24 Oct 09
Suppose that you are faced with a choice where you can save 1 middle class male, and have 4 middle class males die. Your other option is that you can save the 4 middle class males and let the other die.
Common sense says that you save the four instead of the 1.....but.....
Lets say you are in a labratory. In the labratory there is a little girl and also in the room there is a petri dish with 4 fertalized female eggs. You can only carry either the girl or the petri dish. Which one do you save?
24 Oct 09
3 edits
You get the girl to hold the petri-dish and you carry her out 🙂
It's a no-brainer for me - the petri-dish has a great deal of potential, but that potential has not yet been realised. The girl has, and her level of self-awareness are far greater than that of the 4 cells (cannot be fully proven without the correct understanding and definition of "self-awareness" ).
It's actually a ridiculous question.
It's far more controversial (and a ethical dilemma) if the little girl is faced with pregnant woman... or a world-renowned scientist... or a boy with some kind of disability.
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by trotsky1990I'd ignore the middle class males and go next door and save the girl.
Suppose that you are faced with a choice where you can save 1 middle class male, and have 4 middle class males die. Your other option is that you can save the 4 middle class males and let the other die.
Common sense says that you save the four instead of the 1.....but.....
Lets say you are in a labratory. In the labratory there is a little girl an ...[text shortened]... alized female eggs. You can only carry either the girl or the petri dish. Which one do you save?
24 Oct 09
It's reminiscent of several famous thought experiments. Another favourite is:
A train is running along a track out of control, due to a blameless and random fault. If it carries on its current course, it will plough in to and kill ten people on the tracks. But you have a lever you can pull - that will divert the train so that it now ploughs in to and kills only one person.
What do you do?
24 Oct 09
1 edit
Originally posted by trotsky1990If you ask me, we have an innate sense of right and wrong regarding how to treat others and who should be saved etc. However, you throw in petri dishes and fertilized eggs in a laboratory and the whole innate sense of right and wrong becomes cloudy. I think this is due to our technological advances. These are simply not natural scenerios thus our innate morality regarding the situation is often skewed.
Suppose that you are faced with a choice where you can save 1 middle class male, and have 4 middle class males die. Your other option is that you can save the 4 middle class males and let the other die.
Common sense says that you save the four instead of the 1.....but.....
Lets say you are in a labratory. In the labratory there is a little girl an ...[text shortened]... alized female eggs. You can only carry either the girl or the petri dish. Which one do you save?
In short, I think we tend to want to save those who are most like us. It goes back the the golden rule which is to do unto others as you would have done to you. So the ONLY way to dodge this innate morality is to devalue or dehumanize someone or something. Case in point is slavery in the deep south. They were first marginalized as inferior ape-like workers, thus the slave owners were free to treat them like cattle. Today we have Islamofascists refer to those outside Islam as infedels, thus they are free to treat them accordingly etc. The same goes for the unborn. To devalue them we must conclude they are inferior to us in some way. Currently, we point to a certain point in their development and say this is the magical point in development that they are finally worth something when, in reality, developement never ceases. We simply go from growing to dying and the lines of worth are drawn according to which cycle of development we value the most.
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by DrKFWhat if the ten people all wear grey shoes and work for the guvamint while the lone person is a multi-millionaire and the driving force behind a company that employs 1000 people.
It's reminiscent of several famous thought experiments. Another favourite is:
A train is running along a track out of control, due to a blameless and random fault. If it carries on its current course, it will plough in to and kill ten people on the tracks. But you have a lever you can pull - that will divert the train so that it now ploughs in to and kills only one person.
What do you do?
What if the ten people are all wearing Che' t-shirts while the lone person likes to ride his motorcycle without a helmet on.
Silly isn't it, playing these games, shaping the criteria with endless 'what ifs' until a point is 'proven' a bit like saying 'prisoners dilemma' over and over. Sometimes referred to as life boat situations they are no basis for ethics or anything other than amusement, being marginally more amusing then the 514th game of solitaire.
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by trotsky1990Ok so let's change it a little and say that the eggs have had some time to get tattoos and wear their pants with the waist band at knee level and they are listening to rap.
Ok so lets change it a little and say that the eggs have had some time and now they are 3 months old (they have eyes, arms legs and fingers). Does that change your opinion?
Does that change your opinion?
24 Oct 09
Originally posted by WajomaI smell a douchebag...........................
Ok so let's change it a little and say that the eggs have had some time to get tattoos and wear their pants with the waist band at knee level and they are listening to rap.
Does that change your opinion?
And I assume that you mean to I save some gangbangers or the girl. If they are all the same age then u gotta save the gang bangers.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by trotsky1990If I understand Wajoma's point correctly, There isn't enough to go by in the dilemma. I would have a go though in this particular case. The little girl would have developed to the point where she would have a known personality, have friends and family who know her and care about her. She has a lot more intrinsic value to the world than the three fetuses. She would also have self awareness (as far as we know) and would be aware enough to not want to die.
I smell a douchebag...........................
And I assume that you mean to I save some gangbangers or the girl. If they are all the same age then u gotta save the gang bangers.
Also the odds of the 3 month old fetuses of survival are slimmer than the little girl's. It is likely you would know a lot more about the girl's future than the three fetuses (based on the information provided).
Having said that, I am basing my choice on what information I have established already. Like any kind of moral dilemmas like this, it has to be debated on a case by case basis to establish the pros and cons between the moral choices. Thinking up a scenario with a limited number of facts opens a can of worms. Usually when someone choices a particular choice, new criteria is added like, "what about this? or that?" and it goes around in circles. There isn't a lot of point to it.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by DrKFThe results are interesting in that in this case (from the example studies I've read about that used this question) most people will choose to save the 10 people.
It's reminiscent of several famous thought experiments. Another favourite is:
A train is running along a track out of control, due to a blameless and random fault. If it carries on its current course, it will plough in to and kill ten people on the tracks. But you have a lever you can pull - that will divert the train so that it now ploughs in to and kills only one person.
What do you do?
However, when they rephrase the question in that the one person that would die is standing right beside you and you would have to watch them die then most people ended up choosing to save the person that they saw and allow the ten people who were out of sight to die.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by PsychoPawnYes, and I would say in that case there isn't a right answer. The person who has to make a decision makes a judgement call, and we wouldn't have the authority to question it considering the extremity of the difficult decision to make.
The results are interesting in that in this case (from the example studies I've read about that used this question) most people will choose to save the 10 people.
However, when they rephrase the question in that the one person that would die is standing right beside you and you would have to watch them die then most people ended up choosing to save the person that they saw and allow the ten people who were out of sight to die.
26 Oct 09
Originally posted by WajomaI disagree that such thought experiments are always silly, although you've shown how one can make them silly. In the example I gave, it doesn't matter who the ten people or the one person might be: it's designed to make people think about what constitutes an ethically or morally acceptable action or inaction. It certainly has wider implications in moral reasoning. There's no great 'point' to prove and, i would suggest, no correct answer: that's how the best thought experiments work.
What if the ten people all wear grey shoes and work for the guvamint while the lone person is a multi-millionaire and the driving force behind a company that employs 1000 people.
What if the ten people are all wearing Che' t-shirts while the lone person likes to ride his motorcycle without a helmet on.
Silly isn't it, playing these games, shaping the cr ...[text shortened]... ng other than amusement, being marginally more amusing then the 514th game of solitaire.
What is the moral difference between allowing the ten people to die (that is, allowing what would have happened had you not had control of the lever to happen anyway) and, through a deliberate action, causing one person to die? Do the numbers involved change anything?
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by lauseyI don't think Wajoma has a point. He simply mocks any statement that isn't (Ayn) Randian.
If I understand Wajoma's point correctly, There isn't enough to go by in the dilemma. I would have a go though in this particular case. The little girl would have developed to the point where she would have a known personality, have friends and family who know her and care about her. She has a lot more intrinsic value to the world than the three fetuses. She ...[text shortened]... at about this? or that?" and it goes around in circles. There isn't a lot of point to it.
28 Oct 09
Originally posted by lauseyNow Trotsy the douche bag sniffer just changes the criteria, instead of 3 months he makes it 3 months 2 days 5 hours and 27.3 seconds, he also adjusts the number from 3 to 4.
If I understand Wajoma's point correctly, There isn't enough to go by in the dilemma. I would have a go though in this particular case. The little girl would have developed to the point where she would have a known personality, have friends and family who know her and care about her. She has a lot more intrinsic value to the world than the three fetuses. She ...[text shortened]... at about this? or that?" and it goes around in circles. There isn't a lot of point to it.
Ohhh the dilemma.