11144 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Honestly speaking, I don't think you have any idea what you would do in that situation unless you actually experience it; empathy can only go so far.
It's true -- in these kinds of situations, it's easy to say you would do one thing when you're just dreaming it up, and there are a lot of hypothetical questions like that one that I may well be unable to answer. I totally understand what you're saying. However, in this particular one, I am very aware of my values; I would love to save my family, but I would have to save them "the right way," and if that was impossible, guess what -- I would accept their death. I would say that I did everything I could without forcing anyone else into the situation. I believe that stealing from someone, against their will, to save someone close to you is telling them to make the decision "my family is more important than your profit." As sad as it is, I think it is up to the owner of the food to make that decision, not you; I would hope he would give it to me, but if not, I could be annoyed as hell at his decision, but I would still have to respect his right to make the decisions with what he owns.
You are a bastion of moral rectitude.
I think, though, that you have a very different sense of duty than, say, TheGrobe.
I'd have to guess that TheGrobe's first duty is to his family.
Sorry, I ain't buying it. We have laws and regulations to prevent people from asserting the absolute supremacy of their personal mores; that's why a person can't kill someone and then claim being arrested is an infringement on their values.
Put simply, respect for human life is far more important than a pithy property struggle, or at least it should be.
So I have some people calling me a monster, others that it says a lot for my morals
Look guys, you can have whatever opinion about me that you want, but I just want to say that I think I have made clear that I have very strong moral principles; I guess I just rank them in a different sense than most people.
I think my opinion is characterized by looking at different points of view. If I was starving, then from my point of view, I think he should give me the food. But I know that his perspective is different. What I'm trying to do is avoid being so biased with my values, that I force someone to make a decision against their own values. It's not all about my values.
pawn to E4
Wow, no kidding. If you're stealing the bread from another starving family, I get you, but in a situation where the consequences aren't balanced; i.e., you don't steal the bread your family dies, you do steal the bread and a large multinational loses out on a couple of bucks; you'd be an idiot not to take it.
What you are describing are your values -- I reckon, if you were the owner, you would give the bread, and I would too.
The problem with your argument is that by applying this to stealing, you are, in that case, forcing your values on someone else. It might be obvious to you that the family should be saved, but you know what, maybe the owner has different values than you. Why should he do what your values want him to do? He should do what his values tell him to do, not yours.
Do I think the owner should give me the bread? Yeah. But it's not for me to decide if it's not mine.
In theory it's great, in practice it depends. In any case every time we interact with each other we make allowances, so I'm not sure I buy into this sort of morality by means of subjecting others to your values. A sort of pacifist approach that assigns inaction a neutral value... I can see that argument but don't agree with it myself ;)
It's been a while since philosophy 101 (where you get a lot of different views) but Kant's greatest good for the greatest number seems to make sense. By taking the bread you cause perhaps even negligible harm to prevent (cause less) suffering/death... that sort of thing.
What is the point of segregating chess by gender? What are people's thoughts on chess being co-ed all the time?
A marketing ploy that, amazingly enough, snubs the gender issue.
I think it should be.
Trysts, I totally agree, it's individual. But we are faced with is the statistical reality that potential to reach the top increases significantly with the increase of the pool. While there's no doubt that any individual will have to subject himself/herself to the most grueling training, those people don't show up out of thin air and out of 1000 people with the desire, only a couple, if that many will make it. So you need 1000s upon 1000s of potential prospects with that desire. J. Polgar is an anomaly, just as Paul Morphy had been in becoming a world champion in 1860 America. Anomalies happen. The female pool is teeny tiny, though far beyond what it was years ago. The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means. Women tournaments have and do increase the pool. There are reasons, whatever they might be, that women tend to participate more in separate events, but it seems true that they do. Now, there's a price paid for this. We are aware of these prices, so I won't try to enumerate. Sure there are other ways to go about things, but I don't think this was is invalid, nor do I think that the money diverted from general chess for prizes is so devastating. That a man is WC doesn't say anything for men in general anymore than J. Polgar being a whiz makes me a better player. But the reason for lower ratings/ranking of women in general does, I feel, lie in statistics and the only way to bolster the situation is to change the statistically input.
Trysts, I totally agree, it's individual. But we are faced with the statistical reality that potential to reach the top increases significantly with the increase of the pool. While there's no doubt that any individual will have to subject himself/herself to the most grueling training, those people don't show up out of thin air and out of 1000 people with the desire, only a couple, if that many will make it. So you need 1000s upon 1000s of potential prospects with that desire. J. Polgar is an anomaly, just as Paul Morphy had been in becoming a world champion in 1860 America. Anomalies happen. The female pool is teeny tiny, though far beyond what it was years ago. The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means. Women tournaments have and do increase the pool. There are reasons, whatever they might be, that women tend to participate more in separate events, but it seems true that they do. Now, there's a price paid for this. We are aware of these prices, so I won't try to enumerate. Sure there are other ways to go about things, but I don't think this way is invalid, nor do I think that the money diverted from general chess for prizes is so devastating. That a man is WC doesn't say anything for men in general anymore than J. Polgar being a whiz makes me a better player. But the reason for lower ratings/ranking of women in general does, I feel, lie in statistics and the only way to bolster the situation is to change the statistically input.
I tend to disagree but appreciate your input. This + trysts post = very good
Hi wafflemaster :)
Since we are talking about philosophy, I will ask you a different question:
"A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?"
The classic trolley problem, allowing you to kill one to save five, in a nasty way. Would you do it? Again, I wouldn't do it based on the principle that I shouldn't force someone to believe in "kill one to save five," even if that's what I personally believe. Maybe you would steal the bread, but would you push the guy?
If you are aware of the original question (before the fat man is introduced), note that I would then, indeed, kill the one.
Hehe, fun question ;) I've heard the version you're on a plane that will kill a city's worth of people and to stop it you have to shoot through the human shield of a terrorist and it may be a child or family member etc.
To me that's a lose lose situation because I don't see inaction as neutral. I hope I'd be able to kill the few to save the many. I see people's role in events as an active one. We can make things better or worse. Doing nothing when we can make a difference isn't best IMO.
When you set it as someone you know or a child, it brings in added morality values... we feel strongly about our local communities esp. friends and family. Weighing them against strangers is difficult. I'm not saying I'd sacrifice people on the spot, but I think I'd regret it later if I didn't.
... and that's only if it's a sure thing. For example if a criminal wanted me to do _____ to save the life of his captive it's likely I wouldn't because the choice is his and I don't see my action as having much influence there. Never an easy choice anyway.
"The key, to me, is to increase the pool by whatever means." Batgirl
This is the crux of where we disagree. You want to use whatever means necessary to increase the amount of female players, whereas I only want to do it "softly," maybe by being nice to them, encouraging, but without giving them extra advantages unavailable to the males. That's why I brought up the philosophy (I know it was extreme, and I apologize in case, but it still demonstrates how we fundamentally disagree), as our ranking of our values is what determines our positions here.
Wafflemaster: Would you really be able to, with authoritative force, push that guy, though? :)
The fat guy would, likely, have already sent me hurtling to my death.
That adds another wrinkle. Do you hang around and let the fat guy throw you off the bridge to save five people you don't know, or do you run like the wind to save yourself?
Although it's funny there's a bit of conflict there. In an ideal world I think pacifism is good, but I'm arguing against it (for practical reasons).
In an ideal world I think chess shouldn't take gender into account, and I argue for it... while the detractors cite practical reasons. Maybe in time I'll go over to their side :p
Although the greater practical harm I see is the gender stereotyping it can't help but support by its nature. Maybe I'm overestimating it.
Or course, by "whatever means," I'm not endorsing the wholesale homicide of male players. . .
I'd steal the fat guy's bread, shove him off the bridge, then go give the bread to the five idiots standing on the railroad track.
It all depends on how much you believe the ends justify the means. I think sometimes they do, but sometimes they don't!
I find the best wording of that problem is that the trolley cart is hurtling towards five people, but you can pull the switch to kill only one. Using the term "fat guy" would add the problem of negative stereotyping on top of everything else.
Haha, I like that one, but it seems easier to answer from a philosophical POV as many societies thought the ages have deemed self sacrifice to be among the greatest morally wholesome things a person can do.
In all honesty, I'd likely rationalize a reason not to sacrifice myself, and let the trolly full of people die. If it were more people or people I knew it would be harder though.
Oh, that's considerate :D
Can Anyone Become Grandmaster?
by Sangwin a few minutes ago
Nakamura, The Future World CHamp??
by Fixing_A_Hole a few minutes ago
Can't figure out a good refutation
by Phelon a few minutes ago
by FeralHobo a few minutes ago
What were your "Aha!" Moments in your chess development?
by DelCheMethod 3 minutes ago
Darth Vader Opening
by Jion_Wansu 6 minutes ago
12/19/2013 - Marshall - Levitsky, Kongress 1912
by Sundeep1008 7 minutes ago
Luck In Chess
by Jion_Wansu 8 minutes ago
Is it worth upgrading the software?
by ZaidejasChEgis 9 minutes ago
Chess & Other Games
by Jion_Wansu 9 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2013 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!