81–90 of 117 posts
Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I'm not cycling I have a Subaru WRX, and yet on the road I'm held up by all these people in SUVs,minivans and pickup trucks that can't do 0-60 in Same on sidewalks - I'm jogging along and the sidewalk is crowded with old people that can't maintain a 50min 10K time, they should get out of my way.
Ironically, there is a law against accelerating too fast. It's usually called illegal "display of acceleration". BTW, I have a Subura WRX STI (2006).
I even beat the neighbors Porsche on the bike - I don't have the STI and the WRX is detuned in this market so it can't beat the Porshce on it's own!
That 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"
No offense, I was a successful bmx racer for a number of years so I used to be a hardcore bicyclist, but I really have a problem with bicyclists riding on roads on which they have no ability to maintain the posted speed limit. I experience this nearly every day on a road I drive to/from work. This is a four-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. It is a favorite of bicyclists for some reason so there are a…
If you want to get to work fast, take the train.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are not your government, and neither are the Iraqis. I would say that our nation is us, and the same is true of the Iraqis. The bad things that my nation does (including the entity that it allows to govern) is my responsibility, especially because its acts are enabled because of my production (i.e., taxes, technology I develop, etc.). The very same thing is true of Iraqis. They allowed their government to continu…
Given that the only feasible mechanism for the respective populations to promptly remove Bush/Hussein from power in 2003 would involve violence, a significant likelihood of failure and a high degree of probability that any regime emerging to fill the power vacuum would be worse, I'm not remotely convinced that their inaction implies accountability for Bush/Hussein's actions. Acquiesence != acceptance, never mind acco…
It might be that a realistic examination reveals that regime change would be too "expensive", or risks failure either because the current regime wins, or because the replacement is no better ("the king is dead; long live the king").
However, given that analysis, it's still immoral to sit idly by and let events run their course. One would still have, at the very least, the obligation to (a) try to precipitate change in the long term; and (b) possibly contrive to minimize ones own contribution (by way of taxes and other support) to the current regime and its projects.
My impression is that the Iraqi people aren't doing a whole lot in either of those approaches (although I haven't studied it extensively, and what I do know is through the lens of the media). So while your claim may be correct in some cases, I don't see that it's applicable here.
I think it's important to point out that the names chosen are not only denotations of race, they are denotations of class. Maybe instead of the liberals feeling better about killing the white guy to save the black guys, they feel better about killing the rich guy to save the poor guys. There is a tendency to conflate class issues with race issues in America, and I think that really muddles the debate somewhat.
There is a tendency to conflate the two because they are strongly correlated. It's not a mistake to assume that Tyrone is poor and black and Chip is rich and white -- it's a best guess based on observations about reality in the US. Does it make it absolutely moral to make that assumption? Of course not, people should be treated without regard to previous biases, etc. But it doesn't mean the statistical inference is i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No offense, I was a successful bmx racer for a number of years so I used to be a hardcore bicyclist, but I really have a problem with bicyclists riding on roads on which they have no ability to maintain the posted speed limit. I experience this nearly every day on a road I drive to/from work. This is a four-lane highway with a posted speed limit of 45mph. It is a favorite of bicyclists for some reason so there are a…
If there was sensible infrastructure for commuting by bicycle, there wouldn't be a problem. As it stands you're just asking people to give up a healthier and cheaper means of transportation with fewer negative externalities for little more than the convenience of motorists[1]. That's bad public policy. [1] I don't buy the safety argument one bit--cars put cyclists in danger far more than cyclists put cars in danger.
I ride my bike to work (almost) every day and do about 100 miles of road riding a week in addition to that. Rarely do I have problems on the streets of Chicago, because I choose wide roads that are "off the beaten path" and there is plenty of room for cars to use the other 3 lanes (giving me one to myself). People interact safely because it doesn't inconvenience them.
The other day, though, I had an interesting encounter with the driver of (you guessed it) an SUV. I was waiting to go straight through an intersection where there is only one lane for left turns, going straight, and turning right. I'm stopped at the red light. The car comes up behind me, and the driver gets out of the car and asks if I can "get off the road" so she can "make a right on red". I told her the lane is not marked for that, and I tried to choose the safest position for myself while waiting for the light to change. This annoys her, so she drives over the curb, onto the sidewalk... and has to wait for pedestrians crossing the street. The light turns green and there are pedestrians crossing the other way, so there she waits... stuck on the sidewalk.
The reason I don't feel bad about making her wait is that if there was a car there waiting to turn left or go through, then she'd be stuck, too. But the mentality of drivers is "us vs. them"; a car is a normal, a red light is normal... but a bike in my way! That's some selfish bastard (her words) stealing 15 seconds of my life!
Now I know why most people drive to work -- they don't want to get yelled at (or be endangered by) other drivers. You have to have a thick skin if you want to cycle and survive. And thus the cycle continues; "those damn cyclists need to get off my God-given roads, because someone told me that the one time I wanted to ride my bike to the store."
From just thinking about such "experiments", I'd say that such an event is so outside the experience of most people that they simply would not have a mechanism for making such a decision. The somewhat less painful issues around "the right to die" are still very distressing when you are actually confronted with them. For example, consider the unwillingness of soldiers to fire in combat: http://www.historynet.com/men-against-fire-how-many-soldiers...
Certainly, some people do make such decisions in times of war or times of disaster. I doubt, however, that those folks have dealt with such brutal dilemas would find an evening of exchanging philosophical hypotheticals on the subject terribly enlightening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ironically, there is a law against accelerating too fast. It's usually called illegal "display of acceleration". BTW, I have a Subura WRX STI (2006).
The reason I bike to work is that in the traffic here I can do the trip in 20mins vs >1hour in a car. The bike computer says I averaged just over 30km/h ,max 70km/h (there's a big hill!) I even beat the neighbors Porsche on the bike - I don't have the STI and the WRX is detuned in this market so it can't beat the Porshce on it's own!
The ride back home was not as fast, though.
Here's one I've always liked, along the same lines, that tends to make even the most committed utilitarians pause: You need to build a driveway up to your new house, and there are two possible routes, each one with a single maple tree in the way. One of the trees is very old, but quite healthy, standing at least 50 feet high. The other was just planted a few months ago, so is still quite small. You're not the one tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the moral line isn't between tossing baby or doctor out. No. The moral line is between whether you're able to kill a person ("toss out to save somebody else" - our human killer brain is good with coming out with "good/valid" reasons to kill) or not. If you're able to kill, then it is just a small technical detail whom to kill and why.
I think that vast majority of people would kill under some circumstances. EX: Conscripted army’s have worked fairly well throughout history.