It was not a reason for thinking what you do, it was just a declaration that you do think what you do. Stating that you care more about yourself, isn’t a reason for caring more about yourself. That is the point.
That is stipulated in the thought experiment. You can’t just deny it, because it has been stipulated. I’ll look at the rest afterwards.
If it is wrong, then we can examine why it is, (or is not). That is the point.
I actually thought of that. But if we are assuming that it takes a fat man to stop the train, you’d have to be at least equally fat.
Not only that, but there is an implicit incentive to keep your body in relatively poor condition so nobody wants to harvest your bits and pieces.
It reminds me of that new Snow White and the Hunstman movie. The queen captures and kills all of the pretty young women in her territory, so many of them took to purposely mutilating their faces to avoid capture.
The third scenario is probably the hardest to answer. I think I agree with Phyllo on that one.
That’s the point in theory. Only in reality [here for example] if they don’t share your point of view, well, they…are…wrong.
Unless I’ve only been hallucinating the last couple of years here. You know me though. There are things we can examine until the day we die and never know for certain are either right and wrong. Only instead of taking a leap to God, the really serious philosophers take a leap to definitions.
I said that I valued a $10 bill in my pocket more than in another pocket because I can utilize it. IOW, I can convert it into something else which I consider valuable… food, water, shelter, entertainment, etc.
In what way is that not a valid reason for valuing my $10 more?
I always thought that was the dumbest question in the general trolley problem.
If the fat man would absolutely positively stop the train, I still would not toss him onto the tracks.
It is tantamount to just repeating that you value more what’s yours. $10 buys the same amount no matter who has it. But you like it because you can use it… AKA It’s yours. —That’s just a repetition that you value more what’s yours, not a justification of it. Compound the issue that Smears wants to let a train load of people die to save himself, and the poverty of his reasoning is even more stark.
Ok good. So the key is… Why not?
Yes, plus I might have cheated. There’s only two options stipulated in the case. Throwing yourself is not one of them. So, I can’t really include the other, as per the thought experiment. I’ll have to think more about it.
I could not care less about knowing anything for certain. I’m interested in figuring out why I think what I happen to think, and to hear considerations for why I should think differently, if there are any. You give an answer, and then you hold it up to scrutiny—yours, and others. If people don’t agree, it doesn’t mean that everybody’s answer is just as well justified as anybody else’s.
Is a glass of water always the same value or does the value depend on time and place? Why?
Does the $10 bill always have the same value? Why?
You didn’t answer:
Contextual factors can change the value of a glass of water. It’s more valuable if you’re dying of thirst, etc. Again, do you have a reason to think that you are more valuable than, say, the person standing beside you? —Other than the repetition that “it’s you”?
I’m not pretending to have answered fully. I was explicit about that.
Value and worth are determined by goals and intentions. If my goal is to stay alive and have experiences, then I value things which make that possible.
I told you why. At least with respect to value judgments—the sort of questions you asked in the OP. There are aspects of such discussions that are rooted in objective facts: what happened, where it happened, when it happened, who it happened to etc.
Then there are discussions that revolve around folks who are in fact embedded in a particular set of [objective] circumstances but choose to react to them in conflicting ways. Why? Because they have conflicting points of view regarding what is good and what is bad…what is the right thing and the wrong thing to do. That’s the part more reflective of dasein. Or so it seems to me.
I agree. Better, more reasonable arguments will tend to result in a larger consensus. But that [in my view] gets us no closer to an objective answer to your hypotheticals.
I merely interject myself from time to time into discussions like this in order to hear from others who might be willing to argue the contrary. That, with respect to actual human interactions “out in the world”, there are in fact objective moral truths. And, in particular, universal moral truths. Truths that even you reject.
I didn’t ask you what you find valuable.
I have a weakness for being sympathetic towards people who’ve known pain, the guy with weight problems certainly has known pain, I’d hate to risk sacrificing him for a bus full of worthless happy hedonistic shits, so no.
The other two questions are essentially the same when it comes right down to it, but I’ll answer them separately.
If legal, then yes, for the same reasons as I expressed above.
I’d have to wait until one of them froze despite all efforts to keep them warm, then, if legal, rely on the wisdom of the Donner party.
As for the details. Below; just replace each reference to tomatoes with the appropriate word.
A favorite of mine is roasted tomato soup, Roma tomatoes halved drizzled with olive oil, salt and pepper then baked in the oven until just starting to blacken… take them out and add them to broth with onions, garlic, thyme, oregano, cayenne pepper, 1 large can crushed or diced tomatoes and 1 small can tomato paste. Mix well, bring to boil then simmer for 30-60 min. You can purée if you like, but I don’t.
These are good questions, keep them coming.
good work riv…you got an active one…I may jump in sometime…
If a car full of unbelievably pretentious people are about to go off a cliff and your behind the wheel of a stretch limousine in an opportune location, do you risk life and limo by blocking the path of the car?
I am not interested in how people react, or what people think. I’m not interested in autobiographical data about how they came to think what they think. I am interested in why they continue to think what they happen to think. In other words, I am interested in why they think what they happen to think… about what is right and wrong.
Historically, that’s false. But if it were true, then I’d want to know why that is. There’s no such thing as “more reasonable” if any reason is as good as any other.
Because each person is uniquely in the best position to take care of themselves in the first place. Barring examples of people with extreme disabilities or what not. Also, because like I said, while I can understand that quantitatively, one life is one life, and that the value of being one life would be the same for any one life, I also understand that I have a qualitative connection with this one that’s mine that may not be as perfectly explainable as you might like.
What can I do if I have quantitative connection with that one that’s yours that may not be as perfectly explainable as I might like?
If you have the chance to likely save several people from harm in the long run by staying in a certain location, but through doing that you will be considered disgraced, do you take the time to pack two suitcases or one?