Without the unrealistic assumptions, more people would suffer by having the organ transplant. People forgo vaccines based on a celebrity's say-so, imagine what would happen if there actually is a legitimate risk for attending the doctor's office. This would have negative consequences on society, the trolley example doesn't. Basically, anyone who thinks they are equivalent fails to consider the external negative consequences in the organ transplant case.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
The Debate Hall Social Thread
- Thread starter Crimson King
- Start date
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
Well I just want to say a few things. The trolley problem is a hypothetical scenario that assumes that there are only two possible courses of action. If in real life a similar scenario happened I would find some other way to save the five people that did not involve murdering an innocent person. It's not that people who don't want to pull the lever are selfish. It's that they recognize that murder does not become OK if it is to save other people.
The world is messed up right now for many reasons, including but not limited to, greed, jealousy, hatred, ignorance, and arrogance. It doesn't make sense to say it all stems from a type of thinking that you disagree with.
@rvkevin
They are equivalent, we are not interested in the negative consequences on society or anything like that. It's all hypothetical.
Aesir
Smash Master
I think we're meant to believe that the only course of action you can make within the time period is pulling a lever. Since we're never given the option to do anything else.
And the other five people are not innocent? Why is it morally better to willingly let 5 other people die? When pulling the lever will save them at the cost of one life? Regardless what you do you hold some responsibility for death. Whether it's doing nothing in which case you're inaction caused the death of 5 people. Or if it's one person where your action caused the death of one.
If you don't under stand that most of the worlds problems come from societies in ability to accept hard choices then there's no point arguing this with you.
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
But in real life there are always other options.
Because murder is not the same as letting die. In the hypothetical example I am only letting them die because there is no better option available. In real life of course I would try to save those people. But not via a way that involves murder.
I don't see where your justification for this claim comes from.
I point out that the organ transplant hypothetical has unrealistic parameters. Suntan Luigi tells me it is merely a hypothetical. Suntan Luigi objects to Aesir's response saying that there are always other options, which goes against the hypothetical. Nice.
Aesir
Smash Master
You know this with 100% certainty?
So it's better to let 5 people die than 1 person, that view point like dre has pointed out puts your own morality above the well being of 5 strangers. Also you might want to look up the definition of murder before you throw it around. At worst it's manslaughter.
Then there's no point.
Ok, well just suppose a hyopethical case where you had to stab someone to death to save five people.
I was pointing out the inconsistency of what Suntan Luigi was doing. I pointed out that the organ transplant scenario would be impossible because it has false assumptions tied to the consequences and then Suntan Luigi said to accept those stipulations as part of the hypothetical. Then Suntan Luigi objected to the trolley problem saying that the assumptions tied to it are false as there are always other options. This is the same thing I did (which was unacceptable to him), yet he is doing the same in response to the trolley problem.
As to your question, the only reservations I would have would be pragmatic.
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
No rvkevin, you misinterpreted my statement. I'm not "objecting" to the trolley problem. When I talked about how in real life there are other options, I was not referring to the hypothetical version which has only 2 options. In the hypotheical version I don't pull the lever only because I have no better option. I was just saying what I would do if such a situation were to somehow to actually occur in real life, to show that I'm not a heartless ******* and that I want to save all the people. That's all.
Also Aesir, real life is infinitely more complex than any hypothetical scenario we can imagine. To say that there are only X amount of options in situations like the trolley problem is unrealistic. As for murder, I don't agree that killing an innocent person is justified if it means other people, who were going to die anyways, will be saved. This isn't about me or my morals, this is about what is right.
(If you want to debate more about the trolley problem I suggest the thread in the proving grounds, to not clog up the social thread).
Also Aesir, real life is infinitely more complex than any hypothetical scenario we can imagine. To say that there are only X amount of options in situations like the trolley problem is unrealistic. As for murder, I don't agree that killing an innocent person is justified if it means other people, who were going to die anyways, will be saved. This isn't about me or my morals, this is about what is right.
(If you want to debate more about the trolley problem I suggest the thread in the proving grounds, to not clog up the social thread).
Aesir
Smash Master
You can't have your cake and eat it too, failing to do nothing there's blood on your hands. Rather than 1 persons all 5 are.
In a real life scenario it's obvious, there are more options, but that's not the goal of the hypothetical scenario you're given a choice and you have to decide. It's a hard decision for a reason.
In a real life scenario it's obvious, there are more options, but that's not the goal of the hypothetical scenario you're given a choice and you have to decide. It's a hard decision for a reason.
Suntan Luigi
Smash Lord
It's good to help people. When there are people in need of help, you should help them. However, it is never OK to murder. Therefore, if I have to choose between not helping some people and murdering someone, I will choose the former.
Aesir
Smash Master
First off you're incorrectly calling it murder without malice forethought it's impossible to prove murder. Since pulling the lever is not an action which required malice forethought it doesn't constitute as murder.
Secondly "it is never okay to murder" while it's nice to think that's the way the world works, that those oppertunities would never arrise however there are many scenarios where the only way to mitigate a disaster or negative effect is to murder the source of that problem.
By chosing the former you're an accomplice to the 5 deaths, you have the power to mitigate a disaster but rather chose to let 5 people die to avoid the death of one. Rather than pulling the lever. You're placing one life over another.
It's not technically murder because you're not willing death upon that person. That person dying is not necessary for you to achieve your intended goal, which is to save five people. Yes it's most likely that he'll die, but that's a consequence of you trying to save five people, it's still possible for you to save the five people without the six person dying (he may just get seriously injured).
So hypothetically, you'd be ok with a humaniod robot turning the lever, because it doesn't have morality. Is your own morality really more important that five people's lives? The fact that to you the decision should depend on the agent making it says the agent should care more about itself than the other people. Soz but that's just selfishness.
Also, another hypothetical to the consequentialists out there- should we make speeding and drink driving offences punishable by execution? Not only would we get rid of people most likely to cause deaths on the roads, but the sheer fear of the punishment would prevent a lot of people from committing these offences, ultimately resulting in a lower percentage of overall deaths than what we currently have.
This is justifiable on consequentialist grounds, in fact it is technically immoral not to apply it. What do you guys think about it?
So hypothetically, you'd be ok with a humaniod robot turning the lever, because it doesn't have morality. Is your own morality really more important that five people's lives? The fact that to you the decision should depend on the agent making it says the agent should care more about itself than the other people. Soz but that's just selfishness.
Also, another hypothetical to the consequentialists out there- should we make speeding and drink driving offences punishable by execution? Not only would we get rid of people most likely to cause deaths on the roads, but the sheer fear of the punishment would prevent a lot of people from committing these offences, ultimately resulting in a lower percentage of overall deaths than what we currently have.
This is justifiable on consequentialist grounds, in fact it is technically immoral not to apply it. What do you guys think about it?
Just make a trolley thread for the Debate Hall. Clearly it has enough interest.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Relevant article: Chatbot conversation goes viral
The most interesting part I find in the whole article is quoted below:
The most interesting part I find in the whole article is quoted below:
-blazed
Theftz22
Smash Lord
That conversation didn't even sound remotely human-like.
Ha! I spent like an hour talking to it. I grilled it on all kinds of things from aesthetics to logic to emotions to morality.
It did fairly well, considering, but it's still painfully obvious it's not really -learning- anything, but rather imitating responses from inputs. It makes me wonder what it would take to bridge that gap - the difference between what it does, and what we do (since arguably all we do is also simple memory retention for planned responses to inputs). What would it be? Emotion? Proper context? Whatever it is, it seems to be impossible to reproduce in a computer, despite the computing power of today's machines approaching the capacity and speed of the human brain.
Any ideas? Let's make a smart computer!
It did fairly well, considering, but it's still painfully obvious it's not really -learning- anything, but rather imitating responses from inputs. It makes me wonder what it would take to bridge that gap - the difference between what it does, and what we do (since arguably all we do is also simple memory retention for planned responses to inputs). What would it be? Emotion? Proper context? Whatever it is, it seems to be impossible to reproduce in a computer, despite the computing power of today's machines approaching the capacity and speed of the human brain.
Any ideas? Let's make a smart computer!
AI is a very curious field. Unfortunately for AI researchers, everyone else keeps moving the goalposts on them.
Not more than a (few) hundred years ago, machines were simply mechanical aids. Just good for lifting heavy things. Mathematics and logic were seen as intellectual tasks which only humans were capable of, not machines.
Then it was Chess that was seen as a truly intellectual challenge that surely no machine could ever rival a human at. Deep Blue changed that.Then it was language processing and riddles that are purely human exercises. Watson changed that.
Nearly every task that computers can do today have at one point been declared impossible for machines to do. Facial recognition, speech synthesis, theorem proving, natural language processing, path finding, you name it.
Holding a conversation with a human is difficult because our speech is full of artifacts that only make sense if you've been exposed to our culture. Consider what it's like to learn a new language. Think of how many of our common English sayings are sports references. "Going the whole 9 yards" "Being up to par" "Knocked that one out of the park". And that's just sports. Every aspect of our culture imprints itself on our language.
It's actually not all that difficult to make a computer translate concepts into English. Just as it's not all that difficult for a Chinese person to look up a phrase in a translation dictionary and speak it. But holding a fluent conversation is much much harder. It becomes not about just the language, but knowing every stupid cultural reference.
Not more than a (few) hundred years ago, machines were simply mechanical aids. Just good for lifting heavy things. Mathematics and logic were seen as intellectual tasks which only humans were capable of, not machines.
Then it was Chess that was seen as a truly intellectual challenge that surely no machine could ever rival a human at. Deep Blue changed that.Then it was language processing and riddles that are purely human exercises. Watson changed that.
Nearly every task that computers can do today have at one point been declared impossible for machines to do. Facial recognition, speech synthesis, theorem proving, natural language processing, path finding, you name it.
Holding a conversation with a human is difficult because our speech is full of artifacts that only make sense if you've been exposed to our culture. Consider what it's like to learn a new language. Think of how many of our common English sayings are sports references. "Going the whole 9 yards" "Being up to par" "Knocked that one out of the park". And that's just sports. Every aspect of our culture imprints itself on our language.
It's actually not all that difficult to make a computer translate concepts into English. Just as it's not all that difficult for a Chinese person to look up a phrase in a translation dictionary and speak it. But holding a fluent conversation is much much harder. It becomes not about just the language, but knowing every stupid cultural reference.
I agree. I find that Cleverbot's biggest issue right now is percentages. Like Watson, its responses are chosen based on the percentage of best likely response. Watson of course was able to use a knowledge base to identify correct answers, and was usually right, though terribly wrong in some answers because of what you mentioned as cultural reference. Cleverbot is challenged in that for instance 2 people can have very different responses to the same question, so rather than identify which one is "best" it averages them and chooses the most popular one, regardless of context. I think though we're on the right path, the real big challenge in developing AI will be in making one that does not simply imitate human behavior, but rather, creates its own behavior. Like so many other life forms, we judge life based upon its comparison to ourselves. With AI we're starting by trying to make it our image, and I think this is not the best approach. I'd rather like to see what happens when the computer is able to make itself from its own building blocks.
We won't exhaust just about anything. What will happen is that economics will eventually make nonrenewable resources more expensive as the supply decreases until most people can't afford it. Whether it will become unaffordable for the masses in the next 50 years is probably a long shot, but I haven't looked into it much. It also doesn't help that we are subsidizing fuel, which makes our consumption artificially higher. This encourages inefficient use of fuel which only brings the "deadline" to us faster.
Depends on who the "we" refers to. The middle class can afford rising gas prices. To someone who gets 20 mpg for their car and drives 10,000 miles a year, a one dollar increase in gas only costs an additional $500 a year. To the middle class, this is negligible. Gas could double and the middle class would survive, although with a little bit less entertainment. However, for someone living paycheck to paycheck, this would probably create a financial hardship.
Also, we can always revert to more efficient options (i.e. trading in SUV's for a typical car) to offset higher gas prices (e.g. if gas goes from $4 to $5, a switch from 20 mpg to 30 mpg will cover the difference and then some). We can always drive more efficiently, which would yield about a 15-20% improvement in mpg. There are ways to use fuel more efficiently, but these involve changing consumer behavior/preferences, which is beyond the limitations of the marketplace and instead involves social change which makes it harder to implement. This is why the first call to action is to subsidize rather than looking into how to implement already known ways to get the same job done with less fuel.
Technically, whenever you build a system based on a non-renewable resource, you are screwed. It called a non-renewable resource for a reason, sooner or later, it will have to be substituted with another method. This is what leads the push for renewable energy. However, fossil fuels are heavily subsidized so renewable energy is not considered economically viable. Another hurdle to overcome is the infrastructure. We will have to wait until gas prices increase (by decrease in supply or tax) in order for a shift to renewable energy to be conceivable. Europe has a considerable tax on fuel, which is why we should be looking to them for innovations in this area.
Not to mention, renewable energy is not technically renewable, so we are always screwed in the long run. It's just that when renewable energy fails, we (humans and derivative species) don't have to worry about it since at that point the Earth will no longer be suitable for life. Are we screwed? No, but our descendants will be.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
A rather interesting political article: When Did the GOP Lose Touch With Reality?
I've read a similar article I believe someone posted here. It was by another conservative gone "AWOL" (perhaps this is the same one, I didn't bother to check). What really gets to me about these articles is they are not written at all by the "liberal media". These are conservatives who are saying these things.
So while some people enjoy the idea that the left and the right are the exact same, each with their own view of the world... the more and more I look at the political spectrum at the moment I'm convinced that in fact the right has moved to the EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC right... and the left has just moved more to the center.
So we're left with reality when talking to democrats versus insanity when talking with republicans.
I really want to believe that it's not true. I want to be shown that people on both sides of the isle are functional, rational people. But these past few years, trying to see this everywhere I have failed to find it to be true.
Can anyone convince me that this belief is simply my own bias, and not the reality of the situation?
I've read a similar article I believe someone posted here. It was by another conservative gone "AWOL" (perhaps this is the same one, I didn't bother to check). What really gets to me about these articles is they are not written at all by the "liberal media". These are conservatives who are saying these things.
So while some people enjoy the idea that the left and the right are the exact same, each with their own view of the world... the more and more I look at the political spectrum at the moment I'm convinced that in fact the right has moved to the EXTREMELY UNREALISTIC right... and the left has just moved more to the center.
So we're left with reality when talking to democrats versus insanity when talking with republicans.
I really want to believe that it's not true. I want to be shown that people on both sides of the isle are functional, rational people. But these past few years, trying to see this everywhere I have failed to find it to be true.
Can anyone convince me that this belief is simply my own bias, and not the reality of the situation?
Theftz22
Smash Lord
Our descendants don't even exist. Things that don't exist can't have rights, since having rights would be a property, and non-existent things don't have properties. How can I have an obligation to things that don't have rights?
Just musing.
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
I'm pretty much with you on this one. It's beyond ********.
Musing of that nature could lead to disaster. People have a responsibility to plan for the future.
Aesir
Smash Master
For anyone who forgot what the financial crisis was and how it happened this is a pretty good article.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/?feed=rss_home
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/22/5086/?feed=rss_home
Theftz22
Smash Lord
Clearly, in the future, our descendants will exist. But all that would follow from that is that once they do exist, then we could have obligations to them.
Yes, since I don't believe that there are any objective obligations anyway, I was simply presupposing them to carry out a line of thought given a certain presupposition. It's a conditional argument.
Obviously a couple can start such a savings fund even if they don't yet have a child, but what would follow from my argument is that they don't have any obligation to.
This doesn't work either, since we would no longer be able to fulfill said obligations. The alternative is to fulfill them now as if they were existing obligations, which would mean that obligations don't need the recipient to exist in order to be in effect. For example, if I care about the well-being of the human population many years from now (including after my death), I have an obligation to not take actions that will negatively effect the environment that they will be living in, which will in turn negatively effect them. This obligation concerns people that have yet to be born, yet concerns the actions I take now. I fail to see why this obligation is somehow invalid.underdog22 said:
Budget Player Cadet_
Smash Hero
*knocks*
Mighty dead in here...
Mighty dead in here...
Then start a conversation.
blazedaces
Smash Lord
Does anyone beside me ABSOLUTELY HATE that every thread around longer than 5 seconds without a post gets thrown into the "archives"?
-blazed
-blazed
Aesir
Smash Master
^ sure.
Here's a good question of the DH. What if God is the bad guy and the devil is the good guy?
Here's a good question of the DH. What if God is the bad guy and the devil is the good guy?
blazedaces
Smash Lord
The first person who made me aware of this was Alt in a post long ago,
but basically the question has much to do with The Euthyphro Dilemma.
-blazed
Theftz22
Smash Lord
Since the Christian god is defined as omnibenevolent, that would be logically impossible.
That's just a semantic issue. The question is in the traditional christian mythology of god versus the devil. Aren't we taking it for granted that christians are worshiping the right one? Given that the devil is supposed to be all about deception, how are we to know?
Sending a demon up to Earth to pretend to be the son of god, but really it's just a plot to divide the human race into warring religious factions sure sounds like something the devil would do.
Sending a demon up to Earth to pretend to be the son of god, but really it's just a plot to divide the human race into warring religious factions sure sounds like something the devil would do.
Aesir
Smash Master
Well if the bible was inspired by god then doesn't mean god may have lied about his benevolence?
Aesir
Smash Master
I'm just saying, if it's divinely inspired by god, who's to say god isn't fabricating his part of the story to keep his subjects in line?