General / Off-Topic So... Do we have free will? :)
- Thread starter WeComeInPeace
- Start date
Is that your way of admitting that the conversation is a form of mental masturbation? I do find the idea that an individual lacks free will to be absurd and somewhat harmful, but on the other hand kind of fascinating, too. As such, I really would like to know what you think of my npc comparison which strikes me as very apt, but no one has wanted to touch so far.
The thought experiment with the trolley is often used because it's easy to understand. It's an example of a paradox in Utilitarianism, which states that the right action is the "one that creates least misery or most happiness". Another one:
You're a doctor. In one room you have five terminal patients, all needing an organ transplant. In another room you have a healthy patient that came in for a rutine check. Utilitarianism states that the right thing to do is to kill the healthy patient, and give the organs to the five terminal ones. It might be equally far out, but then think about how we choose, which patients to cure IRL.
Why ethics? Because choosing between right and wrong demands that you have free will. And that utilitarianism is much more common than one might think. It's just rarely called by it's "ism". Also many people excuse themselves by the "lack of free will".
There are other ethic theories, like that you have to do as one of the many "books" says, ore that you should trust your gut feeling. I tend to go for the last one, even though it's perhaps the most fuzzy one.
You're a doctor. In one room you have five terminal patients, all needing an organ transplant. In another room you have a healthy patient that came in for a rutine check. Utilitarianism states that the right thing to do is to kill the healthy patient, and give the organs to the five terminal ones. It might be equally far out, but then think about how we choose, which patients to cure IRL.
Why ethics? Because choosing between right and wrong demands that you have free will. And that utilitarianism is much more common than one might think. It's just rarely called by it's "ism". Also many people excuse themselves by the "lack of free will".
There are other ethic theories, like that you have to do as one of the many "books" says, ore that you should trust your gut feeling. I tend to go for the last one, even though it's perhaps the most fuzzy one.
Your examples of ethical dilemmas divorce morality from the equation, and when you separate the two (or remove morality altogether, which I suspect is part of the end game for some) you open the door to atrocity.
I agree, but it's still bloody hard to figure out, what's the right choice in many cases. That is why politicians, and the rest of us, often disagree.
When it comes to choosing between politicians we're generally presented with the choice between drinking poison and jumping out of a plane without a parachute. With that said, I do seriously take the moral consistency of the person in question into serious consideration before making a choice.
Making those decisions is complicated due to the fact that we are so often blatantly lied to by these people about where they stand. All too often we are faced with nothing but the lesser of two evils to choose from. Of course, considering the data and coming to a conclusion and actually deciding which really is the lesser of the two evils is, arguably, an expression of free will.
I see what you did there.Well seen !
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
That's absurd for many reasons; primum non nocere being the biggest one.
Death is perfectly natural.
Patients have autonomy.
Utilitarianism would be assisted suicide/euthanasia for the terminals.
Have you heard of triage?
If we have the available resources, then we extend help to as many folks as possible.
That's not a contradiction.
Professional ethics are explicit and they may run counter to personal morals.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I think it also takes a lot of integrity to set aside personal morals for professional ethics; eg a black physician saving the life of someone with racist tattoos.
@Bob
Yes I know that the thought experiment is absurd. That's why I used it. However in countries where you have public healthcare, you often need to choose. Some treatments can be very costly, and even though such a treatment can save a human life, some people think that it would be better to treat a lot of patients with non-lethal problems. We're getting away from "free will" and healthcare is a taboo, but it is just an example of ethics not always being an easy task. Many times such descisions are too much of a hot potato for the politicians, so instead they leave it to the doctors, and I know several examples where the doctors have found it "difficult" to set aside personal moral.
Ethics can roughly be divided into to categories. One where the consequence means everything, and the other where the intention is all that matters. IRL we often use some sort of utilitarianism with an "emergency brake" that we can pull if our gut feeling tells us that the utilitarian choice is absurd.
All of that assumes free will. Yet, quite many people believe that it's an illusion:
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Yes I know that the thought experiment is absurd. That's why I used it. However in countries where you have public healthcare, you often need to choose. Some treatments can be very costly, and even though such a treatment can save a human life, some people think that it would be better to treat a lot of patients with non-lethal problems. We're getting away from "free will" and healthcare is a taboo, but it is just an example of ethics not always being an easy task. Many times such descisions are too much of a hot potato for the politicians, so instead they leave it to the doctors, and I know several examples where the doctors have found it "difficult" to set aside personal moral.
Ethics can roughly be divided into to categories. One where the consequence means everything, and the other where the intention is all that matters. IRL we often use some sort of utilitarianism with an "emergency brake" that we can pull if our gut feeling tells us that the utilitarian choice is absurd.
All of that assumes free will. Yet, quite many people believe that it's an illusion:
Site Survey Shows 60 Percent Think Free Will Exists. Read Why
We are responsible for our own actions. Of course we are. Sure about that? “I think I can?” “I think I can’t?” All philosophizing aside, the assumption that we have free will has been called into question by research that suggests our brains are deciding for us before we become conscious of the...
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
@Bob
Yes I know that the thought experiment is absurd. That's why I used it. However in countries where you have public healthcare, you often need to choose. Some treatments can be very costly, and even though such a treatment can save a human life, some people think that it would be better to treat a lot of patients with non-lethal problems. We're getting away from "free will" and healthcare is a taboo, but it is just an example of ethics not always being an easy task. Many times such descisions are too much of a hot potato for the politicians, so instead they leave it to the doctors, and I know several examples where the doctors have found it "difficult" to set aside personal moral.
Ethics can roughly be divided into to categories. One where the consequence means everything, and the other where the intention is all that matters. IRL we often use some sort of utilitarianism with an "emergency brake" that we can pull if our gut feeling tells us that the utilitarian choice is absurd.
All of that assumes free will. Yet, quite many people believe that it's an illusion:
Site Survey Shows 60 Percent Think Free Will Exists. Read Why
We are responsible for our own actions. Of course we are. Sure about that? “I think I can?” “I think I can’t?” All philosophizing aside, the assumption that we have free will has been called into question by research that suggests our brains are deciding for us before we become conscious of the...
No it's absurd because you are misrepresenting medical ethics and utilitarianism.
Physicians make tough choices all the time, but those aren't them.
If you want a gander at real ethical dilemmas, I suggest the AMA:
https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/ethics
Journal of Ethics | American Medical Association
There is a team building, role play game, called the kidney machine. 6 candidates; all equal and a set time, to make a unanimous decision, for just one to survive, by using the machine. Don't decide on time and every one dies. You chose one and five die. The game has nothing to do with ethics; it is just about convincing others to follow your choice.
Last edited:
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
Actually, I find the reverse is the more interesting dilemma.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I would say that having ethics and therefore, being 'controlled' by your own ethics; which have been programmed into you from birth, removes a certain amount of free will.@Bob
Yes I know that the thought experiment is absurd. That's why I used it. However in countries where you have public healthcare, you often need to choose. Some treatments can be very costly, and even though such a treatment can save a human life, some people think that it would be better to treat a lot of patients with non-lethal problems. We're getting away from "free will" and healthcare is a taboo, but it is just an example of ethics not always being an easy task. Many times such descisions are too much of a hot potato for the politicians, so instead they leave it to the doctors, and I know several examples where the doctors have found it "difficult" to set aside personal moral.
Ethics can roughly be divided into to categories. One where the consequence means everything, and the other where the intention is all that matters. IRL we often use some sort of utilitarianism with an "emergency brake" that we can pull if our gut feeling tells us that the utilitarian choice is absurd.
All of that assumes free will. Yet, quite many people believe that it's an illusion:
Site Survey Shows 60 Percent Think Free Will Exists. Read Why
We are responsible for our own actions. Of course we are. Sure about that? “I think I can?” “I think I can’t?” All philosophizing aside, the assumption that we have free will has been called into question by research that suggests our brains are deciding for us before we become conscious of the...
Therefore logically: Only psychopaths and to a degree, sociopaths; would have an unlimited degree of free will.
Bob Lighthouse
Banned
I think these are useful distinctions:
Values, Morals and Ethics
Values are rules. Morals are how we judge others. Ethics are professional standards.
changingminds.org