What do you want highlight? (This isn't a personal attack on you; it might feel like it, but it is not. I'm just bored with the trolley problem, and whatever it is supposed to reveal to people.)

I'm not the only one who doesn't seem to be getting whatever it is that you want to reveal.

do you see the issue I may be raising — I like sushi

No, I don't. The fucking trolley has been rolling down the track for years and doesn't get better by being repeated. It's just a no-exit forced choice. Boring!

Whether 1 billion people or 1 or 2 people are supposed to get killed in the forced choice, it has nothing to do with the price of corn in Iowa.

Set up a scenario where someone comes out alive, rather than gets run over, why don't you?

What was your point, by the way?

My scenario is a zinger. Yours is just sour grapes.

You pass three bums begging on the street. One is a shabby but cute white guy; one is a drunk black guy; one is a down and out white hooker. Which one is going to get the extra dollar you have in your pocket?

HEY SUSHI! SOMEBODY'S DROWNING IN THE ALTERNATIVE TROLLEY THREAD. GET OVER THERE AND SAVE THEM!

QUICK!

Who are you going to save from drowning, Sushi???

The person at the switch has a 100% chance of killing someone, either through omission or commission. Therefore, this person is worse than the prospective victims, who have a 50% or 75% chance of killing someone.

Here is a scenario (it can be adapted) that does a better job of getting at weighing decisions that the trolley scenario:

You are a lifeguard at a beach. You see that two women at opposite ends of the swimming area are both showing signs of serious trouble in deep water. One of them is slim and beautiful, the other one is fat and ugly. You can only help one. Which woman will receive the benefit of your life-saving expertise?

The two swimmers could be white and black, male and female, gay and straight (you observed them before they went into the water; that was your impression), or young and old, etc. You can't save them both, but you can save either one

In this case, the choice requires you to do something good (saving someone from drowning) rather than inevitably doing something bad (causing someone's death).

IN the real world, we are more likely to make a forced choice on whom to save, rather than on whom to kill.

Or, to whom do you give the benefit of the doubt? That's a real life situation that comes up much more often. Do you think someone may have cheated you? Why do you let it pass in one situation and not in another?

The Germans however are unfriendly — Ilya B Shambat

Unfriendly Germans? Why, Germans have always been as friendly as flowers in the spring!

et al... If the world's oldest parliament can't maintain the box on which the Prime Minister puts her papers when she is addressing the Speaker, I don't see much of a future for the country. For Gawd's sake, repaint it or put some new contact plastic covering on it. How long has it (the country, the parliament, the PM, the box -- all of it) been looking so shabby?



And what, exactly, is in that box?

Both of us together could make up a very long list of the various things we are doing wrong or not doing right -- old refrigerators in Brazil probably being the least of it. Of course, on one level, global warming is caused by billions and billions of small decisions people made to do one thing and not something else. On a higher level, there are very large processes (like the petroleum and coal industries) that are harder for individuals to change directly. On a yet higher level, there is the wreckage left by 300 years of industrial activity that can not now be undone.

What I mean by "species deep" isn't the individual choices we make. Individually, we are screwing things up. I think it is our collective inability to grasp the extremely wide expanse and great depth of the problem that faced us collectively. We just can not grasp the profound gravity of it. We can't really contemplate our collective death. I'm reconciled to my death in the not too distant future. I can't grasp our collective death even if it is a century or two away (if it is).

It is sort of like people thinking we can travel to planets around other stars in a few decades. The immensity of distance between us and the nearest star is difficult to grasp. The numbers are too large. What does 186,000 miles per second mean to a species who have gotten reved up to... something like a measly 22,000 miles per hour.

What is the point of mocking the thought experiment? — DingoJones

I have nothing against thought experiments, but this one seems silly. It ask us to put ourselves in the position of performing a great evil to prevent a greater evil for no particular positive reason. At least the trolley thought problem involves a handful of people rather than the entire species.

It is difficult to get at the extremes of what people might do. The Holocaust would have been difficult to imagine ahead of time. Genocide had either been tried or achieved before the Holocaust, but it hadn't been industrialized. In 1942 it would have been very difficult to imagine the United States and the Soviet Union possessing weapons that could kill off most of the species. By 1950, it was on its way to being fact

Sushi, why don't you propose a thought experiment of this sort involving fewer people, maybe under a thousand. It could be more realistic, and consequently more compelling.

But its our way of life that is preventing it. — Anaxagoras

It is, I think, species-deep rather than life-style that prevents us from dealing with population and global warming. Intelligence puts us in an odd position. We have intelligence but we also have emotional drives and cognitive limitations. We don't seem to be able to fully engage in thinking about the changes that we might have made (our problem with carrying out long range plans or dealing with distant threats), and while we can imagine "those people" being sacrificed for the good of all, we can't emotionally countenance putting ourselves among "those people".

I see these limitations in myself. I think I have a clear enough understanding of what it would take to radically reduce CO2 and methane production. As time goes on, the changes that would be required become more onerous. Am I make those radical changes in my lifestyle? No. I am not better than most people at immediate sacrifice for distant benefit.

I didn't find the video clip very helpful.

The idea that human beings are a parasite feeding on the planet crops up every now and then.

"Humans are a virus that is killing the planet" is a trendy sounding quasi-intellectual statement which people like hipsters can adhere to (even if your friend isn't one). — ssu

This is a fully sufficient analysis.

Maybe we will be plowed under in the Sixth Extinction Event, maybe not. Life has almost come to an end on the planet five times, already.

We really ought to be more proactive about maintaining the one and only ecosystem we are going to get, but...

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies. — I like sushi

Goodness, there are so many possibilities! Obviously nuclear bombs would be the way to go. Do I have to stay UNDER 1 billion, or can I maybe do more? Once one overcame the fussy inhibition of killing 1 billion, killing 2, 3, or 4 billion would be hard to resist.

Europe and North America would make a nice grouping, if the assigned world leader happened to not be European or North American, perish the thought. The Middle East would work, if one threw in Pakistan and Indonesia. South America and subsaharan Africa have the advantage of keeping fallout way south of Eurasia and North America--too bad for Australia and New Zealand. China or India? Either one. Both?

Do I get a prize if I succeed in killing 1 billion tomorrow? A new IPad, the Nobel, a gift certificate? Something?

So do you think individuals can be more cruel and unsympathetic or the government? — Sara

Only individual human beings have executive agency. Institutions such as governments, colleges, churches, corporations, etc. can not have, do not have executive agency. Only human beings can act. (Well, animals can act too, but let's set that aside.)

So I work for the government. I administer a relief program. You think you need help. I have to go by the regulations (which various humans beings wrote and passed into law). According to the rules, you do not qualify for help. I say "No." "NEXT!"

Am I being cruel? No. I can only follow the rules. Is the Government being cruel? No. The Government can't be any such thing. Were the people who wrote the rules cruel? That might be the case. Maybe they didn't want to help people like you. Or maybe, nobody is being cruel and you, unfortunately, don't happen to fit the requirements.

The buildings, infrastructure, functions, and even the raison d'être of the modern industrial city was pretty much built by men. On the other hand, while women were not riveting steel beams, digging subways, or inventing air conditioning and elevators, They nonetheless have been a part of the urban nexus since the get go.

And who thought of the Swedes as brutes — Hanover

Norwegians? Finns, maybe? Somebody must have disliked them.

Binyamin Ze'ev Herzl (1860-1904) was the 'father' of modern Zionism and he seems to have died way too early to have been influenced by WWI or WWII. Jews were emigrating to Palestine before Adolf & Company made it an irresistibly attractive destination if one had nowhere else to go. Conflict between Jews and Arabs (Palestinians, specifically, Arabs generally) was underway before World War One.

So, I would guess that Jews in Palestine started toughening up pretty early on. More overt hostilities were commenced in 1948.

The Europeans learned that war and nationalism is evil. — Ilya B Shambat

That may be, but IF the Europeans learned that, they seemed to need a terrifically harsh beating to get that through their thick skulls. And let's have a little patience here! Europe has had only 75 years of peace and quiet. Well, except for some problems in the Balkans, and Russians in Budapest and Prague, Poland, Ukraine, etc. Future European history might not be all schmaltzy waltzes and party hats.

As for the United States, We started getting arrogant well before WWII. We taught Hitler a thing or two about manifest destiny and genocide. As the British Empire (talk about arrogance!) rotted, the U. S. started assuming the role of Dominator In Chief. The American eagle went head to head with the Russian bear, with both of us spending way too much money on absolutely assured annihilation.

Europe needs to take a tougher stand against terrorists and despots. — Ilya B Shambat

Which terrorists and despots were you thinking of -- I mean, there is such a rich selection from which to choose? Orbán? Erdoğan? Putin? Salmon Saud? Bolsonaro? Maduro? Trump? Xi Jinping? Just for starters in the major leagues.

if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc. — ssu

Yes.

I have heard of the concept but I have never met the reality of the race-blind, sex-blind, various-other-features-blind person. I do not think one race is superior to another, or even much different. The sexes, on the other hand, are different in a number of ways, and each one has unique strengths, strategies, and needs. Biology is destiny to some extent.

I prefer that we not become blind to racial, sex-based and other differences. There is no good reason to blind ourselves to our beneficial uniquenesses.

Thoughts? — ssu

As one reviews the history of the world, not just since 1960 AD, but back to 1960 BC, or 5960 BC, one finds recurrent waxing and waning of one group or another, of one group OVER another, or one group ESCAPING another, or one group just DISAPPEARING. Where once we were primates claiming this batch of trees, now we are primates claiming this fertile valley, that gold mine, this great fishing bank, that part of a continent, and so on. Eventually the sun was unable to set on the primate's empire of that esteemed ape, Queen Victoria.

It isn't that primates (homo sapiens sapiens) are evil. We are what we are. We are acquisitive. We are aggressive. We are smart. We are exploitative. We are sophonts (creatures capable of sophisticated thought). We are... various and sundry things. We are nice to OUR PEOPLE much of the time, and not very nice to THOSE PEOPLE most of the time. The alleged virtue of the oppressed is a figment of our imagination. Had things worked out differently, central African people would be driving white slaves in the cotton fields of the former Aboriginal peoples of North America. Or maybe the Aboriginal peoples of North America would be planting corn and squash in the soil of formerly German lands. Maybe we would all be speaking Mandarin.

So let's drop the obsession with sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, and all that. We are all about equally guilty, and equally innocent.

fdrake
1.9k
Or straw men appears from such practices.
— Wallows — fdrake

Do-gooders are TRULY arrogant? Why wasn't I informed of this? Had I known, I would have done something. Heads would have rolled.

Do-gooders are likely to have the usual and customary set of flaws and virtues that most people possess. Oh, well, probably somewhat fewer murderous urges and more soft-hearted wishful thinking episodes, but otherwise, pretty much the same.

Yes, the dogs kept him warm at night. — Wallows

You've heard of the band, "Three Dog Night"? The name derives from the number of dogs one needs to have on the bed when it is very cold.

There are a number of themes in Cynicism – the nomadic way of life, the giving up of worldly possessions, the praise of the poor and disparagement of the rich, the taking no heed for the morrow – that (tone apart) are uncannily congruent with the Christianity of the Gospels. However, the similarities may be more than fortuitous. The world in which Jesus carried out his mission was very much a Hellenised one, and the city of Gadara, famous in the Gospels for the story of the Gadarene swine, was the home city of no less than three prominent Cynics, whose names remain on record. Nevertheless, although the call of Diogenes is as radical as the call of Jesus, it is to a very different end. For Diogenes the only world was this world, the gods were of no account, and the giving up of material goods was not the prelude to an eternal life in heaven but the better to secure happiness on earth. Indeed, it can be said that the main purpose of Cynicism is to lead humanity to a better understanding of what happiness is. Cynics wanted people to live their lives in the light of that understanding – to free themselves from their self-imposed fetters, and to live in a way that in modern terms we would call ‘authentic’.

--- From Philosophy Now

It's there now. For some reason the URL wouldn't post.

Here's a link to an Article in Philosophy Now about How to Be a Cynic. DIY.

I looked up Cynic Texts in Google and came up with an article on Wikipedia that suggested most of the texts that survived were put together in the first century A.D., and include material from the pre-Socratics like Heraclitus. They were grouped together in the Cynic Epistles.

Here's an early photo of Diogenes.



The sitting black dog seems to have mange.

I guess they didn't have mirrors back then or Diogenes refused to look at his reflection. — Wallows

That didn't stop Narcissus.

I have met a few people who prefer to literally live on the streets and beg for money. In this state (frigid winters, hot summers) it is a choice involving rather harsh conditions. They were not your classical cynics. They were people for whom living at close range with other people (especially the sort of people one finds in shelters) was unacceptable / impossible.

I might choose to live on the streets rather than live in some of the shelters that are available. (Most of the homeless do not live in shelters, because there are not enough of them. Homeless, btw, doesn't mean literally "unsheltered", sitting in the cold rain. It means not having a home address. One may be sheltered and homeless.

I bet most cynics, followers of Antisthenes and Diogenes, did not opt to live in the streets of Athens, at least for very long. If they did, there was probably be an urban renewal program launched to get rid of them.

Diogenes, living in his amphora (a very large fired clay storage pot) might have been nuts, it's hard to tell at this distance in time. Presumably he was striving to make a large philosophical point. I've cited her before, I'll cite her again. Dorothy Day was a socialist, journalist, single mother who developed into a being a devout Roman Catholic. She started the Catholic Worker Movement (CWM). In some ways she was a cynic. Her calling, starting in the Depression, was to help the homeless and outcast people in the slums of New York. She didn't live in the streets, but she did live with the poor in the CWM's crowded, dirty shelters. She had virtually nothing.

There are probably similarities between the founder cynics and the CWM: The message wasn't "live in a filthy shelter with filthy people. It's good for you." Rather, their method was application of Jesus' command to care for the least of his children. The Catholic Worker lives in poverty in order to be able to carry out Christ's command.

Similarly, the two Prime Cynics probably taught people and lived their example. Diogenes would crawl out of his pot in the morning, wash up in the public bath (maybe), beg for some felafel and flat bread for breakfast, then head off to agitate the rest of the day, feeding whenever somebody offered him a handful of feta cheese and tabouli. He probably never needed to find a larger jar because of weight gain.

Unfortunately or not, societies have clashing interests. It is entirely possible for 100% of the electorate to vote on matters for which they are competent to vote, and still end up with results that are quite harmful to some people.

There are numerous votes I would expect to lose in many jurisdictions, even under ideal conditions for voting. I would expect many jurisdictions to reject gay rights, legal abortion, or allowing more immigrants into xyz jurisdiction. Many jurisdictions would quite happily vote to require welfare recipients work for their benefits at a low rate of pay, punish some crimes much more severely than they are now, or expel immigrants who were not thoroughly authorized to be there.

Which is why many people are at least extremely cautious about citizen referenda.

Competent citizens have little incentive to consider the interests of people of whom they disapprove. Legislators, because they are elected by diverse groups of voters, are more likely to think twice about shafting some group, however unpopular that might be.

It isn't that legislators are necessarily more informed, more competent, wiser, more humane, and so forth than the wider body politic. Quite obviously many of them are not. But there is a brake on their voting button: re-election and campaign donations (or even a recall). There is also the matter of getting along with their peers in the legislature. The quid pro quo back scratching that goes on in legislatures helps curb individual's extremism.

How popular voting should be leaves me uncomfortably sitting on the picket fence.

has Cynicism become a philosophy of the mad, ill, and deranged — Wallows

No, because the mad, ill, deranged, or impoverished people living on the streets did not choose to live there. In our world, 'the streets' is the last stop in economic descent, after which there is very little choice about what happens next.

But, as Fromm described in his The Sane Society, it might be the society that is making people mad. — Wallows

Fromm thought that societies might invert the meaning of sane, so that insane societies would make otherwise 'mad men' into model citizens. In some ways the German Nazis accomplished that end. In some ways, some societies (like us, sometimes) invert the meaning of mental health, so that the most neurotically and acquisitively driven people are considered to be the supreme beings, like Bill Gates or Donald Trump.)

Some people, today, like contemplative Christian monastics, withdraw from society and live their materially meagre lives in prayer. Some even beg for their food, like some Buddhist monks in SE Asia. That is the sort of thing a cynic might relate to, I suppose. It doesn't appeal to me.

Wikipedia says, "As reasoning creatures, people can gain happiness by rigorous training and by living in a way which is natural for themselves, rejecting all conventional desires for wealth, power, sex, and fame. Instead, they were to lead a simple life free from all possessions."

There is a great deal of merit in that suggestion, especially IF one stops at a point well before the logical extremity. The average temperature in Athens in January is a high of 56 and a low of 44. In Minneapolis the January high is 22 and the low is 6. Living on the streets in a clay pot (like Diogenes did) would be better in Athens than in Minneapolis.

Given the environmental crisis currently unfolding, it would be a good idea to radically rethink and retool what we think is necessary.

In the last 25 years, "nationalism" has been degraded to an epithet associated with caucasians who are separatists supremacists, racists, etc. This transmogrification of meaning has been driven by various (often white) left-oriented groups who, apparently, dislike the whole business of nationhood, the nation state, and loyalty to a nation--all hideous, hateful, hostile institutions in their minds.

Nationalism used to be cognate with patriotism--and not in the distant past. Patriots love their country, nation, land, soil, homeland, etc.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights or division between the two is blurred. — Wallows

Your statement is internally contradictory: Since Trump, you say,

a. the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights
b. division between the two is blurred

They can't at the same time be subject to both greater differentiation and blurring.

In any event, I don't think "patriotism and/or nationalism" are problematic terms for most Americans. It's the coterie of the left that is obsessed with these terms and finds them problematic.

I don't know why anybody would leave. Whats not to love about TPF?

So is it terrorism or not? — Roke

No. It was as ill-advised as stupid bullshit usually is.

Maybe the prosecutor thought it was just too loony to convict. A few years in psychotherapy would probably be a good idea.

Philosophy is about love of knowledge by definition. — Edward

That's what the word means, true. Philosophy is a both a literature and a practice. Philosophy is often read. How much practice enters into a reading of, say, Thomas Aquinas, depends on how much a reader engages with the text. In a freshman philosophy course at a Catholic college, most students are going to read the Aquinas selections for purposes of passing tests. Once done, never again. They probably won't engage. A pre-seminary student, however, might read Aquinas with more engagement, because it has relevance to his future work.

Analogy: When I was an English major, 5 decades ago, I read blocks of literature in order to perform adequately on tests. There just wasn't time to engage with a lot of the material. I was too shallow and naive a student to be able to do that. Alas. I was too stupid to realize I was too stupid. Later on, as I matured, had more life experiences, and became more intelligent, I engaged much more with the literary material I was reading.

TPF participants are self-selecting, so even participants in their late teens may engage, and a lot of our participants range between their 30s and old age. So here, at least, there is more engagement.

Personally, I don't read much philosophy these days (not that I ever did). I'd much rather read history, psychology or sociology, and the like. I love learning so I guess I am a philosopher (by that definition).

My guess is that people who have a high tolerance for ambiguity, open-mindedness, and so on are more likely to be interested in philosophy than people who have a low tolerance for ambiguity, and are not very open-minded.

Can one tolerate conflict (disagreement)? Is one comfortable with abstract concepts? Does one have the patience for the long read? A strong preference for b&w that doesn't have too many shades of grayscale works against a strong interest in philosophy (and many other subject fields too).

I don’t see how that follows? The public had their say and that is why citizens in the UK voted to leave. If you think it’s a bad idea then you’re against the masses decision.

To add, if you think it is because the public were fooled, then that is no reason to allow them to say what should or shouldn’t happen. — I like sushi

I thought I clearly supported the idea of the people making the choice on Brexit. I don't know whether the information people received during the pre-referendum vote was good or not. I wasn't there. But in principle, that sort of decision belongs to the electorate.

If I few people are experts then shouldn’t they have the final say in matters? — I like sushi

In some matters, yes. Whether or not children should be vaccinated against measles has been decided by public health experts. That's the way it should be. People with no training in public health, and people with rudimentary knowledge about disease should not make these decisions: anti-vaxxers to hell forthwith.

In matters of public policy, such as "should the UK stay with the European Union or should it leave" which affects everyone, the public should have the final say. Experts (clearly not members of parliament in this case) should provide counsel, but not make the decision.

Neither experts nor the mass of people will always make "the best choice".

I find it disconcerting to have to point this out. Maybe you’re more suited to twitter? — I like sushi

It's garnered 7+ pages of comments; apparently Wallows isn't the only one who thinks the topic is worthwhile, even if they don't agree with Wallows on some matters. Wallows has a good rep. You do too, so pax.

This is TOTALLY beside the point, but I just finished a pretty good book about the history of Baltimore: Not in My Neighborhood: How Bigotry Shaped a Great American City by Antero Pietila.

It's one of several that I've been reading about Chicago, Detroit, the role of the FHA in segregation, and so on. Nothing unusual about Baltimore in race relations -- it's pretty much doing what most other American cities have done. I found it interesting partly because I knew nothing about its history.

Then of course there is H. L. Mencken, the sage of Baltimore and John Waters, the scourge of Baltimore.