7985 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!
Or course, by "whatever means," I'm not endorsing the wholesale homicide of male players. . .
Oh, that's considerate :D
This new theme, however, would push the fat guy after the trolley had passed.
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.
Well, I think the fat man represents a guy who is not a jerk or anything, but is just a pretty normal guy who isn't going to do anything particularly productive like cure cancer. The question is trying to ask you if the way that the one person is being killed matters; does the fact that you are physically pushing off a man result in a different decision than if you were just pulling a switch?
I say that if the fat guy outweighs the five people combined, then no. I say "the greater good" should be measured in mass, not numbers.
Survival of the fattest, so to speak.
Which, by the way, is why I would steal the bread.
To me it's a question of if a person is morally accountable for inaction.
If you could give a starving man bread by don't, is that a morally neutral action?
If you could save 10 by killing one but don't is that a morally neutral action?
It seems that you'd have to answer both of these the same.
I know, but the thing is, anybody can formulate a number of reasons to not push the guy (inadequate physical strength, fear of failure & its consequences, being in contact with a gross fat man, etc), whereas hitting the switch has far less contingencies. I know, it allows for a certain abstraction of thought, but it's a much cleaner problem with regards to the ultimate responsibility for the deaths of others, I think.
I would put the entire system in a box, and rig the switch up to throw only upon the decay of a single radioactive atom. As long as we don't look, everyone can stay in an indefinite superposition of alive and dead (provided we leave enough bread in the box).
What if the four of the guys on the railroad track are stealing the fifth guy's bread?
French or German bread?
It doesn't have to be a fat guy -- we could make it a skinny guy.
Wafflemaster: I believe those two things are wrong. With that said, I don't think the guy is a murderer (a lot of people probably do!); he's merely useless.
Think of it this way: if he was a murderer, why is it that if he didn't exist, the man would still die? He didn't cause death; he simply didn't help. He's a really bad man, but it's still not murder.
Wafflemaster: no, I believe those two things are wrong. With that said, I don't think the guy is a murderer (a lot of people probably do!); he's merely useless.
That's right, I forgot the POV (I used to agree with you by the way, it's not a bad argument ;)
You're saying the action of murder is worse than the inaction of allowing people to die, I see.
Elubas' topic seems totally unrelated, but it's interesting because I'm starting to agree with batgirl heh. Ideal world (which isn't wrong to fight for) vs practical allowances.
Maybe women's only tournaments could have a rating cap... that way they could draw more women in with a more explicit purpose... to integrate more women in professional play.
So my new idea... Having a female world chess championship is ok. Titles are dubious (aren't the standard titles incentive enough?) And tournaments are OK to a point
Wafflemaster: Mind you, I think there is a very, very, big difference between not helping someone when you have the power to do so (you own the food), and deciding to not steal even though stealing would save a life.
Well doesn't this allow for an out by saying you'd jump yourself? Theoreticalboy is right, the switch is cleaner.
By the way, does anyone have any data or something to show us any significant changes in women's chess since all of this women's only stuff?
I'm not implying anything with that, I'm genuinely curious. I just want to make sure the practical solution is actually doing the practical things it set out to do . If it disrespects men AND doesn't help get more women to play, then we definitely have a problem
Yeah, there's where more people will disagree with you I think. Saying action of stealing is worse than inaction allowing death.
So let's try to widen the gap a bit more :p What do you think about causing pain? If someone had a fatal disease, would you give them a shot with a cure even though the shot hurts them? I.e. action of causing pain vs inaction of allowing death.
TheGrobe: I'm not saying any of these situations are cleaner than another. Anyone can come up with a silly answer, but you only get something out of it if you take on the scenario head-on. If, for whatever reason, you had to, specifically, push a person to execute your kill-one-to-save-five ideal, would you do it under that condition? The point is not if it's realistic or not; only by answering the question head on do you get a feel for what you value the most. In this case we are conflicting consequence (save five) with the specific means of doing it ("I have to push that guy?").
The shot only helps; pain is a very superficial form of hurt by comparison. I'm not sure where you are going with that, but proceed; I'm enjoying the ride!
Well, I think I would not push him.
Now, if it were a fat woman on the other hand....
can I be an IM before i die?
by blitzjoker a few minutes ago
by Kansha 3 minutes ago
12/6/2013 - Mate in 8
by yoursisnodisgrace 3 minutes ago
Chess Is Garbage, Here Are My Own Openings
by MoonSnow 4 minutes ago
12/4/2013 - Immunity
by Prakalp007 5 minutes ago
Resigned game lost double points
by Kansha 7 minutes ago
Tactics Trainer Not Coming Up?
by Kansha 8 minutes ago
by Kansha 10 minutes ago
11/30/2013 - Extended Calculation and Vision
by Iyer_p 11 minutes ago
How to Improve??
by New_Member24 11 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!