Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
Obviously you are not aware of what a joke psychological experiments are.
Ot how little the "consensus" of such studies comes to.
As in psych experiments are a joke- you aren't maybe aYou do realize that your BBC counterargument was based on nothing more than a single psychological experiment?
They're pretty much the same thing to me, so kind of. Or more aptly, sometimes.Morally and psychologically?
Your article doesn't say that there's a consensus, no.According to this article the consensus is that there is an innate fear of snakes (which relates to survival and aversion).
So then there is no innate pre-experiential desire for food.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.
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.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.
They're pretty much the same thing to me, so kind of. Or more aptly, sometimes.
Your article doesn't say that there's a consensus, no.
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.
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!Okay...
No, it cites a number of different studies and experts who disagree on whether or not the fear is innate.Well, it cites a number of different studies and experts claiming that the current data points in this direction. Same difference.
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.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.
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.
Families cant indict people with criminal charges.If the family of the deceased got a good lawyer you would be charged for sure.....
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 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.
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!"
No, it cites a number of different studies and experts who disagree on whether or not the fear is innate.
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.
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?
I got it from Norm MacDonald.Ha, I just heard this one (link). Kreeft's delivery was better, though.
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.
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.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'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...Spur of the moment acts are not non-rational.
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 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 for innate fear of snakes, if it were definite and
pronounced (like fear of falling,
The "lever pullers" have two fundamental differences with those who do not in determining the morality of the act: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.
Do babies really have an innate fear of falling?
]
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....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....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?