Society/Culture Your favourite philosophical thought experiments

[Frank Bunn]

Its a purely theoretical abstract example that has been used in my view to falsely conclude that happiness is not the meaning of life.

You seem confused. Your opening argument was that happiness is the goal of life and we should take the cage and happy pills option.

it says nothing about prisons or pleasure pills/drugs that exist in the real world. Indeed part of its trick that makes most people come to the wrong conclusion is it makes you mistakenly think about pills, prisons and the uncertainty of freedom in the real world rather then the abstract theoretical versions you are supposed to use.

There's no trick. It's a false hypothetical scenario. Only when you add real world details does it have any meaning.

 

[evolved2]

I recently faced an ethical dilemma at work, where I was part responsible for promoting one team member to a newly created senior role which would have brought a significant increase in salary. There were two leading candidates that were virtually equally deserving of the promotion based on their performance and expertise, but their personal circumstances were quite different. One employee had a sick family member with high medical expenses, while the other employee was single with no dependents.

What would you have done?

Promote the applicant who's most likely to perform well in the role. It's unethical to pick and choose for any other reason.

 

[Seeds]

I recently faced an ethical dilemma at work, where I was part responsible for promoting one team member to a newly created senior role which would have brought a significant increase in salary. There were two leading candidates that were virtually equally deserving of the promotion based on their performance and expertise, but their personal circumstances were quite different. One employee had a sick family member with high medical expenses, while the other employee was single with no dependents.

What would you have done?

Absolve oneself from the selection process as you are potentially letting personal circumstances that have nothing to do with the job influence your decision.

 

[Seeds]

You seem confused. Your opening argument was that happiness is the goal of life and we should take the cage and happy pills option.



There's no trick. It's a false hypothetical scenario. Only when you add real world details does it have any meaning.

You are to respond to the theoertetical settings of the experiment only. You dont get to change the settings of the experiement because you struggle with the concept of abstraction and need real world examples to make it easier. You cant change the rules of a game cos you feel like it.

the happiness pills arent simple and extremely limiting pleasure pills in the real world like alcohol or cocaine. What would even be the point of asking the question if they were? Everyone would choose freedom without hesitation in that case. They are theoretical pills that provide enduring high levels of happiness with no negative side effects. Its literally stated in the experiment that this is what they are. You just have to suspend belief in the same way as when you watch a movie set on a fantasy world.

abstract thought experiments can be useful tools to gaining insight even if they require unrealistic assumptions that would never play out in reality. they are also interesting tools to understand human cognition as a large share of people keep trying to change the rules to suite their own intuition. Even the philosophers who are supposed to be experts in them.

 

[tonygeeks]

With a lot of these, it comes down to your assumptions but that in itself makes the experiments interesting.


I like the Trolley Problem. (Trolley on tracks is hurtling toward 5 people and will likely kill them. You can pull a lever to switch the tracks, saving the 5, but killing one person on the other track)

I'm in the minority and think leaving things alone is the correct action, where more people die but I do not intervene.

Most people intervene, and justify the decision on pure numbers, treating each life equally.


My justification is complex, but it's based on the idea that when I intervene, the death is on me, totally. Who am I to play God and decide who lives and dies? For all I know, the large group of people destined to die could be railway workers who are getting highly paid for risky work, but that decision was theirs, they accepted the risk. Other things may also be at play that I do not know about that ameliorate any possible disasters on the "expected path".

The single person on the other track could be an innocent child. There may be much less ameliorative things in place there because the trolley was never supposed to go there. Yeah sure, I can feel good about reducing number of deaths, but I don't know the full picture, it is arrogant to think I do.

Other ways of framing the problem that get people thinking differently:

1. A terrorist has two hostages. He says you must kill one, or he will kill both. Numbers game again, but there is also a bit of "do I believe him" and "* you" in this one.

2. In a remote jungle, a talented surgeon has three people - each will die soon if they do not get a heart, lungs and liver transplant respectively. All have good recovery prospects after that. A healthy backpacker appears out of nowhere. Should the surgeon kill the backpacker and save three lives? This one makes you think again if your original decision was purely numbers based.

What is good about these problems is how people unravel the assumptions. On the pill in the cage, I dispute the idea of constant happiness in the first place; you need to feel the troughs to experience the peaks kind of thing.


Good thread Seeds, I must get around to responding to a couple of others you have started too, really good discussion points.

It’s pretty obvious

You let the trolley hit the 5 people

Then you kill the 1 person

Then you hit the happy pills in prison

 

[Frank Bunn]

You are to respond to the theoertetical settings of the experiment only. You dont get to change the settings of the experiement because you struggle with the concept of abstraction and need real world examples to make it easier. You cant change the rules of a game cos you feel like it.

the happiness pills arent simple and extremely limiting pleasure pills in the real world like alcohol or cocaine. What would even be the point of asking the question if they were? Everyone would choose freedom without hesitation in that case. They are theoretical pills that provide enduring high levels of happiness with no negative side effects. Its literally stated in the experiment that this is what they are. You just have to suspend belief in the same way as when you watch a movie set on a fantasy world.

abstract thought experiments can be useful tools to gaining insight even if they require unrealistic assumptions that would never play out in reality. they are also interesting tools to understand human cognition as a large share of people keep trying to change the rules to suite their own intuition. Even the philosophers who are supposed to be experts in them.

I have no problem with the abstraction of thought experiments. I'm saying in this case it doesn't lead to useful insights about the human condition. The details that you think are superfluous to the argument are actually at the core of how humans behave in the real world.

 

[Roby]

Promote the applicant who's most likely to perform well in the role. It's unethical to pick and choose for any other reason.

What if one of the candidates was as woman (which happened to be the case here), which would mean they would be the first woman at the company to be promoted in such a high level senior role?

 

[Leeda]

The cage theory...if you're caught then apparently you have nowhere to go ...it is easier to go than not go..you have wings but hecklers unite...

 

[evolved2]

What if one of the candidates was as woman (which happened to be the case here), which would mean they would be the first woman at the company to be promoted in such a high level senior role?

A valid argument can be made that diversity in management is good for the company. In your shoes, I'd be making the decision based on the best interests of the company I represent and section I have responsibility over. The external circumstances of applicants wouldn't be a consideration unless they interfere with their ability to perform.

Now that I'm invested in the discussion, I'm curious to know what criteria you used to make a decision from the two applicants.

 

[Leeda]

Riding the wave ..Sonny Jim said that equality of merchandising leads to rough territory

 

[Leeda]

It’s pretty obvious

You let the trolley hit the 5 people

Then you kill the 1 person

Then you hit the happy pills in prison

Stark and heck

 

[Rusty Brookes]

What if we'd taken Joel Selwood instead of Mitch Thorpe?

Come to think of it, that's my least favourite philosophical thought experiment

 

[royale with cheese]

Maxwell’s demon. Only because the implication leads to information theory, which itself powers the whole digital world.

 

[Leeda]

It’s pretty obvious

You let the trolley hit the 5 people

Then you kill the 1 person

Then you hit the happy pills in prison

The trident is "en guard". Mon signeur....chatter yourself into a corner..

 

[Crankyhawk]

I recently faced an ethical dilemma at work, where I was part responsible for promoting one team member to a newly created senior role which would have brought a significant increase in salary. There were two leading candidates that were virtually equally deserving of the promotion based on their performance and expertise, but their personal circumstances were quite different. One employee had a sick family member with high medical expenses, while the other employee was single with no dependents.

What would you have done?

I would promote the one with the sick family member as there is some known extra benefit and also they are less likely to quit to another company

 

[Run n Spread]

This was part of a movie which rejigged it but
You hit a button and gain $1 million. Only thing is on hitting the button someone somewhere in the world will die. Now it could be a new born baby a young adult on the cusp of life ready to be a humanitarian and create world peace.
Or an evil murdering genocidal dictator who the world's better off without or a terminally ill 90yo in agony and destined to die in a week agonisingly etc
You don't know. Do you roll the dice? Do you fundamentally believe in good or bad people?
What about 100 billion enough to build a generational empire.
You can simplify it. 3 candidates
1. A child destined for great things
2 an evil dictator enslaved and tortured a population and planning an unstoppable invasion
3 average person ave job say ave age
What do.you do?

 

[Madas]

This was part of a movie which rejigged it but
You hit a button and gain $1 million. Only thing is on hitting the button someone somewhere in the world will die. Now it could be a new born baby a young adult on the cusp of life ready to be a humanitarian and create world peace.
Or an evil murdering genocidal dictator who the world's better off without or a terminally ill 90yo in agony and destined to die in a week agonisingly etc
You don't know. Do you roll the dice? Do you fundamentally believe in good or bad people?
What about 100 billion enough to build a generational empire.
You can simplify it. 3 candidates
1. A child destined for great things
2 an evil dictator enslaved and tortured a population and planning an unstoppable invasion
3 average person ave job say ave age
What do.you do?

Take the million and vow to do good things for society for the rest of your life because now you are financially unencumbered .
Might save more lives than the one lost on the long run .

As long as you never have to find out who the person was

The worlds over populated anyway and people die all the time .

 

[Sun Ra]

The cage theory...if you're caught then apparently you have nowhere to go ...it is easier to go than not go..you have wings but hecklers unite...

 

[Seeds]

This was part of a movie which rejigged it but
You hit a button and gain $1 million. Only thing is on hitting the button someone somewhere in the world will die. Now it could be a new born baby a young adult on the cusp of life ready to be a humanitarian and create world peace.
Or an evil murdering genocidal dictator who the world's better off without or a terminally ill 90yo in agony and destined to die in a week agonisingly etc
You don't know. Do you roll the dice? Do you fundamentally believe in good or bad people?
What about 100 billion enough to build a generational empire.
You can simplify it. 3 candidates
1. A child destined for great things
2 an evil dictator enslaved and tortured a population and planning an unstoppable invasion
3 average person ave job say ave age
What do.you do?

Dont take the million. If you murder an average person for a milion dollars then thats pretty immoral . Now if 2 out 3 were bad people who are each going to negatively impact many many lives then i would reconsider. But I wouldnt base the decision on any monetary reward. The decision would be made based on whether it would improve society or not.

 

[Seeds]

What if one of the candidates was as woman (which happened to be the case here), which would mean they would be the first woman at the company to be promoted in such a high level senior role?

I dont see how that changes the answer? Its unethical to pick people who arent the best candidate.

 

[Seeds]

What if we'd taken Joel Selwood instead of Mitch Thorpe?

Come to think of it, that's my least favourite philosophical thought experiment

Haha this is the best thought experiment yet.

 

[Roby]

I dont see how that changes the answer? Its unethical to pick people who arent the best candidate.

Right...the most qualified person should get the job... however... the notion of the BEST CANDIDATE can be subjective and multifaceted. It's essential to consider both merit and diversity in making decisions. This isn't about choosing a less qualified candidate for the sake of diversity, but ensuring that our processes provide equal opportunities for all candidates to excel.

Promoting a woman to a senior role, especially if she's the first, doesn't mean bypassing merit—it can signify progress towards a more inclusive and diverse workplace. A more diverse workforce brings multiple benefits such as enhanced creativity and problem-solving, better decision making, and a broader range of perspectives. It can also lead to improved employee satisfaction and higher organizational performance. These are substantial advantages that any organization would benefit from.

 

[Engimal v3]

This was part of a movie which rejigged it but
You hit a button and gain $1 million. Only thing is on hitting the button someone somewhere in the world will die. Now it could be a new born baby a young adult on the cusp of life ready to be a humanitarian and create world peace.
Or an evil murdering genocidal dictator who the world's better off without or a terminally ill 90yo in agony and destined to die in a week agonisingly etc
You don't know. Do you roll the dice? Do you fundamentally believe in good or bad people?
What about 100 billion enough to build a generational empire.
You can simplify it. 3 candidates
1. A child destined for great things
2 an evil dictator enslaved and tortured a population and planning an unstoppable invasion
3 average person ave job say ave age
What do.you do?

 

[Seeds]

Right...the most qualified person should get the job... however... the notion of the BEST CANDIDATE can be subjective and multifaceted. It's essential to consider both merit and diversity in making decisions. This isn't about choosing a less qualified candidate for the sake of diversity, but ensuring that our processes provide equal opportunities for all candidates to excel.

Promoting a woman to a senior role, especially if she's the first, doesn't mean bypassing merit—it can signify progress towards a more inclusive and diverse workplace. A more diverse workforce brings multiple benefits such as enhanced creativity and problem-solving, better decision making, and a broader range of perspectives. It can also lead to improved employee satisfaction and higher organizational performance. These are substantial advantages that any organization would benefit from.

Ok so theres a difference between qualifications and best candidate. If you believe such diversity improves the workplace then that would make the female a better candidate for the job even if the qualifications are the same. And you could justify picking the women in this place because she is a women and the fact she is women improves the output of the company. I.e. you are not picking a women simply for the sake of it but because She improves company output.

Now this is a much harder decision which is much more grey. this is because workplace best candidacy arguments can also be used against minorities and women and often have in the past. I.e. if qualifications are equal a workplace may determine a male Is a better candidate then a mother or female of child bearing age because the male is willing to work more unusual hours, travel and/or is less likely to take a long period of maternity leave. Would you find a workplace choosing a male in this situation unethical even though they felt he was the better candidate?

 

[Leeda]

View attachment 1723142?

Turn ...and wow h
Shut that thing off...