FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Philosophy
Philosophy
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone want to talk a bit? I'm bored.
Do you like soggy cereal? If you do then we cant be friends
Does porridge count as soggy cereal?"
Yeah kindof Soz..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Cogito ergo sum. Yay or nay?
Surely that's a question only oneself can answer?
Exactly. Do you think that to think is to exist, or is there something more tangible? "
Of course one can exist without thinking, i've met some of them. In Lidl i must add, not from here. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Anyone want to talk a bit? I'm bored.
Do you like soggy cereal? If you do then we cant be friends
Does porridge count as soggy cereal?"
Not if you over cook it it doesn't. Most of it falls out in a lump. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
Of course one can exist without thinking, i've met some of them. In Lidl i must add, not from here. "
There's plenty on here as well hah.
Anyway the question though is more can you think yet not exist.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Cogito ergo sum. Yay or nay?
Surely that's a question only oneself can answer?
Exactly. Do you think that to think is to exist, or is there something more tangible? "
You mean tangible as in something you can touch? Surely it would still be the same thing, as you may touch with say, your fingertips, but the realisation of the touch occurs in the brain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
One quote I always liked is "There are only two possibilities. Either we are alone in the universe or we are not, both are equally terrifying"
I apply the same theory to the religious arguments,End of the day there is no scientific way to either prove or disprove a god/gods or afterlife etc it's really up to what you choose to believe. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Cogito ergo sum. Yay or nay?
Surely that's a question only oneself can answer?
Exactly. Do you think that to think is to exist, or is there something more tangible?
You mean tangible as in something you can touch? Surely it would still be the same thing, as you may touch with say, your fingertips, but the realisation of the touch occurs in the brain."
I mean can you exist purely by thinking that you do. Does the version of yourself which you picture when you dream exist? Or does only your sleeping corporeal form exist? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Cogito ergo sum. Yay or nay?
Surely that's a question only oneself can answer?
Exactly. Do you think that to think is to exist, or is there something more tangible?
You mean tangible as in something you can touch? Surely it would still be the same thing, as you may touch with say, your fingertips, but the realisation of the touch occurs in the brain.
I mean can you exist purely by thinking that you do. Does the version of yourself which you picture when you dream exist? Or does only your sleeping corporeal form exist? "
So you mean during the times when you cease to consciously think, such as when asleep, do you continue to exist during that period of time? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Here's an old one for ya.
So there is a bridge into a city.
That bridge is guarded+ at end of the bridge is a gallows and courthouse.
The law is that the guards must ask anyone Approaching the bridge where they are going+ for what purpose. If they answer truly they are allowed over the bridge + into the city
If someone is found to be lying they are to be hung from the gallows.
All goes well, lots of peeps pass over the bridge.
Until one day, a man is put on oath + asked where he is going.
He says, I am going to die on the gallows.
So do you let him pass or not?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *aaLaaWoman
over a year ago
Pontesbury |
"Cogito ergo sum. Yay or nay?
Surely that's a question only oneself can answer?
Exactly. Do you think that to think is to exist, or is there something more tangible?
You mean tangible as in something you can touch? Surely it would still be the same thing, as you may touch with say, your fingertips, but the realisation of the touch occurs in the brain.
I mean can you exist purely by thinking that you do. Does the version of yourself which you picture when you dream exist? Or does only your sleeping corporeal form exist?
So you mean during the times when you cease to consciously think, such as when asleep, do you continue to exist during that period of time? "
My problem is more do people exist when I am not interacting with them. Or are they simply fragments of my life which are destroyed when our interaction is completed only to be recreated at a later date? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here's an old one for ya.
So there is a bridge into a city.
That bridge is guarded+ at end of the bridge is a gallows and courthouse.
The law is that the guards must ask anyone Approaching the bridge where they are going+ for what purpose. If they answer truly they are allowed over the bridge + into the city
If someone is found to be lying they are to be hung from the gallows.
All goes well, lots of peeps pass over the bridge.
Until one day, a man is put on oath + asked where he is going.
He says, I am going to die on the gallows.
So do you let him pass or not?
"
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.  "
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Here's an old one for ya.
So there is a bridge into a city.
That bridge is guarded+ at end of the bridge is a gallows and courthouse.
The law is that the guards must ask anyone Approaching the bridge where they are going+ for what purpose. If they answer truly they are allowed over the bridge + into the city
If someone is found to be lying they are to be hung from the gallows.
All goes well, lots of peeps pass over the bridge.
Until one day, a man is put on oath + asked where he is going.
He says, I am going to die on the gallows.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before."
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?"
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
"So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?"
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me."
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me.
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie "
Then they let him pass then.
No paradox here.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me.
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie "
He didn't specifically say the gallows on the bridge.
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me.
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie
He didn't specifically say the gallows on the bridge.
A"
We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me.
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie
He didn't specifically say the gallows on the bridge.
A
We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only"
Why?
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A"
Coz it changes the question that was asked. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A
Coz it changes the question that was asked."
But the question didn't mention that the gallows on the bridge were the only gallows in existence.
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A
Coz it changes the question that was asked.
But the question didn't mention that the gallows on the bridge were the only gallows in existence.
A"
Don't go all existential on us now.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *bi HaiveMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Cheeseville, Somerset |
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A
Coz it changes the question that was asked.
But the question didn't mention that the gallows on the bridge were the only gallows in existence.
A
Don't go all existential on us now.
"
Maybe the guy was suicidal.
Therefore the guard could let him across the bridge safe in the knowledge that he was in fact being truthful, and the man could then hang himself with no further input from the guard or anyone in the courthouse.
Everyone's a winner.
A |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Existence means to be aware of oneself so yeah if you're aware of yourself you exist.
To Hume ever that may concern.
Well does an animal that is not self aware not exist? What about a stone?
If anything doesn't know they exist, they can't claim they do. Us interacting with it gives us an idea it probably does exist, if we're to rely on our senses- and it makes sense to do that.
Tbh you can't really prove you exist to anyone who asks if you do, but if they see you, talk to you, interact with you they will presume you do exist, which is why it can be easy to fool people. PLus we know hallucinations exist.
Most of philosophy is a head fuck really, that we can't presume anything and have to take as truth what makes the most sense at the time.
So do you let him pass or not?
I'd presume he lied before so is indeed going to die on the gallows.
You go any more of these? Hadn't heard this one before.
Or maybe he genuinely thought he was going to die, and so was actually allowed to cross..?
He'd die anyway. If he he thought he was going to die on the gallows and that was a truth then he dies on the gallows. If he thought he was going to die on the gallows and he was lying to himself then he dies for lying. Seems simple enough to me.
But if he was mistaken that is not a lie
He didn't specifically say the gallows on the bridge.
A"
Nor the timing, so he cannot be hanged IMO. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A
Coz it changes the question that was asked.
But the question didn't mention that the gallows on the bridge were the only gallows in existence.
A"
We just presume that all the info needed is in the question, however vague it is.
It does make for a not as fun conversation but that's how paradoxes are. They're scenarios that make you think linearly and limit your options to something cannot be true, or the only answers contradict themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Kittens, aw cute lickle furry kittens. They're lovely aren't they?
It's hard to know if
Schrödinger's is cute or not.
 Dead. It's definitely dead. "
That's just too Schopenhauer for a sunny morning.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?"
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?"
Don't start..... they are still on the first one !
Only in the version I know ( Buriden's ) It was a bridge. Plato , Aristotle and a river....... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
"
Hmmmmmmm but you therefore allowed 5 to die when you could have saved them.
Doesn't really let you off lightly does it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
Hmmmmmmm but you therefore allowed 5 to die when you could have saved them.
Doesn't really let you off lightly does it."
I was passive in allowing the killing and not proactive in killing, but yes both are murder now you mention it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
Hmmmmmmm but you therefore allowed 5 to die when you could have saved them.
Doesn't really let you off lightly does it.
I was passive in allowing the killing and not proactive in killing, but yes both are murder now you mention it."
What would be worse. Passively killing one to keep yourself out of it all ....... or Actively saving five?
Shouldn't we always act for the greater good ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
Hmmmmmmm but you therefore allowed 5 to die when you could have saved them.
Doesn't really let you off lightly does it.
I was passive in allowing the killing and not proactive in killing, but yes both are murder now you mention it."
Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"This is an old one..
There is a runaway train speeding down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people
tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance away in the train yard, next to a switch. If you pull it, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track.
Do you do nothing, and the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Or do you pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person?
I've heard this one before, also a variant where it's a fat man and you have to push him onto the track to save 5 people (coz people are more likely to kill a fattie apparently). Ooh and the one where you kill one guy to take his perfect organs to save the life of 5 people who need transplants, that one is creepy.
No i let the 5 die, i don't like people that much. Plus don't wanna be a murderer.
Hmmmmmmm but you therefore allowed 5 to die when you could have saved them.
Doesn't really let you off lightly does it.
I was passive in allowing the killing and not proactive in killing, but yes both are murder now you mention it.
What would be worse. Passively killing one to keep yourself out of it all ....... or Actively saving five?
Shouldn't we always act for the greater good ?
"
What's the greater good, for you?
I personally don't think keeping a greater number of people alive is the best thing to do here. My morals say to purposely harm someone is wrong, that's how i made my judgment. I am presuming all the people involved are of 'equal value' too.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"We cannot introduce an extra gallows to suit our argument. You must assume the gallows, the guards , the man and the city only
Why?
A
Coz it changes the question that was asked."
yeah all the info you need is in the question.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though.."
I can't save them all anyway, someone is going to die. Flicking the switch means i actually killed a guy, that's what my head tells me. I'm not utilarian, 5 people are not worth more than one person to me, each person has their own value. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though..
I can't save them all anyway, someone is going to die. Flicking the switch means i actually killed a guy, that's what my head tells me. I'm not utilarian, 5 people are not worth more than one person to me, each person has their own value."
I can see where you are coming from. In being passive you do not kill anyone and fate takes it's course and 5 die an unfortunate but unavoidable death.
So. If a home owner is about to be killed. Would you choose to passively allow it in case the armed police you called killed the 5 armed robbers ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though..
I can't save them all anyway, someone is going to die. Flicking the switch means i actually killed a guy, that's what my head tells me. I'm not utilarian, 5 people are not worth more than one person to me, each person has their own value."
Basically, you'd rather kill 5 people by doing nothing than CHOOSE to kill one person of your own volition?
...anyway, is anyone on this runaway train? Changing track at the last minute could derail it and kill all of them - all to save 5 people (who may be crushed by the tumbling trolleys anyway - hurray! Your valiant quick thinking killed EVERYONE! ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though..
I can't save them all anyway, someone is going to die. Flicking the switch means i actually killed a guy, that's what my head tells me. I'm not utilarian, 5 people are not worth more than one person to me, each person has their own value.
Basically, you'd rather kill 5 people by doing nothing than CHOOSE to kill one person of your own volition?
...anyway, is anyone on this runaway train? Changing track at the last minute could derail it and kill all of them - all to save 5 people (who may be crushed by the tumbling trolleys anyway - hurray! Your valiant quick thinking killed EVERYONE! )"
You can't put people on the train mid dilemma. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"Neither of them are murder, as not premeditated. If anything it's a toss up between manslaughter and criminal negligence.
I think you're right though it comes down to being passive or active.
Utilitarian ethics would mean saving the five though..
I can't save them all anyway, someone is going to die. Flicking the switch means i actually killed a guy, that's what my head tells me. I'm not utilarian, 5 people are not worth more than one person to me, each person has their own value.
I can see where you are coming from. In being passive you do not kill anyone and fate takes it's course and 5 die an unfortunate but unavoidable death.
So. If a home owner is about to be killed. Would you choose to passively allow it in case the armed police you called killed the 5 armed robbers ?"
Yeah good question, although I would remove the 'what if' aspect. Hypothetically speaking you know for a fact by calling the police the 5 robbers will die. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"or conversely........
One armed robber is about to kill a family of five.
Do you shoot him if you can or call the police knowing they will kill him ?
Should fate just play out ?"
I think I could take out a One armed Robber easily, He has to put the Gun down to pick up the TV then bish bash bosh
Job Done
Gimpoid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I can see where you are coming from. In being passive you do not kill anyone and fate takes it's course and 5 die an unfortunate but unavoidable death.
So. If a home owner is about to be killed. Would you choose to passively allow it in case the armed police you called killed the 5 armed robbers ?"
Yeah basically i took the option that gives me the most sense of inner peace. After all, it will be only me dealing with the aftermath of what i did (or didn't) do.
Here you've changed things a bit by making the people unequal now, i'll use your example from below because i understand that one properly. One is going to violate others rights to life.
Sensible answer, according to my other answer, would be yes i do nothing again. I leave it to fate because i don't want to be active in killing someone else. Thing is if i give the robber a lesser value because he is a threat to others, then yes i can justify saving the family who are not causing any harm.
All kind of variables will in fact change my reply to this, if the family are my family then too right i would kill the robber without a second thought. If it was a family i don't like then i'd leave him to it. Seriously. But sense should say i do nothing according to my morals, of course people aren't like that once feelings come into play. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lol, how likely are these scenarios, really?
I haven't got the statistics but they happen.
I never cease to be shocked by what I read."
I meant with a neighbour. Imagine a train heading towards your house and your neighbours house...
But yeah you can use these scenarios for all kinds of other relevant happenings i guess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Lol, how likely are these scenarios, really?
I haven't got the statistics but they happen.
I never cease to be shocked by what I read.
I meant with a neighbour. Imagine a train heading towards your house and your neighbours house...
But yeah you can use these scenarios for all kinds of other relevant happenings i guess."
YOu'd stand NO chance. If it's my house or your house your house gets it !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lol, how likely are these scenarios, really?
I haven't got the statistics but they happen.
I never cease to be shocked by what I read.
I meant with a neighbour. Imagine a train heading towards your house and your neighbours house...
But yeah you can use these scenarios for all kinds of other relevant happenings i guess.
YOu'd stand NO chance. If it's my house or your house your house gets it !!"
My house is insured, plus i want to move anyway so win/win. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Lol, how likely are these scenarios, really?abt the same as you gettin a shower and washing all your tatts off! "
I'm going for a bath, it's got a bit too busy in my inbox anyway. Hope none of them come off now.
Anything is possible...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
Thing is if i give the robber a lesser value because he is a threat to others, then yes i can justify saving the family who are not causing any harm.
"
Thats is utilitarian ethics right there though.
There's no right or wrong answers for these anyway, they're just fun to discuss! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
"
By losing more hair than their body's can naturally replace, obviously. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
"
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something? "
If you didn't understand the question you wouldn't be able to answer it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something?
If you didn't understand the question you wouldn't be able to answer it."
I have correctly answered questions where I haven't understood the question. My maths results would have been even worse if I had only answered the ones I understood. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something?
If you didn't understand the question you wouldn't be able to answer it.
I have correctly answered questions where I haven't understood the question. My maths results would have been even worse if I had only answered the ones I understood. "
So you sometimes guessed your way to better results and it paid off? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something?
If you didn't understand the question you wouldn't be able to answer it."
I attempted to answer based on my understanding. I was hoping for you to elaborate, or was that it..? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something?
If you didn't understand the question you wouldn't be able to answer it.
I attempted to answer based on my understanding. I was hoping for you to elaborate, or was that it..?"
I deliberately answered in a sufficiently accurate manner in order to eliminate the necessity of further elaboration, so yes, that was it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Thing is if i give the robber a lesser value because he is a threat to others, then yes i can justify saving the family who are not causing any harm.
Thats is utilitarian ethics right there though.
There's no right or wrong answers for these anyway, they're just fun to discuss! "
Yeah.
Really no one life is worth more than another. But obviously you place a value when feelings come into it, and sometimes you can justify taking a life. Like if an unborn child is going to kill it's mother then you could justify taking the childs life to save her, rather than have both die.
I understand people, no matter what, are the same and we don't have the right to take anyones life, not even if they don't respect that themselves. So you can justify anything. And live by your own morals and be happy with them, or justify your actions if not happy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"here's another one.
If.. there is no notable difference, between two things right..
eg, no notable difference between a head with 1m hairs and a head with 999,999 hairs on it.
no diff between a head with 999,999 and 999,998 hairs on it. etc etc
how do men become bald?
I don't understand the question? It's the cumulative effect of losing that 1 hair per day. So after a few years rather than 999,999 hairs you have 500,000 and so the difference is now noticeable. Have I missed something? "
I think you have. You've missed thinking that it might possibly be a silly joke and meant as a bit of fun. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
I deliberately answered in a sufficiently accurate manner in order to eliminate the necessity of further elaboration, so yes, that was it."
Ohhhh well in that case i apologise unreservedly, I bow down to your superior mastery of the English language. Your time is clearly very important and I am sorry to have wasted it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *gNeMan
over a year ago
Harrogate |
"
I think you have. You've missed thinking that it might possibly be a silly joke and meant as a bit of fun."
Possibly. That's all I was asking though, seemed like more of an incredibly simplistic riddle than a philosophical question.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I deliberately answered in a sufficiently accurate manner in order to eliminate the necessity of further elaboration, so yes, that was it.
Ohhhh well in that case i apologise unreservedly, I bow down to your superior mastery of the English language. Your time is clearly very important and I am sorry to have wasted it. "
Apology accepted. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
