• Perceived Probability: what are the differences from regular statistical chance?
    ↪ToothyMaw
    Yeah, they can definitely be deceived. It's possible the dealer could innocently deal himself 20 royal flushes in a row, but everyone would have left the table long before then. In that case, they would have all come to the wrong conclusion.

    "I think Igitur is talking about perceptions of probabilities that are not accurate - specifically that do not take into account other things that could cause the given occurrence in question"

    OK, I was confused.
  • Perceived Probability: what are the differences from regular statistical chance?
    ↪ToothyMaw
    This sounds like epistemic probability (or maybe subjective probability?). For example, suppose I'm in a poker game with people I don't know. The dealer deals himself a royal flush. Well, any hand the dealer deals himself is fantastically improbable, but after seeing that, I'm pretty close to leaving the table. Suppose I stay and the dealer deals himself four of a kind. I'm probably walking away at that point. While it's possible two hands like that could show up innocently, it's vastly more probable the dealer gets two hands like that given the hypothesis "the dealer is cheating".
  • You build the machine, or you use the machine, because otherwise you are trying to be the machine
    That is the main reason why a high school diploma is completely worthless in the labor market. — Tarskian

    If you are competing for a job with another person, and the other person isn't an HS graduate and you are, isn't that going to be a significant advantage for you?
  • You build the machine, or you use the machine, because otherwise you are trying to be the machine
    Okay. Let's dispense with education altogether. On their sixth birthday, give every child a laptop and put them to work on real life problems. — Vera Mont

    What about having HS students take an "intro to maths" class, where the textbook covers "consumer math" (fraction, decimals, percents, etc.) and briefly touches on more advanced concepts. After that, they're done with math requirements. If the student wants to, they can take advanced math as an elective. I would rather require philosophy classes in this day and age than math. Too many people can't think.
  • You build the machine, or you use the machine, because otherwise you are trying to be the machine
    ↪Tarskian
    I teach elementary, and memorization certainly is part of math teaching, but since Common Core, there's been a shift towards conceptual understanding of math, instead of just rote memorization.

    That being said, I don't think math should be taught for more than a half hour a day. Advanced maths also should not be required in high school. They should be electives. There really is no point anymore in forcing the average student to learn algebra and geometry.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    Correct. If they know that they are going to kill an innocent person by intentionally killing hitler; then they are intentionally killing that innocent person to kill hitler. — Bob Ross

    But your position is absurd. If the Allies could end the war in one bombing raid and the collateral damage is only one innocent person, of course they should do that.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    If you want to tweak the scenario so that he suffers while he's playing, then in effect we're complicit in torturing him, in which case the situation is essentially the same as it was with the kid, and so we shouldn't hand him over, we should fight the aliens instead. — Herg

    I agree with you up to this point. I think we have to force him to play. Being forced to play a game of chess is not even close to turning over a little kid to be tortured. However, threatening to shoot him is an empty threat because he knows you need him alive to play the chess game. I think we should at least try that and see if it convinces him to play. You can't let the selfish actions of one person doom humanity.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    It is always wrong to intentionally kill innocent people; so utilizing a means which has a foreseen consequence of killing an innocent person (thereby making it a part of the accidental aspect of the intention) is wrong. — Bob Ross

    Suppose the Allies can destroy a Nazi heavy water nuclear facility, and disable their nuclear weapons program (pretend the Nazi's have a robust program) by causing the death of one innocent German janitor. You're saying it's wrong for them to bomb the nuclear facility?

    ETA: Forget the nuclear facility. Suppose the Allies know Hitler is touring the nuke facility and they can bomb it and kill him and only one innocent janitor gets killed. You're saying they shouldn't do it?
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    This all just further supports your argument that antinatalism is not natural. — Fire Ologist

    I don't see this as a knock on his position. Birth control isn't natural, but it's not immoral.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    ↪Herg
    I don't see how we're treating Magnus as an end by forcing him to play chess with the aliens. There is nothing at stake for him. He's not in any danger. We're not saving his life or bettering his condition in any way by forcing him to play/making him our slave. We're forcing him to play strictly for our own ends.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    It would be, indeed. But I take the view that the hedonic calculus should only be applied subject to the imperative to treat sentient beings as ends, and handing the kid over for torture would be treating him or her as a mere means, not an end.

    The moral thing to do is what it has always been in such situations, e.g. in 1939 when we were made a not dissimilar offer by the Nazis: you fight the bastards.     — Herg

    I agree, but let's tweak the scenario a bit. Suppose that instead of wanting a kid to torture, the aliens really really want to play Magnus Carlsen in chess. If he agrees to play, humanity gets gifted technology. If he refuses, we all get sent to the salt mines, except Magnus. The aliens like him and will gift him a good life no matter what he decides. But Magnus refuses to play! His ego is such that he would rather the world burn then being coerced into a game. Should humanity force Magnus to play? Maybe by threatening to execute him if he doesn't? Wouldn't that be treating him as a means?
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    I am an ethical naturalist and hedonist: I believe that the only intrinsic good is pleasure (strictly, pleasantness), and the only intrinsic evil is pain (strictly, unpleasantness). If you wish to go into further detail, I can explain further why I believe this. — Herg

    What if sadistic aliens come down and offer us the following deal: if you give us a little kid so that we may torture them, we will gift you with fabulous technologies. If you don't give us the kid, all humans will become our slaves.

    On a purely hedonic calculus, isn't the moral thing to do to give them the kid to torture? What would you do?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    ↪jorndoe
    Should Ukraine go for that deal now?
  • Ukraine Crisis
    Ukraine was to give up Donbas and recognize Crimea as part of Russia — jorndoe

    Isn't this a non-starter from Ukraine's perspective, esp. in 2022?
  • Why are drugs so popular?
    Why are drugs so alluring to some and growing in popularity amongst (quite a few) Americans? — Shawn

    Because they're awesome. In the short term.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    The question is then whether these exceptions to (1) apply to the case of procreation. For example, we can cause suffering absent consent when punishment is due, but is punishment due in the case of procreation? — Leontiskos

    It depends on what kind of life you expect your kid to have. If there's a 99% chance your child will die an excruciating death by the time they're ten, then you probably have a duty not to have a kid.
  • Antinatalism Arguments
    ↪Leontiskos
    There's a problem with (1). People found guilty of crimes have a lot of suffering inflicted on them without their consent, so sometimes it's OK to cause suffering absent consent. Or did the prisoner consent to his punishment by virtue of living in a society with laws, maybe?

    ChatGPT is pretty impressive:
    Reveal
    Can you think of any counterexamples to the maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent"
    ChatGPT
    The maxim "Do not cause suffering, absent consent" is a foundational principle in ethics and moral philosophy, often associated with the concept of autonomy and the importance of respecting individuals' rights and choices. However, there are situations where this maxim may face challenges or counterexamples:

    Emergency Situations: In cases of emergency where immediate action is necessary to prevent harm, such as administering medical treatment to an unconscious person, causing temporary suffering without explicit consent may be justified to save their life or prevent further harm.

    Parental Authority: Parents often make decisions on behalf of their children, such as vaccinations or medical procedures, without their explicit consent. While parents are expected to act in their child's best interest, these actions may cause temporary suffering.

    Paternalism: In some cases, individuals may act in what they perceive as the best interest of others, even if it causes temporary suffering, without obtaining explicit consent. This concept, known as paternalism, can be controversial as it overrides individual autonomy.

    Legal Punishment: In the context of legal punishment, individuals may experience suffering as a consequence of their actions, such as imprisonment or fines, without their explicit consent. This raises questions about the balance between justice and the prevention of suffering.

    Animal Welfare: The maxim primarily focuses on human suffering but may not directly address the suffering of non-human animals. Actions that cause suffering to animals for purposes such as scientific research or food production may occur without their consent.
  • Finding a Suitable Partner
    ↪Bob Ross
    You might meet some intellectually stimulating/philosophical people volunteering for a (liberal) political campaign.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    Sorry, but war is hell. Collateral damage.

    Oh and the IDF fight for a belief system of apartheid and ethno-nationalism. No thanks.     — Mikie

    Would you rather live in a world run by Israel or Hamas? I think we both know the answer to that.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    How tiresome.

    By that logic, Hamas is also justified in what they did. Innocent people die in war — “too bad.” I suppose the Israelis shouldn’t demand justice for all the dead civilians. War is hell.     — Mikie

    No, Hamas and much of the Arab world fight for a belief system that oppresses women and LGBTQ people and basically anyone who's not a Muslim male. Screw that.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    ↪Bob Ross
    :up:
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    Lol. I guess we will never know for certain......and I am surely not going to argue with you about what you think are my ethical commitments. — Bob Ross

    I probably shouldn't have said that, but deontologists annoy me. If the axe murderer comes looking for your friend, you're going to tell him the truth about where he's hiding? If the Nazi's want to know where the Jews are, we're supposed to tell them them the truth? Because we should value the truth so much? No. When the chips are down, nobody acts like that.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    I would let the whole world get destroyed — Bob Ross

    No, you wouldn't.
  • Israel killing civilians in Gaza and the West Bank
    ↪Mikie
    The genocide is not a narrative but fact largely self-documented by Israel. — boethius

    I don't think Israel is saying this was an accident.

    "The Israeli military confirmed it carried out the airstrike, which it said targeted a Hamas compound operating inside the school. Israeli military spokesperson Lt. Col. Peter Lerner later told journalists the military was not “aware of any civilian casualties.”

    Lerner said “20 to 30 Hamas and Islamic Jihad” militants were targeted in the strike, and that those targeted were “using the facilities to plan and execute attacks” against Israeli forces. Militants who were involved in the October 7 attacks on Israel were among those killed, Lerner said."
    https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/06/middleeast/israel-airstrike-un-school-gaza-intl-hnk/index.html

    All roads lead back to WW2. The Allies killed thousands of innocent French civilians in preparation for D-Day. Was this a war-crime? No. Did the French demand justice for all the dead French civilians killed in bombing raids? No. Innocent people die in war. The French knew what the stakes were.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    Assuming John Wayne Gacy was not moral responsible for anything bad which was occurring in that trolley situation (which is to say that he has not forfeited his right to not be killed in this situation); then, no I would not.

    It is always wrong to kill an innocent person; and by 'innocent' I mean innocent in the specific situation---otherwise, it is irrelevant (even if there is other information that would emotionally move us). I would love to pull the lever in the case of John Wayne Gacy but that would still be immoral.     — Bob Ross

    Well, let's take it to the most absurd level: unless you run Hitler over with a trolley, the whole world gets destroyed. What do you do?
  • Why The Simulation Argument is Wrong
    Yes, evidently. I just wonder what he would posit as the reason for accepting such an assumption. — Arkady

    Maybe because the real world might have a lot in common with a simulated world? It seems a bit ad hoc to me.
  • Why The Simulation Argument is Wrong
    But if this is indeed a simulation, then anything we purport to know about our present levels of technology (and thus any extrapolation therefrom) is illusory, because we don't actually possess that technology: such technology is simulated. — Arkady

    Yes, there's an implicit assumption in Bostrom's argument that the simulation we're in is similar to "the real world".
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    ↪Bob Ross
    I wasn't sure how you were using "innocent". But let's suppose you have John Wayne Gacy tied to the tracks and a dozen preschoolers in the car. You wouldn't pull the switch?
  • Finding a Suitable Partner
    ↪Bob Ross
    48
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    I would never pull the lever, no matter how many people I would save by doing so. Killing an innocent person is always wrong; and one cannot commit an immoral act to avoid a morally bad outcome. — Bob Ross

    What if the person is not innocent? What if the person being run over is a death row inmate?
  • Finding a Suitable Partner
    ↪Bob Ross
    What is your age?
  • Climate change denial
    ↪Mikie
    "It found that just one-third of all young Americans said they would back Biden if the election was held at the time the survey was conducted. The poll also reflects a virtual tie in the race."
    https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4987296/young-voters-biden-gaza-inflation-abortion-trump-genforward-poll

    So, the "drill, baby, drill" and "ban all Muslims" guy is tied with the Democrat. We can't look to young people to win the election. Men prefer Trump over Biden. Looks like women are our last best hope.
  • A potential solution to the hard problem
    A year later, what's the status of this potential solution to the hard problem?
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    ↪Apustimelogist
    That's true, too.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    That’s not comparable to being given instructions on how to work trolley levers, told people are (for some reason) tied to train tracks, told another person is standing on the other track, and being told you alone have to take responsibility for the outcome.

    Does anyone think the people on the tracks (or their families of the deceased) could blame the person who pulled the lever for the death? There is much more to it than the decision to pull levers or not. The ethics lies in those places, not in the lever predicament.     — Fire Ologist

    Nobody argues that these thought experiments aren't contrived. J.J. Thomson's violinist analogy is even more implausible, and still one of the most famous thought experiments of all time. It does a great job of showing the permissibility of abortion in cases of rape, even if one concedes a fetus is a person.

    In the case of saving five at the expense of one, I think a case could be made for a policy of non-interference, but that case falls apart when the numbers get extreme. For example, suppose aliens arrive at Earth, and demand to play a game of chess with Magnus Magnusson. If Magnus refuses, Earth's population will be sentenced to work to death in the aliens' salt mines. If he agrees, they'll bestow tech for cheap fusion reactors. Does Magnus have a moral duty to play chess against the aliens? Are we justified in cursing his name while we dig for salt if he refuses? I think the answers to that are obvious.
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    But I don’t see how given the innocence of every other aspect of this scenario we have to all of a sudden focus on the morality of the person thrust into that fast moving scene. — Fire Ologist

    Suppose someone walking by a lake sees a child fall, hit his head on a rock, and start floating face down in the water. They only have to get a little bit wet to save the kid's life. If they don't, can't we judge them? Wouldn't it be wrong to let the kid drown?
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    https://hai.stanford.edu/news/designing-ethical-self-driving-cars

    "In recent years, automated vehicle designers have also pondered how AVs facing unexpected driving situations might solve similar dilemmas. For example: What should the AV do if a bicycle suddenly enters its lane? Should it swerve into oncoming traffic or hit the bicycle?"
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    Trolley Car is useful because it serves as a litmus test for moral theories. If a moral theory says you ought not pull the switch, that's a bit of a red flag. If a moral theory says you ought not pull the switch to save a million people, that's a giant red flag.
  • Climate change denial
    If offshore wind had to compete on the free market, we wouldn’t even be talking about it. — Agree-to-Disagree

    The problem with the free market in this case is it doesn't price in the externalities associated with burning fossil fuels (global warming, increased asthma deaths, increased smog).
  • How would you respond to the trolley problem?
    To me, yes. Because the problem as presented is a math problem, and nothing more. We don't know the value of the people on the tracks. So at that point we save the greatest number of lives. — Philosophim

    OK, but let's make Trolley Car even more ridiculous by having 999 people tied on the track and 1000 in the car. If a person decides not to pull the switch, do you think they did something wrong? Would you condemn them?
Home » RogueAI