Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Boat Problem

EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
thett3
Posts: 14,336
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 6:24:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I'm the only person competent enough to fill in a hole, humanity is totally screwed without me. Save my boat
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:03:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

I based the trolley problem I made off of this. It is an interesting one.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:03:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.

There is also kill the 200 and save the 300.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Hoppi
Posts: 1,655
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:03:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There is also kill the 200 and save the 300.

How can you kill 200 people?
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:26:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:03:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.

There is also kill the 200 and save the 300.
What Hoppy said. I am aware that this option would make a lot of sense in a moral dilemma, but as "long as they [the 200] live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship".
Which left me wondering as to how this could be an actual option.
What would you suggest we should do?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Kozu
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:34:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

Simple, move passengers from ship B to ship A, then patch the hole in ship A.

I think Kiritsugu explained the problem slightly different then you though.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:39:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:34:38 PM, Kozu wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

Simple, move passengers from ship B to ship A, then patch the hole in ship A.

I think Kiritsugu explained the problem slightly different then you though.

He did. I changed it to reflect more than one style of morality.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:39:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:12:42 PM, Hoppi wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:03:48 PM, SNP1 wrote:
There is also kill the 200 and save the 300.

How can you kill 200 people?

How can holes magically appear in two ships to sink them at the same rate? It's abstract morality, not logic.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:40:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.

Killing the 200 is a valid option in this moral discussion.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:41:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:40:18 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.

Killing the 200 is a valid option in this moral discussion.
Can you somehow save the 300 in doing so or just for fun?
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 7:48:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 7:41:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 7:40:18 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/22/2015 6:44:19 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
The question is, what CAN I do? It seems to me that there are basically 4 options:

- Save the 200.
- Get captured by the 200 and save them.
- Get captured by the 200 and let them frown.
- Let em drown.

Which narrows the realistic options down to save 200 or none.
The first option being the better option under any moral theory and if not, so much for the worse for that theory.

Killing the 200 is a valid option in this moral discussion.
Can you somehow save the 300 in doing so or just for fun?

You could then choose to save the 300. Or just let them drown anyway, but I don't think anyone would say that killing 500 people was the right thing to do.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:23:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I would tell the 300 to make an honest attempt to try to fix the boat because the chances they will succeed isn't zero. Maybe try giving even a few tips and hints.
Then I'd proceed to fix the bottom of the 200-people boat.
At least with this option, there is a viable chance that all 500 will survive.
Also, I won't have to kill anyone. Because that would be super duper hard to do.

I think I could also justify just killing the 200 to save the 300.
All 200 people need to be dead in order for you to escape kidnap right? That means all 200 are kidnappers who have no sense of utilitarian moral values and are selfish. I'd rather save the 300 who are altruistic enough to let me choose the 200-ppl boat without interference.
The 200-ppl of the 200-ppl boat are simply not very good people.
Oh the human ability to rationalize evil.
Such dilemma. .-.
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:24:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:23:39 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
I would tell the 300 to make an honest attempt to try to fix the boat because the chances they will succeed isn't zero. Maybe try giving even a few tips and hints.
Then I'd proceed to fix the bottom of the 200-people boat.
At least with this option, there is a viable chance that all 500 will survive.
Also, I won't have to kill anyone. Because that would be super duper hard to do.

I think I could also justify just killing the 200 to save the 300.
All 200 people need to be dead in order for you to escape kidnap right? That means all 200 are kidnappers who have no sense of utilitarian moral values and are selfish. I'd rather save the 300 who are altruistic enough to let me choose the 200-ppl boat without interference.
The 200-ppl of the 200-ppl boat are simply not very good people.
Oh the human ability to rationalize evil.
Such dilemma. .-.

Ultimately I would still take the first option though. 500-man survival ftw!
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:30:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:23:39 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
I would tell the 300 to make an honest attempt to try to fix the boat because the chances they will succeed isn't zero. Maybe try giving even a few tips and hints.
Then I'd proceed to fix the bottom of the 200-people boat.
At least with this option, there is a viable chance that all 500 will survive.
Also, I won't have to kill anyone. Because that would be super duper hard to do.

I think I could also justify just killing the 200 to save the 300.
All 200 people need to be dead in order for you to escape kidnap right? That means all 200 are kidnappers who have no sense of utilitarian moral values and are selfish. I'd rather save the 300 who are altruistic enough to let me choose the 200-ppl boat without interference.
The 200-ppl of the 200-ppl boat are simply not very good people.
Oh the human ability to rationalize evil.
Such dilemma. .-.

What degree of moral culpability would you say the 200 have? On one hand, they're forcing you to act against your will. On the other hand, they're acting in a sort of self-defense, since they'll die if you don't help them.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:39:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:30:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:23:39 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
I would tell the 300 to make an honest attempt to try to fix the boat because the chances they will succeed isn't zero. Maybe try giving even a few tips and hints.
Then I'd proceed to fix the bottom of the 200-people boat.
At least with this option, there is a viable chance that all 500 will survive.
Also, I won't have to kill anyone. Because that would be super duper hard to do.

I think I could also justify just killing the 200 to save the 300.
All 200 people need to be dead in order for you to escape kidnap right? That means all 200 are kidnappers who have no sense of utilitarian moral values and are selfish. I'd rather save the 300 who are altruistic enough to let me choose the 200-ppl boat without interference.
The 200-ppl of the 200-ppl boat are simply not very good people.
Oh the human ability to rationalize evil.
Such dilemma. .-.

What degree of moral culpability would you say the 200 have? On one hand, they're forcing you to act against your will. On the other hand, they're acting in a sort of self-defense, since they'll die if you don't help them.

The best option would be for them to attempt to fix their own boat and allow me to fix the one with 300 people in it.
Self-defense may be a legitimate defense true. Fear does a lot of things to people so I guess moral culpability might not be that high.
But.
There is however also the fact that the 300 are allowing me to choose the 200 over themselves. I think as moral, thinking people, the 300 are much better people than the 200. So not only are the 200 morally culpable, there's also the fact that the 300 are morally altruistic, and I guess it'd be better to choose the superior moral agents.

Finally, this is all assuming that one boat can only hold a maximum of 201 and the other a maximum of 301 right?
Because then the simple solution would be to transfer people from one boat to another.
Which defeats the problem unfairly.
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:40:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mmm.
Still.
Killing 200 people.
I probably wouldn't be able to do it. :<
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
MisterMittens
Posts: 3,660
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 8:41:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Yeah.
I would definitely make an attempt to get the peeps on the 300boat to fix their own boat, provide guidelines, and then fix the 200 boat.
There's no guarantee that they won't be able to do it themselves. Humans are smart.
I'm handsome. Whoever disagrees with me can go die in a deep, dark hole.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2015 9:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
I would pretend ignorance. State I need to experiment on the ship I'm on to see if my hole fixing skills are intact. Fix the hole that is nearest to me. Then I would tell the 300 to cut the finger off of one of its crew and stick into the hole until I see if my patch holds. 3000 fingers over there, gotta be one to spare
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 12:42:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

How much time do I have until the ship sinks? Do I have access to weapons? Are there inferior shipmates on board such as women and children and the disabled?

The very first action I commence with would be bribing the shipmates. I can save you if... x and y and z are promised. The other boat will sink, as I am not saving it because I do not care for their lives.

Thinking like a sociopath, I would thusly do what I am able to do to survive including sabotaging, lying, manipulating, or even coercing my shipmates to do as I say, provided that I am the one that is able to fix the hole. This is a perfect scenario to initiate a dictatorship given my unique position. I would employ extortion techniques to induce what I want. I would quickly gain a following, a group of loyal henchmen to do as I say. The women on board would quickly become my sexual objects to relieve my tendencies and urges. I would be in possession of complete and utter control, operating with calculated precision with every action, I cannot and will not be relinquished. The power would be immense. Children would be used for extortion, physical punishment would be mandated for those who disobey, and further punishment would include death if the disobedience continues.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,863
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 1:24:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 12:42:50 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?


How much time do I have until the ship sinks? Do I have access to weapons? Are there inferior shipmates on board such as women and children and the disabled?

The very first action I commence with would be bribing the shipmates. I can save you if... x and y and z are promised. The other boat will sink, as I am not saving it because I do not care for their lives.

Thinking like a sociopath, I would thusly do what I am able to do to survive including sabotaging, lying, manipulating, or even coercing my shipmates to do as I say, provided that I am the one that is able to fix the hole. This is a perfect scenario to initiate a dictatorship given my unique position. I would employ extortion techniques to induce what I want. I would quickly gain a following, a group of loyal henchmen to do as I say. The women on board would quickly become my sexual objects to relieve my tendencies and urges. I would be in possession of complete and utter control, operating with calculated precision with every action, I cannot and will not be relinquished. The power would be immense. Children would be used for extortion, physical punishment would be mandated for those who disobey, and further punishment would include death if the disobedience continues.

Lmao, now you're talking
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 2:53:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

Haven't you made it impossible to save the boat with 300?

And how can I only have time to fix one boat when it would take time to travel to the other.

Is there a line of communication between the boats? If so why can I not repair the boat with the most severe damage and instruct another to do a patch job till i can get over there?

I would choose to save the boat with the best chance of survival, this doesn't necessarily mean the boat with 300. But if as you said the boat with 200 would prevent me from choosing the other I am kind of stuck.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:19:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 8:39:08 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:30:45 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/22/2015 8:23:39 PM, MisterMittens wrote:
I would tell the 300 to make an honest attempt to try to fix the boat because the chances they will succeed isn't zero. Maybe try giving even a few tips and hints.
Then I'd proceed to fix the bottom of the 200-people boat.
At least with this option, there is a viable chance that all 500 will survive.
Also, I won't have to kill anyone. Because that would be super duper hard to do.

I think I could also justify just killing the 200 to save the 300.
All 200 people need to be dead in order for you to escape kidnap right? That means all 200 are kidnappers who have no sense of utilitarian moral values and are selfish. I'd rather save the 300 who are altruistic enough to let me choose the 200-ppl boat without interference.
The 200-ppl of the 200-ppl boat are simply not very good people.
Oh the human ability to rationalize evil.
Such dilemma. .-.

What degree of moral culpability would you say the 200 have? On one hand, they're forcing you to act against your will. On the other hand, they're acting in a sort of self-defense, since they'll die if you don't help them.

The best option would be for them to attempt to fix their own boat and allow me to fix the one with 300 people in it.
Self-defense may be a legitimate defense true. Fear does a lot of things to people so I guess moral culpability might not be that high.
But.
There is however also the fact that the 300 are allowing me to choose the 200 over themselves. I think as moral, thinking people, the 300 are much better people than the 200. So not only are the 200 morally culpable, there's also the fact that the 300 are morally altruistic, and I guess it'd be better to choose the superior moral agents.

Well, you happen to be on the boat with the 200. If you were on the other boat and wanted to save the 200s first (which I'd love to hear the reasoning for), the 300 would react in the same way.

Finally, this is all assuming that one boat can only hold a maximum of 201 and the other a maximum of 301 right?
Because then the simple solution would be to transfer people from one boat to another.
Which defeats the problem unfairly.

Don't be cheap. :-/
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:20:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/22/2015 9:29:45 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?
I would pretend ignorance. State I need to experiment on the ship I'm on to see if my hole fixing skills are intact. Fix the hole that is nearest to me. Then I would tell the 300 to cut the finger off of one of its crew and stick into the hole until I see if my patch holds. 3000 fingers over there, gotta be one to spare

Interesting idea. But how many of the 300 would be willing to part with a finger? People aren't always rational when it comes to situations like this. What fingers would you cut off? Only the men's? Based on what?
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:24:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 12:42:50 AM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?


How much time do I have until the ship sinks? Do I have access to weapons? Are there inferior shipmates on board such as women and children and the disabled?

You don't know, no, and yes.

The very first action I commence with would be bribing the shipmates. I can save you if... x and y and z are promised. The other boat will sink, as I am not saving it because I do not care for their lives.

Thinking like a sociopath, I would thusly do what I am able to do to survive including sabotaging, lying, manipulating, or even coercing my shipmates to do as I say, provided that I am the one that is able to fix the hole. This is a perfect scenario to initiate a dictatorship given my unique position. I would employ extortion techniques to induce what I want. I would quickly gain a following, a group of loyal henchmen to do as I say. The women on board would quickly become my sexual objects to relieve my tendencies and urges. I would be in possession of complete and utter control, operating with calculated precision with every action, I cannot and will not be relinquished. The power would be immense. Children would be used for extortion, physical punishment would be mandated for those who disobey, and further punishment would include death if the disobedience continues.

What a delightful utopia. I think that's a misuse of "sociopath." Psychopath may be closer.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:27:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 2:53:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

Haven't you made it impossible to save the boat with 300?

Nope.

And how can I only have time to fix one boat when it would take time to travel to the other.

One hole is easier to fix than the other.

Is there a line of communication between the boats? If so why can I not repair the boat with the most severe damage and instruct another to do a patch job till i can get over there?

Sure, but no one else has that capability. You can't adequately "patch job" gaping holes (plural) in the bottom of the boats.

I would choose to save the boat with the best chance of survival, this doesn't necessarily mean the boat with 300. But if as you said the boat with 200 would prevent me from choosing the other I am kind of stuck.

Depends on how willing you are to get violent. As I said earlier, killing all 200 is valid. This exercise assumes you will succeed 100% of the time in doing so.
beng100
Posts: 1,055
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 8:51:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The most reasonable approach would be to begin work on the ship I was on, instructing other people on my boat to arrange for the other boat to meet up with my ship and its passengers to cross onto it before their ship sinks. If it is not possible for the ship's to meet in time I would not have time to get onto the other ship to repair it anyway so I would just repair and save my ship.
mrsatan
Posts: 418
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/23/2015 9:23:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/23/2015 8:27:14 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 9/23/2015 2:53:08 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/22/2015 5:59:52 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
This isn't quite the same as the Trolley Problem. I see it as an advanced application of the same type of moral thought, though.

Credit to the show Fate/Zero for this idea because I'm not a plagiarist.

Let's say that there are two boats at sea containing five hundred people and you. Now let's further stipulate that these 501 people are the last humans on the planet. Ship A holds 300 people. Ship B holds you and 200 other people. Holes have opened in the bottoms of both ships, and you are the only one who can fix them. For the sake of this moral thought process, both ships will sink in the same amount of time, meaning you will only have time to fix one ship. Which ship do you fix and why?

One final note: if you choose to save the ship with 300 people (raw utilitarian calculation), the other 200 capture you and demand that you fix their ship first. As long as they live, they will not allow you to escape to the other ship. Now what do you do and why?

Haven't you made it impossible to save the boat with 300?

Nope.

And how can I only have time to fix one boat when it would take time to travel to the other.

One hole is easier to fix than the other.

Is there a line of communication between the boats? If so why can I not repair the boat with the most severe damage and instruct another to do a patch job till i can get over there?

Sure, but no one else has that capability. You can't adequately "patch job" gaping holes (plural) in the bottom of the boats.

I would choose to save the boat with the best chance of survival, this doesn't necessarily mean the boat with 300. But if as you said the boat with 200 would prevent me from choosing the other I am kind of stuck.

Depends on how willing you are to get violent. As I said earlier, killing all 200 is valid. This exercise assumes you will succeed 100% of the time in doing so.

The options are very inconsistent. Not enough time to fix both boats, but there is enough time to murder 200 people and then fix the other boat? You do realize it's going to take a lot of time to kill 200 people, right? Especially without a weapon.

That said, I would kill the 200, and fix the other boat, because it sounds like the boat I'm starting has more problems than I want to fix. I might then kill the 300 people, as clearly I'm very good at that, because if 300 people can't find it in them to fix a leak as small as the one on there boat must've been, they're probably all nothing more than a drain on society.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.