Storygames Home City of IF
Free online storygaming
 

Philosophy
Click here to go to the original topic
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
       Storygames Home -> Hall of Debate
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Philosophy  

Let us discuss philosophy here. Does anyone have any interesting topics on which to start?
Back to top  
DeadManWalking



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1005

Posted: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:39 pm    Post subject:  

The fact that most of philosophy is stuff just discussed for mutual interest and has no effect whatsoever on our daily lives? If we theorize that there is a higher plane of existence, for example, that really doesn't matter to us since we have no way of proving or disproving it or accessing it in any way. Similarly, what if we all saw things differently, such as what i call red you'd call blue if you saw it through my eyes? does it matter, since we both call it red? I've always seen teh color you call blue and people have told me its called red, so for all purposes it is red. So does it even matter?

Also, why would you start a philosophy thread without first selecting a topic?
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:09 am    Post subject:  

This I believe to be true only to an extent, one could argue that life had no meaning just as he could argue contemplating that which is beyond your vision has no meaning. The human race has been programed with a need to understand and harness the universe around them, so therefor it is necessary to continue to fulfill this destiny of sorts. Philosophy is doing just that, by contemplating higher levels of reality we better understand how the things around us function as they do and we better understand the workings of all that is which around us. So philosophy has a purpus as it always will well the human race lives. Not of course to say that it is confined only to us, but only say that with the bare minimum philosophy will always hold a place in our hearts.

Though you are quite right in saying that I should have specified a topic, here let me think...Ah, try this one. In the book "Flatland" (very good book by the way) it is stated that in the 2nd dimension all that you see are lines (as anyone could guess). I t is further said that because of this, naturally the sides of the shapes, that could not be seen by anyone in flatland because they could only see the lines, would be considered by said shapes as their insides. So at the point in the book where someone from space land (3rd dimension) came and touched the side of a shape, to that shape it felt as if someone were touching him from the inside. Just try to grasp that, this shape could not understand that other shapes in the next dimension could really see the insides of him and all his fellow shapes, it seemed preposterous. Though later on when this same shape has been pushed out of the 2nd dimension and seen wonders beyond his imagination, he asked his guide in the 3rd dimension if there was a dimension above the 3rd and if by going into it you could see the insides of all the shapes in his land. Of course ironically the response was that such an I idea would be preposterous and stupid. Though of course we the reader know the real meaning such a statement, and so I come to what the first topic is. How could in a dimension above are own would it be possible for one to in a sense "look within us" and if he were to touch us from his vantage point we would "feel something touching us from within". How could this tie in the super string theory, and most theories and ideas that state that time is the fourth dimension. How could one from the fourth dimension as time touch the insides of us, OK lets get some minds thinking...
Back to top  
Reiso



Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 917
Location: Western North America

Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:39 pm    Post subject:  

Er, uh... not to make things difficult, but when you mention string theory, do you mean unified string theory, or one of the ten different theories that preceded it before they stuck 'em all together? Not that it would make me any better able to philosophize myself, but I will at least gain more understanding (and thus, enjoyment--I never denied being a selfish man), of the philosophizing I will see.

By the way, Bookwizard, you either must have been or must be introduced to Futurama. Just an opinion.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:17 pm    Post subject:  

I was not fully aware that they had created a "unified" string theory, but that is not the point, I use the term loosely just to spark more thought and widen the field of possible reasoning for this particular subject. Speaking of which... any thoughts?
Back to top  
DeadManWalking



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1005

Posted: Fri Apr 03, 2009 4:43 pm    Post subject:  

Eh. Haven't read Flatland. I DID see the movie though :P
Back to top  
Reiso



Joined: 27 Oct 2004
Posts: 917
Location: Western North America

Posted: Sat Apr 04, 2009 12:27 am    Post subject:  

Bookwizard wrote: I was not fully aware that they had created a "unified" string theory, but that is not the point, I use the term loosely just to spark more thought and widen the field of possible reasoning for this particular subject. Speaking of which... any thoughts?

Not really. I mean, don't get me wrong, philosophy is wonderful. I have great respect and admiration for the great thinkers of history. I'm just not one of them. I do consider myself a deep thinker, but at the same time I am so skeptical of perception, and scatter-brained to boot, that any attempt to coalesce my musings into a coherent view would, simply put, be maddening. In less words, I do much wondering, but draw few conclusions. I really just have no idea what is going on, and most of the time, I am mystified that anyone does.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:32 pm    Post subject:  

Wait a minute... Theres a movie of Flatland! Or was that just sarcasm because I can not see how they could properly embody that at all into a movie... :confused:

And Resio, what you say is wise to an extent because I believe personally that no true conclusions about the universe can be made, only thoughtful speculations. You may grasp an understand of the universe, but must except that that understanding is only true because you believe it as such. I except all possibilities as true at the same time, each native to the seperate world that each person views, yet except also that all these separate worlds are of course but diffrent interpretations of one.
Back to top  
scissorkitty



Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 789
Location: Escaping the Hair Lair

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:41 pm    Post subject:  

Hmm. I don't know that I'm necessarily one for philosophy, per se... but i DO love a good gab session.


The mores I drinky, the mores I talky.

Unfortunately for you, I'm not drinking at the moment. Perhaps Cren is. I'm sure he has two fables to chuck into the mix here! :P

So.. philosophy aside for a second.. what IS this "Flatland" thing you're talking about?
Back to top  
DeadManWalking



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1005

Posted: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:26 pm    Post subject:  

Oh yes, they made a movie. Unless i have the wrong story. Is it the one with Arthur the square? and his daughter the triangle, or something like that? The circles are the prophets, and the whole society is based on the number of sides you have, the fewer, the higher you are. It didn't go much into the society (it was only like forty-five minutes) but it was interesting. Do i have the right story?
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:24 am    Post subject:  

The first part sounds wrong, the rest of it is correct, it was probably inspired by Flatland or something or other. In the book, everyone in flatland can only see lines, and that for most of the book, so I'm guessing they showed most of the movie from three dimensions, kinda ruins the whole point though. Great book, and fun to read because its so hard to imagine the ideas that are being put forth, just imagine how odd it would be to feel someone who could touch INSIDE of you and then have to imagine how there was another dimension where someone could see everyones insides and touch them, think about that! Then, the idea of lineland, the first dimension, and everyone having two voices and all being able to contact each other wherever they were as a result of the world they found themselves in.
Back to top  
scissorkitty



Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 789
Location: Escaping the Hair Lair

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 9:08 am    Post subject:  

Hm. The idea is actually squicking me out a little bit here. I don't think I'm cut out for this kind of philosophy!!

...although, i guess if it were in the world to which you'd been born and raised, it wouldn't seem strange at all. Strange is in the eyes of the inexperienced.
Back to top  
DeadManWalking



Joined: 24 May 2006
Posts: 1005

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:36 pm    Post subject:  

actually they showed the movie as a flat surface, with us looking down. So we don't see the way the characters do, but we do see the flatness. And then when he gets ejected out into the third dimension, things get psychedelic.
Back to top  
scissorkitty



Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 789
Location: Escaping the Hair Lair

Posted: Tue Apr 07, 2009 1:42 pm    Post subject:  

You're starting to remind me of that one episode of the Simpsons...
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 12:13 pm    Post subject:  

Hmmmm... lets start another subject here... I just want this revived a bit, so if anyone has any spontaneous philosophical comments to put in that would be great.
Back to top  
vgmaster



Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 68
Location: The City of Angels

Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:08 pm    Post subject:  

The earth is flat.
Back to top  
LordoftheNight



Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 5276
Location: Hell

Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:20 am    Post subject:  

I'd quote Archon Gaur at you, but your ears would bleed.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:18 am    Post subject:  

Hmmmm... I know, lets go into Good and Evil... or Right and Wrong... that sort of thing! I'm up for a good heated discussion. I will start out by making an outlandish unsupported (for now) statement and see what you think.

There is no Right and Wrong, they are ideas conceived by society simply to bring about structure. No "good" or "evil" really exists.
Back to top  
Thunderbird



Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 2139
Location: Rising from the ashes

Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject:  

Much of my life has been spent in inner debate on this issue.

I agree, much of the definition of right and wrong is completely illusory. From the perspective of the divine, or of reality as a whole, what matters anything? Things simply are or aren't. When you start looking at the sub-atomic world closely, or the astrophysical world (microcosm/macrocosm) you begin to realize how utterly insignificant humanity really is. We are a speck of dust on a speck of dust on the ass of a dustmite. None of it REALLY matters.

However, in the frame of existence in which we live and exist, what matters becomes defined by our emotional attachments. Even sub-atomic particles seem to obey this sort of interactivity. So when you look for definition to what is right and wrong, it must begin with what makes anything matter to anyone.

So then, what is right becomes that which supports what 'matters' (a personal definition as well as a social definition, a set of values that our culture attempts to program into us so that society may maintain itself according to its own best known practices). And what is 'wrong' becomes defined as anything contrary to what 'matters'.

Is there a divine, overriding definition of right and wrong, and not just situational definitions based on general guidlines? The Bible suggests there is, but perhaps the book's definitions are merely the culmination of many centuries of human pondering on the matter, wise guidelines set forth by generations of rulers who have had the massive headache of sorting out human dramas and have found ways by which, if people were to prescribe themselves to, most problems could be minimized.

Our emotions follow predictable patterns to stimuli. This being the case, what is right and wrong can be predictable, assuming that being upset and hurt about something is a bad or negative thing in the first place, and assuming that conflict is to be avoided (no matter how much we crave and love it).

In general, do no harm is the vague definition of right/good. Do harm is the vague definition of wrong/evil. What harm is is where the definition becomes hard to pin down.

But then, in our Western world-view, where definitions are king, we struggle to accept that none of the 'Big Questions' like this one, have definable answers. Even time is truly unmeasurable, yet we do a good job of faking it pretty well with our watches and atomic clocks.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:01 am    Post subject:  

Ok, I only read the start of you post as I am pressed for time, but I want to present a diffrent way of viewing morality of none-absolute. I believe consciousness is the defining force of reality, so instead of humans being dreadfully insignificant, we are significant simply because we exist. As is any creature that views the universe. Reality is created by the minds that view it, which as a result means there are many diffrent reality's simultaneously existing, meaning their is no constant morality! Of course I have yet to work "influences" into this thought process I believe it is something to be considered.
Back to top  
Zeke



Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 56

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject:  

I've heard more than a few times the religious argument that the only cure for cultural relativism was the ten commandments. I don't agree. I also don't believe in cultural relativism. There are definitely some rules that we all can agree upon.

I do think there is something to the argument that consciousness is important to morality. I would argue that it has to do with moral power, moral agency. We are moral agents because we can make choices that are informed by empathy and a knowledge of consequence. Its that knowledge of consequence that separates the children from the adults, and the reason why we restrict the choices of our children.

I would also argue that human beings are probably the only creatures that can plan more than a couple of days in advance and are almost certainly the only creatures aware of their eventual death from a very young age. The knowledge of death combined with the survival instinct = existential and ontological angst. Why me? Why do I have to die? What does it all mean?

But in the end, “The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike” (Matt. 5:45).

The reason I don't want to harm others is because of the effect that it has on me.

In P.K.Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", I believe his central message is that morality doesn't matter to the target so much as it matters to the actor. He loves the toad, even after he finds that the toad is artificial.

Put another way, there's the old joke:
A man opens a door for an approaching woman and the woman says "You don't have to open the door for me because I'm a lady." He curtly responds "I'm not opening the door because you're a lady, but because I'm a gentleman."
Back to top  
Thunderbird



Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 2139
Location: Rising from the ashes

Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:49 pm    Post subject:  

I couldn't disagree with a thing that's been said so far... I realize my answer was long and a bit hard to follow, but said the way both of you have put it, I can agree completely.

I'm not suggesting we're insignificant, only that significance is relative to the observer. I AM breaking down the idea that humans are the center of the universe and the most important and sacred thing to ever exist, thus becoming the basis of defining right and wrong. This seems to be the point of view I began with in life; my perception has evolved since then.
Back to top  
Zeke



Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 56

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 11:13 am    Post subject:  

I'd say that only those capable of moral perception are moral agents. That is to say that morality is by definition centered on moral agencies -- humans.

If we discover intelligent alien life capable of making moral distinctions, will we judge them by our moral standards, or theirs? Do you think that the aliens might casually kill each other without reason? Do they then "deserve" to die (by our standards?)

I suppose Star Trek's Borg collective had different moral standards, or amoral standards. But with a few exceptions, they were either so introspective or uncommunicative that they were simply non-sentient by human standards, don't you think?
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:47 pm    Post subject:  

If I may make a statement on Zekes statement on humans being unopposed in wistful thinking and "future vision". Could you not argue that the power of consciousness (as I veiw it as one body existing in all those that can perceive the universe) exists in a similar fashion throughout everything "living". There have also been several studies proving a mental competence in other species. Though this also brings up the the question of the necessity of any skills past survival... if we have a certain ability to "reason", what exactly is is doing for us that may be productive in any way. It brings up the question of "right and wrong" and other major problems that we are constantly dealing with! So who is to say that we would be better off without "reason"? (This is not my view, but it brings up a very compelling discussion.)
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:02 pm    Post subject:  

Watch out! It's a moral dilemma!

A fat man leading a group of people out of a cave on a coast is stuck in the mouth of that cave. In a short time high tide will be upon them, and unless he is unstuck, they will all be drowned except the fat man, whose head is out of the cave. [But, fortunately, or unfortunately, someone has with him a stick of dynamite.] There seems no way to get the fat man loose without using [that] dynamite which will inevitably kill him; but if they do not use it everyone will drown. What should they do?

Since the fat man is said to be "leading" the group, he is responsible for their predicament and reasonably should volunteer to be blown up. The dilemma becomes more acute if we substitute a pregnant woman for the fat man. She would have been urged by the others to go first out of the cave.

Originated from friesian.com
Back to top  
Zeke



Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 56

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:18 am    Post subject:  

I could argue Utilitarianism (the ends justify the means) vs. Kant's categorical imperative (i.e. act only as if would become a universal rule).

But I would prefer instead to throw a wrench into the gears and ask from a character point of view -- what WILL the fat man do? What aspects of his personality would cause him to blow himself up? What pressures is he experiencing to do so?

I imagine that the fat man is probably feeling a lot of guilt, as obesity is almost universally regarded as preventable (and by implication, the "fault" of the obese person). He's probably also anticipating the further humiliation and shame he will feel if he lets the other people drown.

It may not be the fat man's choice. In the end, he may get blown up whether he likes it or not. Maybe the person with the dynamite is the one that makes the decision.
Back to top  
D-Lotus



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 4123
Location: Hollywood, USA

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:12 pm    Post subject:  

Blow the fat guy up! It couldn't be any easier. From the fat guy's perspective it would be different, though. Depending on whether he's a selfish bastard or not he will let them blow him up. But seriously, the situation is ridiculous to begin with. Doesn't anybody know how to push?
Back to top  
Thunderbird



Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 2139
Location: Rising from the ashes

Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:06 pm    Post subject:  

More importantly, PULL him out THEN use the dynamite... duh. If he (or she) got in there, they can certainly get out with some work.
Back to top  
Tikanni Corazon



Joined: 25 Oct 2009
Posts: 1286
Location: Running through the plains of my mind, my wolf spirit at my side (but doing so in the UK!).

Posted: Sat Jan 09, 2010 12:03 am    Post subject:  

You know, if the fat guy is 'leading' the group out of the cave, this would imply that he knows his way around them. If this were the case, surely he would have known that the gap was too narrow for him, therefore he would not have taken that route.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 6:44 am    Post subject:  

Why is it no one ever understands moral dilemmas! The point is not to find all the faults in the logic you can, but rather to analyze the specific implications that the dilemma is presenting.

Me personally, like Zeke I tend not to deal in absolutes and I would take an existentialist view. The answer to the question in this case would depend on the finer details of the situation. And in addition, the decision that is come to, no matter what it may be, would be a correct one. As there is no specific way to look at ethics.

Oh! and none of you have analyzed the implication of the fat man being a pregnant women.
Back to top  
Phang



Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 2160
Location: Phang's House of Mints

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 7:17 am    Post subject:  

Bookwizard wrote: Why is it no one ever understands moral dilemmas! The point is not to find all the faults in the logic you can, but rather to analyze the specific implications that the dilemma is presenting.

In which case, you must make dilemmas with less logic holes. Of course people are going to look for ways in which nobody gets blown up.
Back to top  
Shady Stoat



Joined: 02 Oct 2005
Posts: 2950
Location: England

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 9:58 am    Post subject:  

I get the moral dilemma. I really do. I just think the whole philosophy aspect of it is unimportant.

The fat guy is dead. The woman with the baby is dead. When it comes to life and death, to your actual existence being put under threat, you'll take whatever steps you need to, to preserve yourself, and you'll moralise and agonise about it later. That's just the human way. Depressing, maybe, but true.

The idea of three or four people sitting around in a committee meeting, discussing the relative merits of one life against many, or in specific, the quality of one life versus the quality of the rest put together, is laughable. There would be arguments, emotions, clucking and squawking, and eventually one person would take the step (probably to the disgust and verbalised horror of everyone else in the party). It wouldn't matter whether it was the woman with the baby or the fat man. Both would be stuck, and therefore powerless to stop the others from preserving their own lives.

Cynical, I guess. But that's the way I see the dilemma.
Back to top  
Thunderbird



Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 2139
Location: Rising from the ashes

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 10:59 am    Post subject:  

Quote: Why is it no one ever understands moral dilemmas! The point is not to find all the faults in the logic you can, but rather to analyze the specific implications that the dilemma is presenting.

Its not that I don't see the moral dilemma and the point it represents. Its that I feel that in that sort of situation, no matter how you look at it, the answer to the moral dilemma is to THINK OUT OF THE BOX! There is no other answer. It is obviously unnacceptable to take the fat man or the pregnant lady's life without a complete and full analysis that includes generating concepts and ideas that can work around the problem in the first place. That said, if there really is NO way around the dilemma, blow em up! F5 Stoat on all she said there! duh
Back to top  
Phang



Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 2160
Location: Phang's House of Mints

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 11:54 am    Post subject:  

God damn it, don't come in here and put what I wrote better! :P
Back to top  
Zeke



Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 56

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 12:11 pm    Post subject:  

Shady Stoat wrote: ... The idea of three or four people sitting around in a committee meeting, discussing the relative merits of one life against many, or in specific, the quality of one life versus the quality of the rest put together, is laughable...

That's jury duty. It actually happens in the United States.

But that's not to say that you can't be pragmatic in your philosophy. There's a lot of sense in that.
Back to top  
D-Lotus



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 4123
Location: Hollywood, USA

Posted: Mon Jan 11, 2010 3:59 pm    Post subject:  

I agree with Zeke on that point, Stoaty. I don't think it's laughable at all. I'm sure that's basically what our leaders and military experts do when they get together, e.g. Is it worth sacrificing a certain percentage of our armed forces and soldiers in exchange for the security of our nation (or some other objective)? In a situation like the one presented by Bookwizard, wherein the margin of time is small, perhaps the arguing wouldn't last as long or be as thorough, but I believe it would still exist to a certain degree before, as you say, the desire to survive would make them overcome their moral inhibitions.
Back to top  
Bookwizard



Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 639
Location: Gallifrey

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject:  

Ok, I will now present another moral dilemma (the last one before moving on to other discussions) that has accualy occurred, so as to prevent logic holes.

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
Back to top  
D-Lotus



Joined: 21 Oct 2004
Posts: 4123
Location: Hollywood, USA

Posted: Tue Jan 12, 2010 10:52 pm    Post subject:  

I don't think the captain's actions are reprehensible. He did everything as logic dictated it must be done. It was cruel to have to make a sacrifice, but under the circumstances it was either that or condemn everyone to death. I think it is punishment enough that the memory of those sacrificed will forever haunt the survivors.

This situation had an evident solution, which the captain was able to put into effect, but for some reason it seems inherently evil to rationalize it in such a way. Maybe it's because hope and the belief in miracles sometimes blinds us to the truth.

However, I remember an episode of Star Trek where Spock was stranded on a planet and had little fuel to go back into space, which meant he would have to leave people behind in order to save the rest. As it turned out, Spock ended up doing something reckless and irrational, sort of as a last hope, and it was that action which saved him and the crew.

But such things are improbable. If the captain of bookwizard's story had decided not to make any sacrifices because he wished to be humane, it would most probably have resulted in the most inhumane outcome. It is true that he could have played the odds and hoped against all hopes that someone would come rescue them in time, and certainly this course of action is admirable in its own way, but it is equally courageous that he weighed the alternatives clearly in his head and opted for the solution with the most probability of success.
Back to top  
Tikanni Corazon



Joined: 25 Oct 2009
Posts: 1286
Location: Running through the plains of my mind, my wolf spirit at my side (but doing so in the UK!).

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:05 am    Post subject:  

I don't care how sensible a thing it may have been to have done, it is wrong to make that kind of desision about the life of another. All of those people had been given another chance, and had it taken away because they were the weakest. And weakest how? Who were these people? Women? Children? And why was there only one life boat that would hold only seven people? Was that negligence on his part too? Do you have more details?
Back to top  
Zeke



Joined: 31 Jul 2009
Posts: 56

Posted: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:26 am    Post subject:  

Tikanni, your argument sounds like Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative. Do what is (and should be always be) correct regardless of the circumstances. Do you think so?

D-Lotus, I'd name your view as Utilitarian (The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few), or maybe Pragmatic (Do what serves us best.)

In an abstract way, I think I'd go with Utilitarianism. But I also think the Law must go with categorical imperative, I think. Sort of like "Sure, I understand that your wife is pregnant and you're rushing to the hospital. I'll escort you there. You're still getting a ticket, though."
Back to top  
 
       Storygames Home -> Hall of Debate Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2


Powered by phpBB Search Engine Indexer
Powered by phpBB 2.0.16 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group