Interesting thought experiment, friends
- Thread starter dogman6126
- Start date
From my own perspective if I knew I could help but might/would die in the process of helping a friend I would absolutely help. If I thought there was a chance both of us would die I would weigh options at that time.
Lol, sure I can mention a few others I've learned in class or otherwise.
Ok so imagine that at some time in the future, the world exists as a complete utopia. People are always happy, never hungry or cold, long lives, no bad part in their lives, and it is successful. Now imagine that the only reason why this perfect society can exist is because in the basement of some building, there is some child who is constantly tortured. This child is exposed to every manor of pain and terror imaginable, but will not be killed. If this child is not tortured then this perfect society will collapse. Now the question, is this extreme torture of the child justified in the sense that it eliminates all other evils in society? Also why is or is it not justified?
If they were perfectly capable of saving me without risking their own lifes too much (three of them should be able to), but DIDN'T help me out of fear. I'd be upset and explain them how they could've saved me. I'd forgive them though. Some people are idiots. Doesn't mean I have to drop them as friends.
To reframe the question a bit mroe.
If there was only one friend and I was hanging onto something a meter below top level so he'd have to reach down a full meter until he could grab my hand, then it'd be a lot easier to understand the reaction.
But still he shouldn't stagger out of fear. He should not help me because it's logically too dangerous to help me. For example he should call help services etc. If he doesn't out of fear, I'd again be upset.
If they're overtaken by fear and thus endanger my life, I'd be upset.
If they don't risk their lives for me, I'd be ok with it.
I'm not sure whether it'd be a good thing, but if such an utopia existed it sure as hell would be better than our current world were millions of people are "tortured".
But on it's own without comparing it to our current situation, I can't work it out, because the situations is logically inconsistent. One cannot be always happy. Because happy is the opposite of unhappy. If there's no unhappy, there's no happy. If there's no cold, there's no warmth. If there's no hate/indifference, there's no love. If no one is unsuccessful, no one is successful.
Society cannot be good or bad. It can get better or worse though. Over the course of history it's only gotten better and it probably will keep getting better, except maybe for global warming issues.
There are no absolutes, only relatives.
To reframe the question a bit mroe.
If there was only one friend and I was hanging onto something a meter below top level so he'd have to reach down a full meter until he could grab my hand, then it'd be a lot easier to understand the reaction.
But still he shouldn't stagger out of fear. He should not help me because it's logically too dangerous to help me. For example he should call help services etc. If he doesn't out of fear, I'd again be upset.
If they're overtaken by fear and thus endanger my life, I'd be upset.
If they don't risk their lives for me, I'd be ok with it.
To start with. I don't believe in such an utopia.
I'm not sure whether it'd be a good thing, but if such an utopia existed it sure as hell would be better than our current world were millions of people are "tortured".
But on it's own without comparing it to our current situation, I can't work it out, because the situations is logically inconsistent. One cannot be always happy. Because happy is the opposite of unhappy. If there's no unhappy, there's no happy. If there's no cold, there's no warmth. If there's no hate/indifference, there's no love. If no one is unsuccessful, no one is successful.
Society cannot be good or bad. It can get better or worse though. Over the course of history it's only gotten better and it probably will keep getting better, except maybe for global warming issues.
There are no absolutes, only relatives.
I agree, there are a considerable number of practical issues with this ideal society. I worded the idea differently, but its just some ideal utopia where everything is as perfect as it can possibly be, with the exception of the tortured child of which is a requirement for the society to exist for some weird reason. However looking past the practical issues, what is your opinion on the justification?
It's tough. Moreso that I believe/feel it's justified, but can't counter arguments against my claim. Thus I'm quite hesistant to call it justified.
First of all, it's better than our current world.
Secondly, if such a scenario would exist. Why does the child need to be tortured? The explanantion and understanding are vital for people to accept and justify such a case.
Another questionable justification is that the child will get used to it.
In the end I think it's justified, but I'd need to investigate the causation between a tortured child and a perfect world.
So yes, it's justified as long as:
- It is absolutely 100% clear that if the child is not tortured, the world isn't perfect anymore.
- It must be guarded that we do not take this as a rule of thumb. I'm generally not for purely utilitarian perspectives, so I won't adopt that in all cases following this case. I apply it here, because the benefits are humongous.
- The child must be tortured the least as possible.
Now I think of it, the child would be some kind of saviour.
Assume that for this to work, the child must be tortured in as extensively a way as possible that maximum suffering is delivered and that the child cannot adapt to the torture.
I would like to say though that we can reasonably justify or refute an idea without a full understanding of the causal mechanism. Although if such a case became applicable one would then need to consider the causal mechanism. Therefore we can consider it now in light of available information to consider ethical boundaries.
hmmm...interesting. ok, now to modify it. Imagine that every single person knew of the child, and also was able to stop the child's suffering, but at the expense of the society. Assume that the society would revert back to the way we have now if that where the case. do you think that would make a difference?
Yeah I said find the least amount of torture. If the least amount is the highest amount, then so be it.
I understand I might not be able to understand the causation, but I'd sure as hell try to find it. If I don't find it, it won't stop being justified though. I just think we need to try to understand it. Maybe there's a loophole or exploit possible. The act of trying makes it more justified.
Just as trying to make up for your mistakes is a good thing, regardless of whether the other accepts your apologies.
Not sure if it makes a difference in justification. Also someone would instantly flip the switch and return to normal world. There are plenty of people who'd disagree with my justification. Even if I get the chance to share my perspective. Also I wouldn't be too fierce pro torturing a child, that'd be bad for my reputation after we return to the normal world. Also I think the normal world is just fine as it is.
Even if 0.0001% of the people think it's not justified, we're going back to the normal world. Also a lot of people would act on impulse. "I can stop child torture right now?" "Do it."
interesting point, and you pointed out a flaw in what I said. I have to apologize because I formulated that wrong. But in so far as this formulation, I agree with your conclusion that someone somewhere will pull the plug. And its an interesting question about how that might change the dynamic of how I would act, but that's a side note for what I'm trying to get at.
So instead imagine that you are the only one who can flip the switch so to speak. You are the one who will decide whether or not it is justified. Per your past posts, you say that you would find it justified. So let me ask you this. If you have the choice to or not to act to stop this childs suffering, are you not then responsible for that childs suffering? Furthermore, if you are responsible for that childs suffering, doesn't that mean your trading that childs happiness for your own and that of the society? Following that, then we ask the question is that justified. I actually think that is not justified. The way I see it is by allowing that child to suffer in such a grevious manor, you are actually sacrificing what makes you human. Compassion, care, kindness.....I would not sacrifice a child so that I may live my life basically perfectly. The biggest flaw in my argument is I don't see myself as having the authority to make that decision for everyone else. So while I am certain how I would make this decision in so far as myself, I am not so sure about what to do when the repercussions go for the rest of humanity.
Responsibility is a weird concept if I don't believe in free will. But I'll go along and say: Yes, I'd be responsible.
Yes.
That's easy
So you say it's best that millions of people have horrible lives only so one child isn't tortured? Imagine how many children are horribly tortured right now in the world. Maybe not in the most gruesome way possible, but I bet they're getting close. And it isn't only one.
By saving this one child, you condemn thousands of others to horrible lives. Only so you don't 'sacrifice what makes you human'? See, that's what I'd say is selfish. I'd gladly sacrifice a little human of me so I can have a good life and the rest of the world a perfect one. Read page 11 as example: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/untold_atrocities.pdf
Turn it around.
You're in a room. There's a child in front of you, bound in a chair. There's a switch. If you flip it the child will be tortured and all other horrors of the world will be gone.
So let me ask you this. If you have the choice to or not to flip the switch to stop the worlds suffering, are you not then responsible for all that suffering? Furthermore, if you are responsible for all the suffering in the world, doesn't that mean your trading your own happiness and that of the society for that of one child? Following that, then we ask the question is that justified. <> The way I see it is by allowing the world to suffer in such a grevious manor, you are actually sacrificing what makes you human. Compassion, care, kindness.....I would not sacrifice the world so that one child isn't tortured.
Me neither, but who would? If no one would, maybe I should.
What I'm ignoring in my 'turn-around' above is the fact that one acts. I think that should be irrelevant. However it greatly affects people's actions.
Say you're standing near a railway. 5 people are bound to the rail up ahead. A train is coming. There's this huge obese guy next to you and you can push him in front of the train. His mass will slow down the train and save 5 people.
A lot of people wouldn't push him. By acting you directly kill the obese guy. But by not acting you don't directly kill the other 5. The person that tied them to the rail did that. You're not "responsible".
Following that assume he was already on the rail. Would you rescue the obese guy by pushing him away and thereby condemn the 5 others?
The difference is whether you act or not. Many people would refrain from acting, because they're unsure of the consequences.
I think this is a flaw in humanity. Not acting is also acting. Dare to take responsibility.
Leaving the world as it is and not torturing the child, while you have the ability to change it, is a choice. And you are responsible for that choice. Thus responsible for the consequences.
The entire time your falling your like "why didn't I dial 911?"
That being said I can't actually imagine the only two people I'd actually call not helping, the best I can figure is either I fall while they try to think of something less risky the bending over a space needle or that they try something halfhearted the fails miserably. It is literally inconceivable.
It's a doctor who episode? Either I didn't see it or I'm not remembering it. But this is an interesting ethical question. What did the doctor do?
The beast below, Swap the girl out for a space whale, but the point remains the same. A colony ship is built on the back of a space whale large enough to hold the population of the uk, the ship is driven by sending electrical shocks to the creatures brain to pilot it. Effectively torturing it and as a side note it's the only one left of it's species. The ship was built when the world was literally falling apart and had no other options.
The Doctor's is forced to choose between the people on the ship and freeing the whale. He chooses to lobotomize the whale so it won't feel any pain, his companion takes a third option.
Oh now I remember this one
. Lol, I didn't even consider that comparison. But it is an interesting one. Instead of just the idea of a utopia as compared to how we are now, you have an as we are now or a death to all (assumed, even though it isn't correct). It wouldn't be the end of the species in that scenario (if I remember correctly, the show mentions how other nations built their own ships), but it would be death to a large number of people. interesting consideration
Ok, first sorry for not responding. I read this awhile back and forgot to send a response
. To be honest I'm a compatibilist...kind of. Maybe not quite. I think that you can still have moral culpability in the face of determinism, however I'm not sure if you can still call it free will. However I do think we should call it free will. In my opinion, society has warped what free will is supposed to mean into what they want it to be, not what it actually would be. This is the seeming disagreement with determinism. Its an interesting question in my eyes though. Because the notion of responsibility that I think necessarily exists in a deterministic world is different than free will as society thinks it is, it still has all the expected results that societies free will has. Is it still free will or not? I want to say yes
I'm actually writing my term paper for Physics/Philosophy 419 on this topic
lol. I agree by the same logic I used previously, to not flip the switch in your example would in fact make you responsible then for the worlds suffering because you had the chance to change it. I suppose in this case there is no maintaining your humanity, lol. However I shy away from a fully utilitarian explanation that the society is "worth more" than the child. I like the way you described it, that you are preventing the suffering of a society. To me these are two titanic notions: the suffering of a society or the agency and suffering of an individual. I will have to think about this more, thank you for your point, lol. If I come up with anything I'll let you know
Ah, the classic trolley problem. And I completely agree with your last few lines. In any situation to act or not to act is a choice and you are therefore responsible for that choice. However I suppose this talks about objective truth as to the ability to stop the trolley/train. But let me ask you this. Let's reconsider the idea of the obese man that you would have to push in the way of the train. And let's also consider state of knowledge. What if you didn't know that pushing him in the way of the train would stop the train. Are you still responsible?
Or let's say that if you don't know for sure that it would stop the train, but you have some reason to say that it might but you don't try it, are you responsible then?
And to say one more, what if you had reasonable reason to say that it would not stop the train. For example, let's say a scientist does the calculations for you and says that the obese guy would not be enough to stop the train (the scientist cannot act, maybe you have him on the phone) but the scientist is wrong. However, because you don't know that the scientist is wrong you don't push the obese guy in the way. Are you responsible in this case? Within this example you could consider that the scientist either says that in his opinion the obese guy would not stop the train, or the scientist says that the obese guy will not stop the train and he directly tells you not to push the obese guy. Is there a difference here?
I take it by this point that you are a hard incompatibilist
. To be honest I'm a compatibilist...kind of. Maybe not quite. I think that you can still have moral culpability in the face of determinism, however I'm not sure if you can still call it free will. However I do think we should call it free will. In my opinion, society has warped what free will is supposed to mean into what they want it to be, not what it actually would be. This is the seeming disagreement with determinism. Its an interesting question in my eyes though. Because the notion of responsibility that I think necessarily exists in a deterministic world is different than free will as society thinks it is, it still has all the expected results that societies free will has. Is it still free will or not? I want to say yesI'm actually writing my term paper for Physics/Philosophy 419 on this topic
That is a very interesting return to what I've said, and honestly one I've not heard before. Excellent retort to a Kantian perspective I think. You convinced me hereYes.
That's easy
So you say it's best that millions of people have horrible lives only so one child isn't tortured? Imagine how many children are horribly tortured right now in the world. Maybe not in the most gruesome way possible, but I bet they're getting close. And it isn't only one.
By saving this one child, you condemn thousands of others to horrible lives. Only so you don't 'sacrifice what makes you human'? See, that's what I'd say is selfish. I'd gladly sacrifice a little human of me so I can have a good life and the rest of the world a perfect one. Read page 11 as example: http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/untold_atrocities.pdf
Turn it around.
You're in a room. There's a child in front of you, bound in a chair. There's a switch. If you flip it the child will be tortured and all other horrors of the world will be gone.
So let me ask you this. If you have the choice to or not to flip the switch to stop the worlds suffering, are you not then responsible for all that suffering? Furthermore, if you are responsible for all the suffering in the world, doesn't that mean your trading your own happiness and that of the society for that of one child? Following that, then we ask the question is that justified. <> The way I see it is by allowing the world to suffer in such a grevious manor, you are actually sacrificing what makes you human. Compassion, care, kindness.....I would not sacrifice the world so that one child isn't tortured.
lol. I agree by the same logic I used previously, to not flip the switch in your example would in fact make you responsible then for the worlds suffering because you had the chance to change it. I suppose in this case there is no maintaining your humanity, lol. However I shy away from a fully utilitarian explanation that the society is "worth more" than the child. I like the way you described it, that you are preventing the suffering of a society. To me these are two titanic notions: the suffering of a society or the agency and suffering of an individual. I will have to think about this more, thank you for your point, lol. If I come up with anything I'll let you know Ah, the classic trolley problem
. And I completely agree with your last few lines. In any situation to act or not to act is a choice and you are therefore responsible for that choice. However I suppose this talks about objective truth as to the ability to stop the trolley/train. But let me ask you this. Let's reconsider the idea of the obese man that you would have to push in the way of the train. And let's also consider state of knowledge. What if you didn't know that pushing him in the way of the train would stop the train. Are you still responsible? Or let's say that if you don't know for sure that it would stop the train, but you have some reason to say that it might but you don't try it, are you responsible then?
And to say one more, what if you had reasonable reason to say that it would not stop the train. For example, let's say a scientist does the calculations for you and says that the obese guy would not be enough to stop the train (the scientist cannot act, maybe you have him on the phone) but the scientist is wrong. However, because you don't know that the scientist is wrong you don't push the obese guy in the way. Are you responsible in this case? Within this example you could consider that the scientist either says that in his opinion the obese guy would not stop the train, or the scientist says that the obese guy will not stop the train and he directly tells you not to push the obese guy. Is there a difference here?
Yeah the discussion is basically about the definition of free will. I assume that free will is the ability to make a choice free of any influence. That's what people generally mean with being free if you ask me. I assume an absolute truth, one that we cannot ever measure perfectly. I'm undecided on determinism, because quantum mechanics. I don't believe in free will. I also don't believe in any shred of free will. I believe our choices are 100% decided by different (nature&nurture) influences. Thus there is no choice to be responsible for.Ok, first sorry for not responding. I read this awhile back and forgot to send a response
I take it by this point that you are a hard incompatibilist
I'm actually writing my term paper for Physics/Philosophy 419 on this topic
However there are very good reasons to follow the assumption that we have free will and thus responsibility, even though we don't actually have it. Stephen Hawking describes two:
"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road. ... One cannot base one's conduct on the idea that everything is determined, because one does not know what has been determined. Instead, one has to adopt the effective theory that one has free will and that one is responsible for one's actions. This theory is not very good at predicting human behavior, but we adopt it because there is no chance of solving the equations arising from the fundamental laws. There is also a Darwinian reason that we believe in free will: A society in which the individual feels responsible for his or her actions is more likely to work together and survive to spread its values."
- Stephen Hawking
I'm still on the fence about the notion of agency. I agree that it exists in some degree, but I think it's insignificant related to such immense suffering.That is a very interesting return to what I've said, and honestly one I've not heard before. Excellent retort to a Kantian perspective I think. You convinced me here
Then risk is involved. I feel people in this situation are adverse of risk. There's a chance everyone would die. Also if you don't push the fat guy in front or push him away, you'll never know what would've happened if you didn't. Thus you can soothe your mind with the idea that those others were dead anyway regardless of what you'd have done. Not sure how responsibility works if there's ignorance or risk involved. It's hard to judge on responsibility if you don't know in what way someone assesses certain risks. If you make a choice that includes risk I'll claim responsibility if the assumed situation, where the choice was based on, comes to be. If the lower chance situation the person was still "responsible", but cannot be blamed because said person based his conduct on a different situation. Factors out of his/her control decided whether his choice was good or bad. The catch is when one of the two outcomes is incredibly worse than another. Then you'll somehow have to combine the risk and the result.Ah, the classic trolley problem
Or let's say that if you don't know for sure that it would stop the train, but you have some reason to say that it might but you don't try it, are you responsible then?
On a different note, but I remember an interesting study that reported that people were not willing to sell their souls to the devil by signing a contract. They get 1 dollar for it. Even many atheists didn't sell their soul. Despite obviously the chance that you're actually selling your soul is unimaginably small.
Scientific calculations say X. Thus base your conduct on X and don't push. You're both responsible in my moral sense. The scientist made a stupid mistake. The actor followed advice that was reasonable to follow. The actor incorporates the risk that the scientist is wrong. This risk is normally low. If the scientist adds that he isn't sure, the risk is larger, but maybe not large enough. If he directly tells you to not push, the risk is lower. The scientist is very sure of his calculations.
There's a difference in risk assessment. Is there a difference in responsibility? I don't think so.
The scenario's are getting increasingly complex
Last edited: