Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Jinn · 11-21-2006, 08:22 AM

The reason this post does seem a bit 'pop pyschology' to me is that you've defined things unncessarily and you've also left other things vague enough that they have no basis in reality. Therefore, a clarification of constraints:

* You emphasized in the first post that it was a small town.

Why does that have relevance? It seems to prey on the likelihood that we'll consciously or unconciously read that and choose the one more likely to continue the species. After all, we're programmed to reproduce and "save" our species by protecting those who will continue it. The smaller the 'town,' the more important it is for us to save those who will be reproductively successful.

* You said that the old man is "near the end of his life."

How near? Five years, ten years, 25 years? You could be justified in calling a 45 year old father an "old man" but I hardly think he is near the end of his life. How would I know his age? By phrasing it this way, you're shaping the answers to prefer the young man. I could seen a solid justification for saving him if he were a working father of 2 or more. In that way, he might contribute more to society than the non-reproductive 'young man.'

* You said that "you are absolutely sure you could have one of them, and absolutely sure you could not save both of them."

As mentioned earlier, you're creating an omniscent situation. There's no way you could know this with any reasonable degree of certainty. I also find it interesting that you said "You are absolutely sure" that I can't save both, not that this is true. I can be "absolutely sure" that I won't die tommorow, but that doesn't make it the truth, especially after the fact. I would definitely attempt to save both, simply in the case that my "absolute" reasoning were incorrect.

* You said that "the young man is a juvinile delinquent. He vandalizes, bullies, and is generally a real git. But he has his whole life ahead of him."

Again, you place omniscent abilities in our situation. How do I know that he's a delinquent? The only plausible way I would know that is through either (a) witnessing this behavior first hand or (b) because I know the young man personally. If it is (a), we'd naturally be less likely to save the young man. However, if this knowledge comes from knowing the young man well enough, we'd naturally save the person we are more familiar with, and know the most about.

Furthermore, I don't know that I associate vandalizing and bullying with being a delinquent. Has he been arrested for such crimes? What kind of vandalism? Was it tagging as art, or was it simply "WEZ SYDE R0X" sprayed haphazardly on the side of a bus?

Also; how do we know that he has his whole life ahead of him? Unless we have omniscience, this is an impossibility. You're asking us to not only consider a hypothetical situation, but one that could never occur. There is a lot of information here that we'd have no way of knowing. However, by including the statement that he "has his whole life ahead of him" you again favor the young man as 'the choice.

My final contention is that you'd likely know how the two individuals both ended up stranded ON A RAILROAD TRACK. The reason that they were both there (the 'delinquent' was going to tag a train, the old man was .. out walking his dog') could demonstrably affect your choice.

In short - you're forcing a decision in a situation where many things are "set in stone" that would never be reasonably so in a real occurance. There are lots of things I wouldn't know, including by inability to save both. As such my answer is the one that I chose; I was incorrect in beleiving I could not save both, and was able to save both. I know you're trying to control the outcome such that we're forced to decide, but I know that I will never be in a position such as the one described above and will never BE forced to make this decision.

11-21-2006, 08:22 AM	#30 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	The reason this post does seem a bit 'pop pyschology' to me is that you've defined things unncessarily and you've also left other things vague enough that they have no basis in reality. Therefore, a clarification of constraints: * You emphasized in the first post that it was a small town. Why does that have relevance? It seems to prey on the likelihood that we'll consciously or unconciously read that and choose the one more likely to continue the species. After all, we're programmed to reproduce and "save" our species by protecting those who will continue it. The smaller the 'town,' the more important it is for us to save those who will be reproductively successful. * You said that the old man is "near the end of his life." How near? Five years, ten years, 25 years? You could be justified in calling a 45 year old father an "old man" but I hardly think he is near the end of his life. How would I know his age? By phrasing it this way, you're shaping the answers to prefer the young man. I could seen a solid justification for saving him if he were a working father of 2 or more. In that way, he might contribute more to society than the non-reproductive 'young man.' * You said that "you are absolutely sure you could have one of them, and absolutely sure you could not save both of them." As mentioned earlier, you're creating an omniscent situation. There's no way you could know this with any reasonable degree of certainty. I also find it interesting that you said "You are absolutely sure" that I can't save both, not that this is true. I can be "absolutely sure" that I won't die tommorow, but that doesn't make it the truth, especially after the fact. I would definitely attempt to save both, simply in the case that my "absolute" reasoning were incorrect. * You said that "the young man is a juvinile delinquent. He vandalizes, bullies, and is generally a real git. But he has his whole life ahead of him." Again, you place omniscent abilities in our situation. How do I know that he's a delinquent? The only plausible way I would know that is through either (a) witnessing this behavior first hand or (b) because I know the young man personally. If it is (a), we'd naturally be less likely to save the young man. However, if this knowledge comes from knowing the young man well enough, we'd naturally save the person we are more familiar with, and know the most about. Furthermore, I don't know that I associate vandalizing and bullying with being a delinquent. Has he been arrested for such crimes? What kind of vandalism? Was it tagging as art, or was it simply "WEZ SYDE R0X" sprayed haphazardly on the side of a bus? Also; how do we know that he has his whole life ahead of him? Unless we have omniscience, this is an impossibility. You're asking us to not only consider a hypothetical situation, but one that could never occur. There is a lot of information here that we'd have no way of knowing. However, by including the statement that he "has his whole life ahead of him" you again favor the young man as 'the choice. My final contention is that you'd likely know how the two individuals both ended up stranded ON A RAILROAD TRACK. The reason that they were both there (the 'delinquent' was going to tag a train, the old man was .. out walking his dog') could demonstrably affect your choice. In short - you're forcing a decision in a situation where many things are "set in stone" that would never be reasonably so in a real occurance. There are lots of things I wouldn't know, including by inability to save both. As such my answer is the one that I chose; I was incorrect in beleiving I could not save both, and was able to save both. I know you're trying to control the outcome such that we're forced to decide, but I know that I will never be in a position such as the one described above and will never BE forced to make this decision. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel Last edited by Jinn; 11-21-2006 at 08:25 AM..