Results 301 to 330 of 642
Thread: In a zombie apocalpyse
-
2012-02-28, 11:42 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Location
- Chicagolandia
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
-
2012-02-28, 11:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
It has nothing to do with Moral Integrity versus the cost of a human life. What it is, is me having to live with myself for the rest of my life, knowing that I killed a friend/ally, having to suffer through nightmares for god knows how long, and constantly, always, questioning myself, examining the scenario a million times over, trying to see if there could have been some other way. I wouldn't be able to live like that, and if I can't live happily, whats the point of living at all? Even in a zombie outbreak, as long as I had my health(mental included), family, and friends, I'd be happy. Losing any of them would quickly sap my will to live, and I think losing my mental health because I had to sacrifice a friend to save myself/daughter, would be such a monumental blow that I'd never recover.
-
2012-02-28, 11:49 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Because that isn't the scenario. You have to actively kill him in order to survive.
First, I already did with the screaming-panic-attack-guy(though for obvious reasons you'd knife him instead of shooting). And really, you do consider such a scenario impossible? Do you just want me to lay out the scenario so you can(pointlessly) poke holes in it or do you HONESTLY BELIEVE that a situation where you need to kill an innocent to save the lifes of others is FLATOUT IMPOSSIBLE?
Secondly, the scenario does't have to be 100% feasible and realistic. Again, that is NOT how thought experiments work.
Let me give a famous example; perhaps you are familiar with Philippa Foot's Trolley problem.
If your answer to the premise is that the situation is unrealistic and it would never happen to you like that, or that there is a third option you'll take, or that there is always a chance the guys on the rails manage to leap aside in time... Then you are just making a fool of yourself. Really, go into any philosphy class and reject this and similar thought experiments because they are not a 'feasible scenario'. Depending on the other people's attitude they might not even try to hide their sneers and derisive laughter.
Same goes to Traab's last post. Rejecting the premise of a thought experiment is the most pointless and useless answer to it you can give.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 12:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
The real question is: Who cares what a philosophy class thinks about them? I don't. The whole point of "thought experiments" is to find as many different outcomes as possible, right? So, naturally people in this thread are going to try their hardest to come up with alternate solutions to "killing an ally", and are going to ask "Why is this person, who has remained sane the entire time, suddenly going to go into hysterics at the worst possible time".
-
2012-02-29, 12:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
- Location
- right behind you
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Except I did answer it, if there was some actual scenario where I have to kill one person or else all three of us will die, I would kill one person, I just wanted to hear an actual scenario where that would be possible. And your example makes just as little sense if I try to use a knife. You already stated that i cant overpower him. How the hell am I going to knife the panicing bastard without him taking the knife from me and feeding it to me?
Also, the trolley link one was fairly straight forward. Switch to the single person track. The judge question was stupid. The judge in that scenario calls the police and warns them of the riot about to take place and everyone going out to get some street justice winds up in prison. Thats the moral route to take."Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum"
Translation: "Sometimes I get this urge to conquer large parts of Europe."
"If you don't get those cameras out of my face, I'm gonna go 8.6 on the Richter scale with gastric emissions that'll clear this room."
-
2012-02-29, 12:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Sorry about that Traab, you did indeed give an answer. I was just objecting to you rejecting the premise.
Incidentally, knifing a hysteric person is a lot easier than holding them down and covering their mouth for however long the panic attack lasts.
Not speaking from experience of course.
But you should care about people who spend time studying such thought experiments thinking your approach laughable. It should make you wonder if maybe you didn't understand the basic principle or purpose of these experiments.
Their point isn't to find as many different outcomes as possible. In fact, the trolley problem is designed to only allow two answers. And then you discuss which is the moral option: letting five people die or change the course of the trolley, saving the five by actively killing another person who would otherwise have survived.
Different schools of ethical thought give different answers to that dilemma.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 12:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Nope, sorry, still don't care what they think of me. I'm my own person, with my own brain, and my own judgement. I"m not going to let what some stiffs holed up in a room for days on end think about me bother me in the least. Bah, Philosophers...get a real job!(said with humor, somewhat). Seriously though, why would I care? I really don't get that. So they spend all their time thinking up lousy, mostly unrealistic scenarios...for what purpose? What is the net-gain there? I'm sorry, but I just can't say that I would ever give two pence what they think of my "lack of sophistication" when it comes to their inane thought experiments. I've had to deal with enough crappy things in RL that I'm not going to let what they think bother me.
Yeah, that was a bit rantish, but I really hate when people think I should care what others think about me. Unless they are friends, I just, don't, care. They are meaningless to me, and you're whole "Try that in a room full of philosophy students, they'll laugh and sneer at you" kinda ticks me off, mainly because it's implying that they are better then me. I got news for you, they aren't. Not in the least.Last edited by Starwulf; 2012-02-29 at 12:31 AM.
-
2012-02-29, 12:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
You're the one saying it's possible; the burden of proof is on you to prove it's possible, since if we don't know either way, then the more logical assumption (as far as assumptions can be logical) is that it's not possible. If it's not possible, then I don't have to answer because whatever answer I pick is completely and utterly pointless, worthless and of no importance or significance to anything at all ever.
EDIT: Oh, and since this is a zombie apocalypse-themed thread, I'd like the example you give to be related to a zombie apocalypse. (EDIT2: Actually, I might as well just say it, I will expect you to post the scenario in all its specific details so that I can pick them apart, because until sufficient information is given, all decisions are equally valid.)
-
2012-02-29, 12:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
@Starwulf
You misunderstood my meaning. You shouldn't care about what they think about you. But you should care about being factually wrong. And when a whole bunch of people more knowledgeable in a field think you are wrong, then maybe you should pause and examine if perhaps they are right.
Incidentally, that thought experiment helps understanding morality and human decisionmaking when it comes to morality. Do the lifes of the many indeed outweight the lifes of the few? Or is it immoral to reduce this to a game of math, sacrificing n people to save n+1?
Curious you rant against philosophers but value your morals very high... Where do you think human ethics would be without philosophy?
You seem to have missed my entire explanation of the principles of thought experiments.
And you seem to be serious about a scenario in which you need to kill one innocent to save many others being impossible. That... is kinda surprising. What's the problem, can you not imagine such a situation? Does your idealism REFUSE to imagine such a situation? I honestly can't think of another explanation.
But well, though pointless as explained I'll humor you: Trolley problem, only trolley is filled with zombies. On it's current trajectory it would crash at Location A, where it hurts 5 people too much to run away, then the zombies crawl out and eat them. You can divert the trolley to Location B where only one person is.
Trolley problem with zombies... Heh, could be an interesting April Fool's paperLast edited by TheFallenOne; 2012-02-29 at 12:45 AM.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 12:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
The clear answer is to attempt to switch the train in such a way that it derails.
-
2012-02-29, 12:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2006
- Location
- The Imperium of Man
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Realistically, it's absurd to say that "somebody who you cannot possibly knock out is having a panic attack, and you have to kill them or risk zombie attack".
A couple of stiff rifle butt blows to the face, or to the family jewels, and even a big dude is going down.
Sure, they may be a big dude, but you can certainly still overpower them.
-
2012-02-29, 01:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
I prefer to stick to logical reasoning. That way, I know I'm right because I can justify it in such a way that you can't pick holes in it.
Oh, I can think of a few scenarios where I might have to kill someone to save the lives of others, but in those cases it would not be a moral dilemma - it would be because the person I have to kill is either infected or otherwise poses a direct threat to my life.
Besides, it doesn't matter if I can think of such scenarios. You're the one who claimed that such scenarios existed, so it was your job to come up with the example. I mean, clearly if you believe they do exist, then you can think of some, so why would you withhold that information?
Well this is slightly better. In that scenario, you're effectively either turning five people into zombies or turning one person into a zombie, so the option that results in four less zombies to shoot later is, on the face of it, the better solution.
But wait! We don't know anything about the six people in this scenario. Maybe the guy at location B is a trustworthy zombie survival expert and the guys at location A are backstabbing low-lives who pose a greater threat to you than the zombies. Suddenly, letting the zombies get the five guys at location A is the better choice because, if they're that much of a threat already, someone would have to kill them at some point anyway, and them becoming zombies might make them slightly less threatening.
And that's why I insist on specifics. If a person can't draw logical conclusions about all of the options (including the unstated ones), or if the logical conclusions that person can draw are not consistent with each other, then that person has insufficient information (or worse, inconsistent information, though fortunately I don't see much of that these days) and therefore it would be incorrect for that person to claim that they made the right decision.
EDIT: Oh, and while I'm at it, whenever "shoot a guy" is an option, "kill said guy with melee weapon" is also an option, as is "knock out said guy with melee weapon", and "throw said guy to the zombies" or "leave said guy at mercy of zombies", unless you specify circumstances that clearly indicate that those cannot be done (eg, you're on a critical mission with many lives at stake back at base and you only have this one chance to succeed at it, and everyone forgot to bring a melee weapon - some might question going on such a critical mission and forgetting a good chunk of your arsenal, but hey, sometimes the decision may be either that or lots of lives being lost at the base, and sometimes people just forget to pick up their baseball bats).
-
2012-02-29, 01:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
How is it factually wrong to poke holes at an unreasonable/unfeasible "thought experiment"? Where does right or wrong even come in on that one? They think it's important to theorize about stuff like that, I say it holds absolutely no practical application and is silly. Who is right and who is wrong in that scenario?
And, yes, I realize that this entire thread is a thought experiment. But it's on how you would handle surviving a zombie outbreak, NOT "What would you do when faced with a moral crisis during a zombie outbreak", which Is what I, and obviously others are taking offense at. We poke holes, because the specific scenario you give is highly unlikely, and we don't think it particularly gives any weight to the discussion at hand. We poked holes at bored, because he had the attitude that "everyone but me and my family is expendable", which is a terrible attitude.
Really, I already gave you my answer earlier, and then went on to further defend it(which, btw, you never answered). I only took offense to the "They'll laugh and sneer at you", which as far as I"m concerned, is grounds to punch someone ^^ Just because they SAY there isn't a third option, and will laugh at people for wanting one, doesn't mean that they are right, ya know?Last edited by Starwulf; 2012-02-29 at 01:36 AM.
-
2012-02-29, 01:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
... Why do you claim I withhold information when right below in your post you answer to an example given by me? The second one after screaming guy btw.
Well this is slightly better. In that scenario, you're effectively either turning five people into zombies or turning one person into a zombie, so the option that results in four less zombies to shoot later is, on the face of it, the better solution.
But wait! We don't know anything about the six people in this scenario. Maybe the guy at location B is a trustworthy zombie survival expert and the guys at location A are backstabbing low-lives who pose a greater threat to you than the zombies. Suddenly, letting the zombies get the five guys at location A is the better choice because, if they're that much of a threat already, someone would have to kill them at some point anyway, and them becoming zombies might make them slightly less threatening.
And that's why I insist on specifics. If a person can't draw logical conclusions about all of the options (including the unstated ones), or if the logical conclusions that person can draw are not consistent with each other, then that person has insufficient information (or worse, inconsistent information, though fortunately I don't see much of that these days) and therefore it would be incorrect for that person to claim that they made the right decision.
And who says you are supposed to know anything about these guys? Maybe all are strangers to you. Maybe the single guy is your friend. Would you value the life of one friend over the life of five strangers who might be good guys or bad guys? If yes, what if they had children with them, or were more than 5?
Oh, and while I'm at it, whenever "shoot a guy" is an option, "kill said guy with melee weapon" is also an option, as is "knock out said guy with melee weapon", and "throw said guy to the zombies" or "leave said guy at mercy of zombies", unless you specify circumstances that clearly indicate that those cannot be done (eg, you're on a critical mission with many lives at stake back at base and you only have this one chance to succeed at it, all the melee weapons got stolen/broke - some might question going on such a critical mission with limited weaponry, but hey, sometimes the decision may be either that or lots of lives being lost at the base).
If you do that, the philosopher just (grudgingly) modifies the scenario to disallow your cheap way out until you HAVE to make the tough choice. So by LOGICAL REASONING you should realize you should just accept the premise of the thought experiment instead of looking for more or less clever loopholes.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 01:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Sounds more like to me that the philosopher is just miffed that you out-thought him, much like a DM will get miffed when a player out-thinks his cunningly laid-out campaign and breaks it 5 minutes in. You still haven't answered my original question actually: WHY? WHY do we have to make the "tough" choice, when we are smart enough to realize a third option? Or a fourth? Or a fifth? What's wrong with taking a different route? You say it's to find out which you value more, well, the people who take a third or fourth option, obviously value the idea of creative thinking to get out of tough situations, and shows that they are quick on their feet, have a sharp wit, and the ability to perform under pressure. That's what the people who find a third or fourth option show ME. If the philosophers can't handle that, to bad, eh?
-
2012-02-29, 01:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
The fact that the right decision changes with every detail means that previous iterations of the problem had insufficient information to make the right decision. Which, to someone who is trying to make the right decision, is frustrating at best.
Furthermore, I don't think you looked at the reasoning I gave behind my decisions. Instead, you just looked at my decisions and went "well there's your moral thinking". If you want my moral thinking, then here's my moral thinking: when there is literally no "kill nobody" option, there is no right option. Let me know if you want me to expand on this in private or in another thread, since I feel that discussing it here would derail this thread even more.
I am trying to make logical argument and, astonishingly, help my opponent (whoever he or she may be) make logical argument. Finding loopholes in what he or she posits is part of my job.
-
2012-02-29, 01:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
No no no no. The Third Option guys aren't performing well under pressure. They are REJECTING the pressure. Instead of facing a tough decision, one where they have to weigh the value of other people's lifes, they take a cheap way out by inventing an alternative where conveniently nobody is hurt.
You can't pat yourself on the back for outthinking the philosopher. He/she didn't put much effort into finding every possible third option and outruling it; that would serve no purpose and only lengthen the text to a rather inconvenient degree. The philosopher assumes that the reader realizes the entire point is to make the choice between two, and only two options, both with unpleasant consequences.
Don't you think that the question whether we are should save five humans if doing so would doom another is relevant to human ethics and lawmaking?Last edited by TheFallenOne; 2012-02-29 at 01:54 AM.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 02:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2006
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
I have to speak against people advocating using an AR as a melee weapon. You'll break the buffer tube and cause all sorts of problems from zeroing to shearing the bolt. Using a one piece stock like on an M-14 or a hunting rifle could work in a pinch, but is still going to be inferior to carrying something dedicated to that task.
-
2012-02-29, 02:06 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Not when it's in a rather narrow, situational specific scenario, no. If you want to get into that, it needs to be relevant to the current world at large, and something that could actually possibly happen. Not some "if you were on a trolley" nonsense. And, even then, honestly, what you say you'll do when you're not actually in that situation, compared as to what you'll actually do when you find yourself in that ACTUAL scenario, are likely going to be two entirely different things. It's like saying "If you find a 5 dollar bill on the street with no-one around, would you pick it up and keep it, or try to find it's owner". Most people will say "Try to find the owner". But when that actually happens, they will factor a lot of things into their decision, most prominently being, their financial situation at the time and how badly they could actually make good use of that 5 dollars that someone else carelessly lost.
See where I'm going here? I object to the obscure, entirely situational specific scenario. give me one that's actually relevant. better yet, I'll do it for you: I"m president of the United States, and if I nuke Country X, I'll kill 2.5million people. But by doing so, I thwart a global scale disaster that would have killed 50million people or more. What do I do? I abdicate and run the hell away, because even though I'm president, I just can't handle that kind of pressure. To you, that's not allowed by the thought experiment, but if I was actually in that scenario, that is EXACTLY what I would do. If I was in a trolley and had to choose between 5 people, and 1, I would choose...neither. I'd be to paralyzed with fear and indecision that I would be unable to do anything at all to actually affect the situation.
Understand where I'm coming from a bit better now? In these "thought experiments" the philosopher has excluded one very VERY important detail: In their situations, they are assuming the person making the decision to be completely level-headed, calm, rational, and able to MAKE a decision. The reality of the matter is, in that situation, the zombie situation, the president situation, the people involved are likely NOT thinking clearly, they are NOT really thinking anything at all except "holy ****, this really sucks, how did I end up in this position." The person running from the zombies is almost assuredly NOT thinking "If I turn around and peg this guy in the head, I'm going to get away safe and clean" they are thinking "omg, how did we not notice all those zombies creeping up on us, **** **** **** **** **** **** **** WE'RE GONNA DIE!" The person in the trolley is thinking "Oh man, why can't I stop this thing, I'm going to die!" The President is thinking "No way man, I can't possibly handle this, I can't do it, I can't be responsible for that many people dying". None of them are coming from a calm, cool, level-headed and logical place like the philosophers seem to think they will be. So, in the end, their "thought experiments" hold absolutely no water.Last edited by Starwulf; 2012-02-29 at 02:12 AM.
-
2012-02-29, 02:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
I prefer to think those people discover an alternative. The premises that allow for the alternative are there already, and the premises that don't allow for it are conveniently absent.
You've just admitted, with the part of your post that I bolded, that the purpose of thought experiments relies upon a named logical fallacy. This means that, no matter what answer the person comes up with to one of these questions, it will always be based on fallacious premises, meaning it either can't be right, or can only be right if supported by reasoning that does not rely on the thought experiment. Either way, the thought experiment only shows that a person is capable of making a decision, not that they are capable of justifying their decision, and unjustified decisions are extremely trivial.
So, thought experiments are no good for reasoning and really no good for getting an insight into other people's reasoning. What good can possibly come out of them? EDIT: Actually, don't bother answering that question, I am done with this. I have now done all I need to to show that these thought experiments cannot be applied to real scenarios and some others seem to be doing a pretty good job of that too.
-
2012-02-29, 04:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
@TheFallenOne
I think we can safely say that most of us here are of a fairlyanal-retentiveanalytical disposition and will nitpick to death if it means not conceding a point and looks reasonable.
I don't think there's a scenario out there that at least one of us can't poke a hole in or find an exit strategy out from that negates having to shoot your buddy...at least on paper and behind the safety of our computers. so making actual examples probably won't work because people will just start nitpicking over it's details.
this is true because most of it is armchair reasoning and in a pinch one might not have the clarity of mind or even the chance to come up with a way out.
for the sake of debate however..let's assume that there is indeed a situation where one cannot save oneself without sacrificing the other, either through inaction or through actively pulling a trigger. would I do it?
since this would be my first zombie apocalypse, I can only try and base the answer on my moral code and the fact that I tend to be very rational about pretty much everything, even when I'm in a hurry ..
I think the answer is accurate:
it depends
is there someone to go back to once I survive this?, if no, then that means I'm the last sentient human being on earth, and even if I manage to find a way to die of old age, what would be the point? what kind of life is that, and who am I doing it for? I might as well go out heroically, trying against all hope to save my mate.
+1 on the "lo, there do I see my father"
if there are people depending on me or with whom I can find shelter and survive.. then..I will probably consider it
in which case...if it's a stranger or someone I've only hooked up with recently, I assume I'll pull the fateful trigger.. if it's a friend.. I might still do it and have nightmares about it for the rest of my life...or not, depending on how good a friend and how far back we go.
if it's my partner, one of my 1-2 best friends or a relative, then no..I wouldn't do it, even though it means certain death alongside him/her (yes..blood ties really are that important to me).
this is of course all hypotethical and subject to being tested..
I think the main issue people had with Boredgremlin's statements was that he didn't present this as a life or death specific circumstance in which to resort to extreme measures. he introduced actively killing off in cold blood the weaker elements and those who might threaten him as his main gameplan and role in the group.
it's one thing to do the unspeakable when all other options are exhausted..quite another to sistematically use other people's lives as playthings and decoys..and then argue in favour of it (need I mention the casually stated intent of organizing and carrying out mass murder of inmates, without half a thought on examining them 1 by 1 looking for redeemable people who might be useful, or otherwise figuring how to use these people productively even if it means sharing food rations?)
I might be entirely off the mark here, but I have the feeling he made the statement because it has a degree of "cool" to it, in a testosterone fuelled kind of way, and sounded like a good idea..and when he saw people rising up against it, he took the challenge and defended his statement on principle...whether he was 100% behind it or not.
-
2012-02-29, 05:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Nope, everybody uses Fahrenheit except for my foreign friends/acquaintances. But I'm going into the sciences, so why would I use Fahrenheit? Besides, my window thermometer is only in Celsius.
Except for the fact that in real life a situation with only four possible paths and outcomes is extremely rare.
Further, his hypothetical situation was ridiculous. Who sends two guys in and leaves nobody at the truck for a) covering fire and b) a quicker getaway with none of that Hollywood-dramatic-tension oh-crap-I-dropped-the-keys bullcrap?
I was thinking of those but I couldn't remember what they're called. Thanks!
But dang, how much would that weigh?
*Googles*
Huh, the reinforced wooden-handled type wouldn't be too heavy, though the torque due to the length would make it feel pretty heavy. But I found one example that's 4'9" and about 4 lbs, and that's about the same weight as a large two-handed sword. And the longer handle means you can grip it further apart, like how some really big swords have a dull section at the base of the blade to provide a longer grip.Jude P.
-
2012-02-29, 05:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
come to think of it..why would anyone take the keys out of the car in the first place? who's going to steal it?
-
2012-02-29, 06:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2011
- Location
- Western Maryland
- Gender
-
2012-02-29, 06:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
The trolley problem is designed to be unsolveable. My thoughts:
It's not as simple as "kill one guy instead of five". First of all, are these six guys all deaf, blind, and insensitive to the vibrations of an approaching train as they stand on the tracks? Not to mention that most large moving objects should be installed with a warning horn of some sort.
Now, it's different if these guys are tied to the tracks instead of being workers. In that case, I'd honestly just flip a coin or roll d%. High, I take five lives. The responsibility is entirely out of my hands, so I can't stress over which route is morally right. Here's why:
What if the guy alone on the left-hand track is a mass-murderer? What if two or the five on the other side are? What if the lone guy, in the future, would have been able to save six people? And so on.
So it's an impossible decision and I'd leave it up to chance.
Even hardened veterans can reach a breaking point. It's the straw that breaks the camel's back, so to speak.
Huh, I thought the point of philosophy was that it's all subjective, and religion is when you believe in objective morality. Weird.
Also, in a field where we actually deal with facts and not opinions, almost every scientific revolution has been preceded by "a whole bunch of people more knowledgeable in a field than [new scientist] who think [new scientist] is wrong", and then it turns out [new scientist] was right and that the bunch of knowledgeable people were just closed-mind.Jude P.
-
2012-02-29, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Heidelberg, Germany
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Wow, I got a huge and unexpected amount of objection(no pun intended) to what I considered basic and obvious principles of philosophical thought experiments examining choice... Now it has come so far people call them inherently falacious and pointless.
I did my best to explain why challenging the premise and looking for third options is completely beside the point, but it didn't get through. And since you seem to think that a huge number of modern philosophers are off their rocker here I don't expect I will, so I'll stop trying.
Incidentally, a False Dilemma usually renders an argument invalid, but is a weak counter to a purely theoretical thought experiment prompting you to choose between two options, both of which are unpleasant. When asked 'You are stranded with another person on an uninhabitated island. Would you eat him to avoid starving?' answering that it is a false dilemma because you know how to find food in the wilderness is pointless. These questions aren't asked to test your skills or ingenuity.
Though Starwulf did make a good point at the end... That the state of mind of the test subject isn't one that allows rational decisionmaking. I will not follow that up though, that would be a matter of a thread devoted to thought experiments or philosophy in general.
Huh, I thought the point of philosophy was that it's all subjective, and religion is when you believe in objective morality. Weird.
For anyone interested, I wholeheartedly reccommend Arguing About Metaethics, collecting contemporary papers on whether moral properties exist, what form they have, how we should understand statements expressing moral opinion etc. It's a tough book and nothing for the uninitiated, but if you have prior experience a quite enlightening read presenting good arguments and counterarugments for different positions on the matter.
anyway, back on track... Why a Kanabo of all things? Using that thing gets exhausting very fast. Why any blunt weapon, for that matter? Killing a zombie with that requires more brute strength and exertion than with a bladed or pointed weapon. The biggest advantage I can see is that you won't lose the Kanabo from getting stuck in the zombie's body.
I'd go for a European sword, double-edged, straight blade. Curved blade would be good for hacking zombies apart, but that is, again, inefficient from an expended energy vs. killed zombies perspective.
You don't need fancy swordwork and intricate patterns. They don't dodge. They don't block. All you need is one good move and repeat that over and over. Ochs guard(right one), stab to the face. Good reach, fast, efficient. That's the best melee option I can think of.Last edited by TheFallenOne; 2012-02-29 at 08:51 AM.
Spoiler: PbP
-
2012-02-29, 09:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
the melee weapon is a last resort which is only of use if it allows you to extricate yourself and get back in shooting range distance. in such a situation..well..I'm not a fan of the Kanabo because it's heavy to lug around/run away with.. but a blade has less durability than a blunt instrument..so I'd keep a blade only for things for which I actually need a blade..like skinning, cutting etc etc..not for fighting. you can find sticks everywhere and bash some spikes in it to make it meaner.. a good blade? not so easy to come by...it's precious..you don't want to waste it by denting it on a rib, buckle or other hard object you encounter during a melee.. or by letting it get blunt through fighting tout court.
fatigue..again..if you're up against a couple of zombies you run and shoot them from a distance...or you can bash their head in with whatever weapon..if it takes you so long that you end up fatigued, you've got bigger problems.
if you're up against a horde and you can't for some reason run off..blunt instrument or weapon of lighter use...you're going down anyway
-
2012-02-29, 09:31 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Location
- Maryland
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
Yeah but, in the given example, he didn't need to shoot fattie at all. He had other options. He could have said "here's the bag, you go on ahead, I'll try to hold them off", and died heroically. Kid gets saved, fattie lives.
Or he could have just grabbed fatties bag to help him. If fattie is slow, he still gets eaten, but it's the exact same outcome as shooting him, except you don't waste a bullet and fattie has a better chance.
Or, since they knew in advance that the hospital was so full of zombies that they couldn't get to it before, they could have just had more of the party come with guns. They had all of these things. They were not using them. This is...remarkably obvious and practical.
A. This is fairly unlikely, since people who do such things will tend to be eaten early.
B. That said, since I do have a roomie who gets panic attacks, it's possible. However, people having a panic attack are not exactly rational fighters. I can subdue them. There is no "too big" to punch in the throat.
The scenario ends here, as there is no possibility that noise is still being made.
The trolley scenario is fairly ridiculous. Answering the question, I'll obviously choose 5, since it's numerically greater. Real life, however, is never, ever so simple. Third options exist. Striving for them, even if you fail in doing so, is a very normal reaction. Trying to save everyone is a very reasonable goal.
-
2012-02-29, 10:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2007
- Location
- Whose eye is that eye?
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
I figure the right answer to people poking holes into hypothetical scenarios is not to add detail but to substract it.
As in, "Imagine there's a situation where, if a person does nothing, five people will die, and if he flips a switch, one person will die. He can't do anything else. Which would be the moral thing to do?"
Then, answer every complaint about the scenario with "Magic."
-
2012-02-29, 11:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2011
- Gender
Re: In a zombie apocalpyse
And often there are other moral realists who disagree with them.
=Subjective.
anyway, back on track... Why a Kanabo of all things? Using that thing gets exhausting very fast. Why any blunt weapon, for that matter? Killing a zombie with that requires more brute strength and exertion than with a bladed or pointed weapon. The biggest advantage I can see is that you won't lose the Kanabo from getting stuck in the zombie's body.
I'd go for a European sword, double-edged, straight blade. Curved blade would be good for hacking zombies apart, but that is, again, inefficient from an expended energy vs. killed zombies perspective.
You don't need fancy swordwork and intricate patterns. They don't dodge. They don't block. All you need is one good move and repeat that over and over. Ochs guard(right one), stab to the face. Good reach, fast, efficient. That's the best melee option I can think of.Jude P.