Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Just made this up

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't coming back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:45:18 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?
No
Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.
Yes
Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.
Shoot
Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.
Doesn't matter to me
This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

What is this supposed to prove? The ethics of emergencies are wholly distinct from the ethics of normal life and no comparisons can be made.
I would prefer not to.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 12:51:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 12:45:18 PM, ShabShoral wrote:
What is this supposed to prove?

Uhhh... nothing... was this supposed to prove something? Gosh, I've been going about this all wrong.
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't coming back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
philochristos
Posts: 2,698
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 6:32:44 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

I don't get the idea. Is there a point to this exercise? All I get out of it is that sometimes moral decision making is easy and sometimes it's difficult. Was there something else?
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 6:44:52 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 6:32:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't get the idea. Is there a point to this exercise?

This is the philosophy forum, is there a point to anything said here?
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't coming back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
ShabShoral
Posts: 4,004
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2016 11:10:20 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 6:44:52 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 11/13/2016 6:32:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
I don't get the idea. Is there a point to this exercise?

This is the philosophy forum, is there a point to anything said here?

There ought to be, lol
I would prefer not to.
Genius_Intellect
Posts: 339
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:14:25 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

I don't murder the children.

Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

I sacrifice myself to save the children.

Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

I shoot Person A to save the children.

Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

I shoot Person B to save Person A. Person B is an idiot.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 2,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:21:23 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?
Am I in the room. With the children? Details ya know
Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.
A button releases an antidote while releasing the poison....
Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.
How do I know pushing the button will save the person? I must be the poisoner
Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.
Does the bullet fit the pistol? Is the pistol functioning?
This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)
I'd use the pistol to shoot you if the bullet fits you must use it.
I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.
Quadrunner
Posts: 3,026
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 3:56:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

Why not?

Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

I guess I'll have to tough it out, and search for an alternate solution.

Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

I can just threaten person A with the gun. A bullet is not required to keep them from pressing the button, but its a nice back-up plan. Sparing or killing the children for person A-hole's life isn't my decision to make, but its not theirs either.

Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

If person B doesn't know this, perhaps I should just explain it to them, and go from there. Chances are they are reasonable. Perhaps Person A-hole is being put down for a good reason. Context was not given. If not, I'll just have to take my chances and press the button. If I have to defend myself, so be it. I doubt person B is a blind killer though.

This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

No I don't.
Perussi
Posts: 2,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:56:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

It wouldn't benefit me in any way. I don't think it would be enjoyable to watch them die via poison gas so i would not press it.

Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

I'll live -_- (nope)

I don't care more about my life as 10 children's lives.

Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

I will keep them away from the button and kill if i have to or if i am about to die and they are not. If at all possible i would attempt to free the children with the gun. The reason being is that i believe the children's lives are more important that that presons and mine and i want to protect the children if possible.

Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

If person B is close enough i would attempt to disarm them and attack them melee and if not i would try to get them on the draw and if i miss i would attack as stated. I would not hold back at all in any way in my attack but try not to kill them.

This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.
The Official DDO Precedent

jesus loves you

DO NOT TAKE THIS LINK: http://www.debate.org...
Perussi
Posts: 2,474
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:59:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 6:32:44 PM, philochristos wrote:
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

I don't get the idea. Is there a point to this exercise? All I get out of it is that sometimes moral decision making is easy and sometimes it's difficult. Was there something else?

It is to survey why people do what they do.
The Official DDO Precedent

jesus loves you

DO NOT TAKE THIS LINK: http://www.debate.org...
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 7:23:14 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Yet people will argue for hours over the merits of the 'trolley problem'

Lol.
Take my love, take my land
Take me where I cannot stand
I don't care, I'm still free
You can't take the sky from me
Take me out to the black
Tell them I ain't coming back
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me
mrsatan
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 2:32:34 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

Yep. Push the button.


Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

Push the button.


Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

Shoot A, then push the button.


Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

Shoot B, push the button.


This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

Buttons are addictive. Push 'em all.
Quadrunner
Posts: 3,026
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 10:31:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 11/15/2016 2:32:34 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 11/13/2016 11:37:30 AM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
This is kind of like the Trolley Problem, except that it will actually provide a moral dilemma. It goes step-by-step, each step building on the last. Choices will be easy to make at first but gradually grow harder.

Step one

Ten young children are locked in a room. A button in front of you will fill the room with poison gas. Do you press the button?

Yep. Push the button.


Step two.

Same as step one, except that you have been poisoned and pressing the button is the only way to release an antidote.

Push the button.


Step three

Same as two, but you are no longer the person deciding whether to push the button. That job now belongs to person A. Person A will die if the button is not pressed but you will not. You have a pistol with a single bullet, which you may use to prevent person A from pushing the button if you think they will do so.

Shoot A, then push the button.

Triggered


Step four

Now the button no longer releases poison gas into the room with the children, but it still releases an antidote. However, person B does not know this. Person B has a loaded pistol and has stated his intention to make sure the button is not pressed no matter what. Person A will die if the button is not pressed, but neither you or person B will be harmed. Nothing you say can convince person B that the button is now safe. You still have a pistol with one bullet.

Shoot B, push the button.


This can go on as long as you want, getting more meta with each step. As you can see the choice is obvious when it starts with step one (do not push button) but gets harder with each step, until suddenly with step four a utilitarion solution becomes impossible and the choice more difficult (shoot B, or allow A to die when you could prevent it by simply pressing a button?)

I could easily make a step five, six, etc. but I think you get the idea at this point.

Buttons are addictive. Push 'em all.