|
|
Post by Sock on May 13, 2011 5:08:34 GMT -5
www.philosophyexperiments.com/These are some interesting tests about morality and such. I especially like In The Face of Death. What were your results?
|
|
|
|
Post by Sen on May 13, 2011 7:29:23 GMT -5
This was for the fat man one.
Really neat site, Sock. =D Thank you for showing it to us!
|
|
|
|
Post by Terra on May 13, 2011 10:03:16 GMT -5
This was for "Should you kill the fat man?" as well. There are a couple of reasons for my result, I think. The first is that I answered "yes" when asked "Is torture always morally wrong?" and later, when asked whether the fat man should be tortured if he has hidden a nuclear bomb and has a 75% chance of giving up the location of the bomb while being tortured, then I answered yes. These answers are contradictory, yes, and I probably shouldn't have clicked "yes" on the first question, given that it was an absolute "always" or not. My main issue with torture is that there's pretty much no scientific evidence in real life for the effectiveness of it - though I guess as an absolute last resort, I wouldn't be opposed to it, if it has a chance to save lives. So, I guess my initial answer doesn't really reflect my morality.
The other reason is that I answered "no" when asked whether moral decisions should always be made based on maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people. Now, I think that under the vast majority of circumstances, my answer to this question would actually be "yes", but there are some in which I don't think that applies. Say, for example, that a member of a racial minority lives in a neighborhood that otherwise consists entirely of heavily prejudiced members of the majority race. One could conceivably make an argument that forcing the minority person out of his or her home would maximize the happiness of everyone else in the neighborhood. Should that person be forced out? I think not. So, I didn't really want to say that I absolutely always believed that's how decisions should be made.
But my reasoning there, that I don't like dealing in absolutes, conflicted with my answer about torture, so I'm glad this test brought that to light. This is a really interesting site, Sock. Thanks for linking it. ^_^ *goes to try some more tests* |
|
|
|
Post by Jo on May 13, 2011 12:31:39 GMT -5
The other reason is that I answered "no" when asked whether moral decisions should always be made based on maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people. Now, I think that under the vast majority of circumstances, my answer to this question would actually be "yes", but there are some in which I don't think that applies. Say, for example, that a member of a racial minority lives in a neighborhood that otherwise consists entirely of heavily prejudiced members of the majority race. One could conceivably make an argument that forcing the minority person out of his or her home would maximize the happiness of everyone else in the neighborhood. Should that person be forced out? I think not. So, I didn't really want to say that I absolutely always believed that's how decisions should be made.
I think in this case, even under the 'greatest overall happiness to greatest number of people', the minority person should not be thrown out. I think what you need to do is factor in how much it's going to effect peoples lives. Being thrown out of your home is very distressing, and causes a lot of long-term unhappiness. However, seeing someone you don't like be thrown out of their home, although it may provide some short-term satisfaction, is unlikely to cause that much happiness in the long-run, and may cause feelings such as guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by Terra on May 13, 2011 15:36:07 GMT -5
The other reason is that I answered "no" when asked whether moral decisions should always be made based on maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people. Now, I think that under the vast majority of circumstances, my answer to this question would actually be "yes", but there are some in which I don't think that applies. Say, for example, that a member of a racial minority lives in a neighborhood that otherwise consists entirely of heavily prejudiced members of the majority race. One could conceivably make an argument that forcing the minority person out of his or her home would maximize the happiness of everyone else in the neighborhood. Should that person be forced out? I think not. So, I didn't really want to say that I absolutely always believed that's how decisions should be made.
I think in this case, even under the 'greatest overall happiness to greatest number of people', the minority person should not be thrown out. I think what you need to do is factor in how much it's going to effect peoples lives. Being thrown out of your home is very distressing, and causes a lot of long-term unhappiness. However, seeing someone you don't like be thrown out of their home, although it may provide some short-term satisfaction, is unlikely to cause that much happiness in the long-run, and may cause feelings such as guilt. That makes sense, and I'd be inclined to agree with you for the most part, but that was just an example I brought up for the sake of argument. (It's awfully hard to measure things like happiness, so the arguments could go either way.) I was just trying to say that there are circumstances under which I believe that measure doesn't necessarily work, even if I'd generally abide by it. I just don't like words like "always" or "never". XD |
|
|
|
Post by Draco on May 13, 2011 15:51:27 GMT -5
 I thought I just escaped Philosophy class NOW I'M BACK!!! *runs around in a panic and runs into a wall* On a side note. I remember a couple of these questions from class. Especially the Fat Man one. |
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on May 13, 2011 15:55:41 GMT -5
I've seen this website before, and I like the idea and the scenarios--philosophical thought experiments don't lend themselves very easily to multiple choice questionnaires, but I think this website does a good job given the circumstances.
The other reason is that I answered "no" when asked whether moral decisions should always be made based on maximizing the happiness of the greatest number of people. Now, I think that under the vast majority of circumstances, my answer to this question would actually be "yes", but there are some in which I don't think that applies. Say, for example, that a member of a racial minority lives in a neighborhood that otherwise consists entirely of heavily prejudiced members of the majority race. One could conceivably make an argument that forcing the minority person out of his or her home would maximize the happiness of everyone else in the neighborhood. Should that person be forced out? I think not. So, I didn't really want to say that I absolutely always believed that's how decisions should be made.
I think in this case, even under the 'greatest overall happiness to greatest number of people', the minority person should not be thrown out. I think what you need to do is factor in how much it's going to effect peoples lives. Being thrown out of your home is very distressing, and causes a lot of long-term unhappiness. However, seeing someone you don't like be thrown out of their home, although it may provide some short-term satisfaction, is unlikely to cause that much happiness in the long-run, and may cause feelings such as guilt. I'm not convinced that they'd necessarily experience guilt, and I think that in a good moral system, their actions would have to be unethical independently of whether or not they felt any guilt. |
|
|
|
Post by Snackbox on May 13, 2011 16:16:02 GMT -5
I... did all the tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jove on May 13, 2011 16:48:26 GMT -5
So did I. XD I got 100% consistency on the fat man one. I don't remember the results for the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Stephanie (swordlilly) on May 13, 2011 17:03:28 GMT -5
The only problem I have with the third scenario is that the story said something like, "You listen with sympathy, but you don't want to give up your fight for life just yet, even though you know you're going to die within the next week, so you say 'No.'" When I was reading that, I thought... Why are you narrating my behavior for me?! Because that's not how I would have behaved at all given the circumstances. I would have actually said "Yes," and then asked to see my family and close friends for one last time before I got killed and wheeled off to surgery. The story being what it was, though, I had a hard time clicking "Yes, the surgeon's choice was morally justified," because that was just rotten of her to not have given me the chance to say my last farewell to the people I love. Although "I" didn't ask for that in the story, so. :/
If I were the surgeon I would have behaved differently than in the story too. I wouldn't have harped so much on the fact that three people were going to die and that one of them was my daughter (in fact I don't even think I would have mentioned that last fact - it's just irrelevant to the patient). The patient is not going to care about three strangers - she's going to die soon and she's probably thinking about how to say farewell properly. I would have asked her respectfully if she wanted to include her family members / close friends in the discussion, if she wanted to leave a note for them, etc.
If she still refuses, the only reason I can think of is that she's in denial about her chances of survival beyond the next week. I just don't see how a "No" would be a rational one in her situation. So then I would have behaved as the surgeon in the story did at the end - administered a lethal dose without her knowledge and then used her organs to save three people. It would be very emotionally difficult, but it would be the right thing to do.
This is a really, really interesting site. Thank you for sharing it, Sock! Going to move on to some of the other questionnaires. |
|
|
|
Post by Celestial on May 13, 2011 17:08:43 GMT -5
These are all very interesting, thanks for sharing it Sock! ^^ Although I kept thinking of ways I'd try to cheat the situation if I really had to make many of those choices in real life. I failed the fat man test because I did not want to push the guy onto the tracks but everything else was fairly consistent. It was fun doing all the tests.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tam on May 14, 2011 5:38:30 GMT -5
This blog outlines why I disagree with my "inconsistent" result. But. Interesting. I find thought experiments cool, but I can't honestly see them applying to a real-life moral value system. The thought experiments kind of need to deal in absolutes in order to function properly. The real world... just doesn't work that way. I'm not so sure that what every person really needs is a completely consistent, universally-applicable moral value system built on absolutes. Things, factors, situations... they all change. A person should be able to work with what they're presented with in each unique set of circumstances, not with what's already in their head. I'm... not sure how to make that any less confusing. xP I guess in a way, the above statements all just reflect what my current set of moral standards are anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sock on May 14, 2011 5:46:01 GMT -5
This blog outlines why I disagree with my "inconsistent" result. But. Interesting. I find thought experiments cool, but I can't honestly see them applying to a real-life moral value system. The thought experiments kind of need to deal in absolutes in order to function properly. The real world... just doesn't work that way. I'm not so sure that what every person really needs is a completely consistent, universally-applicable moral value system built on absolutes. Things, factors, situations... they all change. A person should be able to work with what they're presented with in each unique set of circumstances, not with what's already in their head. I'm... not sure how to make that any less confusing. xP I guess in a way, the above statements all just reflect what my current set of moral standards are anyway. I think that's kind of the point. It's supposed to make you see that a lot of things are grey areas. A lot of people probably voted that torture was always wrong, but then voted that torture is fine in the case of the man who is going to kill a million people. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacmanite on May 15, 2011 8:24:42 GMT -5
In the second part, the form smugly said I got it wrong when I got exactly the result I wanted from the situation.
I chose to torture Body-Person A, and reward Body-Person B. That's because I wanted to be the one tortured, so I would not be complicit in torturing Body-Person B.
I figured, when the torture happens, the body of A experiences the torture, the emotional duress and the pain. That's my body. It just has someone else's memories in it, but that doesn't mean that B experiences the torture. Body A is informed by the thoughts of B.
After the torture, B receives their memories back. But that's not the same as torturing them. Because in my experience, the memory of pain is far, far less acute than the actual physical sensation of pain. Maybe the humiliation of torture would stick with the memory... but if they didn't already know it, I could reassure person B later that they really weren't put to shame, it happened to my body, and that should probably help them recover their psyche a bit.
I think the one-million dollar reward was really just a thing to trick you. It makes you think that the person not tortured would be the one rewarded. Anyway I wouldn't let myself or another person be tortured for a reward of million dollars. Pain puts things in perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shadaras on May 15, 2011 11:18:16 GMT -5
In the second part, the form smugly said I got it wrong when I got exactly the result I wanted from the situation.
I chose to torture Body-Person A, and reward Body-Person B. That's because I wanted to be the one tortured, so I would not be complicit in torturing Body-Person B.
I figured, when the torture happens, the body of A experiences the torture, the emotional duress and the pain. That's my body. It just has someone else's memories in it, but that doesn't mean that B experiences the torture. Body A is informed by the thoughts of B.
After the torture, B receives their memories back. But that's not the same as torturing them. Because in my experience, the memory of pain is far, far less acute than the actual physical sensation of pain. Maybe the humiliation of torture would stick with the memory... but if they didn't already know it, I could reassure person B later that they really weren't put to shame, it happened to my body, and that should probably help them recover their psyche a bit.
I think the one-million dollar reward was really just a thing to trick you. It makes you think that the person not tortured would be the one rewarded. Anyway I wouldn't let myself or another person be tortured for a reward of million dollars. Pain puts things in perspective.
Heh. I chose the other option -- torture body-person B, reward body-person A -- but for a completely different reason than it assumed I would.
See, my thought is that I'd rather hurt myself than anyone else, and for who 'I' am, the mind matters more than the body. Quite honestly, I was assuming that when minds were switched back to the normal bodies, the bodies would be whole once more. But even so, so long as nothing was broken or scarred or anything like that... I don't think I would've changed my response. Residual pain is something, sure, but... the feeling of being torture isn't something I'd wish on anyone, especially if it's psychological torture, not just physical.
The reward didn't even enter into my thought process, though I think the question assumed it would. Sure, it's a nice bonus to choose the option that also ends up with my original body-person being rewarded, but. I don't care. I'd give away more of the money than I actually used, I suspect. So if I can be hurt and save another person the pain, I would. *shrug* I would rather not be forced to hurt anyone, but... yeah. |
|
I thought I just escaped Philosophy class 
