Biological basis for dittoheads ? by rue

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
All that's really being studied is how people take the study. You can't go from those results to "this is how people behave." Real Life has so many more different shades of possibilities.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

there might be hamsters

lol

OK.

Real life has so many more different shades of hamsters.

Happy now?

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:40 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
When you ask yourself what you feel about the question "should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded soldier to save the rest of his troops" my initial reaction is extreme disturbance and a "no." My understanding is that this sergeant and his soldiers are a unit, they're a social group, clearly this sergeant cares enough about them that he wants to save them, and by extension they likely care about their sergeant in a reciprocal fashion. When you care about people, they care about you.

Ok, it's worth noting here that the question "should a sergeant sacrifice a wounded soldier to save the rest of his troops" is not the focus of the study - rather it is something the person reporting on the study used to introduce the article and provide context. This is important, as the two hypotheticals are not completely equivalent.

The assumption in the study's provided example is that the six men whose life is in your hands are all strangers - so no cold-blooded killing of one of your comrades (I don't even think this was what the article writer had in mind).

Quote:
That's sociopathy.

Actually I think it's self-sacrifice. It's a horrible situation to be placed in (I only joked about it before because the whole construct was absurd and unrelatable), and you have to live with the knowledge afterwards that you've killed a man. But you correctly deduced at the time that 4 more families would still have husbands and fathers that night - 4 more than if you did nothing.

The contrived reality of the hypothetical is a grisly one, undoubtedly. But real life can be pretty grisly too - that's why I don't have a problem with the study.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 3:47 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

the good of the one vs the good of the many

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:18 PM

What you describe is survivor's guilt, not self-sacrifice. Self-sacrifice would be Kwicko's case, where you throw yourself off to save the five workers. Sacrifice is what you do to the other guy instead of yourself.

Quote:

sac·ri·fice
/ˈsækrəˌfaɪs/ Show Spelled [sak-ruh-fahys] Show IPA noun, verb,-ficed, -fic·ing.
–noun
1.
the offering of animal, plant, or human life or of some material possession to a deity, as in propitiation or homage.
2.
the person, animal, or thing so offered.
3.
the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim.
4.
the thing so surrendered or devoted.

I'm also not really sure how the people in the second dilemma being strangers makes the dilemma any easier. But that's neither here nor there. I wasn't attacking your answer, I was attacking the point of the study. Which is NOT to ask what people would do, those studies have been done plenty before, and are more in line with the rationale and motivation Frem described ("Oh? You would kill the five workers? Bad person! Oh, you would kill the guy on the bridge? Bad person!").

This study's conclusion is about making the justification that this way of thinking (logical) is preferable to the alternative mode of thinking (emotional) and trying to put one as better than the other. In reality, both proposed scenarios have drawbacks, and neither scenario is really the best solution within the frame of the problem. There are other options besides killing someone.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 4:23 PM

In fact, I would go so far as to say this study, and this entire thread, has been a veritable collision of three types of thinking and problem solving.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheSpock
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheMcCoy
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheKirk

Note that despite the names of the tropes, no one character type is a better problem solver or leader or has a better method than the others.

Though I am a little disturbed by the study's obsession and cavalier attitude about death and seeming encouragement of such behaviour, which is why I called the study sociopathic. The study itself is unethical, and highly manipulative, and because I know already what it's going to be used FOR, well... It's not good.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:02 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
What you describe is survivor's guilt, not self-sacrifice.

No, it's self-sacrifice in the sense that it costs you something, emotionally, to have to live with what you've done, even though you may know that it was for the best.

Quote:
This study's conclusion is about making the justification that this way of thinking (logical) is preferable to the alternative mode of thinking (emotional) and trying to put one as better than the other.

No, that was the *assumption* (or presumption) of the study - that logic is a good thing, even when applied to emotionally charged situations. The *goal* of the study was to *learn* about human psychology. That's what 'study' means. No ideology is being forced on anyone, it's just a test of how the logic/rationality of a human brain stands up to difficult, ethically-involved circumstances.

One potential flaw in this study is if religious persons participated: any kind of 'thou shalt not kill' code of behaviour will of course limit the options.

But otherwise, an equivalent hypothetical:

5 sports cars are stacked in a truck, parked on the train tracks of a level crossing - an express train is hurtling towards them. You are given remote control of another empty sports car, and the only way you can save the 5 cars is to crash your remote controlled car into the truck to knock it off the tracks. Unfortunately this means certain destruction for the car you drive onto the train tracks.

What do you do?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:09 PM

We're equating human lives to cars now? Which, by the way, you can't be "given" the fat man's life the way you were "given" the car with the remote.

Look, that's all STILL besides the point, if you don't think one way of thinking was being promoted above the others, look at the wording of the article on this study. Specifically, the conclusion says that "A person with high functioning memory" is able to "more deeply consider" (be more logical) than other people in an emotionally charged situation/moral dilemma. Either the writer of the article is misrepresenting the study, or the study IS arguing that logic is preferable to the exclusion of emotions in problem solving... Which isn't necessarily the case.

The study itself may not be forcing an ideology, but science that gets funded is geared towards having a practical application. Ask yourself what the practical application here is likely to be. That's what my complaint is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 5:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA

*solemnly passes the much used and battered clue-by-four to Byte*

I think you're gonna need this.

Now you're beginning to understand how I feel.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 6:02 PM

Nah. Just playin'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 6:13 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Have some access to a computer now -

I'm not sure tropes are useful in this discussion. Tho the study used hypothetical examples, real people made the decisions.

How do you feel about these ? A person murders a doctor to save a fetus b/c 'all life is sacred' ? An army wipes out a town to 'save them from the enemy' ? Police use guns to 'maintain the peace' ?

I would LIKE to think that when making moral decisions, some proportion can be brought to bear on the choices, if only in order to keep the above real world examples

to a minimum.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 6:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

*solemnly passes the much used and battered clue-by-four to Byte*

I think you're gonna need this.

Now you're beginning to understand how I feel.

-F

YOINK!

I'm not stealing your clue-by-four - I'm just stealing that phrase, because it is chock full of win!

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:48 PM

ANOTHERSKY

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

“A runaway trolley hurtles toward five unaware workmen; the only way to save them is to push a heavy man (standing nearby on a footbridge) onto the track where he will die in stopping the trolley.”

Oh that is such crap- how would a (say) 250 lb dude stop a three ton trolley?
Puuuuleeeze.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

Now we see how you think, Chrisisall.

__

Going for a ride.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:54 PM

I thought of something else Re: the trolley, what if there's passengers on it? Passengers who could be thrown by the sudden stop?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 5, 2010 7:56 PM

ANOTHERSKY

It's nice to know that we'll all be prepared in the event this exact thing happens.

__

Going for a ride.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:55 AM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
if you don't think one way of thinking was being promoted above the others, look at the wording of the article on this study.

The whole point of a scientific study of this type is that you *don't* influence the participants in any way. It's a study to find out how people think - not to impose a certain way of thinking. That wouldn't be a 'study' at all. It's true knowledge is power, and that can be dangerous, but if we want knowledge we have to live with scientists doing investigations.

Quote:
I thought of something else Re: the trolley, what if there's passengers on it? Passengers who could be thrown by the sudden stop?

Add passengers to the trolley if you like - it can still be solved by simple logic. I'll show you with maths; the logic of the original hypothetical is: '5 lives are worth more than one life'

Or: 5x > x

Where x can be the value of a human life, or a car, it doesn't matter - the x cancels and you are left with 5 > 1, which is undeniably true. The only way the logic fails is if x is 0, and we can both agree a human life does not have zero worth.

I think your problem is more with the whole murder thing - that you have to actively and physically take the 1 life yourself (rather than say, opting to save a lifeboat with 5 people in it over one with 1, and *passively* letting the 1 die). This particular hypothetical is not very kind to pacifists, and I think I'm beginning to see why you dislike it.

Here's a very similar real life hypothetical, that I'm afraid you also won't like...

You are captain of a submarine that has sprung a leak. Two mechanics have tried desperately to plug the leak but are now overwhelmed by the water gushing in. The only hope to save the submarine and the entire crew is to immediately seal all the hatches to isolate that section of the submarine - but doing so will shut in the mechanics and stop them from escaping.

What do you do?

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:19 AM

I already told you my issue here is NOT with your answer. You don't have to defend it. I grant you I don't agree with your logic, being that you can't assign a fixed value to x that is not subjective, and also being that I don't look at "life" as individual increments, but rather as a system of interactions as a whole where any net loss reduces the potential of the system. As such, you're right, the best possible solution for me is where no one dies.

But I'm making no judgments about which approach is right and which isn't. My issue here is with the USE of these moral dilemmas, and for what purpose. The moral dilemmas you propose do not address the argument at hand, seeing that none of them, as far as I know, are part of the study. The moral dilemmas I've cited were mentioned in the article, and being that we have no link to the study in question, I'm left to suppose that the moral dilemmas in the article represent the kind of dilemmas that were included in the study.

Quote:
The whole point of a scientific study of this type is that you *don't* influence the participants in any way. It's a study to find out how people think - not to impose a certain way of thinking. That wouldn't be a 'study' at all. It's true knowledge is power, and that can be dangerous, but if we want knowledge we have to live with scientists doing investigations.

Supposedly that's what the point of a "scientific" psychology study is. I believe that what happens in practice is very different. You're willing to take for granted the study is unbiased and not trying to influence results by virtue of it being called scientific. I'm not. Especially because I see indications of bias in the article, so, again, there's two possibilities, the article has misrepresented the study, or this bias is included and a MAJOR feature of the study.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 1:27 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
I already told you my issue here is NOT with your answer. You don't have to defend it.

I wasn't defending my answer. I was probing a little.

Quote:
The moral dilemmas you propose do not address the argument at hand, seeing that none of them, as far as I know, are part of the study.

Well they do address the argument, but perhaps it was silly of me to try to replicate a hypothetical from a study you had a strong reaction against... I got curious.

I think I understand better why you don't like the study, anyway. Always like to comprehend other ppl's worldviews.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:11 PM

...I get the feeling what you THINK is my problem with this study is not what *I* think is my problem with this study, but I can't make you keep discussing it if for some reason our meanings keep getting crossed. So, okay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I get the feeling what you THINK is my problem with this study is not what *I* think is my problem with this study, but I can't make you keep discussing it if for some reason our meanings keep getting crossed. So, okay.

Seems to be a lot of that going around. Might be time for a kitty thread.

Speaking of which, I picked up a new shirt off Woot.

It goes with my old avatars, I think.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 4:48 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Where x can be the value of a human life, or a car, it doesn't matter - the x cancels and you are left with 5 > 1, which is undeniably true. The only way the logic fails is if x is 0, and we can both agree a human life does not have zero worth.

Yeah, see, this is where logic = disgusting. "The only way?" No, your "logic" also fails if the value of human life is infinite. Remind me not to put you in charge of any life and death decisions, k?

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 5:14 PM

I wasn't sure about the infinity thing. Some scientist I am, huh? ^_^'

I think technically the math is still right in that infinity cancels, though yeah, still don't agree with the application. But I've forgotten most of what I've learned about infinity, I know that five times infinity is also infinity, but this particular case threw me. I'd have to recheck my calculus books and use L'Hopital to see if the equation can be reduced from indeterminate form to determinate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 5:18 PM

Kwicko: that's like, DOUBLE night vision.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Where x can be the value of a human life, or a car, it doesn't matter - the x cancels and you are left with 5 > 1, which is undeniably true. The only way the logic fails is if x is 0, and we can both agree a human life does not have zero worth.
Yeah, see, this is where logic = disgusting. "The only way?" No, your "logic" also fails if the value of human life is infinite. Remind me not to put you in charge of any life and death decisions, k?

If X = Pi, then 5 < 0....?
This "Human-life-is-a-math-problem" thing confuses me....

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:40 PM

5(∞) *NOT* ≥ ∞.

5(∞) = ∞

Ergo, life = life. 5(life) = life.

And if x = π, then 5x = 5(π).

Mostly I just wanted to see if I could find those symbols...

Haven't found the Mac keyboard character for "NOT greater than or equal to", which should be "≥" with a slash through it.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
life = life. 5(life) = life.

Ohhh, KPO won't like THAT equation....

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
life = life. 5(life) = life.

Ohhh, KPO won't like THAT equation....

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

Heck, I'm not sure *I* like that math, but if life = infinity, then the math don't lie...

I tend to think that sacrificing the one life might be better if it saves five, but the math says otherwise.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:54 PM

Ah - I think I've got it:

5x > x, where 0

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:55 PM

I'd push a kid out of the way, possibly getting myself killed in the process, but that's just ME.
I don't feel like I can possibly justify making the decision to kill some fat dude on the hunch that his measly girth could interrupt the path of a multi-ton vehicle in the hopes that it *might* save five stupidly unaware track workers.

Or am I being too callous here?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, March 6, 2010 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
for all values of life greater than zero and less than infinity, 5 lives are greater than one.

1 Bush > 5 Cheneys.

Do the math.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 3:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
for all values of life greater than zero and less than infinity, 5 lives are greater than one.

1 Bush > 5 Cheneys.

Do the math.

I dunno... since they both actually have NEGATIVE values (<0), I suppose that math works. If x= -1, the 1 Bush = -1, which is indeed greater than -5. So yeah, that holds mathematically true. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:30 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Ah - I think I've got it:

5x > x, where 0

That's it

Yes, for simplicity's sake I didn't talk about an infinite value for x, or indeed a negative value, for example:

5(hitlers) is NOT > 1(hitler).

But I have to say the propagation of algebra on this thread has warmed my heart. Except this bit:

Quote:
5(life) = life

The extension of the x = infinity argument is that the worth of 1(life) = humanity. Which is to me is an unrelatable position.

Having said that, I'm a person generally in favour of calling human life 'sacred'. It's a human instinct to feel this way; undoubtedly one of our better instincts, very powerful and important - it stops us murdering each other. But I guess I believe the world is such that sometimes we have to be pragmatic, throw off the illusion of our infinite worth and realise five lives are more precious than one, and do what is necessary for the greater human good.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:39 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
for all values of life greater than zero and less than infinity, 5 lives are greater than one.

1 Bush > 5 Cheneys.

Do the math.

I dunno... since they both actually have NEGATIVE values (<0), I suppose that math works. If x= -1, the 1 Bush = -1, which is indeed greater than -5. So yeah, that holds mathematically true. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Rappy < Hamster

we've been through this ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:41 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Yeah, see, this is where logic = disgusting. "The only way?" No, your "logic" also fails if the value of human life is infinite. Remind me not to put you in charge of any life and death decisions, k?

Don't take a job as a submarine captain.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 2:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
for all values of life greater than zero and less than infinity, 5 lives are greater than one.

1 Bush > 5 Cheneys.

Do the math.

I dunno... since they both actually have NEGATIVE values (<0), I suppose that math works. If x= -1, the 1 Bush = -1, which is indeed greater than -5. So yeah, that holds mathematically true. :)

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

Rappy < Hamster

we've been through this ?

Quite right. Although I'm not sure it's fair to compare the two. One's a hairy little rodent that can be quite annoying, and the other is just a hamster.

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence [sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 3:28 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
...I get the feeling what you THINK is my problem with this study is not what *I* think is my problem with this study, but I can't make you keep discussing it if for some reason our meanings keep getting crossed. So, okay.

You know, having thought about it a bit more I think we're not so different. You hold human life as sacred, I hold human life as sacred until such a time comes that it is necessary to betray that instinct for humanity's good. If that's irrational that's ok because assigning 'sacredness' to human lives was never rational or objective in the first place (this is an atheist speaking).

Where we do fall out is on the whole notion of conspiracy theory... I generally don't like it, as you may have noticed, and so that may always be a source of friction I have with anti-government types. I think maybe we should let this particular case go, but my thinking is that at least one person should always speak up against conspiracy theory - even *if* it's healthy to an extent, it needs to be kept in check.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 3:46 PM

Why? Does evolution need to be kept in check as well? Global warming? How about the Tiananmen Square protests of China in 1989, which the Chinese government does not acknowledge happened (but which it did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiananmen_Square_protests_of_1989). These are "healthy" conspiracy theories (opponents AND proponents of global warming and even *shudder* the creationists). Do they need to be kept in check, "even *if* it's healthy"?

I'll grant you that some conspiracy theories go to an extreme. Sometimes people are probably just wasting their time believing something that's basically impossible. Some conspiracy theories encourage violence, and that I won't condone.

But mere exposure to a conspiracy theory in general is not dangerous, nor is the existence of a conspiracy theory in general dangerous. They are merely thoughts and ideas. Argue them if you think the theory has flaws, but why do you feel you need to "keep them in check" and who appointed you to do so? Are you my equal, or are you my superior?

I notice aside from suspicions of my being paranoid and anti-government (which I don't refute, though I think you know the old saying "just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you"), the only time you addressed my arguments about bias was to concede that the "basic assumption" exists, but you refused to engage me on the point that bias can suggest motivation or any subsequent points that could bring up.

I suspect you don't want to, and I can't make you argue these points, any more than you can "keep them in check" without having debated them.

I was going to let this go, but I'm sorry, your post set me off. If you so desire, I won't respond to your rebuttal, and so let you go on your way.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 4:23 PM

Although, I do have an argument which MIGHT be more interesting for you, if you'll indulge me.

The episode "Out of Gas" has been called a "submarine drama" by Joss Whedon, so if we take Joss Whedon to be an expert of storytelling and familiar with submarine dramas, we can perhaps say that Mal is comparable to a submarine captain.

Does Mal live up to the ideal submarine captain you've suggested here? If Mal had to kill two people on Serenity in a life or death situation to keep the others alive, who would he choose?

I'll give you Jayne. Maybe. Who would be the other one?

And no cheating by saying two people on Serenity HAVE already died. You didn't like it when I cheated, and those weren't exactly Mal's choice.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:02 PM

Sometimes you own the libs. Sometimes, the libs own you.

That last question is macabre :-p If you're mirroring my example then Mal doesn't get to choose which two - he just has to decide whether to kill the two or let all die? Also we're getting more 'familiar', which I don't think was the intention of the hypothetical. It started off as killing strangers, then sub-ordinates, then sub-ordinates/friends (I still don't accept the article's introductory army captain example as a relevant one). If we changed your example to one where Mal is a spaceship captain in the Independent's fleet I think I can answer it. But aloofness *is* important - you're not expected to push somebody you love in front of the trolley.

I was only trying to wind things down for the sake of harmony Byte - and I thought you might want to. But maybe it would be better to air our views properly. In general I'll pretty much answer anything, I'm an open book

But on the morrow probably, I'm sleepy.

Heads should roll

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 5:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
I'm a person generally in favour of calling human life 'sacred'.
Heads should roll

Clearly.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 6:40 PM

Ah. Sorry. See, I was trying to wind things down by coming up with something fun to talk about. I guess I didn't really think it was macabre. I can be a little odd sometimes.

I think more than anything, the difference between us is that for you, these scenarios appear to depend on someone being a stranger or not. But I can't help but think that this stranger IS a loved one. Perhaps not mine, but SOMEONE's, and I put myself in that someone's shoes automatically as an evaluation of the morality of the situation from a worst case scenario standpoint.

Chances are that someone might come after you if you don't consider how they might feel.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 7:28 PM

GINOBIFFARONI

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
for all values of life greater than zero and less than infinity, 5 lives are greater than one.

1 Bush > 5 Cheneys.

Do the math.

The laughing Chrisisall

"I only do it to to remind you that I'm right and that deep down, you know I'm right, you want me to be right, you need me to be right." - The Imperial Hero Strikes Back, 2010

But dude... runaway trolley wouldn't kill Cheney

Wood Stake, Silver Bullet, Holy Water...

a childs tear

throwing a ring into a volcano

but not a trolley

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, March 7, 2010 8:40 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Am I too late to way in on this? This was really about how the brain works in certain individuals, and it's something we've known for awhile - that some people are still able to operate rationally under stress, whereas most of us go into fight or flight response (which means we're reacting instinctively - not rationally). That's why some people make better soldiers than others, or better sportsmen and women, or better when there is an emergency or accident.

The scenario was just intended to test such a capacity, to see whether they could think through their decision and foresee possible outcomes, not really as a moral dilemma. It's not about having this discussion in calmness, it's about your capacity to make decisions in stressful situations.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 4:50 AM

Well... If there weren't any mentions in the article of "higher memory" and not so much in favour of "overriding strong emotions in favour of thoughtful deliberation and reasoning" then I might agree with you, but without any context or definitions, the most likely case here is that "thoughtful deliberation" is what Kpo represents, and the rest of us represent the "strong emotion response" side.

And I'd even be okay with THAT... If one method wasn't being represented as distinctly better than the other method. And if the bias didn't make me question the motivation for the study. The study seems to have an agenda. And it only tests for one kind of thoughtfulness and rationality because of the false dilemma and only offering two options, the logical "5 lives is better have 1 life" response, or the "I can't push the man off, it would be wrong" emotional response. The article doesn't say subjects were permitted an "other" option, it says they had to chose between only what was offered, so already it was skewed towards proving a specific point. And that bias bleeds through into the article, unless the article is not representative of the study.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 5:36 AM

Kpo: I was thinking about this more, and also agree with you that maybe my hypothetical about Mal and crew was unfair, but not because of what the relationship is between the characters. Rather it's because your proposed submarine captain scenario I tried to base it on has it's own flaws in its premise.

I don't doubt what you suggested might be a real life scenario. It is possible to spring a leak in a submarine. Or, for example, a regular ship; as I recall, something very similar happened on the Titanic.

The difference is, the people who died in the engineering section on Titanic were not themselves engineers, the Titanic was a huge ship, the hull breech itself was catastrophic, and the partitioning system to seal off the parts of the ship taking on water was poorly designed.

You said the submarine captain was aware of the problem early enough to send the engineers to try to fix it. Which also implies that water is pouring in at a rate that doesn't impede the engineers reaching the leak. The problem here is that the engineering crew should be able to figure out before the captain does that 1) the leak isn't going to be possible to fix, and 2) the longer they stay, the less chance there is of themselves or anyone else surviving. They would make a decision early on, before the captain did, whether to get out and seal the section. I'm also sure the engineering crew has either handheld radios or a ship intercom to inform the captain of their expert opinion that they want to get out and the section needs to be sealed.

But that goes the same for other members of the crew who might be in the area, who aren't all that likely to stand around in the section and think "oh look, knee high water. A-DURR. I think I'll stay here!" Common sense. And if they ARE that dumb, then the captain should be on the intercom clearing the section WHILE he's prepping the engineering crew to go in to assess and get out.

Communication and planning contingencies in advance. It saves lives.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

But dude... runaway trolley wouldn't kill Cheney

Wood Stake, Silver Bullet, Holy Water...

a childs tear

throwing a ring into a volcano

but not a trolley

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 5:51 AM

I'm pretty sure Cheney just laughs at children's tears. He might also steal candy from babies, which is a twofer.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 6:10 AM

MALACHITE

Wow. Fascinating discussion. I'm not sure if Byte has yet expressed his/her true response to the scenario, but I find the "human life is worth infinity" argument compelling. At the same time, I also conceded (and laughed at) KPO's point of, "Don't put Byte in charge of the submarine"...

(I also laughed at the hamster > Aurap comments, but that wasn't appropriate. Sorry, Auraptor.)

Anyways, I think this thread has displayed quite a bit of logical thinking about the scenario and I think that it has shown that logical thinking can be be demonstrated in coming up with either response. I'm not sure that there is a correct/logical answer and an incorrect/illogical answer, here. (In my mind, the ends do not justify the means/ human life is worth infinity arguments are most compelling and morally correct for me, though.) That being said, if I were the submarine commander, I would have to sacrifice the 2 crewmates to save the rest of the crew. Why? Because there I would be in a position of authority and would have the "right" to make that kind of decision -- my responsibility is not to the 2 individuals alone, but to the crew as a whole. Also, I suppose it is the lesser of two evils. This contrasts with my refusal to murder in the trolley scenario because of what I consider to be my role in the situation. In the trolley case, I have not been given the authority to "play God" as Chris points out, and so could not justify the active murder of one to save 5. This is why I abhor the idea of justifying murdering abortionists to save unborn children -- we have not been given the right/authority to commit murder, and, since, if it is a Christian, the moral imperative is to "overcome evil with good", rather than fight fire with fire (reminds me of my Metallica days -- I'm hoping that song was satire. If it isn't, they changed their tune by "Blackened"). These are difficult issues though, that then go on to raise bigger questions like, "Is any kind of war (e.g. defensive, offensive, or anticipatory) justifiable?" or, for the true pacifist, "Is it justifiable to assault the burglar who is threatening you and your family?"
One final point: It is nice to have an abstract conversation about a theoretical situation, but I'm wondering if, even with the ability to think logically, one would still have the presence of mind to actually act logically when suddenly faced with a traumatic situation. I'd like to think I would be reasonable, but how do I know for sure until I've actually experienced it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 6:35 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

My logical mind says: push Fat Superman in from of the trolley. But in reality, I don't think I could.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, March 8, 2010 6:57 AM