Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 60
  1. #31
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott Colliver View Post
    Of course one should do something.
    That means - fighting is acceptable when there are no other options.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  2. #32
    CC Grandmaster Sir Cromulent Sparkles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Westside
    Posts
    3,461
    The most elegant solution to the trolley problem is to use one of those shopping trolleys with the busted wheels that never steers in a straight line. In this scenario, the trolley probably would have already derailed itself from the tracks before its prospective victims succumb to its malice.
    Ruin is formal, devil's work,
    Consecutive and slow -
    Fail in an instance no man did,
    Slipping - is Crash's law,

  3. #33
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    21,209
    It was most pertinent of IM to raise the Trolley Problem. Since there is a real moral dilemma even when it's killing one innocent person to save five, there is less of an issue killing one would-be murderer to save a thousand innocent people.

    The Trolley problem has come up in the vaccination issue. The Rona vax has a small risk, about a thousandth that of the Rona virus. Not getting a vax would be akin to leaving the trolley to kill five people, but making it a thousand. Encouraging vaccination might be like changing the path of the trolley.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  4. #34
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Scott, and what if you are walking on the street and you see a male assaulting a female or a child? Is it acceptable to interfere? In my view, this is not only acceptable but essential!
    And if you see a male assaulting a female in Afghanistan? Is it essential to interfere then?

  5. #35
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    That means - fighting is acceptable when there are no other options.
    I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.

  6. #36
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And if you see a male assaulting a female in Afghanistan? Is it essential to interfere then?
    Trolley approach is perfect for discussing it: 1) after we leave will abuse continue 2) will other males treat females better and 3) did we get involved to stop abuse of females or after september 11th?.
    I would consider getting involved on one condition : we can stop abuse!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #37
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.
    if someone is out to kill you/someone you are protecting and in possession of weapons it is becoming a matter of survival.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  8. #38
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I don't believe that Scott has a problem with fighting; it's killing that he is strongly opposed to.
    I don't believe Scott has expressed his view on fighting so I am talking out my arse.

  9. #39
    CC International Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    1,442
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin Bonham View Post
    The questions I'd ask at this point are:

    * What do you mean by the word "wrong"?
    * How do you decide whether something is "wrong"?
    * Why doesn't the end, saving the lives of everyone, justify the means of killing someone who is going to kill themselves and everyone else anyway? The "means" is going to occur anyway. The choice is really between two ends, one of which is extremely bad.

    It is simply not wrong, in general, for A to kill B when B is otherwise going to kill A without provocation - or even with provocation, unless extremely severe. Anyone who thinks it is has a strange idea of what "wrong" means.

    That's not to say there is any moral obligation to kill in self-defence. It is a personal choice. Whatever decision a person might make should be respected.

    Most "moral" decisions are like that. The unwarranted assumption that of any two choices one should be considered "right" and one "wrong" just results in people agonising themselves and feeling guilty, or being condemnatory and judgemental towards others, all for no reason. Better to save such emotions for cases with easier answers.
    Question 1:
    Wrong means morally bad or incorrect.

    Question 2:
    I make it up in my own mind. I believe morallity is all subjective so whatever I decide is as good as whatever anyone else might decide is morally right or wrong.

    Question 3:
    I have decided killing is such a wrong act that it should never occur and everyone should do everything they can to stop killing. If everyone had the attitude that killing is not an option for them in their lives then there would never arise the situation where someone was put in a position where they have to decide whether to kill to save lives because no one would ever be killing.

  10. #40
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Trolley approach is perfect for discussing it: 1) after we leave will abuse continue 2) will other males treat females better and 3) did we get involved to stop abuse of females or after september 11th?. I would consider getting involved on one condition : we can stop abuse!
    You didn't mention any of those qualifications in the original case. Do they also apply to intervening to protect a female being assaulted? And how do you make these determinations before you intervene?

  11. #41
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,855
    Note that Scott is considering the Trolley Problem (and related issues) from a different moral perspective than other posters. Most people here are adopting a utilitarian approach - what's the best outcome for the most people. Scott is taking a deontological approach - I have a moral code against killing which I have to follow regardless of the consequences. So arguing that not killing will lead to more people dying - although obviously true in a lot of cases - won't necessarily change his position.

  12. #42
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    You didn't mention any of those qualifications in the original case. Do they also apply to intervening to protect a female being assaulted? And how do you make these determinations before you intervene?
    Other way around, I do not intervene in a foreign country unless I am absolutely clear what the objective of intervention is, that I am doing the right thing and that I am going to make a difference. Re seeing female on the street assaulted - it is a totally different matter as I am able to decide it for myself straight away.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  13. #43
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    7,855
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Other way around, I do not intervene in a foreign country unless I am absolutely clear what the objective of intervention is, that I am doing the right thing and that I am going to make a difference. Re seeing female on the street assaulted - it is a totally different matter as I am able to decide it for myself straight away.
    But you can't possibly predict the outcome of your personal intervention - it may make no difference, or even make things worse. This is a general problem with utilitarianism, of course, perfectly illustrated in several episodes of The Good Place - which I highly recommend.

    With Afghanistan, the objective was to prevent terrorist attacks on Australia, which is clearly a good thing (as it's very similar to your personal intervention case), and it was apparently successful. So, on your criteria, the intervention was justified.

  14. #44
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,669
    What's wrong with killing?

    Is it ok to wage war? Is it ok to defend yourself against an attacking army? Ethics Bites asks if it's always wrong to kill. ...

  15. #45
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    18,393
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    But you can't possibly predict the outcome of your personal intervention - it may make no difference, or even make things worse. This is a general problem with utilitarianism, of course, perfectly illustrated in several episodes of The Good Place - which I highly recommend.

    With Afghanistan, the objective was to prevent terrorist attacks on Australia, which is clearly a good thing (as it's very similar to your personal intervention case), and it was apparently successful. So, on your criteria, the intervention was justified.
    That means now there will be terrorist attacks on Australia I assume...
    btw, when was the last time Taliban attacked Australia (not USA or Europe but Australia).
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. I have a problem
    By Davidflude in forum The 1337 Lounge
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 31-01-2010, 06:24 AM
  2. Problem's with the solutions in problem books
    By Bereaved in forum Puzzles and Problems
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13-09-2008, 10:22 AM
  3. problem
    By hitman84 in forum Puzzles and Problems
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-12-2005, 02:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •