And a heads-up for those in their 20s to 40s: life only gets more relative, more grey, more uncertain, more puzzling as the years progress. And the 50s? Brutal...best to don armor and a sword for that particular decade-- in preparation. (Sadly, all the philosophy books in the world will only be a cold comfort. But that's another story ....)
You would be succumbing to hedonism - conflating what is right with what makes you feel good. Maybe you're focusing too much on the personal when you're thinking about pulling the lever. The normal answer people give is the utilitarian one (which is just hedonism applied to others) - minimize the lives lost. I'm speculating that you're placing too much moral blame on the lever puller. Maybe think about it straight up: would it be better/worse to kill 3 people or 4 people? That's kind of the root of the problem. Then you can take it further into consequentialism by asking "Well, what if this group would cure cancer but this group wouldn't?" and see if your answer changes. There, I can't help you.
@@DaKoopaKing Also, what's the point in taking it into consequentialism if you don't know the result? As the conductor you are operating with no knowledge of the ppl involved, so it is more likely saving more people is "better".
I like to see how Kant arrives at his conclusions but I think he was too much in his head to be able to have the authority to say to others how to live and how not to live. Also, thinking only in terms in “systems” seems already to be a problem, as Nietzsche shows. Interesting stuff though, and good podcast!
i honestly dont see why my answer should change when it comes to the chubby dude, in my eyes i shouldnt save the five dudes because the world holds rn many more ppl than it can and is slowly dying by that thus allowing them to die is good for all the other living organisms in the world and if u were to ask if Id dl the same were the five ppl relatives of me or ppl i deeply care about, I would opt to save them not because i think its right but because emotion would take over logic. if the five arent related to me then i can judge the problem neutrally. btw sry for any grammer/ types, not american
This is the really interesting part of philosophy to me forming a better more useful moral system.
This content is gold. I cannot believe we are getting this for free
Resonates with me. peace, much love and namaste
I quite like Kant's concept of "the Kingdom of Ends"
Love the trolley problem🚂🚂... Brings new insights everytime
hahahah when you said "im not afraid anymore" i died laughing hahahahah
I love these!
And a heads-up for those in their 20s to 40s: life only gets more relative, more grey, more uncertain, more puzzling as the years progress. And the 50s? Brutal...best to don armor and a sword for that particular decade-- in preparation. (Sadly, all the philosophy books in the world will only be a cold comfort. But that's another story ....)
I would opt for Kobiashi Moru.
Gold content
So no to pushing someone off the bridge, yes to pulling the lever, and what would I do to save a child if the ax murderer showed up exactly?
Commonsense is the collection of prejudices acquired at ahe 18 - Albert Einstein
What if I think it's wrong to pull the lever, but I'm willing to give up my moral standing to save lives?
That would be a contradiction.
You would be succumbing to hedonism - conflating what is right with what makes you feel good. Maybe you're focusing too much on the personal when you're thinking about pulling the lever. The normal answer people give is the utilitarian one (which is just hedonism applied to others) - minimize the lives lost. I'm speculating that you're placing too much moral blame on the lever puller. Maybe think about it straight up: would it be better/worse to kill 3 people or 4 people? That's kind of the root of the problem. Then you can take it further into consequentialism by asking "Well, what if this group would cure cancer but this group wouldn't?" and see if your answer changes. There, I can't help you.
And kill 1 person by choice
@@DaKoopaKing could it be that both decisions are immoral it's just that 1 is more immoral than the other? Like the lesser of 2 evils.
@@DaKoopaKing Also, what's the point in taking it into consequentialism if you don't know the result? As the conductor you are operating with no knowledge of the ppl involved, so it is more likely saving more people is "better".
What school did you go to???
This is exactly what a course I took at IU went over.
I like to see how Kant arrives at his conclusions but I think he was too much in his head to be able to have the authority to say to others how to live and how not to live. Also, thinking only in terms in “systems” seems already to be a problem, as Nietzsche shows. Interesting stuff though, and good podcast!
Adding conents are suposed to help the chanel so....
i honestly dont see why my answer should change when it comes to the chubby dude, in my eyes i shouldnt save the five dudes because the world holds rn many more ppl than it can and is slowly dying by that thus allowing them to die is good for all the other living organisms in the world and if u were to ask if Id dl the same were the five ppl relatives of me or ppl i deeply care about, I would opt to save them not because i think its right but because emotion would take over logic. if the five arent related to me then i can judge the problem neutrally. btw sry for any grammer/ types, not american