Agreed but I guess typing my comment as simply mediocre is not input at all. It is just mocking or underrating my opinion without argument.
I can be disagree with you but I don’t underrate your opinion/comment.

What an interesting thread! I want to share this one:



It says: looks like the word GOOOOL is the only one we shout together. This cartoon reflects how the society of Spain is divided by political issues... far from football we cannot be united.

Good OP and interesting question. I guess the answer is not about where to begin but where to go back. Since the Italian renaissance, with Spinoza as thinker, we have separated the development of human knowledge. They decided would be more effective if we divide the topics in two paths: science and humanity. Since then, we do only practical issues but not philosophical. We reached the ability of creating computers and complexity but not asking questions about how is the behaviour or the nature. Most of the people do not want go further. They are full-filled with money.
Galileo did a good step because he changed the way of thinking thanks to his ability to questioning everything and going deeply where the humans used to be. So, he wasn't only a scientist but a good original philosopher.
When some says "what the hell is wrong with you?" Is due to you want to break the rules. Probably this was been told to Stephen Hawkins when he said: There is no god.

So I guess we have to develop a better educational criteria

Perfect! Now, I understand your point. Very good argument :100: :up:

I have bought recently has cost 15-30% more than a year or so ago. Could be it's just me. What has been your experience? — jgill

Exactly the same feeling. Even in terms of prices in shipping or transporting is clearly how increased since the last year. I would say like a 15-30 % as you said.

To all the persons who are/were interested in this thread, PhD David Edmons (senior research associate at Oxford) answered to this dilemma in the following way: Would you kill the fat man?

"The Fat Man quandry highlights the stark clash between deontological and utilitarian ethics" [p.182]. The "Fat Man" in this case is not the fat man of the fat man and the impending doom, but the fat man of the trolley problem, where in one variant we are tempted to push a fat man off a bridge in order to stop a trolley and save people tied to the tracks. As it happens, we learn that both dilemmas go back to the same philosopher, Philippa Foot, who introduces the first fat man before we are given the Trolley Problem.

I guess you could be interested.

So your point here is that those fields are dynamic because it could change and not change at the same time?

Consciousness is thus precisely an absolute change, in which there is nothing that does not change, and in which panta rhei.

What has been said for consciousness must then also apply to physical fields. — spirit-salamander

I think is quite contradictory, at least in physical fields, say that there is change and no change. I say this because physics (general aspect/study) wants to develop the changes in our environment or reality. Probably consciousness can peak this criteria because their complexity. Nevertheless physics could sound empty if we say is a fiel with absolute change but at the end doesn’t change. Keep in mind that this science wants study the practical world, so there will be always change.

There is a website in England, "Forgotten Books": Forgotten Books is a London-based book publisher specializing in the restoration of old books, both fiction and non-fiction — Bitter Crank

Thanks for sharing it Bitter! I going to check it out. It looks like so interesting and the list is huge :100:

That everyone should have the means in addition to the right? — fishfry

Want I meant is that in my ideal world we should have basic salaries to at least buying a house because most of the times this is the average investment all the people do. Having a car is accessory. I know that everyone has the right but not the money to do so. This is what I want to propose. At least have a basic earning where the people (most important the youngest) can a afford a normal house not living with their parents until they are 30 or even older.

In the US doesn't everyone have the right to own a house? Can you give an example of anyone who lacks the right to own a house? — fishfry

I am not American. I am from Spain... we don’t have the same rules and the same economical opportunities

is not necessarily an ethical one. It is one of practicality -- "either you or me". Like I said, consent or the will is important. — Caldwell

I guess it is somehow ethical because of the characteristics and the context. There are a group of unknown hikers and then a fat man. We can say blow him up is pure practical just to survive but I guess in a psychological point of view could be ethical because we are debating about the life of a fat man stuck in a doom, thus, a weaker person than the group. It is not a random person, is fat, meaning that he has more or less a characteristic which is taboo in society (for example, clothes tend to be recently for people with big sizes, etc...)
You see it as pure practical and is very understandable but others could see it as a group killing the weaker human just to survive, so they could think this is not "ethical at all despite the practical aspect"

Note: the original book talked about a pregnant woman. Imagine...

Try asking this question on one on one: what if there's only one person stuck in the cave besides the fat man. It's either the fat man or the other. — Caldwell

Interesting point! I put an example of a group because the original author pretended to defend that mostly the masses would act against to the individual just to survive.
If is only one man agains the fat man, this one would die anyways but I guess in this example is quite worse for awareness because the responsibility cannot distributed

But our time is short. We need answers now, and what we have instead is confusion. — counterpunch

Probably this happens because humans tend to think and use a ideas or knowledge to improve our reality. It is true that praxis and action take advantage of the important issues. Nevertheless, one of the unique aspects inside us is the ability of questioning everything. Like we both are doing here about dilemmas. I guess this was the important step when we evolved to Homo sapiens sapiens.

In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma. — counterpunch

True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas :ok:

Understandable! I will check it out deeply.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing your resources and data. Appreciated. I have one question. Why did you choose call it antilogicalism then?

I think my economic ideology or paradise would be a system where, at least, most of the workers have the right to own a house and then invest in culture. We live in an era where money and salaries are so important for the individuals so imagine if you do not have s good salary or it is low. I guess economic or money are not connected with richness but somehow most of the people committed this failure.
For these reasons I would say that my thoughts on economical ideology would go in the power of sustainability not only in products as you explained but in individual development.

Interesting question. John Locke developed some theories about colours and then how is in our vocabulary. He tried, somehow, explaining in a empirical thesis if my red is equals to your red.
I guess you would like the following examples to debate with and explain it.

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — John Locke.

If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, it passes through all the colours, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on?

The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color. — John Locke.

Conclusion and personal opinion: I guess it is just upon us the criteria of red and their significance. Nevertheless, it is something we put rules on just to provide an order. Red is a very important colour because it reflects a lot of signs. We can say here and debate if it is equal but somehow has to be one red just to promote order

If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.

Interesting fact. We can see it also in this view. If he got stuck is his fault so somehow doesn't have the right of a choice. Then, the rest of the hikers are only the allowed of debating about the life of the fat man.

Everyone start to philosophy is nihilism

That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations. — ernest meyer

Yes it is. Only allowed in violent countries. But I guess somehow goes further than just court resolutions because we are debating and sharing ideas of how some people would give up in their moral principles just to survive. Fortunately, this is something that doesn’t happen at all in reality but it is interesting speaking about the topic.

PD: it is 01:35 AM and I am sleepy. Sorry If I take a long time in answer again.

Now there's a real moral problem - lack of trust. — Banno

Another dilemma inside the dilemma! I like it. Yes it is. Completely because now we have to consider if we are sufficient brave of give the fat man the dynamite. I guess most of them don’t want give the dynamite because as survive instinct they would think: If we give him the dynamite he would cheat us because this is literally we are doing now. We guess he would try to revenge.

at least one person write rather artificial utilitarian arguments as to why one should murder, lol. — ernest meyer

Agree lol. But this what happens in spiral dilemmas like this one. There are infinite answers and I guess this is why so interesting and I like all of your responses :up:

Yep; you'd have to trust him.

Were's your courage now? — Banno

I can some courage and trust in him but I only have 50 % of chances. This situation, the attitude of the fat man, could be like a Russian roulette.

only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink: — DingoJones

:100: :up:

True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks

while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. — counterpunch

Interesting point of view. So you defend that it could depends on the awareness in every individual in this dilemma. If a doctor is there, for him, the dilemma is even worse because as you explained one of his principles is not harm others. But sadly he has to. I am agree it could be unethical for the doctor thinking the sacrifice itself instead of preserving the life.

What did they do?" — counterpunch

I don’t know now how to answer because your example made me feel a lot of intriguing questions. I guess it is not possible at all that the group of hikers would have voted blowing the fat man up. It could be the possibility of being someone against utilitarianism.

Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. — BrianW

Sure, the sacrifice always be there because as you explained, it is a natural selection. Nevertheless, I is interesting how the humans create masses to fight against the circumstances. I guess this could be an emphasis against individualism.

Are so many people (billions) morally depraved? Maybe a bit dull, not depraved. Most of us will never have to make a forced-choice moral decision of a Trolley or Fat Man Plugging the Exit situation. Our capacity for empathy at a distance is cognitively limited--not absent, just limited. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Good expression. :100:

...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?

"Oh no, not again!"
5 minutes ago — unenlightened

:100: :rofl:

Would a 'beautiful, sexy she' make the situation more difficult than a 'repulsively fat he'? — Bitter Crank

Good question! I think not. I guess it doesn’t depend about appearance. In extreme circumstances you do whatever just survive and if you have to sacrifice someone, the mass or the group will sacrifice the stuck person anyways. So, I guess is just secondary all the characteristics. The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others.
It is interesting because the website where I found this humorous dilemma asked: What would you think if were a pregnant woman instead? hmm...

Then it's moral. — counterpunch

I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be

Understandable but I wanted to phrase it in that way just to point out the extreme situation they randomly ended up

I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience. — counterpunch

They literally did this.

setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck! — unenlightened

That would be so hilarious :rofl:

if philosophy has any insight into sex, — James Riley

Regardless, what does philosophy have to say about sex, if anything? — James Riley

I guess you would like read about sex inside philosophy more deeply in this site: The Erotic as an Aesthetic Category.

what have we learned? — synthesis

We learned about how to think furthermore than basic things. I guess it is not only entertainment. Everything has always started as ideas or debating. At least we should keep this methodology because make us being humans instead of artificials

That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions. — DingoJones

I really liked it. I love how you explain as a cascade, if you don’t mind I use this metaphor. Thanks for participating and sharing your thoughts in the dilemma. It was interesting your point of view :100: :up:

Life is about doing. That's the real philosophy. — synthesis

But having ideas and debate about it are important too and here is where philosophy is crucial. A good example are the dilemmas and their interpretation.