Why Is This A Problem???

[zippy2006]

Psychological studies and experiments.
The armpit of science.

Here is a counter- article.
When you were a baby, you were not scared of snakes

An acquaintance in the USA told me of teaching at
an Eskimo village in the Alaska arctic.

As science teacher he brought a big snake.

The kids, boys and girls had no fear of it at all.

A little child who saw his mother make that face as per your
article would pick that up fast.
THAT is where instinct is.

Obviously you didn't read the article I posted, which has a much more subtle methodology than the BBC article.

 

[Astrid]

Obviously you didn't read the article I posted, which has a much more subtle methodology than the BBC article.

Obviously you are not aware of what a joke psychological experiments are.
Ot how little the "consensus" of such studies comes to.

 

[zippy2006]

Obviously you are not aware of what a joke psychological experiments are.
Ot how little the "consensus" of such studies comes to.

You do realize that your BBC counterargument was based on nothing more than a single psychological experiment?

 

[Astrid]

You do realize that your BBC counterargument was based on nothing more than a single psychological experiment?

As in psych experiments are a joke- you aren't maybe a
psych grad yourself?
Who else would want to keep sidestepping the issue of
low quality "science" in psych experiments?

I've no interest in playing duelling. websites and
"experiments".

I am just pointing out that your claim has not been demonstrated
to be correct.
But hey, if you wish to insist, do so to the loss of credibility in
anything else you say.

 

[Moral Orel]

Morally and psychologically?

They're pretty much the same thing to me, so kind of. Or more aptly, sometimes.

According to this article the consensus is that there is an innate fear of snakes (which relates to survival and aversion).

Your article doesn't say that there's a consensus, no.

I'm guessing that at an early stage the infant just feels an inchoate discomfort which he is averse to, and then later finds that different stimuli alleviate this discomfort (food or touch or warmth, etc.). Eventually he has to sort out which is which.

So then there is no innate pre-experiential desire for food.

Because pleasure is not a sufficient account of psychological motivation. In the past atheists have submitted to death or torture for non-pleasure goods (such as the safety of their tribe, or whatnot). Not everything we do is motivated by pleasure. When Thomas says that good is what we seek he is including pleasure but also going beyond it, which is perfectly necessary.

You keep just stating the same example of people sacrificing. And I keep saying that they feel good at the same time they feel bad. People, in general, like helping others. You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you give someone a hug when you can tell they really need one? Imagine how much better that feeling is when you're saving a life.

People derive pleasure from doing what they feel is good even if it means sacrificing comfort and feeling bad. Things are bittersweet. That doesn't mean that pleasure is completely absent in your scenarios. It's like you just can't imagine someone feeling any pleasure at all if they're being tortured or killed. But humans are complex creatures. We can multi-task.

 

[zippy2006]

They're pretty much the same thing to me, so kind of. Or more aptly, sometimes.

Okay...

Your article doesn't say that there's a consensus, no.

Well, it cites a number of different studies and experts claiming that the current data points in this direction. Same difference.

You keep just stating the same example of people sacrificing. And I keep saying that they feel good at the same time they feel bad. People, in general, like helping others. You know that warm fuzzy feeling you get when you give someone a hug when you can tell they really need one? Imagine how much better that feeling is when you're saving a life.

People derive pleasure from doing what they feel is good even if it means sacrificing comfort and feeling bad. Things are bittersweet. That doesn't mean that pleasure is completely absent in your scenarios. It's like you just can't imagine someone feeling any pleasure at all if they're being tortured or killed. But humans are complex creatures. We can multi-task.

Nah, this is a strained argument. You’re twisting pleasure to try to account for things that pleasure can’t account for. When someone uses their body as a shield against bullets that would have killed someone else their act is not motivated by pleasure. They know they will be dead in milliseconds. Do you think they were they really pining for that millisecond of pleasure? Acts such as these are obviously not motivated by pleasure. If you think something like that is pleasure-motivated then I’d say your position is strictly unfalsifiable.

 

[Moral Orel]

Okay...

Well, it's useful to speak about broad swaths of people when you're making a probabilistic statement. Most people like sweets, so you probably like sweets. Most people are sad when a family member dies, so you're probably sad when a family member dies. But the individual level isn't less valid just because someone might be strange. Folks aren't "incorrect" to be the way they are if they aren't like most other folk. And hey, that reminds me of a completely off topic joke!

Spoiler: Hilarity Hidden Here

I was outside in my yard the other day and I noticed my new neighbor was outside as well, so I hollered over the fence to introduce myself. I said to the fella, "So what do you do, buddy?" And he says to me, "Well, I work down at the university over there. I'm a professor on logic." So I says to him, "Professor of Logic, huh? What's that all about?" And he says, "Well let me give you an example. I see you got yourself a doghouse there, so I can guess you've got a dog, is that right?" I said, "Yep that's right". He continues, "And if you got yourself a dog you probably got yourself some kids, is that right too?" I said, "It sure is." And he continues, "So if you've got kids, you probably have a wife, is that right as well?" I said, "Wow, yep, that's right too!" And he continues, "And if you've got yourself a wife, then you're a straight male, right?" I said, "I sure am". So he explains, "So you see, simply because I saw that you had a dog house I can deduce your sexuality." I said, "Wow! That's really interesting!"

Well later that day I'm down at the bus stop waiting for a bus and I strike up a conversation with another fella that's waiting too. I said, "I met my new neighbor today. He's a professor of logic down at the university, there. Isn't that interesting?" And this fella I just met says to me, "A professor of logic? What's that all about?" So I says to this fella, "Well it's easier if I give you an example. Do you have a dog?" And he says, "Nope". So I says to him, "Oh, so you must be one of those gays!"

Well, it cites a number of different studies and experts claiming that the current data points in this direction. Same difference.

No, it cites a number of different studies and experts who disagree on whether or not the fear is innate.

Nah, this is a strained argument. You’re twisting pleasure to try to account for things that pleasure can’t account for. When someone uses their body as a shield against bullets that would have killed someone else their act is not motivated by pleasure. They know they will be dead in milliseconds. Do you think they were they really pining for that millisecond of pleasure? Acts such as these are obviously not motivated by pleasure. If you think something like that is pleasure-motivated then I’d say your position is strictly unfalsifiable.

A lot of what we do isn't a conscious decision. A lot of what we do are conditioned responses. A person who jumps in front of a bullet isn't thinking, "It's gonna feel so great when people appreciate me!", no. But they also aren't thinking, "What's the right thing to do in this situation?". Just because humans are capable of reason doesn't mean we're always using it. We're often impulsive.

Same goes for any moral decision we make. Whatever we've been conditioned to feel is good, we're going to do because we expect to feel happy about it. All the times you've helped someone out, and your human empathy kicked in to make you feel the happy feelings (pleasure) you see this person you've helped is feeling, conditions you to like helping folks and makes you more likely to choose to help in the future.

 

[Astrid]

Okay...



Well, it cites a number of different studies and experts claiming that the current data points in this direction. Same difference.




Nah, this is a strained argument. You’re twisting pleasure to try to account for things that pleasure can’t account for. When someone uses their body as a shield against bullets that would have killed someone else their act is not motivated by pleasure. They know they will be dead in milliseconds. Do you think they were they really pining for that millisecond of pleasure? Acts such as these are obviously not motivated by pleasure. If you think something like that is pleasure-motivated then I’d say your position is strictly unfalsifiable.

" Studies that point"
Good enough for the already - convinced to
state their preference as fact.

 

[durangodawood]

If the family of the deceased got a good lawyer you would be charged for sure.....

Families cant indict people with criminal charges.

They can sue in civil court. But thats hardly a guide to whats morally correct or not.... assuming theyd even win.

 

[durangodawood]

....The flight attendant is not choosing to kill anyone to save others. She is merely steering the plane away from people as best she is able. In that scenario it is perfectly possible that no one dies at all, and this is clearly what she is trying to achieve. The logical necessity is very different in these two cases. The flight attendant is realistically able to achieve her aim of saving people without doing things that she knows will kill others.

Its not perfectly possible. As I said, its the persons best judgment that people are going to die either way. The whole area is densely populated, just some parts more than others.

Still, if you cant find the hypothetical plausible, no big deal. The hypothetical is not the primary interest. The real issue is the principle: is it OK to re-direct a deadly peril away from one area and toward a less populated area, where, in your best judgement, it will still be deadly?

 

[zippy2006]

Spoiler: Hilarity Hidden Here

I was outside in my yard the other day and I noticed my new neighbor was outside as well, so I hollered over the fence to introduce myself. I said to the fella, "So what do you do, buddy?" And he says to me, "Well, I work down at the university over there. I'm a professor on logic." So I says to him, "Professor of Logic, huh? What's that all about?" And he says, "Well let me give you an example. I see you got yourself a doghouse there, so I can guess you've got a dog, is that right?" I said, "Yep that's right". He continues, "And if you got yourself a dog you probably got yourself some kids, is that right too?" I said, "It sure is." And he continues, "So if you've got kids, you probably have a wife, is that right as well?" I said, "Wow, yep, that's right too!" And he continues, "And if you've got yourself a wife, then you're a straight male, right?" I said, "I sure am". So he explains, "So you see, simply because I saw that you had a dog house I can deduce your sexuality." I said, "Wow! That's really interesting!"

Well later that day I'm down at the bus stop waiting for a bus and I strike up a conversation with another fella that's waiting too. I said, "I met my new neighbor today. He's a professor of logic down at the university, there. Isn't that interesting?" And this fella I just met says to me, "A professor of logic? What's that all about?" So I says to this fella, "Well it's easier if I give you an example. Do you have a dog?" And he says, "Nope". So I says to him, "Oh, so you must be one of those gays!"

Ha, I just heard this one (link). Kreeft's delivery was better, though.

No, it cites a number of different studies and experts who disagree on whether or not the fear is innate.

The entire article is about how the fear exists, except at the very end a counter-study is cited and talked about. Your description is simply inaccurate. The article is not focused disagreements at all.

A lot of what we do isn't a conscious decision. A lot of what we do are conditioned responses. A person who jumps in front of a bullet isn't thinking, "It's gonna feel so great when people appreciate me!", no. But they also aren't thinking, "What's the right thing to do in this situation?". Just because humans are capable of reason doesn't mean we're always using it. We're often impulsive.

"Everyone acts for pleasure, and when they don't they are being irrational or non-rational." Like I said, unfalsifiable. I'm sure you would say the same thing about the soldier who covers the grenade.

In reality what is happening is that these people are sacrificing themselves for what they consider to be a higher good, namely the lives of others. They are not sacrificing themselves for the sake of pleasure, and their act is not an irrational anomaly. Spur of the moment acts are not non-rational. Most of our actions are not discursively planned. That doesn't mean they aren't rational. And if pleasure really were the sole motive of our actions then spur of the moment acts would also have to be based on pleasure. We wouldn't be able to escape the sole motivation for all actions by acting quickly!

 

[zippy2006]

Its not perfectly possible. As I said, its the persons best judgment that people are going to die either way. The whole area is densely populated, just some parts more than others.

The difference in that scenario is that the means to the desired end does not necessarily involve killing. In the trolley scenario the person must logically intend the death of the one to save the five. In the airplane scenario the logical necessity isn't there. No one is tied down. Planes are mobile and maneuverable. People are mobile. It really is a different example.

I thought it was funny when Ken pointed out that the OP doesn't have the one man being tied down. It's a humorous omission from Wikipedia, but the moral analysis of that scenario is completely different. These details matter.

Still, if you cant find the hypothetical plausible, no big deal. The hypothetical is not the primary interest. The real issue is the principle: is it OK to re-direct a deadly peril away from one area and toward a less populated area, where, in your best judgement, it will still be deadly?

Again, it depends on the scenario, but in general I don't see it as parallel. Much depends on whether double effect legitimately applies, but this is deeply dependent on the logical necessity of the death. Presumably in the cases you have in mind double effect would legitimately apply.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ha, I just heard this one (link). Kreeft's delivery was better, though.

I got it from Norm MacDonald.

The entire article is about how the fear exists, except at the very end a counter-study is cited and talked about. Your description is simply inaccurate. The article is not focused disagreements at all.

From the first study:

Rather than indicating fear in particular, the study says this shows an intense focus.​

A second source cited by the article:

"The current work, and indeed no existing work, has provided evidence that fear of snakes or spiders is innate," said David Rakison, a psychology professor at Carnegie Mellon University who researches early infant development.​

Another study cited by the article:

Not all studies have concluded that fear of spiders and snakes is innate. A paper published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science found that seven-month-old infants noticed images of snakes more quickly but didn't show signs of fear. This indicated children may not have innate fears of these creatures but could identify them more readily.​

There's three different sources cited by your article saying it ain't innate. Your article does not claim consensus.

In reality what is happening is that these people are sacrificing themselves for what they consider to be a higher good, namely the lives of others.

I don't disagree. You haven't offered a counter to what I've said here. People sacrifice themselves for what they consider to be a higher good because they believe it will make them happy since they like the way they feel when they do things they believe are good. That feeling of happiness is a sensation of pleasure. Or they do it because they believe they will be unhappy if they don't. Which again, gives a feeling of relief. To counter my claim you've got to tell me why they do it. Not what they're doing.

Is it just because they believe they ought? Why do they believe that they ought?

Spur of the moment acts are not non-rational.

I'd say they are. If you don't come up with a reason, then you haven't reasoned. Non-rational seems like a good term for something you do without thinking about it. But you're saying that a thing you haven't thought about at all is rational...

 

[durangodawood]

The difference in that scenario is that the means to the desired end does not necessarily involve killing. In the trolley scenario the person must logically intend the death of the one to save the five. In the airplane scenario the logical necessity isn't there. No one is tied down. Planes are mobile and maneuverable. People are mobile. It really is a different example.

I thought it was funny when Ken pointed out that the OP doesn't have the one man being tied down. It's a humorous omission from Wikipedia, but the moral analysis of that scenario is completely different. These details matter.

As I noted, three times now, the problem as formulated in wikip says the lone man will be killed if the trolley goes his way.

As for the plane, a large plane going down in a densely populated is a deadly peril no matter how you slice it. Thats your best judgement in the scenario, as it says, and is a completely sensible way to assess the peril.

Of course there's always a chance the trolley could jump the rails at the last second, or an actual divine miracle could lift the plane so it lands in the sea instead. A gunshot right to the head doesnt always kill a person. You can always sneak a grain doubt into these situations of deadly peril to avoid confronting deontological imperatives while doing utilitarian "dirty work".

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[Astrid]

The prevalence of survivor guilt, the way
wounded soldiers will try to rejoin their
companions despite the pain and terror,
the myriad ways people sacrifice themselves
for others do not seem to me properly
described as being about pleasure seeking.

I think it's a deep deep prehuman instinct. We see
it in all manner of non human creatures. In people,
a failure produces deep shame and guilt. We all know
that will happen.
Shame avoidance is not pleasure seeking!

As for innate fear of snakes, if it were definite and
pronounced (like fear of falling, of loud noises)
there'd be no need for experiments, no disagreement.

Instinctive fear of snakes might be real, but no
reasonably informed person can claim it a demonstrated
fact. To choose articles that support the position,
claim fact and consensus is a bit of a joke, citing
"Sience" to prop up an antiscientific bias.

To me "instinctive snake fear"appears to be one of those "facts" that everyone
knows but don't happen to be true.
Like how you can see the great wall of China
from space.
A demonstration of either would of course
change my mind.

 

[partinobodycular]

As for innate fear of snakes, if it were definite and
pronounced (like fear of falling,

Do babies really have an innate fear of falling?

 

[o_mlly]

As I noted, three times now, the problem as formulated in wikip says the lone man will be killed if the trolley goes his way.

The "lever pullers" have two fundamental differences with those who do not in determining the morality of the act:
1) The "lever pullers" consider the act of actively "killing someone" as morally equivalent with the passive act of "letting someone die". The two acts are not morally equivalent, eg, the five transplant patients in need of organ transplants to live vs. the life of the donor.
2) Claiming first that this general statement to be true ie., "one life is equivalent in value to another", which they have not demonstrated or evidenced proceed to particularly apply the unproven general to the particular 6 lives at risk. In ignorance of the particulars, they presume the authority to take the gravest act a human can do: directly kill an innocent human being.

The airplane "passenger who can steer the plane" dilemma suffers similarly to #2 error. Secondly, the dilemma presumes to deny to the actor the intuitive response, ie., to act with an end-in-view in which no one dies, eg., crash land on a highway. The passenger cannot have certain knowledge that such an act will fail in its end-in-view thus further removing the dilemma from reality.

 

[Astrid]

Do babies really have an innate fear of falling?
]

Ha. Good one. "Fear" sure isn'won't.


Side note. If you pur a water turtle or say a table,
it will crawl right off the edge and go splat.

A land turtle wont.

 

[durangodawood]

...1) The "lever pullers" consider the act of actively "killing someone" as morally equivalent with the passive act of "letting someone die". The two acts are not morally equivalent, eg, the five transplant patients in need of organ transplants to live vs. the life of the donor....

This level puller doesnt consider the act to be actively killing someone. The deadly peril is already built into the situation before it got to you. I would place all blame for fatal outcomes on the trolley operator, or whoever let the thing loose.