How the problem is framed (or the battle post-attack rhetoric) is indeed of consequence.
1 posted on
09/13/2001 6:25:30 PM PDT by
Nebullis
To: crevo_list (subcategory 'other')
bump
2 posted on
09/13/2001 6:27:30 PM PDT by
Nebullis
To: VadeRetro, AndrewC
4 posted on
09/19/2001 3:52:19 PM PDT by
Nebullis
To: Nebullis
Brain imaging study sheds light on moral decision-making
Maybe we now have the means to show that Hillary Clinton does NOT possess a moral compass.
7 posted on
09/19/2001 5:49:58 PM PDT by
VOA
To: Nebullis
How the problem is framed (or the battle post-attack rhetoric) is indeed of consequenceI consider these types of studies as curiosities. There is a world of difference between a cold question and a hot event. Heroes don't ponder, they do.
10 posted on
09/19/2001 8:30:44 PM PDT by
AndrewC
To: Nebullis
Philosophers compare this problem to a second scenario, sometimes called the footbridge problem, in which a train is again heading toward five people, but there is no spur. Two bystanders are on a bridge above the tracks and the only way to save the five people is for one bystander to push the other in front of the train, killing the fallen bystander. I can't figure out how dumping yet another person in front of a train would save any of them. Wouldn't that just kill 6 people instead of five? What about the folks on the train?
But let's assume the one you, the other bystander, would push could cause the train to derail and somehow save the others... it isn't right to toss someone else in to do the job when you can do it yourself. So their belief that the situations they propose are essentially the same is a bit of a stretch.
23 posted on
09/19/2001 9:27:47 PM PDT by
piasa
To: Nebullis
This is Bill Clinton's brain making a moral decision:
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson