Thought Experiment: Objective Vs. Subjective Values

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Thought Experiment: Objective Vs. Subjective Values

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

RobertH
 
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 10:28 pm
This is a classic scenario about which I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts.

A soldier is ordered to rape and kill a civilian. He thinks long and hard about his predicament. Intuitively he knows that the acts required of him are vile and unforgivable, but if he refuses he will be killed and another person will be sent who will undoubtedly be far more brutal than he could ever be. He narrows down his choices: Either refuse on the basis of an inherently wrong act never being justifiable, or lessen the suffering of the woman and extend his own life. In other words, adhere to a set of objective values, or subscribe to a subjective set whereby the ends justify the means.

This soldier decides to rape and kill the civilian himself, reasoning that he will make it more tolerable than another soldier would, and will save himself in the process. But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

By the way, this thought experiment is paraphrased from Julian Baggini's The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 01:14 am
@RobertH,
This man is not taking the best course of action. He is doing something terribly wrong. Objectively and subjectively. He is acting under the hypothesis that IF he undertakes act A, THEN B will happen. He does not know this for sure. In all likelyhood a commander giving such an order willhave the soldier executing the order killed after the fact.

Anyway, try to think of this as two seperate cases:
1) The soldier deciding what act to make.
2) The Commander deciding what act to make.

In situation 1 it is clear that the act to be undertaken is morally wrong because of the fact that nobody would will this happen to him- or herself. The consequences of not undertaking the act are irrelevant for that. If one would change one's behavior because of certain consequences, that would merely prove corruption.
The commander however is morally wrong for giving the order and for trying to corrupt the person executing the action.

In other words:

The soldier is making the worst possible choice in going along with his commander.

Further:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 01:21 am
@Arjen,
RobertH,

Can he not kill the those who ordered him to rape and kill the civilian? Even if he died in the attempt, this would seem the better way to go.

iconoclast.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 07:36 am
@iconoclast,
The threat of death very well may not be a real threat. The officer may be treating death to influence the soldier into doing the dirty work, and avoiding having to find someone else or do it himself.

The situation is much more complicated than what is represented, thus, it is a rather flawed though experiment. As Iconoclast pointed out, the soldier could kill the immoral officers, or the soldier could go AWOL. The soldier could also go above the officers to their superiors about the situation. In the end, that probably proves to be the most morally sound decision that the soldier could make.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 08:05 am
@RobertH,
RobertH wrote:

This soldier decides to rape and kill the civilian himself, reasoning that he will make it more tolerable than another soldier would, and will save himself in the process. But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

By the way, this thought experiment is paraphrased from Julian Baggini's The Pig that Wants to Be Eaten.


Because he is choosing the better of two evils?
 
Deftil
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 09:15 am
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
This man is not taking the best course of action. He is doing something terribly wrong. Objectively and subjectively. He is acting under the hypothesis that IF he undertakes act A, THEN B will happen. He does not know this for sure. In all likelyhood a commander giving such an order willhave the soldier executing the order killed after the fact.

Anyway, try to think of this as two seperate cases:
1) The soldier deciding what act to make.
2) The Commander deciding what act to make.

In situation 1 it is clear that the act to be undertaken is morally wrong because of the fact that nobody would will this happen to him- or herself. The consequences of not undertaking the act are irrelevant for that. If one would change one's behavior because of certain consequences, that would merely prove corruption.
The commander however is morally wrong for giving the order and for trying to corrupt the person executing the action.

In other words:

The soldier is making the worst possible choice in going along with his commander.

Further:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.


Robert has only said what the soldier has elected to do in this thought experiment and not necessarily what course of action Baggini would advocate in such a scenario. Not to mention how subjective most, if not all, ethical judgements are.

Might it be that your appraisal of Baggini is a bit rash? I mean the man does have a Ph.D in philosophy from one of the UK's leading universties.
Quote:

Julian Baggini (born 1968) is a British philosopher and the author of numerous books about philosophy written for a general audience. He is the author of The Pig that Wants to be Eaten and 99 other thought experiments (2005) and is co-founder and editor of The Philosophers' Magazine. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 1996 from University College London for a thesis on the philosophy of personal identity. In addition to his popular philosophy books, Baggini contributes to The Guardian, The Independent, The Observer, and the BBC. He has been a regular guest on BBC Radio 4's In Our Time.

Julian Baggini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 09:27 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy,

I agree that he would be choosing the lesser of two evils - but not acting for the greater good. The lesser of two evils is the best that can be achieved if self-preservation is assumed to be an imperative.

If he thinks...

Quote:
the acts required of him are vile and unforgivable


... faced with becoming a rapist/murderer under threat of death, or being killed for disobedience - I think, rationally, he has to recognize the threat to self as ruinous either way, and fight. If everyone thought like this, authorities wouldn't be able to order people to do vile and unforgivable things.

iconoclast.
 
RobertH
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 10:38 am
@iconoclast,
kennethamy and Arjen,

I apologize if this was unclear--the purpose of this kind of scenario is to face the moral issue head on. We can pretty much always disburden responsibilities and think our way out of situations. It's not terribly hard to do when anything is a possibility. We know that the commander is clearly deranged. But supposing that the soldier was only able to choose between the two options?

I wonder what Kant would say. There cannot be conflicting duties for Kant. For him we have a duty to preserve ourselves (this is why suicide is immoral), does this make the subsequent actions of the soldier amoral? This may sound like a ridiculous line of questioning but it has an interesting background... Kant talked about a fictional man who was hiding Jews in his home during WWII. He was asked by Nazis if he was hiding any Jews in his house. Lie or tell the truth? Kant said that the man's duty was to the truth and that could not be compromised by the situation. So if we're looking at this through a Kantian lens then we need to figure out where our duty lies. I'm not entirely sure where Kant would go from here, but I'd welcome someone more knowledgeable on the subject to continue or point out any errors I've made.

But getting back to the soldier... He can only control his actions, i.e., he is only responsible for what he does and not the actions of another. So rape and kill or refuse to rape and kill? Given these choices the moral route seems pretty obvious. I don't identify as a consequentialist so I think that the moral route is refusal. Still, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth... Given the scenario the woman is going to suffer more and the soldier is going to die if he refuses. As always I have more questions than answers!

Bob
 
Arjen
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 11:24 am
@Deftil,
Deftil wrote:
Robert has only said what the soldier has elected to do in this thought experiment and not necessarily what course of action Baggini would advocate in such a scenario. Not to mention how subjective most, if not all, ethical judgements are.

Might it be that your appraisal of Baggini is a bit rash? I mean the man does have a Ph.D in philosophy from one of the UK's leading universties.

Julian Baggini - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think you are rash in your judgement yourself. Did the opening post not say:
Quote:

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

Which is a statement on the judgement of the action by said Julian Baggini, or so it is presented. If indeed this is a judgement of said Julian Baggini:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.

Further:

If I could make it so, I'd take away his Ph. D.


@ Bob,

I sure hope you are not serious in stating that you do not know how to behave in such a situation. If that is your resolve, then you are really saying that you have been corrupted to the point of neglecting your duties towards the moral law under the hypothesis of a (very hypothetical) personal gain. If indeed this puzzles you, how do you cope with the knowledge that the buying of certain (somewhat cheaper) products means starvation in other parts of the world?
 
RobertH
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 11:52 am
@Arjen,
Arjen,

First of all, you're making a judgment about someone you clearly know nothing about. All that Baggini does in his book is offer situations for people to think about. He makes no judgments, he only plays devil's advocate. With all due respect, I think you're way off-base in your desire to take away a man's doctorate without any kind of investigation into his work. Furthermore, Baggini really has nothing to do with my post, I just wanted to cite my source. In the scenario the soldier does something and we have the opportunity to think about it. It is the soldier that makes the judgments in this scenario, not Baggini, not me. The soldier.

I have no doubt in my mind that I would personally refuse to rape and kill. However, I thought that we might be able to discuss the issues involved in the experiment. Also, why is it that you suggest that I read Kant, but when I offer a point of disconnect in Kant's work you completely ignore it?

Bob
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 11:55 am
@RobertH,
RobertH wrote:
I don't identify as a consequentialist so I think that the moral route is refusal. Still, I'm left with a bitter taste in my mouth... Given the scenario the woman is going to suffer more and the soldier is going to die if he refuses.


... refusal also seems to be the route of hope in this "rock and a hard place" scenario ... the soldier can at least hope that he's wrong in his assessment of his fellow soldiers and that his refusal will evoke support from them and save both his life and the life of the woman by forcing the superior to back down; he can at least hope that his death will set a moral precedent and that the next soldier ordered to perform this awful duty will also refuse, and the next, and the next, and the next ...
 
de budding
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 12:07 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen don't be so hasty, it is a 'pop' philosophy book, and one I like most of- http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/general-discussion/1389-moon-made-cheese-proof.html
The man had to devise 100 thought experiments to cater for laymen such as my self Razz
Also his book Do You Think What You Think You Think? is pretty good, I enjoyed it.

Dan.
 
RobertH
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 12:21 pm
@paulhanke,
paulhanke,

I think you're absolutely right; we can hope that what we do is an example that others will follow, and this might make the refusal easier. But . . .

I didn't want to mention my original motive for posting this scenario because I didn't want to bring real life examples into a theoretical problem--real life always complicates things. Anyways, one of the books I'm currently reading is We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families by Gourevitch. It's about the Rwandan genocide in the 90s. In this war many many people did just what the soldier is considering doing, and they rationalized it in exactly the same way. And there were others who did what I hope I would have the courage to do--refuse. All who refused were killed without question. But hope and a belief in objective right was enough to sustain them, to give them the courage to refuse.

My only concern is that I'm picking and choosing what's right. There's an inconsistency here--I believe in relieving suffering and preserving lives, but I also believe that raping and murdering are wrong. The preservation of all of these values is impossible in this scenario. Is there no right action, just a better action?

Bob
 
paulhanke
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 12:40 pm
@RobertH,
RobertH wrote:
Is there no right action, just a better action?


... or maybe just a hopeful action? ... to step outside of pure logic for a moment, why should hope be such an influential and sustaining element of human being? ... that is, if we allow that human being evolved, doesn't that imply that hope evolved? ... and to what purpose? - perhaps to allow us to undespairingly move forward and take action in cases when we can find no right action?
 
iconoclast
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 01:01 pm
@paulhanke,
RobertH,

My problem with this:

Quote:
But getting back to the soldier... He can only control his actions, i.e., he is only responsible for what he does and not the actions of another. So rape and kill or refuse to rape and kill? Given these choices the moral route seems pretty obvious.


...is that the choice is then going to be criticised on the basis of a morality described by the full range of human actions. It's like teaching someone to drive in an automatic, and then failing them on a test in a manual. It's a double standard. It's okay if it's philosophical parlour game stuff, but as Arjen suggests, this Bagginni chap is way beneath Kant and Nietzsche.

iconoclast.
 
Deftil
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 01:31 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen wrote:
I think you are rash in your judgement yourself. Did the opening post not say:

Which is a statement on the judgement of the action by said Julian Baggini, or so it is presented. If indeed this is a judgement of said Julian Baggini:


I am surprised this has you so confused. The moral dilemma is presented for the reader to consider. Baggini is pointing out that the soldier chose the option that is the lesser of 2 evils (because either way the woman gets raped and killed, but if the soldier does it, he does not die as well) yet has still done something horrible. This seeming paradox is what the thought experiment is designed to get the reader to consider. In what has been posted by Robert, Baggini does not answer the question he presents to the reader.
I'm not sure that everyone is understanding the point of thought experiments of this nature.

Arjen wrote:
Further:

If I could make it so, I'd take away his Ph. D.


Reread what you just wrote. If you don't realize that you are being hasty in your judgement then there's nothing left to be said. I suppose we are all lucky that you're not in a positon to remove people's academic qualifications (which I can only assume are much greater than your own) based on snap judgements and misunderstandings of fairly straightforward thought experiments.
 
Arjen
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 02:39 pm
@RobertH,
@ RobertH

RobertH wrote:

First of all, you're making a judgment about someone you clearly know nothing about. All that Baggini does in his book is offer situations for people to think about. He makes no judgments, he only plays devil's advocate. With all due respect, I think you're way off-base in your desire to take away a man's doctorate without any kind of investigation into his work. Furthermore, Baggini really has nothing to do with my post, I just wanted to cite my source. In the scenario the soldier does something and we have the opportunity to think about it. It is the soldier that makes the judgments in this scenario, not Baggini, not me. The soldier.

No, I was making a judgement about the person who stated that it was (quote) 'the best of two evils'. It is cited as though it was Baggini. If indeed it was, then my judgement was on him. If it was not, then I should offer my apologies, and rephrase.

Query:

Who made that statement?

Quote:

I have no doubt in my mind that I would personally refuse to rape and kill. However, I thought that we might be able to discuss the issues involved in the experiment. Also, why is it that you suggest that I read Kant, but when I offer a point of disconnect in Kant's work you completely ignore it?

I ignored the remark for several reasons. The primary reason is that it is a classical and untrue statement, designed to upset and unsettle deontologists (which effect it will have on fresh or insecure deontologists) in a way which is unethical because of the fact that it is a disruption with a petitio in it, and any respons to it would induce it, unless one has had time to understand the question in a real manner, which often is absent in a public debate.

A direct answer:

Nor Kant, nor any deontologist would ever tell a nazi where Jews were hiding, acting under the maxim that, if one was a Jew him- or herself, that person would want to remain hidden as well.

The example of not telling a lie was made by Kant to make a point and to make clear what he ment: Acting under the maxim that one does not like being lied to should lead to not willing to lie.

The question is a question which only applies to teleologists seeing as they wield 'goals'. The question can only be asked by a teleologist because it is about 'goals' and the question was asked by a teleologist with the 'goal' to upset or unsettle the other party in the discussion to prove the 'ethical' (in the narrow sense) superiority of the teleologist. In reality it proves the corruption of the teleologist and thereby the unethical (in the narrow sense) qualities of the teleologist in question.

To bounce back the ball I'd like to ask why you create a discussion on the 'ethical' (in the wide sense) views of a man, but completely ignore the one remark in the entire topic which is directly aimed at the man himself and the remarks in the topic addressing the situation accurately in saying that the soldier is making the worst possible decision.



@ Deftil,

Again, I think you are the one being rash for the above reasons. If indeed you would like to discuss the 'ethical' (in the wide sense) qualities of this man and why I think I am not rash, then make your case. I have made mine. You only claim that I am rash without backing it up. As I stated before:

I think you are rash in your judgement yourself. Did the opening post not say:

Quote:

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

If indeed this is Baggini, then I know exactly what he is about and why his Ph D should be taken away.

Reread what you just wrote. If you don't realize that you are being hasty in your judgement then there's nothing left to be said.


@ De Budding:

I have very carefully weighed my words.
 
RobertH
 
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 10:36 pm
@Arjen,
Arjen,

It's unfortunate that this thread has seemed to degenerate into squabble. I didn't think that the language I used was terribly confusing, but I'll be sure to make everything explicit in the future. What's even more unfortunate is that you feel that I had the intent to deceive and unnerve you. I ended my brief talk about Kant by explaining that if anyone could point out any errors I've made to please do so--and I meant it. I'm not here to simply win arguments, feel superior to others, and talk down to people. I'm here to hopefully learn and improve myself.

Obviously I don't feel that I've ignored a key remark. I thought the language was reasonably straightforward and that people would easily grasp the point of the experiment. Alas, no. We're arguing about things that I have no interest in, and defending myself from misunderstandings every post is exhausting. If these misunderstanding are solely my fault I apologize and, as I said, will make everything explicit in future posts.

paulhanke,

I think I see what you're saying. Hope is a tool that we can use to help us endure difficult choices. It's maleable to the point that it adapts to our needs. Great observation! It offers an interesting perspective on the scenario.

Deftil,

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. I'm glad that you understand the point of my original post.

Bob
 
Arjen
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 05:14 am
@RobertH,
RobertH wrote:

It's unfortunate that this thread has seemed to degenerate into squabble. I didn't think that the language I used was terribly confusing, but I'll be sure to make everything explicit in the future.

I think you were explicit enough. The problem is that you are not willing to discuss the ethics involved in your own opening post. What you want is a confirmation of your own assumptions, leading to a circulatory argument, and then use it as 'proof' so you can act in a way your ego wishes you to act and claim it is 'good'. Or am I mistaken and you really do want to discuss the ethics involved in your opening post?

Quote:

What's even more unfortunate is that you feel that I had the intent to deceive and unnerve you.

I made the remark because because the question was originally asked with the intent I described. I, indeed, think you did it with the same intent because of the fact that it makes no sense and has no bearing on deontology, but on teleology. This is public knowledge, an investigation of the wikipedia page might enlighten you. I have quoted some parts below. If you are denying that you made the remark to upset and unsettle me or any other reader, are you then admitting that you have no knowledge in the field of ethics, which you claim to have got by reading this Baggini?

Quote:

I ended my brief talk about Kant by explaining that if anyone could point out any errors I've made to please do so--and I meant it. I'm not here to simply win arguments, feel superior to others, and talk down to people. I'm here to hopefully learn and improve myself.

If indeed you wish to 'improve yourself', as you say, are you willing to discuss the ethical topics as raised in this topic, instead of ignore them, deny their meaning or state that they are (quote) squabbels?

Quote:

Obviously I don't feel that I've ignored a key remark. I thought the language was reasonably straightforward and that people would easily grasp the point of the experiment. Alas, no. We're arguing about things that I have no interest in, and defending myself from misunderstandings every post is exhausting. If these misunderstanding are solely my fault I apologize and, as I said, will make everything explicit in future posts.

I think that the 'problem' is that I have grasped the point of the experiment, but that you haven't. I am very serious in this and I hope you will change your mind and will start discussing it in a real, and not self-confirmatory, manner.

Contrary to my usual behavior I will also comment on remarks made to other members.

Quote:

I think I see what you're saying. Hope is a tool that we can use to help us endure difficult choices. It's maleable to the point that it adapts to our needs. Great observation! It offers an interesting perspective on the scenario.

Hope is a way of decieving ourselves into denying reality and believeing what we want. It is used to make docile entire populations and to enslave all of humanity. Please, do not fear, nor hope. Both have the same effect: un-consciousness. Consciousness itself is the only way one will ever be able to make ethical judgements and not be decieved......to look not at the act itself, but at what comes after the act and then call the act 'good' because the effect was to your liking for instance...

Do not be decieved and do not decieve yourself!

Quote:

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. I'm glad that you understand the point of my original post.

I do not think that you have understood yourself, nor your quote. Please refrain from making such judgements untill after an examination of the ethical questions at hand.

[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative]Categorical imperative (deontology)[/url] wrote:


Deception
Further information: Doctrine of mental reservation Kant asserted that lying, or deception of any kind, would be forbidden under any interpretation and in any circumstance. In Groundwork, Kant gives the example of a person who seeks to borrow money without intending to pay it back. This is a contradiction because if it were a universal action, no person would lend money anymore as they know they will never be paid back. The maxim of this action, says Kant, results in a contradiction in conceivability (and thus contradicts perfect duty). With lying, it would logically contradict the reliability of language. If it is universally acceptable to lie, then no one would believe anyone and all truths would be assumed to be lies. The right to deceive could also not be claimed because it would deny the status of the person deceived as an end in himself. And the theft would be incompatible with a possible kingdom of ends. Therefore, Kant denied the right to lie or deceive for any reason, regardless of context or anticipated consequences.


[URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_imperative]Hypothetical Imperative[/url] wrote:

A hypothetical imperative, originally introduced in the philosophical writings of Immanuel Kant, is a commandment of reason that applies only conditionally: if A, then B, where A is a condition or goal, and B is an action. Then "A" would be a reaction of action "B". For example, if you wish to remain healthy, then you should not eat spoiled food. Thus, a hypothetical imperative is not justified in itself, but as a means to an end; whether it is in force as a command depends on whether the end it helps attain is desired (or required). The opposite of a hypothetical imperative is a categorical imperative, which is unconditional and an end in itself.
Kant divides hypothetical imperatives into two subcategories: the rules of skill and the councils of prudence. The rules of skill are conditional and are specific to each and every person to which the skill is mandated by. The councils of prudence (or rules of prudence) are attained a priori (unlike the rules of skill which are attained via experience, or a posteriori) and have universal goals such as happiness. Thus, almost any moral "rule" about how to act is hypothetical, because it assumes that your goal is to be moral, or to be happy, or to please God, etc. The only non-hypothetical imperatives are ones which tell you to do something no matter who you are or what you want, because the thing is good in itself.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Allright, if indeed you are willing to discuss ethical issues, and most importantly, the ethical issues as surfaced in this topic, I hope we can step away from the impasse you seem to percieve and start anew.

In my opinion the ethical issues of this topic are:

1) What is teleology and what is deontology?
2) What are the hypothetical and categorical imperatives?
3) What was ment with the (historical) comment on deontology:
Quote:

This may sound like a ridiculous line of questioning but it has an interesting background... Kant talked about a fictional man who was hiding Jews in his home during WWII.

I have consiously dropped the other comment on Kant. If you want you can take that example. It boils down to the same thing though. The (ethical) example I did go into is very well documented on the internet and will, as a result of that, be much easier to discuss. It also takes less knowledge of other ethical works to understand.
4) Why is the remark (as stated by question (3)) off the mark and concerning teleology?
5) What did Baggini mean with his statement:
Quote:

But how is it that he is taking the best course of action and doing something terribly wrong?

6) Why is that statement so misleading in any ethical consideration that it causes me to exclaim:
Quote:

In other words:

The soldier is making the worst possible choice in going along with his commander.

Further:

I'd throw out the work of Julian Baggini because he obviously is morally not so well versed. If I may make some suggestions, try Immanuel Kant or Friedrich Nietzsche.





If you understand where I am leading you with 1-4, you might skip those and go straight to 5 and 6. I think the 'problem' lies in 1 and 2 though: the definitions.

PM sent to clarify my intent in the sense that I am trying not to squabble, but am merely very upset over the presentation of ethics in this topic.
 
Deftil
 
Reply Thu 28 Aug, 2008 09:53 am
@RobertH,
RobertH;22951 wrote:

Deftil,

Thought I was going crazy there for a minute. I'm glad that you understand the point of my original post.

Bob


Well Bob, much more of this and we may very well go crazy.

Check your PMs Smile
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Thought Experiment: Objective Vs. Subjective Values
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/23/2024 at 01:31:46