Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:


I don't consider killing a person self-defense, though I might make exceptions in the event of attempted murder (but only during the act, not after the fact) and cases of rape.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

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


Clearly.

---

Quote:

---

If Mal had to kill two people on Serenity in a life or death situation to keep the others alive, who would he choose?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Depends how fat the fat guy is

Heads should roll

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Many of the most horrific decisions in history had perfectly logical rationale, they were just ethically abhorrent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Hmm, I'm not sure how they could express the "I froze" and the "I panicked." I'm not sure how many people would outright say "well, I would probably panic" when they're being asked a moral dilemma and under no other sources of stress. Being asked what you would do in a moral dilemma is different from being in one.

I just see a bias toward the "logical" answer represented in the article, and a generalization of the non-push answer as emotional. The article presents the moral dilemmas in the study as "either/or" situations.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
Chris, all I'm saying is that there has to come a point for everyone when logic has to take over from this otherwise beneficial, paralysing instinct. If not when there are 5 people in the path of the (figurative) trolley, then how about 10? 50? 100? 1,000,000?
The scientists decided that 5 was enough to create a solution that was logical (but still difficult). Anyone who doesn't like that could just think of 50 or 500 men in front of the trolley instead of 5.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Sorry to come down on you like this, KPO, but you've been utterly relentless in your defense of this silly logical positivism of "the greatest good for the greatest number" guff. And ultimately, it means pretty much squat. In the actual event of a trolley menacing 5 workmen while a mysterious fat man walks by, who knows what you'd do? For all your imagined cold-blooded logic, you might very well find a more ethical and effective solution in the moment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by mal4prez:
OK, not real heroic. But hell - I'm as logical as a person can be, and I know that had I been closer, and had no one else been acting, I might have done different. I like to think that if I'd been the closest I'd have been running out in front of the car, getting the woman to stop. If I had medical expertise, I'd have gone over there afterward. But the logical part of my brain saw other people on the scene, knew I wouldn't be helpful, then bailed out and let the emotional part take over. The emotional part went for self-protection.

---

Quote:

---

People may argue that the study was flawed - and it's hard to say.

---

Quote:

---

Sorry to come down on you like this, KPO

---

Quote:

---

this silly logical positivism of "the greatest good for the greatest number"

---

Quote:

---

And ultimately, it means pretty much squat. In the actual event of...

---

Quote:

---

Unless you are arguing that moral dilemmas don't really exist in real life? And that nobody should attempt to invent them for scientific study because that is just being needlessly macabre?

---

Quote:

---

I actually enjoy moral dilemmas, except when I think answers given are being used to support a position I find unethical in of itself. And to me, the study seems to be trying to support a position of logic in a moral dilemma being a superior method of problem solving than emotions.

---

Quote:

---

"These "thought experiments" help philosophers clarify their understanding of certain concepts and intuitions. In the field of ethics, thought experimenters typically present a dilemma, examine the most popular "intuitive" response and then show the implications for real-world issues.

But such experiments are rarely tested on large numbers of people."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
But you have to admit logic has to take over at some point.

---

Quote:

---

it is very frustrating that you keep trying to assign some sort of ulterior motive to my disapproval here.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not saying my emotional/pacifistic approach is BETTER. I'm saying that the study is FLAWED because it is BIASED towards a particular response, and that CONCERNS me.

---

Quote:

---

The moral dilemmas are innocent

---

Quote:

---

moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning.

---

Quote:

---

sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one’s actions.

---

Quote:

---

“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases,” write the authors.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Do not question authority.
Submit.
No free thought.
This is your God.

I'm all outta bubblegum, Byte.


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

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Bytemite:
Mass movement swinging back and forth between violent and non-violent kinds of parenting can effect entire generations of children. I think we've discussed this enough for you to be familiar with all the fine points, Frem knows them better than I do anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
And you don't think we are already HEAVILY indoctrinated ? What do you think TV is ? And I don't mean just the commercials, or the just the commericals and 'entertainment' shows, I mean everything up to and including your local weather. The purpose of TV is to bring a mass audience to the commercials and to make it (us) pliant for the commercial message.

---

Quote:

---

So, do you think a study like this is really necessary for indoctrination ? Do you think NOT doing a study like this is going to stop it ?

---

Quote:

---

As I see it, these dilemmas are painful to even consider - at least, I find them to be - b/c of the human trait of empathy. Unless and until that trait can be eliminated in a large number of people - something this study doesn't even come close to doing - it will always be a check on trying to teach people to callously making pre-determined choices.

---

Quote:

---

But there is no rational to reject logic as the basis for decision. What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.

Using logic and thought would make people MORE resistant to manipulation, LESS subject to emotional hot-buttons.

I have no problem with that.

---

Quote:

---

I wasn't attacking your answer, I was attacking the point of the study.

---

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. 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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

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.

---

Quote:

---

No and no. I actually enjoy moral dilemmas, except when I think answers given are being used to support a position I find unethical in of itself. And to me, the study seems to be trying to support a position of logic in a moral dilemma being a superior method of problem solving than emotions. And like I said before, that troubles me because of how the results of such a study could be used in schools and the armed forces. I'd like to know who funded the study and why.

---

Quote:

---

I've said this already. It's not the moral dilemma I have a problem with. I LIKE moral dilemmas. Why do you keep trying to frame my arguments as such?

I have been very clear, I feel like a broken record. It's how the bloody study bloody uses the bloody moral dilemmas that I have a bloody problem with. Okay? Please take me at face value when I say this, because it is very frustrating that you keep trying to assign some sort of ulterior motive to my disapproval here. My point here really is what I'm saying it is. I'm not saying my emotional/pacifistic approach is BETTER. I'm saying that the study is FLAWED because it is BIASED towards a particular response, and that CONCERNS me.

---

Quote:

---

It could be, Kpo, but then WHY does the article (or the study, we still don't know if the article is representative) specifically call out this point:

Quote:
moral dilemmas can evoke strong emotions in people and tend to override thoughtful deliberation and reasoning.



Quote:
sometimes people are capable of voluntarily suppressing these emotional reactions, allowing for decisions based on reasoning and careful deliberation of the consequences of one’s actions.



Quote:
“This suggests that emotional reactions to moral issues can drive our judgments and motivate action but can also blind us to the consequences of our decisions in some cases,” write the authors.



When you decide that you would push the man, would you say you associated that with a particularly emotional response? Of the two options, which response is most likely to be elicited from an immediate visceral emotional response, and which is likely to be a reasoned, carefully thought through and well substantiated response?

I mean, of the response that you describe as logical, 100% of the people involved would fall under the distinction here of having reasoned through the decision, wouldn't they? Whereas the other group would be split by a percentage of those who can reason through their response to the dilemma, and those who respond "Oh, God! No! That's wrong!"

So which group is more likely to be considered the logical responders?

---

Quote:

---

This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.

---

Quote:

---

In logic, more specifically in the context of natural deduction systems, an assumption is a proposition that may be used to prove further propositions, in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument.

---

Quote:

---

When you just today, during the course of our discussion, re-focused off of unknown evil intent and onto bias as your concern I responded with

---

Quote:

---

What logic requires is not an outcome, b/c the desirability of an outcome is a moral choice for which there can be no rationale. Non-action is a moral choice. What logic requires is a process of consistency and proportion.

---

Quote:

---

FOR ALL YOU KNOW - respondents who had sound reasons to NOT sacrifice a soldier, or a fat man, were judged to be JUST AS rational as respondents who did have sound reasons to sacrifice them. And people who had no rationale to sacrifice the soldier or the fat man were judged to be just as irrational as respondents who had no reason to save them.

---

Quote:

---

This is a completely unfounded assumption, as I have implicitly and explicitly stated many times. An assumption you seem to be stuck making over and over.

---

Quote:

---

Do you accept that I have read, understood and directly addressed your point about bias ? Do you accept that we don't know if the study is biased on the basis that we don't know it they accepted other initial positions ?

---

Quote:

---

That's true, but not the assumptions one makes in proving a point. In your posts they lead to a circular quality which goes like this: I assume evil intent therefore I assume bias, and since I assume bias it means there is evil intent.
Additionally, one does not follow the other. There may be no evil intent even if there is bias, and no bias even if there is evil intent.

---

Quote:

---

Additionally, one does not follow the other. There may be no evil intent even if there is bias, and no bias even if there is evil intent.

---

Quote:

---

And even if there is both evil intent and associated bias, this study is not necessary to evil's fulfillment, since the exact same evil has been historically done and is being currently done QUITE EASILY through other well known means.

---

Quote:

---

Finally, assumptions are warranted only as far as they will be addressed later. This is from your quote: "...in the expectation that the assumption will be discharged in due course by proving it via a separate argument." I don't see you addressing the further challenges of proving your several assumptions.

---

Quote:

---

Why would someone have no rationale for killing someone

---

Quote:

---

the morale dilemma is about killing someone for the greater good?

---

Quote:

---

as I see it this study seems to come out very in favour of encouraging people to take the kill option.

---

Quote:

---

You'll notice that when Kpo spoke about how he could not apply his same logic to his own family, I didn't accuse him of being wrong. His being inconsistent...

---

Quote:

---

ABSTRACT—Recent findings suggest that exerting executive control influences responses to moral dilemmas. In our study, subjects judged how morally appropriate it would be for them to kill one person to save others. They made these judgments in 24 dilemmas that systematically varied physical directness of killing, personal risk to the subject, inevitability of the death, and intentionality of the action. All four of these variables demonstrated main effects. Executive control was indexed by scores on working-memory-capacity (WMC) tasks. People with higher WMC found certain types of killing more appropriate than did those with lower WMC and were more consistent in their judgments. We also report interactions between manipulated variables that implicate complex emotion-cognition integration processes not captured by current dual-process views of moral judgment.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
People may argue that the study was flawed - and it's hard to say. But I don't think people can object to the idea THAT such a study is a proper research subject.

---

Quote:

---

both of you have bought into this wholly destructive distrust of emotion as something needing to be "suppressed" in favor of "more consistent" logic

---

Quote:

---

Upon further reading, thanks to KPO, it appears that these questions all concern killing people

---