World Philosophy day

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

The BBC has four interesting philisophical problems to discuss. The fourth of these touches on the free will argument I was discussing the other day:

Quote:

4. YOU DID NOT FREELY AND RESPONSIBLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

I like the first one the best though:

Quote:

1. WE SHOULD KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?

Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.

But then why not kill Bill?

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:04

No.

Yes.

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6645

Yes. Bill is a dick. I'd kill him even without the organs, the lying, bullying swine.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 26422

I spoilered my answer so that it wouldn't influence others who hadn't answered yet.

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

In the first case, Bill is a healthy, innocent bystander, he is not part of the problem, he should not be bought into the problem for the sake of others.

In the seocnd case they are all in trouble. If you do not act everyone can die, or you can sacrfice one person who will die either way, to save the others.

That's the distinction. Whether you can bring yourself to actually act on the second case is a different matter altogether.

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

Mimi wrote:

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

In the first case, Bill is a healthy, innocent bystander, he is not part of the problem, he should not be bouvght into the problem for the sake of others. In the seocnd case they are all in trouble. If you do not act everyone can die, or you can sacrfice one person who will die either way, to save the others.

But why? The diseases effecting the five people you could save in the first case are just part of the scenario, same as the murderer in the second case. And in both cases, if you fail to act, five people die; if you act, one person dies. By choosing not to act, you condemn five people to death.

I love these things. It's blatantly wrong but it's really hard to say why.

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:15

DEGREE FLASHBACK FEAR!!!!!

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32624

The Rev Owen wrote:

DEGREE FLASHBACK FEAR!!!!!

I'd forgotten you did all this! LEAD US OH OWEN. SHOW US YOUR WISDOM.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

but I think the point is: Are YOU willing to KILL to save lives, or would you rather passively let someone else kill more people?

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

bill is a healthy, innocent bystander... looks like Bill chose to stand in the wrong place. Maybe Fred should've tipped him off. That Fred's a right twat!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Kill them all. Steal their cars and girlfriends.

DBSnappa · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:18

I found this on a matchbox today.

You're preparing a dinner party and as all your guests arrive you suddenly remember one of them is a vegetarian, but the food you have made could pass for vegetarian.

Do you confess your forgetfulness and quickly make them an omelette

Don't mention anything.

Lie and say the food is vegetarian

This made me laugh out loud as surely eating eggs isn't vegetarian?

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 26422

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Mimi wrote:

In the first case, Bill is a healthy, innocent bystander, he is not part of the problem, he should not be bouvght into the problem for the sake of others. In the seocnd case they are all in trouble. If you do not act everyone can die, or you can sacrfice one person who will die either way, to save the others.

But why? The diseases effecting the five people you could save in the first case are just part of the scenario, same as the murderer in the second case. And in both cases, if you fail to act, five people die; if you act, one person dies. By choosing not to act, you condemn five people to death.

I love these things. It's blatantly wrong but it's really hard to say why.

As I said, Bill is nothing to do with the first problem. Unfortuantely, fate/circumstance has dealt the five ill people a blow, but this is nothing to do with Bill.

In the second scenario the protagonist, the others involved will die anyway. Bill will not die anyway. He is an innocent bystander, and nothing to do with the scenario.

I don't find it hard to say 'why' it is wrong to kill Bill (arf) at all. Whether you agree with me is something different, but I can justify my reasoning to myself in what I consider to be a satisfactory way.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

if you killed the bystander to organ up the ill people and it turned out that Bill wasnt a match, would you prepared to kill again, and again until you got it right?

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:21

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

The Rev Owen wrote:

DEGREE FLASHBACK FEAR!!!!!

I'd forgotten you did all this! LEAD US OH OWEN. SHOW US YOUR WISDOM.

I dunno, I mainly remember my tutor and I spending half a tutorial trying to remember the name of the android in Alien. We knew Bishop was Aliens, but couldn't remember Ash.

Also, lots of stuff about dreams. And colours. And miracles.

I do remember doing the first problem about killing for transplants, though. A solution is to value self determination above life, or something. Or to value overall happiness - which would decrease if everybody lived in fear of being farmed for their organs.

A university friend pointed out yesterday that there will be people going to university next year who were born while we were there. That made me feel real fucking old.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 26422

Some vegetarians do eat eggs. Some peope vegetarian for religious reasons find it acceptable gto eat eggs because it is not something that is specifically ruled against.

Anyway, no. I do not share their beliefs or morals, but I know how upset I would be if a friend did this to me the other way around. Make something else (not an omlette though, why an omlette?)

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6645

You should shoot Bill, take out all his organs and then put him on life support machines that replace the functions of his missing organs until the people he donated to die, when you could put them all back in again.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

cloned pigs with human compatible body parts is the ONLY answer. Saved lives and tasty pork products. Yum, Yum!

Craig · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 1236

Calling people 'people' is a bit too simple. Some people are deemed more important than others. For example, if the one man on the track was an ageing tramp and the other track had five 13 year old girls, that would clearly influence your decision.

kalmar · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:28

7. RACISTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE POLICE
Obviously.

Joans · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8663

Ok, I'll try this.

In scenario 1 - if you do nothing, then 5 people will die as nature intended (ok, so maybe they need those organs because they were involved in an accident or something)
In scenario 2 - if you do nothing, then 6 people will die at the hand of someone else. Would I be willing to kill someone to save 5? I think that's too hypothetical a question for me to answer.

In scenario 3 - you can't really do nothing, the question is worded to make it sound like the 5 will die, unless you act to move the tram. In that case, I probably would try to move the tram and only kill the one person.
In spite of how they've tried to word it, I don't think the three scenarios are that identical.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 26422

I think you ahev to assume that all people are of equal 'worth' in yor mind for the problem to work.

the first time i heard this problem at school it did specifically say that all the people were strangers to you and in all ways 'equal'

There was also a problem of only being able to stop the tram by pushing a fat man off of a bridge into the path of the tram, or something, and if this is difefernt to pushing a stone off of a bridge which will land on someone standing on the track but still blocking teh tram from the other passengers.

I think the same/similar problems are also bought up in one of Richard Dawkins' books.

imtypingonakeyboard · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:39

If we don't kill Bill, zombies will. Probably

And Fred sounds like a smug b*stard

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

kalmar wrote:

7. RACISTS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE IN THE POLICE
Obviously.

Again, still don't accept this but please keep your thoughtcrime advocacy top the appropriate thread, ta.

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 26422

Is the person with all of the working organs Dudley?

myp · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 15:46

Can we differentiate between an open racist activist and a closet racist? I believe that Kalmar thinks that the former shouldn't be in the police, and Dudley is arguing for the latter.

The End. THREAD LOCKED (AGAIN).

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

OMG MOD ABUSE! (sorry)

Also, racist against closets? Weird! I've always like closets, but some may find drawers more appealing

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

myoptika wrote:

Can we differentiate between an open racist activist and a closet racist? I believe that Kalmar thinks that the former shouldn't be in the police, and Dudley is arguing for the latter.

The End. THREAD LOCKED (AGAIN).

My point is more, this isn't the BNP thread. Let's not drag it out of there.

myp · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:00

Sorry, I thought we still were...

Bobbyaro · **Joined:** 18th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 11920

1) I would kill bill, and sell his organs to the highest bidder.
2) It would depend how much they annoyed me, if there was more than one person who annoyed me, meh, I am safe.
3) I would ram the train onto the single person track, as they thought they were safe, and laugh at there fear, and then, as the 5 people think they are safe, reverse the train and then run them over as well.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:38

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

My wife is a veggies, I fully understand... but teh offerings are getting better.

Runcle · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:40

DBSnappa wrote:

I found this on a matchbox today.

You're preparing a dinner party and as all your guests arrive you suddenly remember one of them is a vegetarian, but the food you have made could pass for vegetarian.

Do you confess your forgetfulness and quickly make them an omelette

Don't mention anything.

Lie and say the food is vegetarian

This made me laugh out loud as surely eating eggs isn't vegetarian?

you can eat eggs if your vegetarian, not eating eggs is on the way to being a vegan though.

If I was the vegetarian in question Id make the fucker order a pizza for me.

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14534

Isnt the first part of your post (about the person who can work out what is going to happen) the main plot line of Isac Asimov's Foundation series :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Foundation_Series

Which in the story worked for a while but was thrown out by some random events (read them all as a child which was a very long time ago)

And for the 2nd one the way i see it is you have 2 choices.

1) You will not act - therefore you can sit back and go 'nothing at all to do with me'
2) You act and something happens - thats all down to you and what you did and your reasons for both - i agree that you might decide to kill the 5 over the 1 , or you might decide to do something else (why do these always come down to 2 choices - whats to stop a cow walking infront of the train - it being de-railed and killing everyone on board instead ?)

myp · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:46

I love the Foundation/Robot series.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:46

Are we human, or are we dancers?

Runcle · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:50

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Im veggie and pubs are proper shit, my usual pub serves 1, 1! fucking veggie main meal.

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:51

Drink more then eat meat.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:52

Runcle wrote:

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Im veggie and pubs are proper shit, my usual pub serves 1, 1! fucking veggie main meal.

Veggie Lasagnue by any chance?

Zardoz · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:53

No need to get personal.

Runcle · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:56

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Runcle wrote:

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Im veggie and pubs are proper shit, my usual pub serves 1, 1! fucking veggie main meal.

Veggie Lasagnue by any chance?

no, cant even remember what it is, pasta of some sort with cheese I think.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Runcle wrote:

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Im veggie and pubs are proper shit, my usual pub serves 1, 1! fucking veggie main meal.

Veggie Lasagnue by any chance?

Yep, that's what missus normally has. STEAK PLEASE!

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38768

Runcle wrote:

no, cant even remember what it is, pasta of some sort with cheese I think.

Cannelloni?

KovacsC · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 16:59

davpaz wrote:

Kovacs Caprios wrote:

Runcle wrote:

davpaz wrote:

veggies love omlettes! Nom, nom!

edit: just realised that no-one would get this except me and the missus. She always complains about veggie offerings in pub grub

Im veggie and pubs are proper shit, my usual pub serves 1, 1! fucking veggie main meal.

Veggie Lasagnue by any chance?

Yep, that's what missus normally has. STEAK PLEASE!

steak.. yum yum

Runcle · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:01

davpaz wrote:

Runcle wrote:

no, cant even remember what it is, pasta of some sort with cheese I think.

Cannelloni?

no, spinach and ricotta is my guess though.

Rodafowa · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:22

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed.

However, even Fred is baffled as to what goes through the heads of 90% players in online $5 sit-and-go hold 'em games.

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

Bobbyaro wrote:

1) I would kill bill, and sell his organs to the highest bidder.
2) It would depend how much they annoyed me, if there was more than one person who annoyed me, meh, I am safe.
3) I would ram the train onto the single person track, as they thought they were safe, and laugh at there fear, and then, as the 5 people think they are safe, reverse the train and then run them over as well.

Comicalgnomes account hijack spotted.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:32

Kill the five people in need of a specific organ, and harvest their remaining working organs to save the next 25 ill people.

Plissken · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:41

I wish to take all these scenarios and turn them into a series of Hollywood films that I shall release every Halloween.

Kern · **Posted:** Thu Nov 20, 2008 17:44

Plissken wrote:

I wish to take all these scenarios and turn them into a series of Hollywood films that I shall release every Halloween.

You'll have to do it Jeffrey Archer Ed Wood style and have the audience vote on the outcome at the end.

ZOMG Spoiler! Click here to view!

And only record one ending

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6645

Curiosity wrote:

Kill the five people in need of a specific organ, and harvest their remaining working organs to save the next 25 ill people.

I like this. It's a sort of exponential helping people thing. Why stop at 5? Kill the next 25 people as well, and then the next 125. Within a few rounds you'll be helping millions!

Be Excellent To Each Other

World Philosophy day

Who is online