The Cave Explorers

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Cave Explorers

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Fri 23 Apr, 2010 12:08 pm
This was an ethical thought experiment I just read the other day which I found to be interesting to think about. I will post it first and then post my comments later.

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions.


Should you blast Big Jack out?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"

Note: For the sake of argument let's assume that there is no third option.

---------- Post added 04-23-2010 at 01:11 PM ----------

First and foremost if the roles were reversed I would certainly let them blast their way out....of course I'd probably have to have them wait practically to the point of drowning until it was certain that no other way could be found and no rescuers would come



As far as the original scenario I firstly think that it is a bit selfish of Big Jack to let us 5 in the cave die. But I suppose not many people ''want'' to die.

Part of me wants to say blast big jack out despite his pleading because I think, 'well the 5 of us in the cave are going to die and there is possibility that Jack will still die if he isn't discovered and if he help is not able to free him and that assumes that help will even get there in time to begin with.'

But part of me wants to say, 'well if big jack is willing to let us die to maybe we should respect his wishes'. And some things are worth dying for. Not to mention explaining what happened would be pretty bad if we killed Jack while he was pleading for his life.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:15 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;155728 wrote:
...
"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, [emphasis added] gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.
...


The answer is simple. The fools who decided that the fat guy should go first all deserve to die for being so incredibly stupid. So everyone should huddle around the dynamite and blow themselves up, along with Big Jack.

Come on, if there is a tiny hole, who is stupid enough to send the fat guy first? Obviously, the smallest person capable should go first, and in order as people get bigger. That way, the smallest person can go get help. And this is so freaking obvious, that I have no sympathy for the morons in your imaginary cave.


Also, your scenario is extremely unrealistic, as the dynamite may very well cause the cave to collapse, killing everyone. There is no way that people could know what they have to know in your scenario for it to work.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:22 pm
@Pyrrho,
Does everything need to be nitpicked Pyrrho? It is a thought experiment. Its fictional/hypothetical and picking it apart defeats the purpose of the experiment. That being said, comments about the fat guy going first are funny, unless of course he is not fat being "big Jack" but extremely muscular and the other 5 need his muscle outside the cave to get them out, which is just further uneeded speculation that ruins the point of the thought experiment.

My answer to the thought experiment:

If I thought they could kill me painlessly I would likely tell them to blow me up. I'm a Mr. Spockian sort of utilitarian in these sorts of thought experiments. If i couldn't die poainlessly I'd be more reticent but still likely have them blow me up.
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:29 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;156103 wrote:
The answer is simple. The fools who decided that the fat guy should go first all deserve to die for being so incredibly stupid. So everyone should huddle around the dynamite and blow themselves up, along with Big Jack.

Come on, if there is a tiny hole, who is stupid enough to send the fat guy first? Obviously, the smallest person capable should go first, and in order as people get bigger. That way, the smallest person can go get help. And this is so freaking obvious, that I have no sympathy for the morons in your imaginary cave.


Also, your scenario is extremely unrealistic, as the dynamite may very well cause the cave to collapse, killing everyone. There is no way that people could know what they have to know in your scenario for it to work.
lol. well perhaps who ever came up with the thought experiment should have 'thought' about that, but nevertheless I could change to say the Big Jack was panicking while we were down there and he actually found the hole first and ran for it without waiting for the rest of us....that's plausible.

If you want you could also pretend all we have with us is a lethal injection(to kill Big Jack without causing him any un-necessary suffering, similar to the dynamite) and a bone saw to excavate him from the hole but no dynamite whatsoever.

Better sir? Smile

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 01:33 PM ----------

The Cave Explorers (Pyrrho Edition)
--------------------------------------------

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Everyone remains relatively calm except for Big Jack who is going on about how he doesn't want to die. You all fan out looking for an escape when "Big Jack" finds a hole. Big Jack, not wanting to die calls out for everyone as bolts for the hole. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a lethal injection of Potassium Chloride and a bone saw. The saw will not cut the rock, but will certainly cut through Big Jack clearing the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions.


Should you inject Big Jack?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:40 pm
@Amperage,
Amperage;156110 wrote:
lol. well perhaps who ever came up with the thought experiment should have 'thought' about that, but nevertheless I could change to say the Big Jack was panicing while we were down there and he actually found the hole first and bolted for it without waiting for the rest of us....that's plausible.

If you want you could also pretend all we have with us is a lethal injection(to kill Big Jack without causing him any un-necessary suffereing) and a bone saw to excavate him from the hole but no dynamite whatsoever.

Better sir? Smile

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 01:33 PM ----------

The Cave Explorers (Pyrrho Edition)
--------------------------------------------

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Everyone remains relatively calm except for Big Jack who is going on about how he doesn't want to die. You all fan out looking for an escape when "Big Jack" finds a hole. Big Jack, not wanting to die calls out for everyone as bolts for the hole. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a lethal injection of Potassium Chloride and a bone saw. The saw will not cut the rock, but will certainly cut through Big Jack clearing the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions.


Should you inject Big Jack?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"



Yes, kill him. This significantly differs from the Trolley Problem, as the people there are all innocent, whereas Big Jack is a thoughtless, selfish person, who has done something that, if he is allowed to remain there, will kill all of you. He had no right to endanger the rest of you that way, and so he is not innocent and not deserving to be treated as an innocent victim. But even with your new version, one would think that if all of you pulled on his feet, you could pull him back in without killing him.
 
William
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:40 pm
@Amperage,
Pyrrho had the right to nit pick but he was rather obtuse. First none should have been in the cave. Dark and deep comes to mind here and what can be gain from venturing into uncharted territory when not prepared for such a journey. Foolishness after fancy which is what most such "thought experiments" are. Wasted mental energy. Curiosity will get you in trouble. Just like that cat in the box; dare we look?

William
 
Amperage
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:43 pm
@Pyrrho,
Pyrrho;156113 wrote:
Yes, kill him. This significantly differs from the Trolley Problem, as the people there are all innocent, whereas Big Jack is a thoughtless, selfish person, who has done something that, if he is allowed to remain there, will kill all of you. He had no right to endanger the rest of you that way, and so he is not innocent and not deserving to be treated as an innocent victim. But even with your new version, one would think that if all of you pulled on his feet, you could pull him back in without killing him.
he has prosthetic legs...they'll just detach..I forgot to mention that Very Happy
 
platorepublic
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:00 pm
@Amperage,
I say just find a solution to maximize the number of lives saved.
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:22 pm
@William,
William;156114 wrote:
Dark and deep comes to mind here and what can be gain from venturing into uncharted territory when not prepared for such a journey. Foolishness after fancy which is what most such "thought experiments" are. Wasted mental energy. Curiosity will get you in trouble. Just like that cat in the box; dare we look?
William


Of course we dare look.

"I firmly believe that you can choose to either live life as a daring, bold adventure or you can simply sit on the sidelines and watch others. I am convinced that we have life so that we can live it, not avoid living it." - Helen Keller

As far as the scenario? Light the fuse. Who wants to live forever?
 
William
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:51 pm
@Amperage,
Be my guest and please go in my stead. I'm really not that bored.

William
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 11:25 pm
@Amperage,
Question boiled down: Is it right to kill one person in order to save five? Let's just forget the thought experiment entirely because people seem to always nitpick (missing the point entirely).
My answer is: No, it is not okay to sacrifice one for five.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 11:36 pm
@Mentally Ill,
Mentally Ill;157399 wrote:
Question boiled down: Is it right to kill one person in order to save five? Let's just forget the thought experiment entirely because people seem to always nitpick (missing the point entirely).
My answer is: No, it is not okay to sacrifice one for five.


Big Jack would be well remembered and much honored if he sacrificed himself in this situation. If he was blown up against his will it would be a very upsetting and possibly unbearable memory for some of those who survived. At least speaking for myself I would lose a few nights sleep over it and would laugh a little less for the rest of my life.

Mentally Ill, how about this: what if Big Jack demanded to be blown up? Would it be okay then? I think it would be.
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 11:40 pm
@Deckard,
Yes, I'm okay with assisted suicide and suicide (which I think should be discussed with family and friends before-hand).

I think I'm full of contradictions. I claim that there is no objective moral truth and that morality is the product of reason. My reasoning leads me to believe certain things are wrong: murder, robbery, rape, *suicide* etc...
But because my view is ultimately rooted in the fact that there is no objective moral truth, if someone else's reasoning leads them to believe they would like to be dead, then I respect that, although I believe their reasoning is most likely flawed and could be refuted with a good old fashioned argument.
Suicidal people usually aren't that reasonable though. Too bad...
 
Deckard
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 11:53 pm
@Mentally Ill,
Mentally Ill;157406 wrote:
Yes, I'm okay with assisted suicide and suicide (which I think should be discussed with family and friends before-hand).

I think I'm full of contradictions. I claim that there is no objective moral truth and that morality is the product of reason. My reasoning leads me to believe certain things are wrong: murder, robbery, rape, *suicide* etc...
But because my view is ultimately rooted in the fact that there is no objective moral truth, if someone else's reasoning leads them to believe they would like to be dead, then I respect that, although I believe their reasoning is most likely flawed and could be refuted with a good old fashioned argument.
Suicidal people usually aren't that reasonable though. Too bad...


Could someones reasoning lead you to believe that (let's chose the worst of them) rape is sometimes warranted? I am worried you have built your house on sand and I think there might be stronger foundations out there...some of them are even reasonable. Perhaps there are subjective truths that can't be dismantled by a reasonable argument?

But then there is this: You seem to hold the authority of Reason to be unshakable. Is the authority of Reason an objective moral truth?
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:06 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;157410 wrote:
Could someones reasoning lead you to believe that (let's chose the worst of them) rape is sometimes warranted? I am worried you have built your house on sand and I think there might be stronger foundations out there...some of them are even reasonable. Perhaps there are subjective truths that can't be dismantled by a reasonable argument?

But then there is this: You seem to hold the authority of Reason to be unshakable. Is the authority of Reason an objective moral truth?


The term subjective truth is weird, isn't it? Wouldn't a subjective truth just be an opinion, a matter of taste? Like, for me, chocolate is the best flavor.
Or like mystics who deny reason, replacing it with subjective experience as ultimate reality. I've seen the argument that a mystic awakening is similar to waking up from a dream. The reason that we once held so high and mighty vanishes like a dreamworld. I don't buy it.

I think someone could probably convince me that rape could be warranted; perhaps if the rape victim was also a perpetrator of rape in the past and the rape would prevent some catastrophe. I could see it...

As for reason being an objective moral truth...
Reason is the product of a reasonable mind, right? So how could it exist objectively (separate from and before the mind)?
Or would you make the argument that reason exists objectively like number concepts and the human mind discovers it?
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:27 am
@Mentally Ill,
Mentally Ill;157415 wrote:
The term subjective truth is weird, isn't it? Wouldn't a subjective truth just be an opinion, a matter of taste? Like, for me, chocolate is the best flavor.
Or like mystics who deny reason, replacing it with subjective experience as ultimate reality. I've seen the argument that a mystic awakening is similar to waking up from a dream. The reason that we once held so high and mighty vanishes like a dreamworld. I don't buy it.

I think someone could probably convince me that rape could be warranted; perhaps if the rape victim was also a perpetrator of rape in the past and the rape would prevent some catastrophe. I could see it...

As for reason being an objective moral truth...
Reason is the product of a reasonable mind, right? So how could it exist objectively (separate from and before the mind)?
Or would you make the argument that reason exists objectively like number concepts and the human mind discovers it?


Then it is not only objective moral truth but all objective truth that you are setting aside?

It is strange when people agree. It almost feels like a step up from strictly subjective truth but of course that doesn't make it objective and it could still be infinitely far from that objective and of course there is solipsism. Still, it is strange when people agree and I think any communication whatsoever involves some tacit level of agreement even if it is only an agreement to speak a common language. Dose subjectivity imply solipsism? I'm starting a new thread on that question.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:39 am
@Amperage,
Amperage;155728 wrote:


Should you blast Big Jack out?





.


Yes. One of those puzzles when there is no right thing to do. There is no guarantee that there always is, you know. Big Jack should not have got into that predicament in the first place.
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:42 am
@Deckard,
Deckard;157424 wrote:
Then it is not only objective moral truth but all objective truth that you are setting aside?

It is strange when people agree. It almost feels like a step up from strictly subjective truth but of course that doesn't make it objective and it could still be infinitely far from that objective and of course there is solipsism. Still, it is strange when people agree and I think any communication whatsoever involves some tacit level of agreement even if it is only an agreement to speak a common language. Dose subjectivity imply solipsism? I'm starting a new thread on that question.


I don't know what solipsism is:brickwall:

But to answer your question, it is not all objective truth that I question. Many things are objectively true - plant life on our planet gets its energy from the sun. Earth orbits the sun.
I just don't believe that anything is inherently morally right or wrong. Existence just is. Life just is. Death just is. There is no "should" involved with this cosmic sequence of events.
 
Deckard
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:45 am
@Mentally Ill,
Mentally Ill;157434 wrote:
I don't know what solipsism is:brickwall:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist.
 
Mentally Ill
 
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:51 am
@Deckard,
Ah, I see. I'm certain my own mind exists. I guess I can't be certain that yours exists, despite the fact that I believe I'm having a conversation with you right now.
Is certainty necessary though? Technically, I can't be certain that my floor will be there when I step out of bed tomorrow morning, but I don't check each morning.
Need for certainty is paralyzing.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » The Cave Explorers
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/14/2024 at 06:01:45