john eden
male pale and stale
A kick in the head or a kick in the balls.
10,001 dead kittens or personally killing 10,000 kittens yourself.
The Chilcot Inquiry
- Thread starter luka
- Start date
A kick in the head or a kick in the balls.
10,001 dead kittens or personally killing 10,000 kittens yourself.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Balls, a kick to the head could result in far more severe consequences.
john eden
male pale and stale
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
That argument applies equally to the idea that Iraq 'might' have been better off if we hadn’t invaded.
‘What might happen’ is implicit in everything in which multiple, mutually exclusive options are presented. In other words it’s ontologically impossible to see how varying, mutually exclusive options play out and base a decision on that. We use likelihoods to help us make decisions.
So your argument here is “logically bankrupt”.
Sadam may well have died or become incapacitated, in which case we have to look at 1) how likely that was and 2) what effect that would have had on whether there was a Syrian-style conflict in Iraq (after all, Hafez pegged it).
Are you suggesting a Syrian-style conflict in Iraq was as unlikely as these things?
Last edited:
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Still waiting on a reply to this
Sorry, thought that one was to John. I’d contain the disease.
I’m surprised this is so controversial; it’s worse if more bad things happen. I thought that was pretty elementary morality.
Just to put this to bed I think:
100,000 people being killed is worse that 99,999 people being killed.
88 children getting run over is worse than 87 children getting run over
1 million and 1 kittens being killed is worse that 1 million kittens being killed
Etc.
Morally you should make more good things happen and less bad things happen.
You are... (drum roll)
...Fidel Castro! You just introduced mandatory testing for HIV and imprisoned everyone who tested positive along with (depending on who you believe) a sizable portion of the homosexual population of Cuba.
Can we do another one?
You are the leader of a huge, primarily agrarian country on the cusp of modernisation. In order to feed a growing population and avoid widespread starvation you must rapidly introduce agricultural reforms - despite the fact that this might result in localised famine.
What do you do?
...Fidel Castro! You just introduced mandatory testing for HIV and imprisoned everyone who tested positive along with (depending on who you believe) a sizable portion of the homosexual population of Cuba.
Can we do another one?
You are the leader of a huge, primarily agrarian country on the cusp of modernisation. In order to feed a growing population and avoid widespread starvation you must rapidly introduce agricultural reforms - despite the fact that this might result in localised famine.
What do you do?
One point I havent addressed is the binary nature of Blair's argument and your thought experiment.
In the real world there are more than two choices. You walk out of the room containing 10,000 cats and force the person threatening to kill them to stop. You free all the cats. You implement legislation to ensure 20,001 cats can never be collected in one place again.
It was not a choice between war and nothing.
In the real world there are more than two choices. You walk out of the room containing 10,000 cats and force the person threatening to kill them to stop. You free all the cats. You implement legislation to ensure 20,001 cats can never be collected in one place again.
It was not a choice between war and nothing.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
That’s more than a little unfair. You didn't ask me about the Cuban case, you were giving me an abstract example which left out a myriad of variables. So of course I reject the comparison.
That being said, that was also hilarious. Hats off to you.
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
This is a much more valid argument, I’ll respond tomorrow (I don’t want to keep myself up with this stuff).
I just cant believe you didnt see it coming.
The answer to the second one is that you are Mao and you've just killed approx 30 million people (except Mao had no idea it would happen).
The subtext is - moral utilitarianism is bunk.
Heres something interesting. Over the years Ive done every experiment here half a dozen times: http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/
When you repeatedly answer neutrally they penalise you and fuck with your score - pretty instructive.
baboon2004
Darned cockwombles.
What if that extra person is Blair in late 2002?
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
I suspected that second one was the Great Leap Forward, which I know more about than the Cuban case. Your question was a complete mischaracterisation of what happened in China. Your questions leave out so many variables and are reduced to such simple moral decisions that they render the historical comparison meaningless. So I don't accept that they disprove utilitarianism.
Ok, so what you're saying is, that in the real world that there are so many variables that simple moral decisions just... don't exist? That, in reality, things are so complex that these comparisons simply dont work?
Thats what youre saying right?
Right?
sadmanbarty
Well-known member
Yep.
These simple moral questions are useful for people to determine their principles, but you will rarely find simple moral decisions in the real world. You can apply the morals you've learned from these thought experiments to real world situations, though the choices in the real world are far more convoluted.