in your situation?

>>3960458
For all I know the one person on the bridge might be, too. Unsurprisingly I'm going with the assumption that life is better than non life for people,

>>3960469

The correct utilitarian response can be supplimented with knowledge about those in the situation, but doesn't require it. Moral judgements don't have to be an exact, absolute science, and utilitarianism can still be used to make snap decisions with nothing more than the knowledge of the number of affected parties and the scale of potential actions against them.


>>3960473
Do you have an alternative?

The scientific methods means we can't meet the standard. The measurement problem means there isn't even a standard.

Gravity is empty.

>>3960437
I don't see much reason to continue with this. Bye.
>>3960442
>Utilitarian idea is more complex, though... to make a proper evaluation, we'd need to know absolutely everything about the situation

Actually, the opposite is true. Utilitarianism provides a way to make judgements able to help society as a whole without any knowledge of individuals' traits.

This thread was actually supposed to be about whether psychopaths and sociopaths were better members of society, which would fall staunchly in sociology/psychology. It didn't really go in that direction though, so I suppose it depends on how you see logic and whether it deserves to be here.

>>3960412
>EK trip

I remember when I told people how to use tripcode explorer to piss of EK. Oh, those were the days.

>>3960417
You've fired a nuclear missile that will kill you and everyone you know unless you press a button in front of you. Do you press it?

If you answer yes, you are a liar. If you answer no, you are a fool.

>>3960395
by trying to*

>>3960382
You're being absurd to try and avoid looking at the problem and testing your moral system. Like I said, you appear to believe you will never make a mistake.

>>3960328
Again, you're avoiding the problem. I don't have anything to say to you other than that you're being dishonest with yourself by trying to pretend something entirely possible is not. Do you honestly believe you will never make a mistake?

>>3960317
>>3960317
1 or 5*. One scenario has you kill four more people than the other.


You keep telling me to read into it without actually responding to my arguments. If your intention was to piss me off,you'd be going in the right direction.

>>3960302
Yeah, I am. Let's not.

>That's retarded, and I wouldn't have done that in the first place.

Do you realise what you're doing? You're actually avoiding the question in whatever way you can to get out of providing a decent answer, which is a pretty standard response.

You <span class="math">are[/spoiler] responsible, in this scenario, and you have to deal with the result. It doesn't matter how you got into this place, you did, and now you have to find your way out. Answering "Well I'd never put myself in that place" is not answering the question, it's making a (poor) excuse for not doing so.

>>3960279

Again, social contract. Whether you like it or not, you have obligations and limited rights, and always will. Morally as well as socially you're obliged to help.


You decided it would be interesting to see how fast the thing would roll if you removed the brakes. This is besides the point.

>>3960283
I think we're deviating from the actual question here, which is understandable. What if you're responsible for the trolley being out of control, directly?

And I'm partially to blame for not helping others on a planetary scale, yes. I have an obligation, as a voluntary member of the human race on this planet, to help others. I try to, within my means, and I realise that the lack of help I offer is unethical and something I can be blamed for.

I'm not the only person who could help, no. I'm also one of the people others look to when they say "meh, they could help instead". The bystander effect is a bitch, I try to counter it when I can.

>even if you are sleeping, eating, tending to your basic needs you are inactive on helping others.

Yeah, and were I not in a society, I wouldn't have any social obligation to help others. I am, through choice, though. I opted in, effectively, to a group where I'm helped by others and legally required to (through taxes) help others, and as a result I am responsible for injury caused by inaction on a personal level.

>>3960269
>pure shit
>everything true or opinion except for a single misremembered statistic

sure, whatever you say.