Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (9)
to Community by nokiafemboy - 9 hrs, 5 mins ago -
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 1 day ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 19 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 19 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 23 hrs ago - more...
 |
pety |
2010-04-21
, 19:28
|
|
Posts: 10 |
Thanked: 12 times |
Joined on Apr 2010
@ Cyprus
|
#131
|
i would try to slow down the train until Pr1.2 got released which would give me more options.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 20:12
|
|
Posts: 93 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Oct 2008
@ Victoria BC Canada
|
#132
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
These moral dilemmas are already solved in real life; the answer is what people actually do. In this case, the doctor would, in a private hospital, call the first guy's HMO and ask a bunch of dumb questions that take a long time to answer. In a public hospital, the doctor would strike a committee to form a panel to recommend... In both cases, the original patient dies while waiting and the organs are used to save however many of the others are left alive. Through bureaucratic inertia, the doctor is saved from the moral dilemma. That's one of the reasons bureaucracies exist. They shield individuals from moral dilemmas, and a lot of other things.
... This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.
The only individuals that will typically face this dilemma alone are military commanders. The classic: do I risk sending 5 guys to rescue the 1 trapped? Again, the answer is already defined. Absolutely yes (unless completely suicidal), risk the 5 guys - otherwise the next time you order your soldiers into a bad situation, they won't go. But, if rescuing the one guy risks the battle, then absolutely no. The battle comes first and every soldier knows this. Thus, the moral dilemma becomes a simple, "does this risk the battle," kind of question. This is not a moral question, it's tactical. Most everyone else, with time, can hide behind bureaucracy. Without time, it becomes instinctual rather than logical.
Philosophy can either describe what is or proscribe what should be. Society has already worked around these moral dilemmas and proscribing solutions depends on your philosophic underpinnings. Me, I'm very mechanistic and happen to think that the compromises society has already come up with are likely the best we're going to get.
Edit: "absolutely yes... unless, but...." I should probably re-word that
Last edited by fixerdave; 2010-04-21 at 20:31.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 20:22
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#133
|
Originally Posted by fixerdave
This post is just all kinds of awesome.
These moral dilemmas are already solved in real life; the answer is what people actually do. In this case, the doctor would, in a private hospital, call the first guy's HMO and ask a bunch of dumb questions that take a long time to answer. In a public hospital, the doctor would strike a committee to form a panel to recommend... In both cases, the original patient dies while waiting and the organs are used to save however many of the others are left alive. Through bureaucratic inertia, the doctor is saved from the moral dilemma. That's one of the reasons bureaucracies exist. They shield individuals from moral dilemmas, and a lot of other things.
The only individuals that will typically face this dilemma alone are military commanders. The classic: do I risk sending 5 guys to rescue the 1 trapped? Again, the answer is already defined. Absolutely yes (unless completely suicidal), risk the 5 guys - otherwise the next time you order your soldiers into a bad situation, they won't go. But, if rescuing the one guy risks the battle, then absolutely no. The battle comes first and every soldier knows this. Thus, the moral dilemma becomes a simple, "does this risk the battle," kind of question. This is not a moral question, it's tactical. Most everyone else, with time, can hide behind bureaucracy. Without time, it becomes instinctual rather than logical.
Philosophy can either describe what is or proscribe what should be. Society has already worked around these moral dilemmas and proscribing solutions depends on your philosophic underpinnings. Me, I'm very mechanistic and happen to think that the compromises society has already come up with are likely the best we're going to get.
I disagree with your last summation tho.. I really don't think the correct solution is to allow people to separate themselves from the decision. That is one of the leading reasons why so many people are after scapegoats when sh** goes wrong instead of taking personal responsibility for their action.
The individual should be made to choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice. A choice without consequence, or no choice at all, are bad solutions.
 |
|
2010-04-21
, 21:12
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#134
|
Originally Posted by Dak
Big deal, so can the rest of us 60-70 million. You know what they say, if you're one in a million, you have 1000 clones in China.
According to that radiolab show, and some Harvard dude, I can outthink 99% of the population. This is not news to me.
Originally Posted by YoDude
It's only intent if I intend to do it, in the sense that I make preparations, this is how intent is proven. Also, I'll reiterate my argument that I didn't kill them people, the train did. Once the situation was without solutions in which 0 people die, I chose the solution where 1 people dies.
This is about the intent to kill another human being.
Originally Posted by YoDude
Just because I knew s/he would die means not that I killed him/her. What, if an idiot jumps in front of a bus on bridge, I am to jump off to try and save him, killing all on board?
In all the given choices action means that you decided to kill another human being, period. It was not a reaction, it was not an emotion, but you clearly knew that your actions would result in the death of a human being.
Sometimes actions kill people. While there are alternatives where nobody dies, you are obligated to take that (that's another discussion right there). But once there is no way around it, we no longer take that into account.
This is basically how war works. And self defense. Once you know the guy in front of you is going to kill someone (you, namely), then one body is already on its way to the bag, and you have to choose between a murderer and a victim. Pre-made, pre-heated, ready-to-eat decision.
Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"
You: "No"
Him: "You testified that you knew that pulling the lever would switch the train to the track that Joe was tied helplessly to, didn't you?"
You: "Yes"
Him: "You did pull the lever didn't you?"
You: "Yes"
Him: "The train switched tracks because of that didn't it?"
You: "Yes"
Him: "Joe the plumber is now dead because of what you did; Isn't he?"
You: "No."
Him: "Isn't he?"
You: "No. Joe was dead when I arrived there."
Him: "He was breathing and screaming for help"
You: "There's nothing anybody could have done"
Him: "You could have left the switch alone"
You: "You are suggesting more death would serve a purpose?"
<objection, yes or no!>
You: "Yes, I could have killed more people."
(Break for a word from our sponsors.)
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
This much harder or much easier, depending on situation. In theory, a doctor has to do no harm. As long as the damned organ hoarder keeps breathing, there's nothing TO do, as a doctor is not allowed to kill under any circumstances.
This scenario was an interesting read but I see it different. In the case of a healthy patient that the doctor
However, I'm pretty sure there are rules to obey, guidelines set by the medical community much like the military. I don't know which they are, but a doctor working the emergency in a hospital ready for such a large transplant operation would.
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Then tough luck. Just because someone ELSE is dying doesn't mean you can harvest me. Now if I couldn't be saved, we discuss. If I can, then no, you can't kill me.
You're a doctor and you have a dying patient. This patient is dying from something operable
This would mean that you can't go to a hospital because if some dolt was riding a tandem bike and they both cracked their heads I might just be harvested. Who would go to such a hospital?
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
If I decide to sacrifice myself for 5 others, fine. But each patient that comes to a hospital has its own case, unrelated to others. I can't be going there for a radiography and get tackled down and harvested because, you know, you kind of needed it.
The 5 other patients surgeries are easier, higher chance of success, and you can do all 5 surgeries before they die.
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
This happens all the time. You don't hack other people apart to save them.
The original patient's surgery is complicated, takes many hours, and by the time you were done doing that surgery all the other patients would be dead.
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
IMO, if you are a doctor and you let someone die for organs, you should be dragged out to a garbage dump and shot. Malpraxis is for those that may redeem themselves. (Dawn of War 40k)
Let the original patient die
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Not to me. In the train scenario, one of them is inoperable and WILL die. If there's a change that the train would derail, then the plot thickens. A 20% chance of derailment on the 5-people carpool suicide lane would kind of make things difficult. I'd still pull it.
This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.
Man that's a large post.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 21:21
|
|
Posts: 93 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Oct 2008
@ Victoria BC Canada
|
#135
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
This can go off in all kinds of directions, as philosophy is want to do, so I'll leave most it with this: when "what is" is different than what you proscribe, it's interesting go work back through your assumptions to see where things change course. That's the moral patient verses moral agent stuff, and even farther up the line.
...I disagree with your last summation tho.. I really don't think the correct solution is to allow people to separate themselves from the decision. That is one of the leading reasons why so many people are after scapegoats when sh** goes wrong instead of taking personal responsibility for their action.
The individual should be made to choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice. A choice without consequence, or no choice at all, are bad solutions.
Where I'd like to go with this is related to the: "instead of taking personal responsibility for their action" part. I think people should not be forced to take personal responsibility, they should be allowed to. Why? Because taking responsibility is an extremely powerful thing to do. It separates the winners from the losers.
Responsibility and control are two sides of the same coin. If you are in control of something, you are responsible for the outcome. If you have control without responsibility, really bad things can happen... absolute power corrupts absolutely kind of things. Conversely, having responsibility for an outcome that you have no control over is also likely to generate poor results, not least of which is letting the real controlling person off the hook. Scapegoats, by definition, are people thrust into situations where they have responsibility but no control.
Many people avoid taking responsibility. What they fail to realise is that, at the same time, they are also giving away their control. Blaming other people for your misfortune simply states that they are in control of your life rather than you. Losers do this, over and over again. Winners, on the other hand, take every situation and find places where they can seize responsibility; finding a place to be responsible give a winner a point of control. The more control, the more power people have over their lives.
Demanding a person be responsible is the same as forcing people to be in control. Some (most) people are not ready to be in control of anything - they would prefer that life be something that happens to them rather than something they choose to live. Pushing these people will not benefit society. It is far better to let the masses hide behind bureaucracy and let the leaders (the winners) rise to the top. The people willing, or even seeking, to take responsibility are the ones you want making choices, not some shmuck you force into the position. Until that person comes along, bureaucratic muddling does well enough for societies needs.
Now, to bring this slightly back on topic, I'll add this: In these lose-lose moral situations where applied control, either way, isn't going to produce good results (maybe more or less bad, but not good), what's the point of forcing people to make a rational choice and being responsible for the results? Generally speaking, society doesn't do this.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 21:38
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#136
|
Well, under US Law, I'd walk.
"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"
"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"
a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.
Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.
"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"
"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"
a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.
Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 21:49
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#137
|
Originally Posted by ndi
Wait you confuse me. Under U.S. law you would walk, when U.S. law is the one with the necessity clauses?
Well, under US Law, I'd walk.
"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"
"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"
a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.
Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.
Like you said:
The danger outweighed what I did.. 5>1
No reasonable alternative: No time to untie anybody, or stop the train
Ceased to engage: I didn't then go quickly untie and retie the other 5 further down the other track...
Didn't create the situation: I didn't do the tying.
Under that wiki article (and we all know wiki is law) - In US law you would be justified. In English law you would not. So if you're in the *UK* you should walk.... I still personally wouldn't because I'd feel a morale, not legal, obligation but not the point.
ETA: Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law evidently there *is* a law...
__________________
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!
Last edited by fatalsaint; 2010-04-21 at 21:52.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 22:12
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#138
|
No, you confuse me. 
I thought walking means no guillotine, not walk as in the plank. In which case, in US I'd walk free since Necessity is in US law, meaning I'd have no legal responsibility, with Necessity being my defense.
Now that UK has one, I'd walk there too.
Hmm, that there article is muddier than the English law. Well, if I'd eat Joe the plumber, I'd be in there home free.
--
"Dudley and Stevens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later shortened to just six months in prison."
You can't shorten a death sentence. Wrong typecast.
I thought walking means no guillotine, not walk as in the plank. In which case, in US I'd walk free since Necessity is in US law, meaning I'd have no legal responsibility, with Necessity being my defense.
Now that UK has one, I'd walk there too.
Hmm, that there article is muddier than the English law. Well, if I'd eat Joe the plumber, I'd be in there home free.
--
"Dudley and Stevens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later shortened to just six months in prison."
You can't shorten a death sentence. Wrong typecast.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 22:50
|
|
Posts: 336 |
Thanked: 610 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ France
|
#139
|
Originally Posted by fixerdave
Spoken like someone who never managed to achieve a complete degree, let alone a PsyD. You'll be allowed to criticise once you've gone through the full education system.
A philosophy degree and a food-safe certificate makes you qualified to work at MacDonalds.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 23:25
|
|
Posts: 93 |
Thanked: 52 times |
Joined on Oct 2008
@ Victoria BC Canada
|
#140
|
Originally Posted by CrashandDie
Nah, the AA was for fun. I'm trained as a technologist (electronics engineering) and have worked in education for near 20 years (where I can take philosophy courses for free). The above was just a spin-off of an old engineering school joke... An engineering graduate will ask "how can I improved this?" A computing graduate will ask "how can I make this run more efficiently?" A business grad will ask "How can I market this better?" A liberal arts grad will ask "do you want fries with that?"
Spoken like someone who never managed to achieve a complete degree, let alone a PsyD. You'll be allowed to criticise once you've gone through the full education system.
It was a geek joke, no harm intended... My apologies if I stepped on any toes. But, you have to admit, career wise, a degree in philosophy by itself doesn't get you far on it's own these days. Paired with something else, on the other hand, philosophy can add a lot.
 |
| Tags |
| maemo, morality, philosophy |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04.