CDZ Can you be rational?

[westwall]

Choose one to save, one to die, and live with it.

You are still presenting a false choice. Can you make a rational argument as to why someone should risk their life saving either of them?

Their life is not at risk. They are simply forced to make a choice. The question is, what is the rational choice?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one. As has been pointed out many times before. Simply choosing based on one point of data is not "rational" it is merely simplistic. Let us take a look at the definition of rational. Nowhere does one see non thinking. In fact one of the synonyms is "reasoned", another is judicious, both of which mean well thought out. Using as much information as possible to arrive at a INTELLIGENT decision.

What you claim to be 'rational' is in fact an effort to memorialize ignorance as a virtue.




"based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious,shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent; More"

Google

 

[westwall]

You're inability to think is amazing.

setting aside emotions, being rational, would cause a person to keep themselves safe.

it's why when someone is getting beat to death people break out their phones to record it instead of helping or calling the cops

That's your morality, not that of most people who can make a rational decision to try and save at least one. Being a selfish child you wouldn't understand that.

well you have a short memory problem, you should see a doctor.

b/c I clearly stated what I would do earlier.

Wrong then and still wrong.

I was right then and am still right. You have a very narrow mind.


Pick a number

if it's between 1 and 10 you failed to use an open mind

Good news, I didn't, I read to the bottom of the thread first, XXXXXXXXXX

You chose to post this in the CDZ. I suggest you abide by the rules of the zone you placed it in.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one.

It is nothing of the kind. If you have two children and the Nazis say pick one to live or they both die, that is very real. There is a rational answer here, whether you like it or not. You have to choose based on very limited information so, choose, the infant or the teenager?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fail, but TY.

Fail for whom? It works beautifully for ME, and that's really the only thing I'm concerned with.

Letting two die when you could have saved one if not rational, not at all. It is however very selfish...

 

[westwall]

Choose one to save, one to die, and live with it.

You are still presenting a false choice. Can you make a rational argument as to why someone should risk their life saving either of them?

Their life is not at risk. They are simply forced to make a choice. The question is, what is the rational choice?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one.

It is nothing of the kind. If you have two children and the Nazis say pick one to live or they both die, that is very real. There is a rational answer here, whether you like it or not.

No, the rational answer and the only one that matters, is to attack the Nazi and kill him. The reason why a few hundred thousand scumbags were able to kill millions is the millions acted like sheep when they should have acted like lions and attacked. An intelligent person realizes that when given that sort of choice the reality is you are all already dead, you are merely putting off the day of reckoning. Better to get it over with as quick as possible and take one of the SOB's with you.

You see your choices are not choices based on reason. They are false choices based on fear and an unwillingness to think.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Choose one to save, one to die, and live with it.

You are still presenting a false choice. Can you make a rational argument as to why someone should risk their life saving either of them?

Their life is not at risk. They are simply forced to make a choice. The question is, what is the rational choice?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one.

It is nothing of the kind. If you have two children and the Nazis say pick one to live or they both die, that is very real. There is a rational answer here, whether you like it or not.

No, the rational answer and the only one that matters, is to attack the Nazi and kill him. The reason why a few hundred thousand scumbags were able to kill millions is the millions acted like sheep when they should have acted like lions and attacked. You see your choices are not choices based on reason. They are false choices based on fear and an unwillingness to think.

To fight them in that case would have meant you and the children would have all died then and there, which is irrational. It was too late to do anything but choose.

And yes, the Jews died like schoolgirls, not men.

 

[westwall]

Fail, but TY.

Fail for whom? It works beautifully for ME, and that's really the only thing I'm concerned with.

Letting two died when you could have saved one if not rational, not at all. It is however very selfish...

Nope, if you are a father and have children of your own and you are their only means of support then it is the smart thing to do. That is why when a person voluntarily makes the choice to risk their life to save another they are respected and lauded.

Your false choice decisions are indicative of a lack of thought which is the antithesis of rational thinking.

 

[westwall]

You are still presenting a false choice. Can you make a rational argument as to why someone should risk their life saving either of them?

Their life is not at risk. They are simply forced to make a choice. The question is, what is the rational choice?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one.

It is nothing of the kind. If you have two children and the Nazis say pick one to live or they both die, that is very real. There is a rational answer here, whether you like it or not.

No, the rational answer and the only one that matters, is to attack the Nazi and kill him. The reason why a few hundred thousand scumbags were able to kill millions is the millions acted like sheep when they should have acted like lions and attacked. You see your choices are not choices based on reason. They are false choices based on fear and an unwillingness to think.

To fight them in that case would have meant you and the children would have all died then and there, which is irrational. It was too late to do anything but choose.

And yes, the Jews died like schoolgirls, not men.

Wrong. You are all already dead. Merely choosing cause extreme mental anguish to the chooser and merely prolongs the suffering. Far better to kill the oppressor and die in the attempt than to allow ones self to be tormented at their will. My choice IS the only rational one. Yours is a choice based on fear and an inability to think about the future outcomes, you are only capable of thinking about the here and now, like any two year old child.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Their life is not at risk. They are simply forced to make a choice. The question is, what is the rational choice?

And, as has been pointed out to you before, you are presenting a false choice and it is not a rational one.

It is nothing of the kind. If you have two children and the Nazis say pick one to live or they both die, that is very real. There is a rational answer here, whether you like it or not.

No, the rational answer and the only one that matters, is to attack the Nazi and kill him. The reason why a few hundred thousand scumbags were able to kill millions is the millions acted like sheep when they should have acted like lions and attacked. You see your choices are not choices based on reason. They are false choices based on fear and an unwillingness to think.

To fight them in that case would have meant you and the children would have all died then and there, which is irrational. It was too late to do anything but choose.

And yes, the Jews died like schoolgirls, not men.

Wrong. You are all already dead. Merely choosing cause extreme mental anguish to the chooser and merely prolongs the suffering. Far better to kill the oppressor and die in the attempt than to allow ones self to be tormented at their will. My choice IS the only rational one. Yours is a choice based on fear and an inability to think about the future outcomes, you are only capable of thinking about the here and now, like any two year old child.

You are a child, and you think like one. When forced to make a rational decision you don't like you try to change the rules instead of saying, based on that situation, here is the rational choice. The Nazis have guns pointed at your heads and one will die but two will live and your "rational" choice is to have all three die? That is the thinking of a mental infant.

 

[Asclepias]

To be a truly rational thinker you have to be able to make decisions based on very limited information and back up your reasoning. "I'm not sure why" or "I don't know" doesn't count.

A test (and feel free to post your own of course):

In front of you is a burning car about to explode. There are two people in the car, a teenage girl in the front and an infant boy in the back. You can save only one. Who is the most rational one to save, and why?

You cannot change the conditions of the test and that's all the information you have to go on. Points if you even attempt an answer (most won't)...


FYI:

"Socratic method, also known as maieutics, method of elenchus, elenctic method, or Socratic debate, is named after the classical Greek philosopher Socrates. Elenchus is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presumptions. It is a dialectical method, often involving a discussion in which the defense of one point of view is questioned; one participant may lead another to contradict themselves in some way, thus weakening the defender's point. This method is introduced by Socrates in Plato's Theaetetus as midwifery (maieutics) because it is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding."
Socratic method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The teenage girl. She is in the front and easier to reach and remove from the vehicle.

 

[OldLady]

The car is in front of me and about to explode. I'll save the one I can get to first, which given only the information provided means the infant because he's (1) closer and (2) still presumably alive (given the scenario's constraints and stipulations -- there's no choice about which to save if the infant is dead when I get to the car) when I get there. Time is critical and immutable, and I don't know when the car will explode. Extra half second I may take to get the girl may result in all three of us dying; I can't know if it will or won't. I see as my goal to doing what I can, and not killing myself in the process, regardless of whether I have a basis -- rational or not -- for preferring to save the boy or the girl.

Perhaps as I'm freeing the infant, I can talk the girl through a way out under her own power? Given the info provided, I can't say whether that'd be possible or not, let alone effective.

The above is my answer given only the information available. Can I sit here and "armchair quarterback" around all sorts of unstipulated elements like whether I can shout at the girl and get her to open her door or the rear door, how much time will it take to unsecure the boy from the child safety seat or the seat from the car seat belts, etc? Sure, I can; anyone can. But you said the only info is that which you provided; thus what basis have I for assuming anything not expressly stated and not assuredly assumable, such as the passage of time? Even there, did you state the car was facing forward? No, there's one assumption I made in making my choice.

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

You didn't specify that this was an end of the world scenario where a woman's ability to reproduce is all important. I would without hesitation save the baby, gender doesn't matter. We must help the baby first because the baby can't help himself/herself. Protecting the young is a trait that has been with us since we were swinging from the trees, and it has served us well
I'm interested in how Socrates would counter that as irrational.

 

[Asclepias]

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

You didn't specify that this was an end of the world scenario where a woman's ability to reproduce is all important. I would without hesitation save the baby, gender doesn't matter. We must help the baby first because the baby can't help himself/herself. Protecting the young is a trait that has been with us since we were swinging from the trees, and it has served us well
I'm interested in how Socrates would counter that as irrational.

Wouldnt the fact that its instinct to save the baby make it irrational? I didnt even know this was an end of the world scenario. That makes saving the girl even more important.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Your attempt to change the conditions of the test has failed.

??? What test condition did I change?

I deleted that. You did not so much try to change the test as work much too hard trying to explain your answer, which is wrong.

What's wrong about it?

The much more valuable life in this case is the one that can, within a year, replace the other one. All lives are not equal. Brutal, but rational.

You didn't specify that this was an end of the world scenario where a woman's ability to reproduce is all important. I would without hesitation save the baby, gender doesn't matter. We must help the baby first because the baby can't help himself/herself. Protecting the young is a trait that has been with us since we were swinging from the trees, and it has served us well
I'm interested in how Socrates would counter that as irrational.

You made the emotional choice, I must save the baby. Neither could save themselves and there is only time to save one, which is what forced you to make a rational choice. Since she can (nearly without a doubt), in a year, make another baby, you chose incorrectly. The baby had the lesser value to society and could easily be replaced with another child in short order.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Wouldnt the fact that its instinct to save the baby make it irrational?

In this case, yes. A choice based on emotion, not reason.

 

[Anathema]

Letting two die when you could have saved one if not rational, not at all. It is however very selfish...

Potentially getting yourself into harms way to save someone when you get nothing oit of it is irrational..... Investment very likely exceeds Return in you scenario.

 

[OldLady]

Philosophy is interesting but leads to some pretty ugly bottom lines. I know the OP shuns emotion, but it is part of who we are and can't be entirely divorced from our decisions. Emotion unchecked can lead to very poor decisions, but the OP seems an extreme example of where sole reason leads us.

 

[Asclepias]

Letting two die when you could have saved one if not rational, not at all. It is however very selfish...

Potentially getting yourself into harms way to save someone when you get nothing oit of it is irrational..... Investment very likely exceeds Return in you scenario.

Depends on how much harm. Without changing the OP the only information you have is that the car is going to explode at some future point informing you that you have time to save someone without harming yourself.

 

[Anathema]

Depends on how much harm. Without changing the OP the only information you have is that the car is going to explode at some future point informing you that you have time to save someone without harming yourself.

Any chance is too much in my mind. I take care of me. You take care of you. Everyone gets what they deserve or whst Fate has assigned to them.

 

[Asclepias]

Depends on how much harm. Without changing the OP the only information you have is that the car is going to explode at some future point informing you that you have time to save someone without harming yourself.

Any chance is too much in my mind. I take care of me. You take care of you. Everyone gets what they deserve or whst Fate has assigned to them.

If that were true you wouldnt have made it after leaving the womb.

 

[Anathema]

If that were true you wouldnt have made it after leaving the womb.

Children and animals are a different matter when they're your own. The parents CHOSE to bring the child into the world by having sec. They now have a responsibility to maintain thst child until adulthood, at which time it is expected to fend for utself. It's a parasitic relationship.