ITT pose and answer difficult questions

[MyOneAndOnly]

the reason these two dilemmas don't feel the same is that the train dilemma involves a situation where you're witness to a quickly unfolding accident. There are limited norms that people would be able to reference for making the decision. There's a train, a fork in the tracks. people on both sets of tracks.

The medical dilemma, though, involves a whole host of ethical issues that would influence peoples' reactions to the question. First do no harm. The rights of patients to be the ones to make their own care decisions. There's also the very personal and intimate manor in which the organ dilemma registers with people. A speeding train and last minute decision doesn't feel the same as what would need to be done to the innocent organ donor. That decision would involve detaining, restraining and literally dismembering a live person.

while both hypothetical the train dilemma feels less personal than the organ dilemma.

[MyOneAndOnly]

it's odd how essentially the same decision/outcome can feel so much different in slightly different contexts.

The allies fire bombed german cities during the War. They killed tens of thousands of civilians, not necessarily strategic targets, in an effort to weaken german resolve and support for the Nazi regime. it's barely ever discussed. with the exception of Kurt Vonnegut can you name anybody who agonizes over the injustice of it?

The US did essentially the same thing, though, in Japan. They bombed 2 cities. But because they used a single bomb on each, and not thousands of bombs, it became for many people since then a horror that we should "never forget."

[MyOneAndOnly]

In a sense the decision to drop the A Bombs was similar to the train dilemma. Hundreds of thousands (maybe even a million or more) people are going to die if you invade Japan and the killing will last months or maybe a year. If you drop one or two bombs far fewer will die and you can end it immediately.

I'd drop those bombs. And I wouldn't feel bad about it.

[buzzard]

It's been a while since school, but I believe the firebombing of Japanese cities cost more lives than both atomic bombs put together and almost exclusively killed civilians.

We only remember the celebrities like Little Boy and Fat Man.

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by reprise85

i have no problem tasting blood if i cut myself or whatever but that makes me gag just thinking about

it's kind of dumb though, it's just blood

TASTE ME
AS I BLEED
TASTE MY NEED

(definitely appropriate words in a song about your disabled brother, btw)

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Well there's a reason you aren't given any information about the people involved that's not the point of the questions

It's to demonstrate there isn't a hard logic to our morality

Nearly everyone answers yes and then no

my answer is no to both questions.

everybody operates under the immediate logic that you always need to save as many human lives as possible. i understand it's linked with perceived empathy or whatever but i strongly disagree with that. now this doesn't mean i would enjoy or even be able to stomach the deaths of 14 people, but it wouldn't be wrong to let them die. this world is severely, sickly overpopulated and the less people living in it, the better it would be for the 'greater good'.

[ohnoitsbonnie]

You may feel that way because youve spent time in China and lived in an irrigated desert. So I mean yes but no

[teh b0lly!!1]

if anything, i'm having more difficulty with the second question, because it's essentially capitalism.

would you take the fortune of one very wealthy and lucky person, and spread it to four others who are in dire need. i still think my answer would be no, because health is not like money, and it would be wrong to murder one healthy person just to prolong the life of four sick people, but

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by ohnoitsbonnie

You may feel that way because youve spent time in China and lived in an irrigated desert. So I mean yes but no

no my views on this have been fairly consistent for years now.
everybody seems to think i'm just being contrarian and outrageous and not take it seriously but i really do feel that mankind is the worst thing that ever happened to this miraculous planet, and it truly makes me sad on a regular basis to comprehend just how much we corrupt anything and everything for our privileged needs as a species.

[ohnoitsbonnie]

I both agree and am apathetic to that view

[teh b0lly!!1]

if you really agreed you wouldn't be able to be apathetic, inherently

[buzzard]

Is it really so contrarian to express a view shared by every second thirteen-year-old to ever walk upon said miracle?

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Opinions aren't inherent

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Is it really so contrarian to express a view shared by every second thirteen-year-old to ever walk upon said miracle?

Is this meant to be a difficult question?

[buzzard]

listen
don't ever quote my posts again

[ohnoitsbonnie]

You do share a lot of qualities with windfucker

[buzzard]

Thanks, man. It's good to know that I possess qualities.

[reprise85]

Originally Posted by scottytheoneand

it's odd how essentially the same decision/outcome can feel so much different in slightly different contexts.

The allies fire bombed german cities during the War. They killed tens of thousands of civilians, not necessarily strategic targets, in an effort to weaken german resolve and support for the Nazi regime. it's barely ever discussed. with the exception of Kurt Vonnegut can you name anybody who agonizes over the injustice of it?

The US did essentially the same thing, though, in Japan. They bombed 2 cities. But because they used a single bomb on each, and not thousands of bombs, it became for many people since then a horror that we should "never forget."

this would be considered a war crime now, no? speaking of the bombing of dresden and the like

[buzzard]

Has anybody ever been charged with war crimes after winning?

P.S. This was not intended as a difficult question, but rather as a means to avoid research.

[reprise85]

individuals on the winning side tend to get charged in military court, right? like abu ghraib soldiers etc, or the My Lai massacre (lol, we did a great job there)? not exactly the same thing but yeah 'winners' can get in trouble for violating human rights. one of the reasons for war crime trials are specifically because the nation that would be in charge of charging them doesn't exist anymore in a coherent form? i dunno you're the lawyer

[buzzard]

We should probably just ask Took for the inside scoop on his uncle, Slobodan.

[MyOneAndOnly]

Originally Posted by reprise85

this would be considered a war crime now, no? speaking of the bombing of dresden and the like

it's only a war crime if your side loses the war

[MyOneAndOnly]

USA dropped more bombs on Vietnam than they dropped in all of WW2. Nobody charged with war crimes

[MyOneAndOnly]

Obama drone killing civilians for 8 years. no war crimes charges

[teh b0lly!!1]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Is it really so contrarian to express a view shared by every second thirteen-year-old to ever walk upon said miracle?

that's what you say but i rarely ever (never) meet anybody who shares those views. including on this board, which is teenage fury galore. it's always about how humans are so terribly important, everywhere.

[buzzard]

Well, you know...

It's hard to look past the categorical futility of, say, Harambe's existence when compared to the potential for endless joy generation innate in every human being.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by Elphenor

Well there's a reason you aren't given any information about the people involved that's not the point of the questions

It's to demonstrate there isn't a hard logic to our morality

Nearly everyone answers yes and then no

if the specifics of a situation are unimportant, it isn't a useful question to answer.

Of course there is no hard logic to our morality. The logic only exists in an artificial (and arguably, arbitrary) system of organised values, all of which are deeply personal.

In other words, you can only make a morally 'right' decision if you have already decided what you think is right.

Nearly everyone answers yes then no, I mean nearly everyone likes french fries. Who cares.

[vixnix]

Originally Posted by buzzard

Well, you know...

It's hard to look past the categorical futility of, say, Harambe's existence when compared to the potential for endless joy generation innate in every human being.

Kid Gets Mauled to Death by Gorilla makes a way better story than Gorilla Shot Dead to Protect a Kid, though. We had a chance for greatness and we blew it. Cowardice!

[ohnoitsbonnie]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

no my views on this have been fairly consistent for years now.
everybody seems to think i'm just being contrarian and outrageous and not take it seriously but i really do feel that mankind is the worst thing that ever happened to this miraculous planet, and it truly makes me sad on a regular basis to comprehend just how much we corrupt anything and everything for our privileged needs as a species.

Not sure that life is miraculous within the universe but it can safely be assumed that life forms on this planet are unique. Anyway the earth has been around for over 4 billion years and it'll be around for much longer after humans fade away. Equilibrium will be reached again (and unlike what happens in Wall-E, plants will continue to survive). Hey did you know that on Enceladus, water ice is actually rock

[myosis]

Originally Posted by teh b0lly!!1

if anything, i'm having more difficulty with the second question, because it's essentially capitalism.

would you take the fortune of one very wealthy and lucky person, and spread it to four others who are in dire need. i still think my answer would be no, because health is not like money, and it would be wrong to murder one healthy person just to prolong the life of four sick people, but

it's quite easy for me to answer no to this question because otherwise it would essentially mean that my body belongs to the State. i personally consider that my body doesn't belong to the State. and if it did, i think that would represent ideologies that capitalists usually oppose...