First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Philosophy Questions Thread
1581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / the corner of you...
Offline
Posted 6/29/07
sure...i think time travel is possible to..but the universe could be destroyed if used to change something..and your presence there is also a change...so you'd have to be pretty much invisible and indifferent for time travel to work
Posted 6/29/07
The driver is responsible if he is willing to aid the bank robber in his crimes. Now if he is forced to do it then the courts will see it as a hostage situation. Even if he willingly helps and doesn't receive money he is still part of the crime. XDXDXD

Edit: Heaven is a place where you have no worries and live an after life of peace. Hell is a place where the "sinned" are sent to suffer and live an after life of misery. Can you truly be happy in Heaven and at peace if you know a loved one is suffering in Hell? So to put it bluntly, there is no Heaven if there is a Hell. XDXDXD
279 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M / get off my balls
Offline
Posted 6/29/07

skygod333 wrote:


JiroHasUglyHair wrote:


BasuoKazama wrote:

While the second person only cares about their own well being and has no backbone to stand up for what is 'right'.



hmm i'd like to see you with a gun in your face "standing up for what is right". thing is people say all this shit like "why didn't he just say no?" or some BS like that but when the time comes that person will give in too



i dont think you could stand up for what you believe in in that situation so shut up. As much as i despise and loath basou, i cant let you go unchallenged. you couldnt do it either. i know since youre challenging him, you must be doing it to make yourself feel better about not having the kind of steel in your gut for that and to do that you put someone else down. I however know i could since being shot would only make me happy, bonnified and glorified.


rofl. wtf? where, please tell me, do i imply or say that i would stand up to a gun in my face? i was talking to basuo because he was acting all high and mighty about cowardice when he clearly has no idea what a driver in that situation was facing. i'll admit it right here bitch. i would fucking do whatever the guy with the gun in my face tells me to do. you can say i have no steel in my gut but i really couldnt give a shit what some fucktard on the internet says, especially if he himself believes he can stick up "for the right thing" fucking hypocrite

lulz. have a happy, bonnified, glorified death with half of your head blown off then.
496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Alpena, MI
Offline
Posted 6/29/07
this is not a philosophical question, this is a legal question. and as a former police officer, i will answer this question.

AT BEST, the driver will be considered an accessory, but usually will be tried the same as the bank robber themselves. that is your answer.
78167 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Japan
Offline
Posted 6/30/07
Ugh... many of the recent questions are not philosophical questions...

I'll give a classic Moral situation as described by Williams (forgot the name of the text). Basically, this situation was entitled Jim, the Botanist.

Imagine you are Jim, a Botanist who lived during the time of the Brittish colonization of South Africa. You go there on a scientific investigation to study the local flora. Upon arriving, you find yourself in a local village where the constabulary is set up with a firing squad, ready to execute 10 natives. You ask one of the officers the meaning of the execution, and he explains that an uprising occured the previous night. In order to deal with the rebels, they decided to execute these 10 men as an example for anyone who wishes to oppose the government.

After some time, the officers begins to question you and finds that you had just arrived from the mainland, and he further explains to you that it is custom for visitors from the mainland to execute one of the men of their choice among those to be executed, after which, the remaining men would be released. If you refuse, they'll continue with the execution as planned.

So the moral dilemma in this case is whether or not you'll kill in order to save lives, or wash your hands of the guilt and have them kill 10 men.

For some people, the answer may be obvious, but I advise people to view the situation with an understanding of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and perhaps the Utilitarian perspectives of Miller.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 6/30/07
if you smacked a kid in the face with a bottle of johnson's no more tears, would it create beautiful irony...?
308 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Canada
Offline
Posted 6/30/07

EvenGodDoesntKnow wrote:

Edit: Heaven is a place where you have no worries and live an after life of peace. Hell is a place where the "sinned" are sent to suffer and live an after life of misery. Can you truly be happy in Heaven and at peace if you know a loved one is suffering in Hell? So to put it bluntly, there is no Heaven if there is a Hell. XDXDXD


If someone you love dies, do you suffer for the rest of your life because they're gone? No, most people forget about them and move on and other people fulfill the place of that loved one. It's only when one directly focuses on the fact that that person is gone that people 'suffer' from others absence.

I believe in different degrees of heaven, ie. attainable happiness and glory, ranging from the full joy of God, to the smallest amount of joy possible. People will end up where they are most comfortable due to the choices they made in this life. Someone in the highest degree of heaven could take solace in the fact that while seperated (though I believe that you can travel down degrees for breif visits, but not up) they are where they are most comfortable. It would be a rarity in this case to find someone who chose no joy at all. I also don't beleive that heaven absolves you from sadness, sorrow, worry and concern. Even God feels sorrow for us when we fail ourselves, and he is the ideal that man seeks after; he lives in the highest degree of heaven.

358 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Phlippines
Offline
Posted 6/30/07
that would depend on the size of the bottle and i think the kid would not cry because it's a johnson's "no more tears" and yes that would create a very beautiful irony.
11277 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Iloilo City, PH
Offline
Posted 6/30/07
darn i wish i had little brother to try it on...
Posted 6/30/07

JiroHasUglyHair wrote:


skygod333 wrote:


JiroHasUglyHair wrote:


BasuoKazama wrote:

While the second person only cares about their own well being and has no backbone to stand up for what is 'right'.



hmm i'd like to see you with a gun in your face "standing up for what is right". thing is people say all this shit like "why didn't he just say no?" or some BS like that but when the time comes that person will give in too



i dont think you could stand up for what you believe in in that situation so shut up. As much as i despise and loath basou, i cant let you go unchallenged. you couldnt do it either. i know since youre challenging him, you must be doing it to make yourself feel better about not having the kind of steel in your gut for that and to do that you put someone else down. I however know i could since being shot would only make me happy, bonnified and glorified.


rofl. wtf? where, please tell me, do i imply or say that i would stand up to a gun in my face? i was talking to basuo because he was acting all high and mighty about cowardice when he clearly has no idea what a driver in that situation was facing. i'll admit it right here bitch. i would fucking do whatever the guy with the gun in my face tells me to do. you can say i have no steel in my gut but i really couldnt give a shit what some fucktard on the internet says, especially if he himself believes he can stick up "for the right thing" fucking hypocrite

lulz. have a happy, bonnified, glorified death with half of your head blown off then.


well im fighting you so thats the right thing, you little coward. and i will enjoy my death. you and i are different. you are afraid of dying and i am not. that makes you weak. and i have stuck up for the right things many times when the odds are against me. you want some examples?
42015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / F / Fort Meade, MD
Offline
Posted 7/6/07

edsamac wrote:

Ugh... many of the recent questions are not philosophical questions...

I'll give a classic Moral situation as described by Williams (forgot the name of the text). Basically, this situation was entitled Jim, the Botanist.

Imagine you are Jim, a Botanist who lived during the time of the Brittish colonization of South Africa. You go there on a scientific investigation to study the local flora. Upon arriving, you find yourself in a local village where the constabulary is set up with a firing squad, ready to execute 10 natives. You ask one of the officers the meaning of the execution, and he explains that an uprising occured the previous night. In order to deal with the rebels, they decided to execute these 10 men as an example for anyone who wishes to oppose the government.

After some time, the officers begins to question you and finds that you had just arrived from the mainland, and he further explains to you that it is custom for visitors from the mainland to execute one of the men of their choice among those to be executed, after which, the remaining men would be released. If you refuse, they'll continue with the execution as planned.

So the moral dilemma in this case is whether or not you'll kill in order to save lives, or wash your hands of the guilt and have them kill 10 men.

For some people, the answer may be obvious, but I advise people to view the situation with an understanding of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and perhaps the Utilitarian perspectives of Miller.




Hmm... the ramifications of this dilema (sp) is very interesting.
On the one hand, if you shoot one of the prisoners, which prisoner do you chose? whose life do you end, to allow the others freedom? Do they really even deserve freedom? What if you chose incorrectly and kill the only innocent one?
Suppose you chose one at random, and you kill that person, you are left with the guilt of killing that person for the rest of your life, not ever knowing what they could have been, who loved them, etc. etc.

On the other hand, If you just walk away, then you also have to live with the guilt of
the TEN prisoners on your hands, when you COULD have saved 9 of them.

This is a difficult one.

I personally would choose to kill one. I could live with the guilt on one life on my hands as opposed to the lives of ten. Simply because then at least those 9 remaining survivors would have a chance at something in their lives.

Hell, they might even become the next einstien.. but then again, i could have just shot the next einstein.

6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/6/07
meh another means vs ends thing. Before I comment I'll mention that I doubt moral choices are diffrent than any other kind of choices, so you can probably guess which way I'll go.

Speaking very generally I'd probably choose to kill the one. But, there are a number of practical measures I would take beforehand. See if it could be avoided, see if I can talk to the people, etc.
6326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Hogwarts
Offline
Posted 7/6/07

Dusterbayala wrote:


edsamac wrote:

Ugh... many of the recent questions are not philosophical questions...

I'll give a classic Moral situation as described by Williams (forgot the name of the text). Basically, this situation was entitled Jim, the Botanist.

Imagine you are Jim, a Botanist who lived during the time of the Brittish colonization of South Africa. You go there on a scientific investigation to study the local flora. Upon arriving, you find yourself in a local village where the constabulary is set up with a firing squad, ready to execute 10 natives. You ask one of the officers the meaning of the execution, and he explains that an uprising occured the previous night. In order to deal with the rebels, they decided to execute these 10 men as an example for anyone who wishes to oppose the government.

After some time, the officers begins to question you and finds that you had just arrived from the mainland, and he further explains to you that it is custom for visitors from the mainland to execute one of the men of their choice among those to be executed, after which, the remaining men would be released. If you refuse, they'll continue with the execution as planned.

So the moral dilemma in this case is whether or not you'll kill in order to save lives, or wash your hands of the guilt and have them kill 10 men.

For some people, the answer may be obvious, but I advise people to view the situation with an understanding of Kant's Categorical Imperative, and perhaps the Utilitarian perspectives of Miller.




Hmm... the ramifications of this dilema (sp) is very interesting.
On the one hand, if you shoot one of the prisoners, which prisoner do you chose? whose life do you end, to allow the others freedom? Do they really even deserve freedom? What if you chose incorrectly and kill the only innocent one?
Suppose you chose one at random, and you kill that person, you are left with the guilt of killing that person for the rest of your life, not ever knowing what they could have been, who loved them, etc. etc.

On the other hand, If you just walk away, then you also have to live with the guilt of
the TEN prisoners on your hands, when you COULD have saved 9 of them.

This is a difficult one.

I personally would choose to kill one. I could live with the guilt on one life on my hands as opposed to the lives of ten. Simply because then at least those 9 remaining survivors would have a chance at something in their lives.

Hell, they might even become the next einstien.. but then again, i could have just shot the next einstein.




umm id prolly just kill the ones whod want the natives to be killed? but then again, who are we to decide..which one to kill?

5943 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
58 / F / Melbourne
Offline
Posted 7/6/07
Re Jim the Botanist: As edsamac said, you are looking here at the principle of utilitarianism, which states that when faced with a choice you should take the action that results in the most benefit for the most people. It was proposed by John Stuart Mill (not Miller). So according to this philosophy Jim should choose one to die. I am not sure I agree with utilitarianism. It falls down in a lot of ways that would be off topic here. It is tempting to say that you should save 9 by killing one, but there are ramifications to whatever you do.

In general, I wouldn't get involved in the legal system of another country. As a visiting botanist, I am an observer and not part of this country. The minute I intervene, even with the best of intentions, I become part of the colonialist attitude. By killing one, I would admit that the colonialists have the right to inflict such punishments. Also, where do you draw the line with this kind of "kill a few to save many" principle? Would you kill 9 to save 10? Would you kill 10 000 to save 1 million? In a lot of cases you can never be sure of the million that you are saving, but you can be sure of the 10 000.

If you feel you have to do something, it is probably best to walk away and then report what you have seen when you get back to your own country.

GANGKUTSU SPOILER: It is a similar, though not quite the same dilemma faced by the protagonist in the anime Gangkutsu, when he has the option of saving one of 3 men from execution. The man who gets saved is likely to go on committing crimes.

Also, would the British really have had a clause like this: We will colonise on our (bloodthirsty, unreasonable) terms except if we have a visitor from the mainland then we will let him/her undermine our authority.
6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 7/6/07
You raise several interesting points, for instance in 9v10 there is no way to quickly calculate the best outcome. I doubt there is any "correct" solution to these kinds of problems, I'm just attempting figuring out what would be the best.

The only thing I disagree with is that by killing one you agree that they have the right to inflict such punishments. I'd say one can despise the situation, but still act within the confines of the situation for the best.

For someone that does not want to get involved in another countries affairs (for whatever reason, though I assumed no negative effects on this account), take the simpler (and even more classic) trolley dilemma from Kant. The trolley is set to run over 5, but you could switch the track so it runs over one. Kant conveniently leaves the solution up to his readers...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.