I Am theGizmo
Offline It's exam time. I should be studying about rules of Evidence or Corporate Law.. but I'm not.
Instead, I have come to radically lay some wisdom:
Hearsay is not admissible in court, unless it falls within one of 32+ exceptions.
...that is all.
-RtG
p.s. On another note. I just finished a final on Legal Ethics, and it got me thinking about one of the first class. In it, we discussed some of different theories of "morality"--all of which left me somewhat unsatisfied. So... two questions:
(1) The State of Responsia has created a device which determines ones true beliefs with regard to God. Following the creation, it institutes a law: "All non-believers will be shot into space without a parachute."
You.. being awesome.. can stop it with just one thought.
Do you stop Responsia? Why or why not?
(2) You.. being awesome still.. are presented with an opportunity to eat some sort of food which is the most amazing thing ever. I mean, it's not a matter of taste, it's just amazing. Yet.. it doesn't belong to you.
Do you eat it? Why or why not?
(3) The tables have turned, someone has come along that is not awesome but rather stupendous. He can force you, with just one thought, to become the legal executor of the law that was passed in Responsia not too long ago--and this is definitely something he wants to do.
Should he do it? Why or why not?
...
All right then.. I should probably study now.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hey, you're the one who invented the rules I keep unwittingly breaking. I was ready to share the unique object (not allowed),
I could you share something you've eaten?
copy the unique object (not allowed),
If it was something that could be copied and is of ultimate value, how would it make sense that there is still only one? I guess we could create some scenario where it seems reasonable.. so, I concede my failure to specify: it's copyrighted 
.
or pay for the object (not allowed).
What price would you put on something of ultimate value? Once again.. I just don't see someone selling something that is, as I described, "the most amazing thing ever." Of course.. perhaps, once again, there are some scenarios we could create.. still, like I said, I think that makes it more difficult than it needs to be.
All of those things would be normal in the world, and probably give you a better idea of how I would really deal with a resource problem than just "take it or don't".
But my point was to get to the situation where it is only a question of "would you take it or don't."
Well not any more, because I know what you're talking about. But I don't consider consequences like I'll be put to death. I was thinking more along the lines of "everyone will be pissed because I took the magic object and I'll live in social exile for the rest of my days". That would be implied with "ultimate loss for everyone else". Following your previously stated rule that all things are the same until contradicted, if I were to provide the world with ultimate loss, it would most likely make me unwelcome anywhere on earth. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't want to provide "ultimate loss" to those I love and care about.
Fair point. Already.. well in keeping of my stated purpose to create a truly "take it or leave it" scenario. It is also a given in this scenario that there is absolutely no way anyone will ever know
RhadTheGizmo wrote:You are not privy to any more information than I have stated; you don't know how it will make the other person "feel," all you know is that you are taking something of ultimate value which belongs to the other person.So this universe only has two people then? Me and the person affected?
Um.. I see what you did there. But by "privy to any more information," I did not mean to suggestion that "only the information give is what exists." Merely, I was meaning to convey the idea that you don't know what sort of consequences will come about other than certain one will not come about, e.g., any directly negative consequences to you.
Okay, so I don't know how stealing from this person will affect them in this world. See, that's a LOT of changes to the world. If I lack empathy so totally that I can no longer guess how someone might feel if I stole something from them that is of ultimate value, I'm guessing I'm a sociopath. Well a sociopath in this scenario would certainly take the object of ultimate value. That behaviour is typical of a sociopath. I can't answer the question for me, because of the missing component of empathy.
My statement "you don't know how it will make the person "feel"" was meaning to suggest that you have no certainty--you can guess and empathize. I was being fairly technical with my use of the word..
Because you keep changing them! In that last bit, I have no empathy, and there are only two people in the world! (I think.)
Naw.. my mistake in not being clear.
I don't think you're thinking of these things "incorrectly", I just question the value of conclusions reached in an alternate, reduced universe.
Fair enough.. I know a few people who would agree.
- Login to post comments
Offline It's exam time. I should be studying about rules of Evidence or Corporate Law.. but I'm not.
Instead, I have come to radically lay some wisdom:
Hearsay is not admissible in court, unless it falls within one of 32+ exceptions.p.s. On another note. I just finished a final on Legal Ethics, and it got me thinking about one of the first class. In it, we discussed some of different theories of "morality"--all of which left me somewhat unsatisfied. So... two questions:
(1) The State of Responsia has created a device which determines ones true beliefs with regard to God. Following the creation, it institutes a law: "All non-believers will be shot into space without a parachute."
You.. being awesome.. can stop it with just one thought.
Do you stop Responsia? Why or why not?
I stop them because killing someone for their beliefs is wrong because it is plainly against their wishes, and even if I thought their belief was harmful in some way to other people, there are plenty of ways to counteract that short of killing them, let alone killing them in some insanely expensive and dramatic fashion.
My core ethical guideline is best summed up in short form in the negative Golden Rule, ie, default to don't do to someone what you wouldn't want done to yourself, unless you are aware of the other person's relevant expressed preferences, in case they don't coincide with mine, or they seem to be disposed to do harm to myself or others - I will ignore their wish to not be restrained.
(2) You.. being awesome still.. are presented with an opportunity to eat some sort of food which is the most amazing thing ever. I mean, it's not a matter of taste, it's just amazing. Yet.. it doesn't belong to you.
Do you eat it? Why or why not?
Need to a lot more about the other persons feelings in this regard. I would be very tempted to sample a small portion, small enough to leave most of it available for the owner, but without the owners permission I would restrain myself, for the same reason I gave above - I would not like someone depriving me of my own stuff.
On the other hand, if the owner was a real a-hole, especially if generally regarded as such, not just by me. I might well consume it with no compunction. Especially since a sample of a food delicacy is not in the same category as actual 'hard' property or money.
(3) The tables have turned, someone has come along that is not awesome but rather stupendous. He can force you, with just one thought, to become the legal executor of the law that was passed in Responsia not too long ago--and this is definitely something he wants to do.
Should he do it? Why or why not?
No for the same reason as the first case - it really is basic.
...
All right then.. I should probably study now.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline could you share something you've eaten?
I already ate it? What? You can't cut the thing in two or more pieces?
.. still, like I said, I think that makes it more difficult than it needs to be.
Well yeah. If you just stuck to reality, it would be easier.
Quote:All of those things would be normal in the world, and probably give you a better idea of how I would really deal with a resource problem than just "take it or don't".But my point was to get to the situation where it is only a question of "would you take it or don't."
So you don't actually want to know how people would deal with a resource problem, you just want us to answer an arbitrary artificial dichotomy position that would never happen to a human, in an alien environment. I rest my case, as they say on TV.
Fair point. Already.. well in keeping of my stated purpose to create a truly "take it or leave it" scenario. It is also a given in this scenario that there is absolutely no way anyone will ever know [...] Merely, I was meaning to convey the idea that you don't know what sort of consequences will come about other than certain one will not come about, e.g., any directly negative consequences to you.
So in this scenario, there's an object that has ultimate value, that nobody knows about, that only belongs to one person, I don't know how they'll feel parting with it, and when you said "ultimate loss to everyone else" you meant a loss that they would never feel. So it was correct to say that only two people are relevant in the scenario: the owner and me. The only ultimate loss is experienced by the person from whom I take the object. Do I create a situation where I rob a person of everything, disregarding their feelings on the matter? These still aren't people. The characters aren't fleshed-out enough to make a decision.
So my answer is "no", assuming the person is someone I care about. I wouldn't want to take the ultimate enjoyment away from someone I care about.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Your a very difficult person to deal with Will. But, perfectly understandeable. When a hypothetical is given in class, there are usually those types that ask questions like: "well, is this a person I care about? are the other people people I care about? is it morning? am I in a bad mood? will other people know of the decision I've made? can I just kill one person? i'll choose side b because perhaps the bodies of some of those that dies will protect the others"; all given in response to a trolley scenario.
That's fine and dandy.. but I really think that the phrase "all things being equal" really goes a distance with dismissing these questions.
"Arbitrary artificial dichotomy"?
Pfft. I suppose I could write you a fact pattern that goes 3 pages, but even then certain things will have to be assumed as "being equal," or "unchanged," or "unimportant." In my original scenario I didn't say you knew the person--so you don't--I didn't say there would be punishment--so there won't--i haven't said it was outside reality--so it isn't.
The "negative position" should be taken, in much the way that it is with God. "He hasn't shown evidence of himself, therefore I will assume he does not exist."
Any case.. this is taken up a lot more time than I originally planned.
- Login to post comments
Offline That's fine and dandy.. but I really think that the phrase "all things being equal" really goes a distance with dismissing these questions.
I continue to disagree, but I hope you understand that it's not from a place of maliciousness. Reduced environment scenarios produce no useful distinctions in my view. We simply disagree on that point.
Pfft. I suppose I could write you a fact pattern that goes 3 pages, but even then certain things will have to be assumed as "being equal," or "unchanged," or "unimportant." In my original scenario I didn't say you knew the person--so you don't--I didn't say there would be punishment--so there won't--i haven't said it was outside reality--so it isn't.
I understand. My only objection is that the environment you created was so alien to me that there was no way of knowing what I'd do or what the reaction would be. I understand that I'm still a person in the scenario, but a person who can perform any action without cost is outside of reality. So I'm naturally curious about what else in this scenario isn't like reality. That's all.
The "negative position" should be taken, in much the way that it is with God. "He hasn't shown evidence of himself, therefore I will assume he does not exist."
In that case, you have the extra improbability of a specific supernatural thing existing, but yes, of course.
Any case.. this is taken up a lot more time than I originally planned.
You have my apologies for my bulldog nit-picking about this point. I was pelted with these questions constantly by an elementary school teacher who smiled this "aren't I the cleverest?" smile that I wanted to smack off of his face. So it's an emotionally-driven objection as well as a philosophical one. I hope it didn't take you away from your studies too much - I know the siren song of procrastination (only my exams are finished).
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Hah.
Thanks Will. I understand. Sorry if I came off a bit short. And no worries about the adding to my procrastionation, if it wasn't this it'd be something else.
- Login to post comments
Offline Sorry if I came off a bit short.
Whatever - you're studying for corporate law and evidence. If you didn't have any snark in your attitude before, it'll creep in. I have an acquaintance who teaches evidence at Yale, and a couple of lawyer friends who are working corporate in Toronto, and all three are just mental. My deepest sympathies on the passing of your sanity.
And no worries about the adding to my procrastionation, if it wasn't this it'd be something else.
K, good. Because as insane as my lawyer friends are, they make so much fucking coin it's unreal. I know of at least one friend-of-a-friend who did corporate law for six years and just retired. One had it planned that way. Six years! She made some ridiculous sports-hero bonus pay and just said buh-bye. So it's worth it.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
- Login to post comments
Offline Following the creation, it institutes a law: "All non-believers will be shot into space without a parachute."
I can't imagine a parachute being useful in the vacuum of space, anyway.
My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hah. I know. But it might make some people feel better...
- Login to post comments
Offline Hah. I know. But it might make some people feel better...
- Login to post comments
Offline RhadTheGizmo wrote:Following the creation, it institutes a law: "All non-believers will be shot into space without a parachute."I can't imagine a parachute being useful in the vacuum of space, anyway.
I can't quite help wondering about this ridiculous scenario when the 'story' is basically about execution. Trying to distract us with lots of irrelevant elements?
And then we are supposed to assume these scenarios are to be imagined to be in a world equivalent to ours unless otherwisw specified. WTF?
Even the description of the food delicacy is totally into the realm of fantasy, so of course people are going be primed to not take it seriously, and /or want some clarification.
It is way more unrealistic than most if not all of the other 'moral judgement' testing scenarios I have seen, so if it was serious meant to actually test our moral sense, it is incredibly poorly designed. I makes more sense if it was devised to test our reactions in some other context.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline I was feeling a bit weird when I wrote it. Apologies on the mixture of humor and serious subject matter.
- Login to post comments
Looks like three.
If my decision was purely based on my confidence in the truth of my position, then I would gladly activate the device. However, reality dictates that there are other things at stake.
First of all, regardless of my beliefs or their veracity, it would be insane to even attempt to justify such an action. This is ethically unsound since I am simply murdering everyone that disagrees with me. This would not be to my benefit since I have friends and family that are not atheists. This is immensely impractical since the device would effectively erase most people from the face of the Earth, destroying economies, societies, cultures, etc. This would create orphans, widows, etc.
Second, what is the scope and limitations on "true beliefs?" For example, if I believe that the fruit in Genesis was an apple while another Christian simply holds that we don't know what kind of fruit is was, does the other individual get launched into space? Furthermore, in this scenario, wouldn't you have to quantify beliefs? For example, if I believe that there is a 23% chance that God exists while another person believes there is a 24% chance, does this person get launched into space? How can you quantify belief?
Third, this question is rather biased, since it states, "All non-believers." I'm an atheist, so all non-believers in non-belief would get launched into space, right? What if I was a fence-sitter agnostic? All non-believers in..........."not being sure about my beliefs" would get launched into space?
I 'probably' wouldn't eat it, but it depends on the conditions of this hypothetical choice. I mean, so much is unexplained here.
- I am stealing this food, correct?
- How much of this food is available, and how easy is it to acquire?
- Do I know the person is belongs to? How?
- I'm afraid I don't know how good "amazing" is. "Amazing" can encompass nice hamburgers or a food is literally the Fountain of Youth.
I can regurgitate all the arguments that I've presented in my response to question one. However, if this individual wants to launch me into space, then he is probably a theist. So, I must emphasize that no two theists believe the same thing; thus, if he activates this device, he'll be the last person left on Earth.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Don't be smart.
I think you misunderstand me. The Foreign State wants to kill people. You have the power to stop.
To clarify, or to make it simpler, the State of Responsia is a Christian state. A very specific, narrow, conception of Christianity and intends to kill all individuals who are non-believers "on average" based upon the findings of a device which is 100% accurate (a given) in determining what the person believes on average.
Stealing food. It's the only unit left. It can only be eaten in units. You do not know the person it belongs to. As for amazing, just to make it interesting, as a given we will assume the experience created by eating this food is unparalleled by any other experience that could every be experienced.
I think you're misunderstanding me again. He doesn't want to launch you into space.. he wants you to be the person that launches other non-believers into space. And, he's not launching all people who believe differently than he does per se, but rather only those who fall outside of a certain range.
I request for a restatement of your answer based upon the simplifications stated above.
How awfully theist of you.
I stop Responsia, because murdering people is wrong. Not in all cases, of course, but in this case it is, because it’s just killing people who don’t believe in god. Someone’s non-belief is not justification for murdering that person, ever.
Do I need it to survive? If so, then I’ll eat it in a heartbeat and consider it morally justified, but I’m guessing that’s a no. Knowing how awesome it is, though, I probably would eat it anyway.
Mind you, what I would do would be immoral and it isn’t justified, it should be punished and it’s simply wrong. I’m just saying that I probably wouldn’t be able to resist the temptation. (For what it’s worth, I would if it was only a really, really good sort of food that I liked to eat above anything else. It’s the “awesome and unparalleled experience” part that sticks a spear in my moral-horse.) But this is only a guess of mine; I can't say for sure what I would do.
He shouldn’t do it for the same reason why I would stop it. It’s just murder for no good reason, and it’s wrong. What you want to do is irrelevant when it comes to what is moral to do.
"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."
You're in lawschool ??? I don't like you anymore. (Only kidding)
Yes !
Self preservation !
Yes !
If I am as awesome as you claim, people will gladly give me some.
No !!
If this stupendous person can wipe my brain with one thought, why are you even asking me ?
Yeah, me too.
(I answered these all rather quickly. I feel like the stupid guy on QI now. Did I fall into a clever trap ?)
Don't mess with me. I'm a Law Student and I have big books.
It's a foreign state and its direct effects are completely limited to its region. Perhaps that wasn't made clear. Well. I do so now.
So, it has no direct affect on you. I don't think the argument of self-preservation would still apply.
There is no "some," merely the "one." Then again, you're probably still right.
Who said that he can wipe your brain? I just said that he could force you to do something. I imagine your feelings would remain the same.
I don't know. No clever traps as of yet. I just like asking questions and getting to underlying rationales.
Yes, but I would stop all believers from being shot into space if the shoe were on the other foot too. Is this some sort of freewill argument?
Sure, why not. I see that no matter what an atheist says you are going to bring up the concept of some god based morality. Therefore I am going to save you the trouble and prempt you and give you an answer that fits a typical theist bias of atheistic morality. Yes..... I am going to steal someone else's food to satisfy my own selfish tendencies. The question you posited was inadequately qualified as others have pointed out.
What gives with all the freewill arguments? If I may, I will refer to the typical christian answer when asked about the numerous cultures that bible god is credited to acts of genocide. God, being the ultimate being, can do whatever he/it wants to. If that means killing it's creation it is more than okay to do this. So, if this individual is more stupendous than myself then sure why not force me to execute non-believers. The morality for such an event is already laid out in the bible.
...
What do you call a bus load of lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? Oh you've probably heard that one already LOL. Morality is a touchy subject on both sides. I've yet to see any two people even agree to a definition that is even close to my own idea of what morality may be. So, I can understand why you felt unsatisfied with their answers.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
..
Hmm.. I seem to be having problems with copying and pasting. Let's see if this works.
No. It is a question given with the purpose of receiving an answer.
..I’m not sure how a freewill argument would tie in at all. Perhaps it’ll come to me.
I plan to do nothing of the sort.. and I haven’t, as of yet.
Okay. Thanks for your answer.
I’m not sure how it was inadequately qualified.. people have answered—for instance, you. True, some people have needed more, and so I’ve added more along the way. Yet, the fact that some people need more information does not make the question itself “inadequate.”
I haven’t made an argument as of yet, so I don’t know “what gives” with it. I’ve asked a question, posited a scenario. While it does require the individual to ascertain the value they place on whatever concept they have of “freewill,” that doesn’t mean I’m making an “argument.”
Well.. IF God does exist, and he is the “ultimate being,” then yes.. it’s true, he can in fact do whatever he wants. That would seem to be true by definition.
I think I understand your answer. Although, I mean, sharing my opinion for a moment, I would say that anything God does is per se moral, i.e., “it’s moral because he does it.” I think that is what your implying that all Christians believe.
Just because “God” (if he exists) can do something doesn’t mean it’s right for him to do it, nor does it mean that just because he does it the action is morally right.
Heh. No. Haven’t heard that one before.
Ya.. it’s definitely touchy subject, yet interesting. So what is your definition? If it’s something that can be summarized…
What? What are the exceptions?? I'm so curious!
Yes, because what the fuck? I've never understood these ridiculous scenarios. The use of the device at all is much more of a legal quagmire than you're hinting. Seriously, how are we going to get anywhere with ethics when the only questions anyone asks are completely ridiculous?
And I can't purchase it from the owner? Or this food is somehow unavailable to everyone? What's the point of this?
Should he psychically command me to do something without asking? No. It's a ridiculous question.
The following question is equally helpful in determining ethics:
You have eight herrings. You need to floss your teeth, but there are too may geese flying overhead. You reach into your pocket and pull out some floss, but you notice that you have no hand. Now:
Do you shoot the geese?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
..
His Willness: I like peanut butter, can you swim?
I’d rather not say. If you're seriously interested, I'm sure you can easily find them on the net. Just look up the Federal Rules of Evidence.
“Ridiculous” hypotheticals are used in order to get at very narrow issues. It is usually the extreme the makes us really understand where and why we stand… I don’t see why you’re having such a problem with this. Bad day?
See: Trolley and its corresponding doctor hypothetical.
“Legal quagmire.” It’s a made up state, how can there be a legal quagmire when I haven’t established any laws but the one mentioned?
No and no.
Um.. and the point is for you to answer.
Why or why not?
And you really haven’t answered any of the other questions either.. not completely. All you’ve answered is the first part, “would you do it?” While.. that’s all fine, just wanted to point out.
Do you swim?
p.s. I find your response unreasonably dismissive. I hope my response satisfactorily explained some of the issues.
The difference between a duck is that one of his legs is both the same.
What, you want me to actually work for my education? So unreasonable! Sigh. Fine.
It's just that it doesn't get at where someone stands if you don't give all the rules of your made-up universe. In fact, I don't think someone "really" understands where and why they stand for something at all given these hypotheticals. "If I change all the rules of the universe, how do you react?" makes itself irrelevant.
Well exactly. I can't very well respond to your question if you've only deigned to give one detail about my environment. I can only guess that you were willing to give the rest of the people in your imaginary kingdom rights over their person in some shape or form. I could only guess, and I guessed wrong. How would I know if I were hurting someone? That would probably guide my actions.
I'd answer if I had enough information to do so. Okay, so there's one and only one food thing that tastes amazing. In the whole world. Can we simplify this? You're referring to a unique experience that presumably can only be experienced once, and is amazing. But it can only be experienced by one person at a time?
Why or why [is it] not [a ridiculous question]?
Because I have no idea what the consequences of enjoying the experience really are. If it's not mine, but the person/entity it belongs to wouldn't mind if I enjoyed the experience, then no harm done. If I'd be hurting that person by experiencing it, then I'd consider it a completely different scenario. You haven't provided enough information for me to answer.
Of course not. I can't. You created a universe with psychics and no rules. Do other physical laws apply? There's no such thing, for instance, as a unique foodstuff. If you just mean there's a unique experience, then at least give me some indication of what the consequences are of removing that experience from another's control.
It's not really dismissive. My point should be clear by now. Once you change the rules of the universe, I no longer know how to play the game. Neither does anybody else. This type of question has frustrated me since childhood because reality is discounted.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
A genie came into a bottle with both the turtles floating in the ocean.
I didn't change all the rules of the universe, only the ones mentioned. In the absence of contrary statements, you're suppose to assume that all other things are left consistent with the world as it is. There is one exception to this, as you point out later, with regard to laws. I'll deal with that in a bit.
The have rights, but all rights within this state must bow to the will of the state. In other words, a dictatorship. That does not mean they do not have "rights" one to the other.
This avoids, what I feel, is a pointless discuss about individuals "legal rights."
Man. I really think you're making this a lot more difficult than need be.
But, if you want me to explain (and yes your framing of the question is a good one), it's this: (1) Unique object, (2) everyone wants, (3) only one person can have (that is not you), and (4) only once, makes a scenario in which, seemingly, there is something of ultimate gain to be had with ultimate loss for everyone else.
I should have added that "no external consequences" will come about because of your decision, e.g., you won't be put to death or something.
By framing the question in such a "ridiculous way" may lead to an explanation that implies one of a few different moral foundations: "natural law," "consequentialist theory," perhaps "principal-interest" or "evolutionary."
I didn't think the question was ridiculous, no more than most.
True. I did not, as conceeded above. But hopefully my preceding helped with it. You are not privy to any more information than I have stated; you don't know how it will make the other person "feel," all you know is that you are taking something of ultimate value which belongs to the other person.
Why wouldn't they?
What rules did I "change." Food is not "changing" something, certainly not a concept of "ultimate value." The idea that thoughts can be quantified and therefore ascertained by a machine is also not "changing" anything. I have added to our world, but I don't think I changed anything.. perhaps I'm just thinking of these things incorrectly.
Ouch! Apparently, I'm not awesome enough to read more carefully.
Haha, that makes this a really easy question then, doesn't it? On top of the ethical and practical problems of activating this device, I simply don't want to be launched into space.
Jeez, sounds like cocaine or something....and since I wouldn't steal cocaine...
No, I wouldn't steal it.
Ugh, I'm even more confused about this question now. In this scenario, am I a Christian who's going to launch non-believers into space or am I an atheist launching theists into space? Since I'm an atheist, and you stated, "other non-believers," does that imply that I'm atheist, and I'm launching other atheists into space? That wouldn't be very good...
My answer is no to all the interpretations I've considered, for all the same reasons I described before.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Hey, you're the one who invented the rules I keep unwittingly breaking. I was ready to share the unique object (not allowed), copy the unique object (not allowed), or pay for the object (not allowed). All of those things would be normal in the world, and probably give you a better idea of how I would really deal with a resource problem than just "take it or don't".
Well not any more, because I know what you're talking about. But I don't consider consequences like I'll be put to death. I was thinking more along the lines of "everyone will be pissed because I took the magic object and I'll live in social exile for the rest of my days". That would be implied with "ultimate loss for everyone else". Following your previously stated rule that all things are the same until contradicted, if I were to provide the world with ultimate loss, it would most likely make me unwelcome anywhere on earth. Not to mention the fact that I wouldn't want to provide "ultimate loss" to those I love and care about.
So this universe only has two people then? Me and the person affected? Okay, so I don't know how stealing from this person will affect them in this world. See, that's a LOT of changes to the world. If I lack empathy so totally that I can no longer guess how someone might feel if I stole something from them that is of ultimate value, I'm guessing I'm a sociopath. Well a sociopath in this scenario would certainly take the object of ultimate value. That behaviour is typical of a sociopath. I can't answer the question for me, because of the missing component of empathy.
Because you keep changing them! In that last bit, I have no empathy, and there are only two people in the world! (I think.)
I don't think you're thinking of these things "incorrectly", I just question the value of conclusions reached in an alternate, reduced universe.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Hah. Still awesome though.
Nope. Only applicable to the foreign. In other words, not to whatever state you live.. only other people.
Heh. Um.. "other non-believers" could also be read to mean "non-believers other than myself." So, you'd be an atheist forced to launch other people that do not fall in line into space as well.
Thanks for your answers though.
I probably wouldn't steal cocaine either.