The dilemma of Kantian ethics (The murderer who wants to know the whereabouts of your friend): If you tell the truth, your friend dies (bad) and if you lie (bad). — TheMadFool
Everybody knows the story of a rather interesting dilemma involving Protagoras (the sophist?) and a student of his by then name of Euathlus. Google will take you to the relevant webpages. Here's a good reference :point: Protagoras Paradox — TheMadFool
The story is related by the Latin author Aulus Gellius in Attic Nights. ... The paradox is often cited for humorous purposes — Protagoras Paradox
Except this is a complete failure to understand what that scenario is as presented. Here for elucidation:
http://philosophical.space/f325/KantLies.pdf — tim wood
Protagoras never said that anything goes, or all choices are the same, or even that morality is relative. Protagoras was a moral subjectivist. Expanding spherically starting with myself, first, morality is what is good for me, second, morality is what is good for us, third, morality is what is good for our culture. (i.e. screw all others.)
I think this sums up about 99% of the practical world. Naturally, Socrates had something more ethereal in mind. Socrates, against repeated protestations, twists the argument away from anything sensible to his own unattainable binary ideal Good. — magritte
Mine only about Kant and the liar. And on that there is no room for disagreement. You can riff on it and offer what-ifs, but the thing itself is a matter of fact that can be determined by inspection.I humby disagree. — TheMadFool
Ignoratio elenchi. Protagoras' technique (counterdilemma) is my focus; nothing about his moral views is relevant. — TheMadFool
No. What Protagoras really said, and what he was accused of having said by contemporary and later pundits becomes relevant when you repeat or emphasize certain unimaginable conclusions in his name to support either an argument, or in this case, the format of an argument. — magritte
According to Protagoras, in the real world, the identity and closeness of that one person as against who the others are makes all the difference. — magritte
Nor did I try to. All that I did was disqualify on the basis of failure to understand your particular example from Kant. Which lack of understanding, it being pointed out to you with a reference for correction you apparently ignored, has had zero effect on you. This does not disqualify the rest of your argument; it just makes it suspect.You haven't really addressed any of the points I made.... and the murderer at the door in Kantian deontological ethics. — TheMadFool
Nor did I try to. All that I did was disqualify on the basis of failure to understand your particular example from Kant. Which lack of understanding, it being pointed out to you with a reference for correction you apparently ignored, has had zero effect on you. This does not disqualify the rest of your argument; it just makes it suspect. — tim wood
Where he comes in though is his ingenious method of responding to dilemmas, here moral ones, with counterdilemmas. That's the extent of Protagoras' involvement in this thread about moral conundrums. — TheMadFool
telling the truth is good but letting a murderer know where faer next victim is is bad (good and bad). On the flip side, lying is bad but concealing your friend from a murderer is good (good and bad). — TheMadFool
You're missing your point. If you read an analysis of the dilemma it points to logical argumentation of the kind that was taught to would-be lawyers by Prodicus, Protagoras and other ancient rhetorician, and by Plato too, and is still taught in law schools. Proficiently arguing either side of a case is essential in today's legal profession. There is no ethical point made there by either side, it's just formal argumentation. Therefore your Protagorean ethical conclusions are just your own inventions. — magritte
Great, but this neither Kant's case not his argument. — tim wood
If you pull the lever, you save many innocent people (good) and if you don't pull the lever, you don't kill one innocent person (good). — TheMadFool
Do what you want, it's all good. — TheMadFool
What makes a moral dilemma a moral dilemma is that we don't know what to do, not that both options are good/bad. — khaled
Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help. — khaled
This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad". — khaled
That's exactly why we don't know what to do - moral ambiguity. — TheMadFool
Ok but which should I do though? This doesn't help — khaled
Protagoras paradox makes it a clear as crystal. — TheMadFool
Please read through my previous posts. — TheMadFool
This makes as much sense as resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad".
— khaled
Exactly! — TheMadFool
Do what you want, it's all good. — TheMadFool
I'm confused. — khaled
Resolving the trolley problem by saying "Do what you want, it's all bad" makes no sense. — khaled
read the whole thread. — khaled
Makes no sense either. — khaled
No. It's a short read, a few paragraphs, although not-so-easy. And not-so-easy to sum up in a sentence. Which, after some thought, I will not attempt. One aspect, one point Kant makes, is that at the time of answering, the location of the prospective victim is not known. The lie to save the victim, then, could instead kill him!You're kidding, right? — TheMadFool
Pretty sure this is one of the most misunderstood talking points regarding Kant. Kant wouldn't suggest you have a duty to honesty with a murderer. The point is you aren't legally liable for telling the truth.The dilemma of Kantian ethics (The murderer who wants to know the whereabouts of your friend): If you tell the truth, your friend dies (bad) and if you lie (bad). Either choice is bad. — TheMadFool
Pull the lever, one innocent dies (bad). Don't pull the lever, many die (bad). This is the meat and potatoes of the trolley problem.
It's both bad.
The Protagorian solution: Pull the lever, many are saved (good). Don't pull the lever, one innocent survives (good).
It's both good. — TheMadFool
A similar argument applies to Kantian ethic in re the murderer at the door thought experiment. — TheMadFool
No. It's a short read, a few paragraphs, although not-so-easy. And not-so-easy to sum up in a sentence. Which, after some thought, I will not attempt. One aspect, one point Kant makes, is that at the time of answering, the location of the prospective victim is not known. The lie to save the victim, then, could instead kill him! — tim wood
Sure. And when they're both bad which should I do? Dilemma! When they're both good which would I do? Dilemma! — khaled
If they're both good, it doesn't matter which one you choose. — TheMadFool
Really? A quick thought experiment. Say someone had these two choices in front of them:
1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity.
Both are good clearly, so is one then justified in picking option 2?
My point is precisely that the quote above is not accurate. It does matter much, even if both options are good. — khaled
It's a little distressing you keep referencing something you seem not to have read, and in either case don't understand. And second, your standard for a lie is both dead wrong and laughably wrong. Or would be laughable, if being wrong about such a thing could be humorous.The murderer at the door gedanken experiment wouldn't make sense if you don't know where your friend is. A lie is lie only if you know the truth and attempt to conceal it. — TheMadFool
However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool
You do catch my drift right? If the issue were about a better (moral) deal, there would be no dilemma in the first place. — TheMadFool
That said, I'd very much prefer it if you do save my life from a car crash and also donate 100 dollars to charity. — TheMadFool
You're missing your point. If you read an analysis of the dilemma it points to logical argumentation of the kind that was taught to would-be lawyers by Prodicus, Protagoras and other ancient rhetorician, and by Plato too, and is still taught in law schools. Proficiently arguing either side of a case is essential in today's legal profession. There is no ethical point made there by either side, it's just formal argumentation. Therefore your Protagorean ethical conclusions are just your own inventions. — magritte
I think it’s the clearest most unequivocal sign of a non sequitor. — khaled
False. The point of the trolley problem is that we can’t tell which is better. — khaled
Clearly morality is about better/worse not just good/bad — khaled
1- Save TheMadFool from a car crash and donate 100 dollars to charity.
2- Donate 100 dollars to charity. — khaled
Ah so it’s just a preference. In terms of morality you truly think picking 2 as opposed to 1 is perfectly ok? — khaled
1- Kill 10 innocent people.
2- Kill 100 innocent people. — khaled
You have accused me but you haven't made your case yet. — TheMadFool
However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. — TheMadFool
people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool
You're contradicting yourself Khaled — TheMadFool
I was upfront about how I felt. Choose 1 rather than 2 but this isn't a dilemma — TheMadFool
but as you already know or should know you've only increased the number of people without affecting the essence of the moral dilemma encapsulated by the trolley problem. — TheMadFool
In other words, they're equally good — TheMadFool
Calling a non sequitor a non sequitor is making a case. Your conclusion doesn’t follow from any of your premises — khaled
However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem.
— TheMadFool
Does not lead to.
people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality.
— TheMadFool — khaled
No one asked how you feel. — khaled
What was asked is whether or not you think it’s morally permissible to choose 2 in that situation (just donating to charity). So, do you? Give a straight answer so I know if this conversation is worth continuing. — khaled
clearly killing 10 is better than killing 100. — khaled
Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted — Albert Einstein
No. That would be like you trying to solve a math problem, failing to do so, and then concluding: “So the answer must be as negative as it is positive, so it’s 0” — khaled
No one asked how you feel.
— khaled
I've given due respect to how you feel/think — TheMadFool
However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem.
— TheMadFool
Does not lead to.
people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality.
— TheMadFool
— khaled
You've lost the plot Khaled. — TheMadFool
However, people are uncomfortable with that decision in re the trolley problem. I take that as the clearest, most unequivocal sign that people don't or hesitate to mathematize morality. — TheMadFool
Something's off Khaled - you're in dire need of some soul-searching. — TheMadFool
You're blinded by mathematics — TheMadFool
I've been honest with my answers but it's obvious that you're set in your ways — TheMadFool
Self-critique is a good thing I hear. Carry on Khaled. — TheMadFool
Don’t conflate. — khaled
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.