Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Almost free chocolate.

kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 12:31:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The question is whether you would punch a pregnant woman almost to death if as a consequence everyone in the world gets a bar of chocolate (the gift of an eccentric billionaire, I suppose). It may seems facetious, but there is a serious side to it.

Trolley problems are a bit dull because they often reduce to counting the bodies, but in the free chocolate probem the up-side and the down-side are very assymetrical so simple counting doesn't work. Clearly a beaten up mother-to-be is a bad thing and everyone in the world having free chocolate is a good thing, but it's not clear to me which one has more moral weight.

I think I'd find it hard to actually beat up a pregnant woman, even if everyone would get a bar of chocolate. But we routinely make precisely that sort of moral choice. If we build a major road or a dam then some construction workers will die, but we accept those deaths because the road or dam will provide a lot of people with a small benefit. We send soldiers to die so that we can live. We lock some people up in prison we feel safe. The few suffer, the majority benefit. But does that apply if the sufferere is a badly beaten up woman and the benefit a lousy bar of chocolate?

Some variations to think about are how you'd feel about being beaten to a pulp yourself just so everyone gets a bar of chocolate, and whether it would make any difference if the pregnant woman expressed willingness to be thumped for the sake of a world-wide chocolate binge.

The final question is whether you'd enjoy your free bar of chocolate, knowing how it was obtained.

Obviously no right answers, but all 2 cents welcomed.
ShabShoral
Posts: 3,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 4:04:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:31:44 AM, kp98 wrote:

Utility monsters (Nozick is so dreamy <3) and scenarios like this really show how deceitful common depictions of Util are. I can only respect people who attempt to bite the bullet, not just appeal to "the greatest good for the greatest number" over and over.
"This site is trash as a debate site. It's club penguin for dysfunctional adults."

~ Skepsikyma <3

"Your idea of good writing is like Spinoza mixed with Heidegger."

~ Dylly Dylly Cat Cat

"You seem to aspire to be a cross between a Jewish hipster, an old school WASP aristocrat, and a political iconoclast"

~ Thett the Mighty

"fvck omg ur face"

~ Liz

"No aspect of your facial structure suggests Filipino descent."
~ YYW
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 4:32:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:31:44 AM, kp98 wrote:
The question is whether you would punch a pregnant woman almost to death if as a consequence everyone in the world gets a bar of chocolate (the gift of an eccentric billionaire, I suppose). It may seems facetious, but there is a serious side to it.

Trolley problems are a bit dull because they often reduce to counting the bodies, but in the free chocolate probem the up-side and the down-side are very assymetrical so simple counting doesn't work. Clearly a beaten up mother-to-be is a bad thing and everyone in the world having free chocolate is a good thing, but it's not clear to me which one has more moral weight.

I think I'd find it hard to actually beat up a pregnant woman, even if everyone would get a bar of chocolate. But we routinely make precisely that sort of moral choice. If we build a major road or a dam then some construction workers will die, but we accept those deaths because the road or dam will provide a lot of people with a small benefit. We send soldiers to die so that we can live. We lock some people up in prison we feel safe. The few suffer, the majority benefit. But does that apply if the sufferere is a badly beaten up woman and the benefit a lousy bar of chocolate?

Some variations to think about are how you'd feel about being beaten to a pulp yourself just so everyone gets a bar of chocolate, and whether it would make any difference if the pregnant woman expressed willingness to be thumped for the sake of a world-wide chocolate binge.

The final question is whether you'd enjoy your free bar of chocolate, knowing how it was obtained.

Obviously no right answers, but all 2 cents welcomed.

A lot of people don't even like chocolate. That said, it is ridiculous to beat up anyone, be it a criminal or a pregnant woman, for some needless material gain. If the pregnant woman wants to sacrifice herself to a beating so that everyone can get some sugar, that's her prerogative, but I don't see why someone else should decide that for her.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 5:33:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 4:32:00 AM, treeless wrote:

If the pregnant woman wants to sacrifice herself to a beating so that everyone can get some sugar, that's her prerogative, but I don't see why someone else should decide that for her.

Are we forgetting the fetus here? What if the pregnant woman miscarries as a result of the beating?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 7:28:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 5:33:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 4:32:00 AM, treeless wrote:

If the pregnant woman wants to sacrifice herself to a beating so that everyone can get some sugar, that's her prerogative, but I don't see why someone else should decide that for her.

Are we forgetting the fetus here? What if the pregnant woman miscarries as a result of the beating?

I suppose that would depend on which trimester the pregnancy is. I don't see how it is much different from an abortion if the pregnancy is in the initial stages.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,872
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 9:01:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:31:44 AM, kp98 wrote:
The question is whether you would punch a pregnant woman almost to death if as a consequence everyone in the world gets a bar of chocolate (the gift of an eccentric billionaire, I suppose). It may seems facetious, but there is a serious side to it.

Trolley problems are a bit dull because they often reduce to counting the bodies, but in the free chocolate probem the up-side and the down-side are very assymetrical so simple counting doesn't work. Clearly a beaten up mother-to-be is a bad thing and everyone in the world having free chocolate is a good thing, but it's not clear to me which one has more moral weight.

I think I'd find it hard to actually beat up a pregnant woman, even if everyone would get a bar of chocolate. But we routinely make precisely that sort of moral choice. If we build a major road or a dam then some construction workers will die, but we accept those deaths because the road or dam will provide a lot of people with a small benefit. We send soldiers to die so that we can live. We lock some people up in prison we feel safe. The few suffer, the majority benefit. But does that apply if the sufferere is a badly beaten up woman and the benefit a lousy bar of chocolate?

Some variations to think about are how you'd feel about being beaten to a pulp yourself just so everyone gets a bar of chocolate, and whether it would make any difference if the pregnant woman expressed willingness to be thumped for the sake of a world-wide chocolate binge.

The final question is whether you'd enjoy your free bar of chocolate, knowing how it was obtained.
People are allergic to chocolate, lol, and if a pregnant woman is attacking me with a machete I'm beating the crap out of her. There is no such thing as a good consequence to an act. There are only consequences. Bad or good is completely useless for moral thought tests because morals aren't ever going to be reconciled as long as their are people. Murdering 12 million people is just as morally objectionable as murdering 1, there aren't quantity discounts for morality. The debates are made from minds of people who are essentially grasping at justifications for humanity to negate moral authority, I.e. supreme law giver. Antony Flew, worldwide proponent of Atheism for decades and well known inventor of true Scotsman fallacy, prof. at Oxford, and established debator who eventually became a deist because of "biology". After being an atheist for 50 years, I think he was very honest in regards to morality experiments. He concluded after decades of debating ethics, a supreme law giver is the only answer that will lead to a moral "ground zero". As you said, there are no right answers just as there are no "better" results.

Obviously no right answers, but all 2 cents welcomed.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 9:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 7:28:01 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:33:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 4:32:00 AM, treeless wrote:

If the pregnant woman wants to sacrifice herself to a beating so that everyone can get some sugar, that's her prerogative, but I don't see why someone else should decide that for her.

Are we forgetting the fetus here? What if the pregnant woman miscarries as a result of the beating?

I suppose that would depend on which trimester the pregnancy is. I don't see how it is much different from an abortion if the pregnancy is in the initial stages.

Follow-up question: Why aren't all abortions performed by beating a pregnant woman for free chocolate?
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 9:23:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:01:10 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 7:28:01 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 5:33:55 AM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 4:32:00 AM, treeless wrote:

If the pregnant woman wants to sacrifice herself to a beating so that everyone can get some sugar, that's her prerogative, but I don't see why someone else should decide that for her.

Are we forgetting the fetus here? What if the pregnant woman miscarries as a result of the beating?

I suppose that would depend on which trimester the pregnancy is. I don't see how it is much different from an abortion if the pregnancy is in the initial stages.

Follow-up question: Why aren't all abortions performed by beating a pregnant woman for free chocolate?

Because that's not efficient.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 8:15:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 9:23:25 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:01:10 AM, SM2 wrote:
Follow-up question: Why aren't all abortions performed by beating a pregnant woman for free chocolate?

Because that's not efficient.

Are you kidding? The only thing more efficient than that is "falling down the stairs".
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2015 8:30:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 12:31:44 AM, kp98 wrote:
I hope you do realize I neither suggested we should do that, nor that it is some clever ethical thought experiment.
It's pretty obviously immoral.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
treeless
Posts: 64
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 4:07:17 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/15/2015 8:15:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:23:25 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:01:10 AM, SM2 wrote:
Follow-up question: Why aren't all abortions performed by beating a pregnant woman for free chocolate?

Because that's not efficient.

Are you kidding? The only thing more efficient than that is "falling down the stairs".

There is no guarantee a miscarriage will happen, and the whole purpose of a proper abortion is to ensure the safety of the woman getting the procedure. You are making an asinine argument to prove exactly what point? Depending on the trimester of the pregnant woman, she should have the choice to do what she wishes with her own body, even if it is something as silly as getting a beating for free chocolates.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2015 5:29:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/16/2015 4:07:17 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 8:15:04 PM, SM2 wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:23:25 AM, treeless wrote:
At 10/15/2015 9:01:10 AM, SM2 wrote:
Follow-up question: Why aren't all abortions performed by beating a pregnant woman for free chocolate?

Because that's not efficient.

Are you kidding? The only thing more efficient than that is "falling down the stairs".

There is no guarantee a miscarriage will happen, and the whole purpose of a proper abortion is to ensure the safety of the woman getting the procedure. You are making an asinine argument to prove exactly what point? Depending on the trimester of the pregnant woman, she should have the choice to do what she wishes with her own body, even if it is something as silly as getting a beating for free chocolates.

Nonsense. Women are the property of their men. I determine whether my Mrs. gets beaten for free chocolate.