Posted on 12/03/2013 11:16:31 PM PST by Talisker
The brain should “nod off” for a moment thereby avoiding any abstract moral dilemma.
People use the term “dilemma” too freely.
In a true dilemma, both of the available choices are unsatisfactory, the choosing agent literally faces the “horns of the bull.” Both horns kill.
Do you prefer death by left horn or right horn?
In the absense of the ability to make a qualitative evaluation, I choose the right, only because I’m right handed.
Your solution I believe is equally as good as mine.
Meaning that they are both bad, but unavoidable.
A: Switch to decaf.
So this crap is typical of college Philosophy studies?
Everybody I’ve known who has majored in Philosophy has come out far more confused about the nature of man and the answer to the major questions, “Why are we here? Who put us here? Does God exist?” than when they went in.
Modern Philosophy sounds like a lot of gobbledegook from a lot of quacks. I wouldn’t read it on a bet.
turn right, Sell the kidneys and hire a lawyer
The other, alternate, equally unsatisfactory solution:
The brain nods off as suggested by John Valentine but records the dreams it has recapitulating all the unintended consequences of its action or inaction forming such record into a screen play which is then made into a movie starring Ashton Kutcher.
Was the trolley built in Detroit, or in Buffalo? Is it green with white stripes, or white with green stripes? In what solution is the brain suspended? Is the brain union or non-union? Are the tracks narrow-gauge or standard?
Was the philosopher who came up with these useless moral dilemmas a mouth-breather, or was he a drug abuser?
The brain is the trolly engineer, not the switch master. It cannot choose either track. That job is left to the switch master. The brain is absolved of all responsibility. The switch master, on the other hand, is guided by another brain with similar cognative insight. Which track should the switch master send the trolly down? The answer is simple. He should send the trolly on the track that leads to its next scheduled station. The switch master is thereby absolved of all responsibility. It is too late to change the trolly’s schedule hence there is no responsibility. unless, of course, the track fails, killing all passengers.
This is the only thing that needs to be known. The rest is just a distraction. In either case you get a war, and since the number of casualties is not provided, you can safely assume that they are far greater than the losses that are enumerated.
This means that the question requires you to decide which war, in your opinion, is better. The question makes no sense. People seldom care if they are killed because the war is unjust or because a war crime (which is unjust) did them in. They wouldn't be too happy to die even in a just war. Given that there is no significant difference in outcomes, the brain should toss a coin, or pick the direction randomly.
From what I read, the operator of the trolley controls the switch by running a certain segment of the track with high or low power draw. Here is some text.
Drink the Iocane. Over the years I’ve built up an immunity.
dillemas, like humor, ‘work’ because they’ve got some realism in them.
this fails. it’s stupid as hell.
A perfect example of the either/or fallacy, that is, assuming there are only two choices. The brain could derail at the fork, for example.
The Kobayashi Maru solution.
I cannot make a decision without knowing how the decision will effect the carbon footprint of all involved and global warming. Why is there no mention of this?
Better yet, STOP the train and call ahead to clear the track of both men. Train is late, but nobody dies.
UNLESS, some one on the train goes berserk and kills the passengers.
Or the lateness cause more deaths.
Or one person on the train and has a heart attack.
Or.....
modern progressivism isn’t even definable by today’s “philosophers.” Learned about it in psychology, of all places. My ex-Christian husband was distracted off the straight and narrow by studying philosophy instead of theology. I hate, hate, philosophy. Why do people think they know more than God who created them? What idiocy!
I have taken up psychology and it, too, is full of idiocy (at least they admitted it about Freud-but I predict a resurgence of his views if the pedophile Muslims take over). the APA so much wants psychology to be a science when their science of what makes up a human is the exact same thing as what a Christian does when getting to know God, read His diary, or Book, watch His behavior, look at His creation, listen to His voice.
Forgive me if I am ranting, only had 3 hours of sleep. Now neuroscience/biology is really cool! Love that.
Like any good Leftist, the author presumes he understands the moral stance, behavior, and outcomes of everyone conceivably involved in the hypothetical scenario - and then forces someone else (the reader) to make the no-win decision subject to inevitable punishment ... all for the author’s own visceral entertainment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.