LGP Philosophy Discussion Thread

[Gaucho]

so you'd save Hitler over Lassie?

Actually lassie would save himself, and probably you and Hitler. Heck, Lassie probably would've been the one to call 911

lol

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

PFiDC: "I like Hitler more than Lassie"

[PensFanInDC]

PFiDC: "I like Hitler more than Lassie"

[meow]

If stated it before somewhere on LGP. I value all human life, no matter who the human is, above all other life on the planet. The "worst" person on the planet is worth more (albeit a fraction of the width of a hair more) than the best of the best non-human.

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

[shmenguin]

If stated it before somewhere on LGP. I value all human life, no matter who the human is, above all other life on the planet. The "worst" person on the planet is worth more (albeit a fraction of the width of a hair more) than the best of the best non-human.

this is upsetting.

[count2infinity]

To add to that, the sort of "I see where this is going, you're about to make me think about whether what I said makes sense logically, and no thank you" has never been one that I can say that I have had. I really do try to welcome opportunities to view my decisions/viewpoints in a critical way and from a fresh perspective. The thought of being a logically inconsistent moral bebopper is rather icky to me.

The question at hand was a decision between one thing and another... decisions are not logical, they are emotional. In fact there is a great amount of neuroscience to support this. When a decision is to be made, logic plays little role in deciding.

[redwill]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

[PensFanInDC]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

Does that include string theory?

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

the dog is also Jehovah Witness

[redwill]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

Does that include string theory?

He's not absolutely convinced about that theory yet. But he's keeping an open "mind."

[meow]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

Does that include string theory?

Don't dodge the question.

[PensFanInDC]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

Does that include string theory?

He's not absolutely convinced about that theory yet. But he's keeping an open "mind."

If the dog can't make up his mind about string theory then why would I save him? Sheesh....

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

also the convicted murderer says that after you save him he's going to murder you

[PensFanInDC]

also the convicted murderer says that after you save him he's going to murder you

Then he has taken away the element of surprise.

[Kraftster]

To add to that, the sort of "I see where this is going, you're about to make me think about whether what I said makes sense logically, and no thank you" has never been one that I can say that I have had. I really do try to welcome opportunities to view my decisions/viewpoints in a critical way and from a fresh perspective. The thought of being a logically inconsistent moral bebopper is rather icky to me.

The question at hand was a decision between one thing and another... decisions are not logical, they are emotional. In fact there is a great amount of neuroscience to support this. When a decision is to be made, logic plays little role in deciding.

Can you point me to some literature on this? I'd be genuinely interested in checking that out.

I think there's a difference between collecting data that suggests that Person A made a decision for emotional reasons and jumping to the statement "Decisions are emotional." I would be surprised if the literature suggests that they are emotional in the mechanical sense that they must be emotional. So long as decisions need not be emotional, I'd prefer to strive to make decisions based upon logic and reason.

[PensFanInDC]

http://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/lo ... motion.pdf

[count2infinity]

Antonio Damasio. Google his name, as he did a fair amount of research on the matter and there are some readings of experiments that he completed. I apologize for not including the fact that I personally believe that snap decisions (I think we can both agree that being in a burning building would be snap decisions) are purely emotional. Very little to no logic involved.

[Kraftster]

I personally believe you can train yourself to make rational decisions (I'll just use that phrase as the opposite of emotional decisions, though it may not be so binary) at all times. It's something that I strive to do. Other than having days where I feel like I am steering myself into becoming an automaton, I think there is a lot of redeeming value in doing so.

Also, feel like this back and forth has been on a razor's edge regarding the presence of hostility in posts. No hostility from me. Your post just made a convenient one for me to use in making a more general observation.

[Hockeynut!]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

This thread gave me many laughs today. Thank you all.

[count2infinity]

Certainly no hostility from me either (although you did use the words moral bebopper and icky)

[meow]

What if it was a terminally ill 90 year old convicted murderer that had less than 24 hours to live or a 1 year old service dog that could detect seizures prior to them occuring, smell certain types of cancer, lead the blind, and get the newspaper?

And the dog can fly, talk, and do advanced astrophysics calculations.

Fly a plane, not fly like a bird. And do a Rubik's cube in under 90 seconds.

[columbia]

This adds a wrinkle to the previously discussed moral choice:

Pope Francis says dogs can go to heaven
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /20296955/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[largegarlic]

To add to that, the sort of "I see where this is going, you're about to make me think about whether what I said makes sense logically, and no thank you" has never been one that I can say that I have had. I really do try to welcome opportunities to view my decisions/viewpoints in a critical way and from a fresh perspective. The thought of being a logically inconsistent moral bebopper is rather icky to me.

The question at hand was a decision between one thing and another... decisions are not logical, they are emotional. In fact there is a great amount of neuroscience to support this. When a decision is to be made, logic plays little role in deciding.

Can you point me to some literature on this? I'd be genuinely interested in checking that out.

I think there's a difference between collecting data that suggests that Person A made a decision for emotional reasons and jumping to the statement "Decisions are emotional." I would be surprised if the literature suggests that they are emotional in the mechanical sense that they must be emotional. So long as decisions need not be emotional, I'd prefer to strive to make decisions based upon logic and reason.

I've been listening to Jonathan Haidt's The Happiness Hypothesis on my commute, and he talks about this a bit too (I think he has a more recent work that focuses explicitly on this idea). He did some experiments asking to people make snap judgments about hypothetical cases of incest, something that most people find morally disgusting (unless you're a Lannister). In one scenario, people are asked to explain the reasons behind their disgust, and most say that the problem is that incest leads to birth defects. However, when he alters the scenario and makes it clear that one (or both) of the siblings having sex are absolutely, 100% infertile, the same extremely high percentage of people have the same snap reaction that the action is morally disgusting. When asked why, they try to come up with some rationalization, but struggle to come up with anything convincing.

I get the sense that philosophers and psychologists are somewhat split on how to interpret these sorts of results. Some people take the hard line that rationality is never anything other than after the fact justification, incapable of playing a causal role in actions. Others acknowledge that even if most people make decisions this way most of the time, this doesn't mean that people necessarily make decisions this way or that people should give up on trying to have reason play more of a role in our decisions. I think I fall more into the latter camp. I might be really weird in this sense, but I'm pretty sure my views on things and subsequent actions have changed purely as a result of rational argument one way or another.

[count2infinity]

I'm certainly somewhere in the middle. I don't think it's impossible for an individual to make a decision based on logic rather than emotion. I do think it's harder for some and easier for some though.

[PensFanInDC]

I'm sure emotion is the first thing triggered when making a decision. We have to be able to stop, use logic, and then proceed with the decision. I think that happens 99/100 and it takes a fraction of a second.