ilovefuzz.com

Huh. That site is...interesting! Haha.

More than highlighting philosophical viewpoints and problems, though, I think it highlights the problem with hypothetical situations. It wants to apply basic/static/general beliefs to these unlikely hypothetical situations.

--It asks you if it's always wrong to kill someone.
--So you might say yes.
--Then it asks if you should do nothing and let a train kill four people...or do something, switching tracks and only killing one person.
--So since you want the least number of people to die, you do something so only one dies.
--Then the site tells you this isn't in line with your answer that it's always wrong to kill. Cause you did something! Ha! Gotcha!

This isn't an "ooo, clever, I hadn't thought of that!" thing...it's just showing the problem with unlikely hypotheticals, and doesn't allow room for case-by-case judgment.

Based on reading this thread, I will avoid the site

Tom Dalton wrote:Huh. That site is...interesting! Haha.

More than highlighting philosophical viewpoints and problems, though, I think it highlights the problem with hypothetical situations. It wants to apply basic/static/general beliefs to these unlikely hypothetical situations.

--It asks you if it's always wrong to kill someone.
--So you might say yes.
--Then it asks if you should do nothing and let a train kill four people...or do something, switching tracks and only killing one person.
--So since you want the least number of people to die, you do something so only one dies.
--Then the site tells you this isn't in line with your answer that it's always wrong to kill. Cause you did something! Ha! Gotcha!

This isn't an "ooo, clever, I hadn't thought of that!" thing...it's just showing the problem with unlikely hypotheticals, and doesn't allow room for case-by-case judgment.

Although the train thing is an interesting ethical dilemma and the spin offs are even better.

A train is heading towards 10 people no way to stop it etc.

but you are standing on a bridge and if you push the fat guy in front of you (which will stop the train) would you do it?

Monkeyboard wrote:Although the train thing is an interesting ethical dilemma and the spin offs are even better.

A train is heading towards 10 people no way to stop it etc.

but you are standing on a bridge and if you push the fat guy in front of you (which will stop the train) would you do it?

Can I call my lawyer to verify that this holds up in court?

Monkeyboard wrote:Although the train thing is an interesting ethical dilemma and the spin offs are even better.

A train is heading towards 10 people no way to stop it etc.

but you are standing on a bridge and if you push the fat guy in front of you (which will stop the train) would you do it?

thats the train problem? thats laughably stupid. the method of stopping it contradicts an already established premise, and if you must contradict a premise to achieve a conclusion, its completely false. if the train CANNOT BE STOPPED you can't push a fat man in front to stop it. it won't work. moreover, what kind of bridge is it anyway? if its a small one over a stream, you just jump off the bridge. there are important variables missing

i love the rage emote so much.

here's what the test says btw,

"Marty Bakerman is on a footbrige above the train tracks. He can see that the train approaching the bridge is out of control, and that it is going to hit five people who are stuck on the track just past the bridge. The only way to stop the train is to drop a heavy weight into its path. The only available heavy enough weight is a (very) fat man, who is also watching the train from the footbridge. Marty can push the fat man onto the track into the path of the train, which will kill him but save the five people already on the track; or he can allow the train to continue on its way, which will mean that the five will die."

STUPID UTILITARIAN LOGIC USES STATISTICS AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION TOO MUCH, AND IGNORES CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION. WHAT IF THE FAT GUY WAS THE POPE AND THE GUYS WERE CRIMINALS/SUICIDAL/ETC. MOREOVER YOU'D HAVE TO WEIGH AT LEAST TWICE AS MUCH AS THE TRAIN TO STOP IT DEAD IN IT'S TRACKS

Isn't the point of this to admit to wanting to kill fat people?

Gearmond wrote:

STUPID UTILITARIAN LOGIC USES STATISTICS AND SELECTIVE INFORMATION TOO MUCH, AND IGNORES CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION. WHAT IF THE FAT GUY WAS THE POPE AND THE GUYS WERE CRIMINALS/SUICIDAL/ETC. MOREOVER YOU'D HAVE TO WEIGH AT LEAST TWICE AS MUCH AS THE TRAIN TO STOP IT DEAD IN IT'S TRACKS

^This very much (besides that last bit it's all hypothetical and ting). Fucking utilitarians can suck my balls

I always stood on Kant's side with the virtue ethic way of thinking. Although it's hard to find an answer to this dilemma via that.

Tom Dalton wrote:Huh. That site is...interesting! Haha.

More than highlighting philosophical viewpoints and problems, though, I think it highlights the problem with hypothetical situations. It wants to apply basic/static/general beliefs to these unlikely hypothetical situations.

--It asks you if it's always wrong to kill someone.
--So you might say yes.
--Then it asks if you should do nothing and let a train kill four people...or do something, switching tracks and only killing one person.
--So since you want the least number of people to die, you do something so only one dies.
--Then the site tells you this isn't in line with your answer that it's always wrong to kill. Cause you did something! Ha! Gotcha!

This isn't an "ooo, clever, I hadn't thought of that!" thing...it's just showing the problem with unlikely hypotheticals, and doesn't allow room for case-by-case judgment.

Word on that tip.

I just got moderately frustrated and gave up when I got to the question about torturing the Fat Guy ("He seems a notoweeus cwiminal.") who has planted a bomb that will kill one million people. The hypothetical parts just don't get my brain flowing in a logical manner. How do I know the bomb will kill one million people? How do I know there's a 75% chance ( ) that he'll give up the info if I torture him? How will I know he ABSOLUTELY will not give up the info if he is not tortured? Same as pushing the fat bastard off the tracks to stop the train. Who, in that situation, would think "Hey, that Fat Guy is responsible for this out of control train. I know! I'll push his fat ass on to the tracks and that will SURELY stop the out of control locomotive." They actually give you the above info, but in what possible situation ever would it be that clear cut and detailed? I understand what it's TRYING to do, but it is more of a like "AH HA CAUGHT YOU!" then it is a study on morality.

I may be a milquetoast, but I usually just think of this koan when trying to grasp universal morality:

If you understand, things are such as they are.
If you do not understand, things are such as they are.




C

I scored a 58% on consistency with regard to killing the fatass. I just don't think you can apply moral absolutes equally to all situations.

Plus... is he fat simply so the "throw him in front of the train to stop it" thing will "work"? Or is he fat because people are more likely to kill a fat person? Or that a fat person is of lesser value? What if it was a skinny woman?

C

p.s. Fuck fat people.

CBA713 wrote:Plus... is he fat simply so the "throw him in front of the train to stop it" thing will "work"? Or is he fat because people are more likely to kill a fat person? Or that a fat person is of lesser value? What if it was a skinny woman?

C

p.s. Fuck fat people.

Oh dude, that was fucking hilarious.

I'm not sure the guy being fat is related to whether or not people would kill him. But maybe it says more about the people who made the "quiz" than it does about the people who take it.

Or maybe fat people just make better villains / scapegoats / sacrificial cows.

another mini lesson on Western philosophy, this one on analytical school of philosophy, an example of semantics:
You still beat Your wife, yes or no?

looking the motivation of the discourse fro behind the words, I'd say it page is supposed to amuse teens who have to study philosophy a few courses. That's about how deep it is.

I kinda liked the torture you in the morning test. The utilitarian stuff was shite, because it was designed to push you into utilitarian viewpoints. It's like: hey option one makes you a mass murdering loonatic, option two makes you our utilitarian bitch. Now kneel down. wtf!

Rage!!!

Hey dubkitty, you ever read Heidegger?