The Cave Explorers

@Deckard,

Deckard;157435 wrote:

Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is certain to exist.

Well, that only you exist. That is metaphysical solipsism. Epistemological solipsism is the view that all you can know is that only you exist. As the philosopher, Christine Ladd-Franklin wrote to Bertrand Russell, "I am certain that solipsism is true, and I cannot understand why everyone else does not believe this".

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157439 wrote:

Well, that only you exist. That is metaphysical solipsism. Epistemological solipsism is the view that all you can know is that only you exist. As the philosopher, Christine Ladd-Franklin wrote to Bertrand Russell, "I am certain that solipsism is true, and I cannot understand why everyone else does not believe this".

All I can know is that only I exist? That's clearly wrong...
I know how to speak English.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157440 wrote:

All I can know is that only I exist? That's clearly wrong...
I know how to speak English.

You think you might know, but you might be fooled into knowing so.

@Amperage,

Let's remember our physics folks.
Every action produces an equal and opposite reaction.

I feel quite certain that simply wedging the stick of dynamite into the improper crevice will create a reaction suffucient to clear Jack from the hole with no need of lighting the fuse.

@platorepublic,

platorepublic;157446 wrote:

You think you might know, but you might be fooled into knowing so.

Please explain/elaborate what you mean. I know that I know how to speak English.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157470 wrote:

Please explain/elaborate what you mean. I know that I know how to speak English.

Well Descartes proposed that there might be a Devil out there who will fool you into whatever you know is actually false.

But Descartes believes that what the Devil can't fool is your own existence, hence his: "Je pense donc je suis"

Cogito ergo sum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

@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.

I think that you are reducing it too far. Is it okay to kill one person who has a machine gun and is about to kill five others if you do not kill him?

You see, the circumstances are very important to whether it is okay to kill the one to save five or not. In the example of this thread, the one is not an innocent bystander, but is someone who, by his actions, has endangered the lives of the others. I think that matters for what one should do.

@Pyrrho,

Pyrrho;157488 wrote:

I think that you are reducing it too far. Is it okay to kill one person who has a machine gun and is about to kill five others if you do not kill him?

You see, the circumstances are very important to whether it is okay to kill the one to save five or not. In the example of this thread, the one is not an innocent bystander, but is someone who, by his actions, has endangered the lives of the others. I think that matters for what one should do.

Defensive action is another issue.
You think Jack deserves to die because he acted out of ignorance?
This is like punishing an infant - unreasonable.
But, if we knew prior to the cave that Jack was familiar with emergency situation protocol, and yet he still acted in a way that endangered everyone else, then, and only then, I could consider blowing him away.
Otherwise you would just be murdering an innocent person to save yourself.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157614 wrote:

Defensive action is another issue.
You think Jack deserves to die because he acted out of ignorance?
This is like punishing an infant - unreasonable.
But, if we knew prior to the cave that Jack was familiar with emergency situation protocol, and yet he still acted in a way that endangered everyone else, then, and only then, I could consider blowing him away.
Otherwise you would just be murdering an innocent person to save yourself.

Jack is an adult, not an infant. He is responsible for his choices, and when he thoughtlessly endangers the lives of others, he forfeits the right to be thought of as an innocent party. Him not intending to harm others is irrelevant; he is, if allowed to remain in the hole, killing others, who are innocent. He has absolutely no right to do that.

The way that I am looking at this fits well with ordinary ways of considering the world. We often hold people responsible for things that they did not intend, as, for example, in a car accident, the person who made a mistake pays for the damage done, even though the person probably did not intend to cause any damage. Do you think that people should not pay for such mistakes? If I accidentally destroyed your car, would you expect me to pay for it, or would you say that because it was not intended, I should not have to undo the damage I did, insofar as that is possible?

Also, it is not a question of him "deserving" death for his mistake; it is that the others do not deserve to die because of his mistake. In other words, killing him is not done as a punishment to him, but is done in order to undo the damage he has done, insofar as that is possible.

Likewise, with paying for the damage done to someone else's car in an accident. That is not punishment, but is simply undoing the damage one has done, insofar as that is possible. In the case of accidents, punishment comes in the form of a ticket for reckless driving or some other such sanction against one.

@Pyrrho,

The car accident is a good example of your point, but not analogous to the cave situation, in that there is money trading hands, not life.
I don't think the same principle of justice we apply to materialistic situations like car collisions should be applied to a life and death scenario like this.

In your words, it is not because Jack deserves death for his actions, but he must die simply because his life is resulting in the death of five others.
You are taking a utilitarian stance, saying that five outweighs one. I disagree.

I am of the opinion that each life has infinite value, thereby making the equation not 5>1 but 1=1. Utilitarianism should not be used to evaluate the worth of a human life.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157634 wrote:

The car accident is a good example of your point, but not analogous to the cave situation, in that there is money trading hands, not life.
I don't think the same principle of justice we apply to materialistic situations like car collisions should be applied to a life and death scenario like this.

In your words, it is not because Jack deserves death for his actions, but he must die simply because his life is resulting in the death of five others.
You are taking a utilitarian stance, saying that five outweighs one. I disagree.

I am of the opinion that each life has infinite value, thereby making the equation not 5>1 but 1=1. Utilitarianism should not be used to evaluate the worth of a human life.

No, it is not simply the idea that 5 outweighs 1. It is that the 1 is responsible for causing the problem, and consequently forfeits the right to be regarded as an innocent bystander. In the standard Trolley Problem, I do not think that one should throw the switch, because one would be killing an innocent person. But in the scenario in this thread, the person is not innocent, but is responsible for creating a situation in which others will die unless they kill that one.

If we changed the standard Trolley Problem such that the one person tied up the five and then tied him or her self up on the other track, even if he or she managed to do this somehow accidentally, I would say, throw the switch, because he or she is not an innocent bystander, but the creator of the problem. In the example in this thread, Jack has caused the problem, and so he is responsible. If Jack is not killed, then those in the cave are allowing Jack to kill five people. Jack should not be allowed to kill five people. And the only way to stop Jack from killing five people is to kill Jack.

Refusing to kill Jack involves insisting that one ought not stop Jack from killing five people. I think he should be stopped, if one can do that without harming any innocent person. Killing Jack is not harming an innocent person, because Jack is not innocent, but is in fact the cause of the problem.

You, though, are saying that Jack should not be prevented from killing five people, and that we should let Jack live, despite the fact that he is the cause of the problem. You think that Jack should be allowed to kill five people, simply because he did not originally intend to do so.

@Pyrrho,

I agree with that argument, but only if Jack knew what he should have done and acted the wrong way intentionally.
Otherwise, I think that, in acting out of ignorance, Jack is innocent.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157634 wrote:

I am of the opinion that each life has infinite value,

If that is true, then Georg Cantor was right. Some infinities are greater than other infinities.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157652 wrote:

If that is true, then Georg Cantor was right. Some infinities are greater than other infinities.

Uh...why do you say that?

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157651 wrote:

I agree with that argument, but only if Jack knew what he should have done and acted the wrong way intentionally.
Otherwise, I think that, in acting out of ignorance, Jack is innocent.

Jack should have known. If he did not, then that does not make him innocent. One can be responsible for not knowing what one should know. It does not take a rocket scientist to know that a fat man might get stuck in a small hole. So there is no excuse for what he did.

Incidentally, this principle, too, is codified in law, where someone is held responsible for knowing what should have been known, whether it is in fact known by the person or not. But I will leave it to the lawyers or others who are interested in such things to give examples of this, if anyone is interested in such examples.

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157657 wrote:

Uh...why do you say that?

Because some lives are worth more than others.

@kennethamy,

I tend to agree with Mentally Ill on this one. I mean its one thing if he is noble about it and is willing to sacrifice himself. It's completely different if he's sitting there begging for his life.

Imagine explaining that later......"yeah I mean we wanted to live so we killed a man begging for his life"

question....are there things worth dying for?

I tend to think there are. . . . .and respecting an innocent man's wish for life might would qualify.

This is obviously easy to talk about and a lot less easy to put into practice but I think if he is pleading for his life it wouldn't be right for me to kill him to save my own life.

Of course I'd probably be calling him every name in the book and trying to guilt and shame him into sacrificing himself but if he was dead set on no, then I'd be in the wrong to kill him I think

@Amperage,

Right.
Kennethamy, you think some lives are worth more than others? Why?

@Mentally Ill,

Mentally Ill;157666 wrote:

Right.
Kennethamy, you think some lives are worth more than others? Why?

It is obvious that Albert Einstein's life was worth far more than some petty criminal's. Who would deny that?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;157660 wrote:

Because some lives are worth more than others.

kennethamy;157670 wrote:

It is obvious that Albert Einstein's life was worth far more than some petty criminal's. Who would deny that?

Obvious to whom?
It seems that this is a value judgement.
I doubt it's that obvious to the petty criminal's mother.
Is the value of a life, a democratic value, or an absolute value?

Philosophy Forum

The Cave Explorers

Quick Links

My Account

able2know