Aleph Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) All of you intentionally missing the point of the question are fuckheads. The correct response is "Who - why" in that form. No "I'd just shoot the killer" crap. I was joking when I said that, duh. It's a thought experiment, not a survival class. Answer the god damn question or leave. Serious discussion. I honestly believe that some, perhaps most, people take a while to get to the point where they are making their grand contribution to society. The 30 year old man isn't "the guy who missed his chance to cure cancer" while in the mean time you and the baby are "the two that have a chance". It's more like "he's way the fuck older than you and EVERYONE IS EQUALLY SHITTY - if something good is coming out of any of you, it'll be out of him first, so he gets to live for sure". I'm older than a fucking baby so I live too. Simple. Apocalypse version of the same scenario: Everyone dies, all that's left are stupid fucking kids a la Homestuck. Well they're stupid, so they get all kinds of shitty diseases, can't cure them and die off...if they can even feed and take care of themselves otherwise in the first place. Some fucking kids die off and adults will just be like "well we can just make more, we did it before". Prablem salved. Babies have negative utility. Edited November 22, 2011 by Obviam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 It's a thought experiment, not a survival class. Answer the god damn question or leave. Serious discussion. That's what we're doing, if not moreso, as actually approaching the concept and considering its limitations and worth takes more effort than answering blindly to a pre-decided number of possibilities. One takes more personal investment to understand and react to than the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 (edited) Phoenix, the 'disarming the shooter' was meant for Celice. Sorry if the tone made it seem towards you. I'm not searching for any specific answer, I just want to see what people put higher on the scale. I think what Obviam said deserves to get re-quoted, because that's exactly what I mean: All of you intentionally missing the point of the question are fuckheads. The correct response is "Who - why" in that form. No "I'd just shoot the killer" crap. I was joking when I said that, duh. It's a thought experiment, not a survival class. Answer the god damn question or leave. Serious discussion. Also, the situation you're placed in (In this case, the shooter) is just a representation of any scenario where one of the chosen has to die. It's meant to be in-escapable. Edited November 22, 2011 by Aere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Othin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That's what we're doing, if not moreso, as actually approaching the concept and considering its limitations and worth takes more effort than answering blindly to a pre-decided number of possibilities. One takes more personal investment to understand and react to than the other. And yet apparently you couldn't be fucked to bother realizing the intended question rather than simply finding loopholes in the words used to shape it. Proposed additional rules for the clarity of those unable or unwilling to comprehend intentions for themselves: You can tell the shooter to shoot any of the three of you, and no one else. If anyone tries to leave without doing so, he shoots them. If you don't tell him to shoot anyone, well, you'll starve eventually. And no, no one else can help you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Yes, mangling the question does give you more shit to spew about. That's not what the TC intended. Make your own fucking topic if you want to go on unrelated tangents. That said no one likes questions worded as "inescapable scenarios". I still would have preferred, if only to deter such non-discussion, if it had been phrased as "which two of these 3 lives do you value the most?". <- Yes, I'm aware that's not the English standard for punctuation at the end of a quote, but I don't give a fuck about standard English - it's not even standard. At least this is Edit: Leaving off the period was too; I always do that when the sentence has that tone of...snarkiness Edited November 23, 2011 by Obviam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 And yet apparently you couldn't be fucked to bother realizing the intended question rather than simply finding loopholes in the words used to shape it. Oh, I knew what he was asking. And I knew it was a question full of problems, supposing rather than asking, stating rather than answering. If you can't see past the argument, here, let me help: It's not finding loopholes. As limited as your supposition is, perhaps you should take a moment to realize that these aren't loopholes. These are valid responses to the scenario. Pointing out false-dilemmas is a part of thought experiments like these. Pointing out the lack of choice ultimately, is a part of thought exercises like these. Understanding the context fully--is part of thought experiments like these. There's a large difference between deconstructing an argument for prick's sake, and then actually showing how the argument is on bad standing and is unanswerable. You should be capable of seeing this, at the very least, so long as you posses an ability to rationalize and observe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The baby has no knowledge, no relationships, very rudimentary emotions. These are important parts of being human, more important, I think, then having the appropriate genetic code that says that you're human. And more important than being "useful" to other humans. So the baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ciarre Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 So what if the baby might cure cancer? That's like grinding in an MMO for tons of hours because you think "oh the next kill might drop the rare item!" or keep entering the lottery because the next ticket you draw might be the winner. I pick baby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strawman Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I would choose myself hopefully. It just seems selfish for me to want someone else to die in my place. Also, I don't believe that any of the lives are worse or less valuable than one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phoenix Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Phoenix, the 'disarming the shooter' was meant for Celice. Sorry if the tone made it seem towards you. I'm not searching for any specific answer, I just want to see what people put higher on the scale. Well, here's my scale in a live or die scenario: Me<Infant/Average Joe And the moral of the story is: When initiating a thought experiment, make sure you use a perfectly realistic scenario. Fail to do so, and Celice will ruin it for you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anouleth Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well, here's my scale in a live or die scenario: Me<Infant/Average Joe And the moral of the story is: When initiating a thought experiment, make sure you use a perfectly realistic scenario. Fail to do so, and Celice will ruin it for you. The entire point of thought experiments is that they are perfectly unrealistic and thus cannot be performed in the real world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) Really? The thought experiment where an incoming trolley is speeding down the tracks, and there's two paths: one with several workers, and one with only one. You have a lever which decides which path it goes down. The trolley is going to speed down the tracks no matter what, and you have the ability to make the cart diverge towards the single worker, or allow it to stay on the track. While this specific thought experiment is also full of flaws and false dilemmas (what, no one thought about yelling to the one guy to get out of the way, and to switch it there? amongst others), it has real, practical value in weighing the worth in a more-real scenario of costs. Many thought experiments aren't based in a fantastical world, but are instead grounded in actuality. It is where the worth of the experiment comes from--a scenario like the above is a bit more plausible, and also calls for a more honest reaction to the context. You are being properly identified as the main thing to consider. In the topic's scenario, there isn't a real importance because it supposes on "ifs" and also rigidly enforces "but you can't this" when in fact, you can. Rigid "thought experiments" are not experiments at all. It's a question seeking an answer, not a response. Edited November 23, 2011 by Celice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 The entire point of THIS particular thought experiment is to answer the fucking question. I am not all that surprised that most of you picked to off the baby. It is basically just a poop machine at that point anyway. Seriously, I believe people who value a tiny nothing over an adult have serious issues and might even need pathological repair or psychiatric attention; perhaps both (assuming they're not the same thing). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 Celice, I'm sure you aren't the only one who sees the flaws in the question I asked. However, you even stated yourself, that you knew what I meant/what the question basically entailed. Most other people would, too. Most people formulate opinions while reading, then reflect and justify them at the end. There's no way to create a hypothetical situation that ISN'T full of holes, or it'd just be ridiculous. That being said, why didn't you answer the question, in any case? You've clearly shown that there are flaws and such, but you still know what the question asks, and would rather point out the flaws than give an answer to the actual question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celice Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Because, as I said earlier, the question erroneously demands an answer without thought. I'm not used to being led on, you see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Seriously, I believe people who value a tiny nothing over an adult have serious issues and might even need pathological repair or psychiatric attention; perhaps both (assuming they're not the same thing). Not to completely disagree, but there exists a side to the argument which would accuse people who wouldn't value it of the same sort of disease. :p (by pathological repair, do you mean that they should be treated for a specific condition?) I assume it isn't as strong as a tie to kin, but IIRC people are in fact wired to be a little bit biased in favor of babies. Or maybe they just happen to fit to fit our definitions of cute, needing of protection, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 23, 2011 Author Share Posted November 23, 2011 The question does require thought; Pick one of the three victims to die, and justify your choice. It doesn't require you to think outside of the box, though, this is not some sort of critical analysis experiment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) The entire point of THIS particular thought experiment is to answer the fucking question. I am not all that surprised that most of you picked to off the baby. It is basically just a poop machine at that point anyway. Seriously, I believe people who value a tiny nothing over an adult have serious issues and might even need pathological repair or psychiatric attention; perhaps both (assuming they're not the same thing). That's a quaint little belief. What makes you think psychiatric attention or "pathological repair," whatever that is - my experience is that most mental conditions can be treated but not actually cured, by the by - is ever needed? Why do you believe in objectively valuing human lives? Far more realistic to admit a relative value to human life: people mean different things to different people. I think it is entirely based on whims that we make our decisions in cases such as this, and calling the mentality of those who think differently into question is a childish behavior. I assume it isn't as strong as a tie to kin, but IIRC people are in fact wired to be a little bit biased in favor of babies. Or maybe they just happen to fit to fit our definitions of cute, needing of protection, etc. I have heard that aside from parents, the desire to protect young is actually quite small, but I could be wrong on this one. What I've also heard is that "caring labor" tends to value that which it is assigned to care for for a wage as having importance aside from the salary, but only after a bond is formed from initial care. Edited November 23, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Do not lump me in with those bloody fetuses. I scorn your decision to admit the bias of yourself, let alone others. Edited November 24, 2011 by Obviam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Do not lump me in with those bloody fetuses. I scorn your decision to admit the bias of yourself, let alone others. Personal biases: wherever you go, there they are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 I challenge you brother. Get at me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 The 30 year old man, because I can't kill the baby and I don't want to die... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aere Posted November 24, 2011 Author Share Posted November 24, 2011 The 30 year old man, because I can't kill the baby and I don't want to die... Why can't you kill the baby? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Animals can't kill babies. They haven't evolved other ways of preserving their species but to keep their young alive long enough for them to reproduce the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Original Alear Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) I challenge you brother. Get at me. *shrugs* ... You don't have anything to offer me. Animals can't kill babies. They haven't evolved other ways of preserving their species but to keep their young alive long enough for them to reproduce the first time. Actually, in nature parents, especially fathers, kill their young with some frequency, for instance I have heard this occurs among lions, and in the case of the gr8 apes the infant apes whose parents lose a tribal war will be included in the casualties. I have heard that insects often eat their own young to survive in some instances. Edited November 24, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.