Xenophobia is a well-known behavioral trait, this study seems to indicate xenophilia exists as well (i.e., Americans being more accepting of American causalities than Iraqi).
Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
11–20 of 117 posts
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#12Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
The real joke is that philosophers do this, too. If your ethical theory doesn't quite fit with people's moral intuitions, most philosophers will argue that, in itself, is a problem with the theory. This is why I don't put much stock in ethical theory--if intuition is a good enough moral guide that we use it to refute ethical theories, why do we need a theory? More damningly, on what other grounds can we possibly crit…
Well, I think the search for an ethical theory is still valid. That's one of the main exercises of philosophy, taking a lot of particular data points (in this case, moral intuitions) and trying to find some overarching pattern or system. Just because we haven't found a consistent one yet (or even if such a system does not exist) it doesn't mean the search isn't worthwhile.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#13That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
This version of the "trolley" thought experiment is explored in the book I mentioned in a previous post. It turns out people will not choose to steer a trolley of people needing organ replacements into a healthy potential organ donor. Thus, most people really aren't utilitarians, even if they claim to be. Unfortunately, one of the chemical processes in the brain reverses this attitude when someone prone to road rage spies a cyclist.
A typical response is that these sorts of mental games are silly, but how people answer these questions actually forms the basis of legal systems throughout the world.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#14I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
That is a moral code. The whole point of the question is whether your code is absolute: can you kill someone if the alternative is worse, or can you absolutely not kill someone regardless of the alternative?
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#15I find the bit about Iraqis vs. Americans a bit superficial. As a liberal, I would consider collateral damage less of a problem when Americans die because all Americans are responsible for the present situation in Iraq, while most Iraqis are innocent bystanders. I view this as utilitarian: if people who start wars have a greater chance of death than people who don't start wars, this should in theory decrease the incidence of war.
Similarly, when we talk about Tyrone vs. Chip, this is a question of a poor man vs. a rich man. But more to the point, "Chip Ellsworth III" evokes a sterotype of the rich Connecticut blueblood, a parasite aristocrat.
A much more interesting study would actually look at people in different clothes, with different skin tones. This just measures people's reaction to someone whose father was overly proud of his lineage and is likely a rich socialite.
Obviously this says something about my politics, but again it doesn't necessarily say anything vis-a-vis deontology vs. utilitarianism. Again, my impression of the name "Chip" is that he's a worthless individual who contributes nothing to society.
However, even if we assume that both are model citizens, it stands to reason that the death of the hypothetical lower-class black man is going to put his family through significant hardship, while Chip's family has enough money that mostly people will be getting a sudden unexpected influx of cash. So the question really becomes: kill one man, or kill one man and ruin his family's chance at a decent life.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#16Another flaw in this sort of study is that there's an enormous disconnect between what we say we would do, and what we would actually do. I might say "yes, I would push Chip/Tyrone over the rail", because I really do believe that's the best thing to do. But if I were actually faced with that dilemma and had to murder someone, could I do it?
Maybe! It depends on the circumstances... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#17That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
I remember watching a documentary where they found that drivers are much more likely to cut off cyclists wearing helmets than those without helmets. They also measured things like average distance between car and bike when passing. If people see you not wearing a helmet they assume that you are unsafe and will stay further away from you.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#18I call BS on the test. Interesting. You state that Casey Jones should divert the train, yet this will cause the death of the person trapped on the railway siding. This seems to be inconsistent with your belief that it is always wrong to cause another person's death. It is somewhat perplexing that you responded this way, since you do not believe that this course of action is necessiated by any general moral requiremen…
> It's simply the better of two options
And that's why we call it utilitarianism.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#19That explains the behavior of all the drivers as I cycle to work. They are all moral philosophers and believe that by killing me they provide donor organs to save 6 others. Maybe I need a cycling top that says "I don't carry a donor card"
I remember watching a documentary where they found that drivers are much more likely to cut off cyclists wearing helmets than those without helmets. They also measured things like average distance between car and bike when passing. If people see you not wearing a helmet they assume that you are unsafe and will stay further away from you.
A friend of mine got access to the traffic accident statistics for Connecticut for several years. He found that it was safer to use smack than to ride a bike. If I remember correctly he also found that in the event of a reported accident, a bicyclist had a 15% chance of a "life-altering event". (For instance you might live, but never walk normally again.)
After that he gave up biking and switched to tennis.
Re: Kill Whitey- It’s the right thing to do.
#20Key quote from the article (IMHO): "The idea is not that people are or are not utilitarian; it’s that they will cite being utilitarian when it behooves them. People are aren’t using these principles and then applying them. They arrive at a judgement and seek a principle."
Of course I cannot speak for people on HN, but this has been my anecdotal experience. People cite all sort sof utilitarian justifications for believing in the absolute power of free markets, or of democracy, or of paying lower taxes, or whatever.
I'm certainly representative. I like having the government provide my children's health care and enjoy living in a safe city. What a shocking surprise, I advocate those principles that I perceive (rightly or wrongly) as providing me with the things I like.