J. Alden Page
April 25, 2008
Philosophy
2 Comments
When deciding what decisions should be made in the future, it’s important to analyze what aspects of a decision hold value.
Here is an interesting moral dilemma that was created by Philippa Foot.
“A runaway trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people who have been tied down in its path. If nothing happens, they will be killed. Fortunately, you have a switch which would divert the trolley to a different track. Unfortunately, the other track has one person tied down to it. Should you flip the switch?”
According to the results found in this study, about 77% of people will choose to pull the switch.
Here is a situation with the same consequences, where only 36% of the poll takers choose to sacrifice one in order to kill five.
“A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?”
Here is another popular ethical dilemma. This scenario leads to the same consequences, yet, only 2% of the population will choose to kill one person in order to save five.
“A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor sacrifice the man to save his other patients?”
Here are the results from the link above.
Question Yes No
surgeon 2 98
fat man 30 70
Pull switch to save 5 77 23
Pull switch to save 10 82 18
Pull switch to save 15 83 17
Pull switch to save 20 83 17
% with this response triple:
——-flip switch? push fat man? sacrifice traveler for organs?
42.6 Y N N
29.8 Y Y N
20.6 N N N
5.0 Y Y Y
0.7 Y N Y
0.7 N Y Y
0.7 N Y N
It is obvious that means matters to most of the population. Granted, there are some inherent inaccuracies in this survey. It is a small population size, and it doesn’t proportionally represent people from all walks of life. Still, a difference of 2 percent and 77 percent indicates that importance is placed on means.
We’ve established that generally people take means into consideration when making a decision. Is it logical to place importance on means?
I think the answer to this is yes/no. Logically, consequence is all that matters. Consequence is the long-term affect that will permanently alter things. A means is temporary, so it is potentially infinitely less important. But, means inevitably leads to consequences. This is why I think if different means lead to the same consequence, the consequence is what should be considered.
However, different means will almost always lead to different consequences. If not directly, then indirectly.
The doctor scenario goes against beneficial societal thinking in many ways. It requires killing an innocent person in cold blood and taking out their organs. A doctor is viewed as someone you can trust with your life to do their best to heal you. And personally killing an innocent person is an act that only the outcasts of society commit.
These views are beneficial. If we didn’t trust our doctors, or thought that a normal person could kill an innocent, this would lead to huge problems. Granted, this scenario specifically says that no one will find out about it. But, that kind of certainty rarely exists in real life. This is why a willingness to commit such an atrocity would be detrimental.
In conclusion, I think consequence is what matters. However, the effects of crossing moral boundaries need to be considered. While consequence may be somewhat immortal, if ignoring means was a consistent practice, it would also have a kind of immortality. Thus, the reason means should not be ignored is because harmful means can often lead to harmful consequences.
J. Alden Page
March 8, 2008
Philosophy
2 Comments
Before jumping into what might cause morality, I want to clarify what I mean by morality.
Morality is doing what benefits the people around you. Immorality is hurting others.
The three most commonly pointed at culprits when discussing why people behave morally are: society, religion and innate goodness.
1. Society: Many people believe that morality is taught. We are born amoral, and then learn morality through our parents, teachers, friends and by adhering to the law.
Evidence For: Examples of learning morals through a teacher, friend or parent.
Evidence Against: Society can encourage extreme cruelty, such as the attempted genocide of the Jewish race.
2. Religion: Another common belief is that people behave morally because of religion. This view can be based on the belief that religion is divinely inspired, or that religion is a tool resulting from either society or innate goodness.
Evidence For: Often teaches morality and encourages moral service.
Evidence Against: Responsible for holy wars and terrorism..
3. Innate Goodness: Some people think we are born with a desire to help other people, and with a sense of guilt about hurting other people.
Evidence For: Altruistic behavior that isn’t the result of being taught. There are people who are brought up in bad situations that end up good. A young child who cares for and protects his/her sibling.
Evidence Against: Violent behavior that that isn’t the result of being taught. There are people who are brought in good situations who end up bad. A young kid raised by moral parents that vandalizes and is violent.
It seems clear that all three of these play a role in morality. Which, if any, is the primary basis for morality? To test which one of these primarily causes morality, you would have to have an environment where only one of these causes has an influence.
Since it is near impossible to eliminate any of these factors, this leaves this topic very open to debate.
What’s your opinion?
Poll: What is the Primary Reason People are Moral?
Poll Results
J. Alden Page
January 26, 2008
Philosophy, Science
No Comments
A theory is the more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises,
the more varied the kinds of things that it relates and the more extended
the area of its applicability. Therefore classical thermodynamics has made a
deep impression on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content
which I am convinced, within the areas of the applicability of its basic
concepts, will never be overthrown.
Albert Einstein (1949)
The second law of thermodynamics states that processes that occur must result in the same or greater entropy(wright.nasa.gov). Entropy is a measure of the energy in a system that is unable to do work.
High-energy mediums(hot water) will eventually travel towards low-energy mediums(cool water), and you will end up with lots of room-temperature water. This causes a state where there is a reduction in the amount of work that can be achieved, or higher entropy.
This would seemingly make life impossible, because life requires energy that can do work. But, this is not the case since the earth is continuously receiving new energy from the sun.
The first law of thermodynamics states that no energy can be destroyed or created, only redistributed. The combination of these two laws mean that the universe cannot be receiving any additional energy, and that everything should eventually reach equilibrium. This equilibiium would make life as we know it impossible.
The eventual exhaustion of usable energy could lead to one of two things:
(1.) A universe that eventually grows cold and dark, effectively remaining permanently dead.
(2.) A universe that is eventually pulled back together. The universe could explode again with greater force. This is called an “oscillating universe”, where each cycle has higher entropy than the previous cycle.
There are reputed physicists like Stephen Hawking who promote the second possibility, but many physicists think that the universe becoming compact again contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. Generally speaking, compaction decreases the entropy of what is being compacted.
I personally find the later possibility more appealing, but I do not have enough background in physics to say which is correct with any authority.
Either way, it seems the universe is destined to either die or be reshuffled. Unless of course the laws of thermodynamics are proven false, and the universe can either lose entropy or create new energy. While possible, right now this seems unlikely. Chemistry and physics experiments have verified these laws in all documented instances. If an experiment was ever conducted that proved thermodynamics wrong, the experimenter would probably receive a Nobel Prize.
While the impermanence of everything may seem nihilistic, I do not think a mortal universe necessitates apathy.
People are ingrained with a desire to have goals that are bigger than ourselves. We also tend to be the happiest when we are working towards these goals. If it is possible to infinitely preserve some form of information or life, then this only increases the need to advance. While it is unlikely that humans will be around billions or trillions of years in the future, it is possible that something that is descended from us will exist.
J. Alden Page
January 20, 2008
Philosophy, Science
2 Comments
Reproduction is the means that enables evolution. Because of this, what is considered sexy often has as large an effect on how a species evolves as the characteristics that help survival. In humans surviving nature has become easier than ever, this means that sexual preference is driving evolution to a greater degree than in the past.
There are many examples of sexual preference trumping survival fitness. A classic example of this is the peacock. Males have large brightly colored feathers, while females are colored to match their landscape and have small feathers that stay close to their body. Male peacock feathers are a disadvantage in terms of survival, but this trait is selected for because it increases the chances of the male reproducing.
Large female breasts are an example of this in humans. It’s a common misconception that large breasts are for giving babies lots of milk. Chimpanzees, gorillas and other apes are able to feed their children with very small breasts. The truth is that human female breasts are almost entirely fat, with a relatively low percentage of mammary tissue. If large breasts aren’t advantageous to survival, why do women have them and why are men attracted to them?
One popular theory is that breasts evolved to feed babies that did not have a prominent jaw. A flat face pressed against a flat chest might have lead to high rates of suffocation. If this theory is correct, then it would make sense that males who were attracted to prominent breasts would be more likely to have children that survived. Once this attraction was ingrained into most males, breasts may have continued to increase in size because males were still sexually selecting for them.
This type of sexual selection was not unique to our ancestors. What traits are being selected today? The answer to this lies in what characteristics are resulting in more children.
I only know of a few characteristics that have been shown to be correlated with having more children:
1. Beautiful women have more daughters
2. Men with low voices have more kids
3. Uneducated people have more children
With less need to hunt down animals and survive the elements, our continued evolution may be largely influenced by selecting for characteristics like the ones listed above.
Interestingly, there may be many characteristics which we aren’t aware of that are significantly different from the human population a few thousand years ago. For example, males might have lower voices than they used to, we wouldn’t know. Our ability to record visual and auditory information, could lead to suprising revelations about which traits are being selected.
Next Entries »
