In short, there is no right answer. That's what makes it a dilemma. — counterpunch

True! But another interesting fact is that the people argument different answers when they check the dilemma, even they end up creating another dilemma inside the original one. Previously, I randomly named this dilemma as spiral because it can led us in an infinite situation of debates. I would sound strange but this is the part I like the most about dilemmas :ok:

Understandable! I will check it out deeply.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing your resources and data. Appreciated. I have one question. Why did you choose call it antilogicalism then?

I think my economic ideology or paradise would be a system where, at least, most of the workers have the right to own a house and then invest in culture. We live in an era where money and salaries are so important for the individuals so imagine if you do not have s good salary or it is low. I guess economic or money are not connected with richness but somehow most of the people committed this failure.
For these reasons I would say that my thoughts on economical ideology would go in the power of sustainability not only in products as you explained but in individual development.

Interesting question. John Locke developed some theories about colours and then how is in our vocabulary. He tried, somehow, explaining in a empirical thesis if my red is equals to your red.
I guess you would like the following examples to debate with and explain it.

If we block a child in a room all of his childhood teaching him the green colour while is actually yellow. Will he name all of his life “green” when he would actually see yellow? In this topic John Locke answered this is a perfect empirical experiment so he put the following sentence:
What you are trying to say is that complex terms like colours are not innate because we can teach children to misunderstand mixing them. I guess this is the same example of fearness. You can feel the fear because previously someone taught you what is darkness, witches, demons, etc... — John Locke.

If we match up the color wheel with the electromagic spectrum of light, it passes through all the colours, but not through purple. Violet may look a bit like purple, but it has nothing to do with red. What is going on?

The eye has certain receptors on the retina that detect color, the "cones." These come with three different sensitivities. Hence the three "primary" colors. True purple, for which there seems to be no place in the physical spectrum, is something we see when the cones sensitive to blue and red are both stimulated, giving us something like an imaginary color. — John Locke.

Conclusion and personal opinion: I guess it is just upon us the criteria of red and their significance. Nevertheless, it is something we put rules on just to provide an order. Red is a very important colour because it reflects a lot of signs. We can say here and debate if it is equal but somehow has to be one red just to promote order

If he's stuck, then he can't sacrifice himself. He has no choice in the matter, he literally can't do anything.

Interesting fact. We can see it also in this view. If he got stuck is his fault so somehow doesn't have the right of a choice. Then, the rest of the hikers are only the allowed of debating about the life of the fat man.

Everyone start to philosophy is nihilism

That's why taking of life in self defense is only approved of in most cases of 'the law' under direct imminent threat, and even then, only in the more violent nations. — ernest meyer

Yes it is. Only allowed in violent countries. But I guess somehow goes further than just court resolutions because we are debating and sharing ideas of how some people would give up in their moral principles just to survive. Fortunately, this is something that doesn’t happen at all in reality but it is interesting speaking about the topic.

PD: it is 01:35 AM and I am sleepy. Sorry If I take a long time in answer again.

Now there's a real moral problem - lack of trust. — Banno

Another dilemma inside the dilemma! I like it. Yes it is. Completely because now we have to consider if we are sufficient brave of give the fat man the dynamite. I guess most of them don’t want give the dynamite because as survive instinct they would think: If we give him the dynamite he would cheat us because this is literally we are doing now. We guess he would try to revenge.

at least one person write rather artificial utilitarian arguments as to why one should murder, lol. — ernest meyer

Agree lol. But this what happens in spiral dilemmas like this one. There are infinite answers and I guess this is why so interesting and I like all of your responses :up:

Yep; you'd have to trust him.

Were's your courage now? — Banno

I can some courage and trust in him but I only have 50 % of chances. This situation, the attitude of the fat man, could be like a Russian roulette.

only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink: — DingoJones

:100: :up:

True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks

while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. — counterpunch

Interesting point of view. So you defend that it could depends on the awareness in every individual in this dilemma. If a doctor is there, for him, the dilemma is even worse because as you explained one of his principles is not harm others. But sadly he has to. I am agree it could be unethical for the doctor thinking the sacrifice itself instead of preserving the life.

What did they do?" — counterpunch

I don’t know now how to answer because your example made me feel a lot of intriguing questions. I guess it is not possible at all that the group of hikers would have voted blowing the fat man up. It could be the possibility of being someone against utilitarianism.

Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. — BrianW

Sure, the sacrifice always be there because as you explained, it is a natural selection. Nevertheless, I is interesting how the humans create masses to fight against the circumstances. I guess this could be an emphasis against individualism.

Are so many people (billions) morally depraved? Maybe a bit dull, not depraved. Most of us will never have to make a forced-choice moral decision of a Trolley or Fat Man Plugging the Exit situation. Our capacity for empathy at a distance is cognitively limited--not absent, just limited. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Good expression. :100:

...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?

"Oh no, not again!"
5 minutes ago — unenlightened

:100: :rofl:

Would a 'beautiful, sexy she' make the situation more difficult than a 'repulsively fat he'? — Bitter Crank

Good question! I think not. I guess it doesn’t depend about appearance. In extreme circumstances you do whatever just survive and if you have to sacrifice someone, the mass or the group will sacrifice the stuck person anyways. So, I guess is just secondary all the characteristics. The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others.
It is interesting because the website where I found this humorous dilemma asked: What would you think if were a pregnant woman instead? hmm...

Then it's moral. — counterpunch

I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be

Understandable but I wanted to phrase it in that way just to point out the extreme situation they randomly ended up

I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience. — counterpunch

They literally did this.

setting up collapses into the hole along with their corpses and you still can't get out. What rotten luck! — unenlightened

That would be so hilarious :rofl:

if philosophy has any insight into sex, — James Riley

Regardless, what does philosophy have to say about sex, if anything? — James Riley

I guess you would like read about sex inside philosophy more deeply in this site: The Erotic as an Aesthetic Category.

what have we learned? — synthesis

We learned about how to think furthermore than basic things. I guess it is not only entertainment. Everything has always started as ideas or debating. At least we should keep this methodology because make us being humans instead of artificials

That’s how I’d rank the moral decisions. — DingoJones

I really liked it. I love how you explain as a cascade, if you don’t mind I use this metaphor. Thanks for participating and sharing your thoughts in the dilemma. It was interesting your point of view :100: :up:

Life is about doing. That's the real philosophy. — synthesis

But having ideas and debate about it are important too and here is where philosophy is crucial. A good example are the dilemmas and their interpretation.

Its possible none of the people want to kill the fatman and in that case I see no moral violation, except that of the fatman. A moral person would volunteer to die to save the others and if fatman doesn’t then fatman isn’t acting morally. — DingoJones

This is where we get the commission/omission moral dilemma. If the fat man omitted the act of allowing the rest blowing himself up then he acts immorally or selfish. But, if the rest want to explode him, thus the act of commission, then it is somehow immoral because they are acting mean towards the fat man.
I guess this is like spiral we cannot get away. This is why I like dilemmas like this one :sweat: because is not clear who is more correct than the other.

So the moralism depends about the fat man's permission?

The only moral option if you truly feel like its morally wrong to use the dynamite is to abstain from the decision, making the decision not to use the dynamite for yourself.

The other solutions simply pass the buck, shift the moral burden.

What you shared is very important because it is something I was waiting for. Exactly, what can happen if we pass the buck? Imagine we do so and them there are different criteria. 8 hikers would think it is good to blow up the fat man but the other 8 not. This a dilemma inside the dilemma itself but as you perfectly explained one will do it anyway because at least one of them will give up about morals and them would blow him up.
Another scenario here could be if the losing of time debating if they should or not exploding him can actually kill them because they do not take solutions in extreme context

On Distributive Justice

This one was so interesting. I never heard of this topic until today. Another new concept I learn about law philosophy. Thanks for sharing and explaining it :up:

So you would be only in his side just in extreme circumstances. Interesting :chin: It looks like sammaritan acts too.

Well greasing him is a good solution but imagine nobody has this object with themselves. It is not about being mean with the fat man I guess it is about of how supposedly the masses would act against one individual.
It is interesting how you and @ernest meyer are in the fat man's side. Most of the people choose blow him up...

Cool then! :100:

I understand your point. But what about if the fat man doesn't allow us to blow him up? His selfishness could kill us (the hikers in the example).
It interesting your example of fessing up but here we are just speaking about punishment. The fat man dilemma is about life choices and then, the group as a mass, would blow the fat man up...

Interesting point. So he will die anyway but the sacrifice and the respect of the fat man could depend in his behaviour. End like a hero or a selfish

Absolutely! What would be your answer according to moralism?

Yes, you are right somehow fat Men probably wouldn't go hiking but I said this dilemma is quite humorous because of the characters :joke: But I was looking for what the people would think in this situation.

I don't remember asking your opinion about my answers pal :up:

Well I am thinking of Patmos in Greece, — ernest meyer

I wish one day we can turn back to these days. The golden era of philosophy, ethics, science, development of individual, etc... we will never see another period like this.

I'd like to chat about Spain, if you'd like to share your reasons why you think there is such scorn for sicence there, when you've had a chance to decide what to say — ernest meyer

There are too many reasons, but I think the most important facts are the following ones:
- most of the researchers are not motivated here because the government doesn’t invest in their works. Only a 1.2 % GDP of Spain goes to science. Yes, it is pathetic. So, when these researchers are called in USA, UK, or Canada earning more money and reputation they go there so we are lack of good researchers. This context allows to think that Spain doesn’t believe in science at all...
- our educational system is a completely garbage. The laws about education are made by the government and most of the time destroy everything. The salary of our teacher is weak so they do not go motivated to class neither the students. Most of the time the cultural or education criteria are not respected so most of the people decide to give up and leave school/university so they end up having bad low paid jobs as bartenders making a society full of precarious citizens.
- we still polarised since Franco died. There are scars that are not cured yet. In a divided society you cannot expect that much in terms of development.

Thankfully, we are part of the European Union. Without them, we would be completely lost.