Cookie Thread Act 3: The Cookie Strikes Back

General
#18221

tho i wont complain at hundreds of tutuu likes

2 Likes
#18222

Your belief that the right thing to do is to throw the saboteur off the bridge is not surprising given your previous response that it would be right to throw an ‘innocent’ (fat) man off the bridge if it had the effect of saving five people. We noted a tension in your earlier response in that it wasn’t clear why you thought it justified to kill the innocent man given that you do not think there is any general moral requirement to maximise happiness. However, this tension is less pronounced this time around, since presumably thoughts to do with culpability are part of the moral calculus in deciding whether it is justified to throw the saboteur off the bridge. It is possible that similar thoughts about culpability will be a part of how you think about the scenario below.

The Fat Man and the Ticking Bomb (Scenario 4 of 4)

The fat man, having avoided being thrown in front of the runaway train, has been arrested, and is now in police custody. He states that he has hidden a nuclear device in a major urban centre, which has been primed to explode in 24 hours time. The following things are true:

  1. The bomb will explode in 24 hours time.
  2. It will kill a million people if it explodes.
  3. If bomb disposal experts get to the bomb before it explodes, there’s a chance it could be defused.
  4. The fat man cannot be tricked into revealing the location of the bomb, nor is it possible to appeal to his better nature, nor is it possible to persuade him that he was wrong to plant the bomb in the first place.
  5. If the fat man is tortured, then it is estimated there is a 75% chance that he will give up the bomb’s location.
  6. If the fat man does not reveal the location, the bomb will explode, and a million people will die: there is no other way of finding out where the bomb is located.

Should the fat man be tortured in the hope that he will reveal the location of the nuclear device?

1 Like
#18223

:sob:

#18224

I agree let’s go back to this

2 Likes
#18225

its ok i barely like posts compared to most active users so if i like your post you did something right

2 Likes
#18226

moral calculus is we multiply this by the amount of lives right
AND WE ALREADY SAID TORTURE WAS COOL

#18227

yes

this is why I said torture is sometimes justified

1 Like
#18228

you just like trying to be exclusive

a stark contrast from your mother

2 Likes
#18229

the funniest trolley problem variant is the Five Really Stupid People version

basically, there’s a trolley running down the track. if you do nothing, it will derail, killing everyone aboard and everyone on any tracks. you can send it onto either of two tracks

on one track is one person who’s been kidnapped and tied to a train track by a supervillain

on the other track are five people all of whom thought it would be an awesome idea to take a nap on a train track

3 Likes
#18230

Your response that the fat man should be tortured is consistent with your view that torture is not always wrong. It also makes sense in terms of other responses you have given. In particular, on at least one occasion you have responded that it would be right to end the life of one person to save the lives of some other greater number of people. It would be strange then if you did not think it might sometimes be right to torture a person if by doing so it is possible to save all those people whose lives would otherwise be lost in a nuclear explosion.

About You

Now we just want you to answer a few questions about yourself, so we can analyse how you’ve done compared to other people. After that, you’ll be taken straight to our analysis pages.

  1. Are you male or female?
    Please Select…

  2. What is your nationality?
    Please Select…

  3. How old are you?
    Please Select…

GUYS WHAT ARE WE

2 Likes
#18231

I choose whichever option will allow the train to run more smoothly, irregardless of the number of casualties, because I love trains and the health of a train is more valuable to me than any random normies

4 Likes
#18232

image

@benguinedparbecue what post did you like in the past week what was so great about it

3 Likes
#18233

fol

fol

2

1 Like
#18234

congrats chloe you are the lucky winner of benguined parpeques like of the week

#18235

@katze

1 Like
#18236

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 74%.

It is often thought to be a good thing if one’s moral choices are governed by a small number of consistently applied moral principles. If this is not the case, then there is the worry that moral choices are essentially arbitrary - just a matter of intuition or making it up as you go along. Suppose, for example, you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness, but you do not think this justification applies in the case of the fat man on the bridge. The problem here is that unless you’re able to identify morally relevant differences between the two scenarios, then it isn’t clear what role the justification plays in the first case. Put simply, it seems that the justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the moral judgement that it is right to divert the train.

You’ve done better than average in this test, but now is not the time to rest on your laurels, because let’s face it, most people don’t think very clearly about morality. However, before you embark on any further study(!) we suggest you check out the next page of analysis.

1 Like
#18237

… i dont think that train is running smoothly any time soon

1 Like
#18238

oh you found it

1 Like
#18239

LMAO

1 Like
#18240

Sad

2 Likes