Sociopath Community

We have made the first in a philosophy-lesson in my last school. 

I kill the one, I kill the fat man, indifferent if he's innocent or not.

But for me not the saved people are the incentive, just that I can decide who should die. 

Who thinks this experiments up? Just to see how others react?

Ah good. Your response is consistent with your claim that morality is not just a matter of maximising the happiness of the greatest number of people. However, your belief that Casey Jones should not divert the train is unusual, so it would be interesting to know what your thinking is here. For now, though, let's see how you get on with the scenario below.

Previous research indicates that most people agree with you that the fat man should not be thrown off the bridge. Moreover, your response is consistent with your earlier claim that Casey Jones should not divert his train so that it kills only one person rather than five; and with your belief that morality is not just a matter of maximising the happiness of the greatest number of people. Have a look at the scenario below. It'll be interesting to see whether your response to it is consistent with your responses to date.

Many people will agree with you that it is right to throw the saboteur off the bridge in order to save the lives of the five people stuck on the track. It is also worth noting that there is no contradiction between this view and your belief that in neither the 'innocent' (fat) man scenario, nor in the divert the train scenario, would it be right to sacrifice the life of one person in order to save the lives of five other people. Presumably what explains the difference here is that thoughts about culpability come into play in the scenario involving the saboteur. It is possible that similar thoughts about culpability will be a part of how you think about the scenario below.

Your response that the fat man should not be tortured is consistent with your earlier claim that torture is always wrong. However, this blanket opposition to torture doesn't sit easily with some of the other responses you have given. In particular, you have claimed that if it is possible to save the lives of innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness, and without putting your own life at risk, then there is a moral obligation to do so. It is certainly possible to argue that torturing the fat man is justified in these terms if it prevents, or there is good reason to think that it might prevent, the detonation of a nuclear device. Moreover, on at least one occasion you have responded that it would be right to end the life of one person to save the lives of some other greater number of people. It is strange then that you do not think that torture is ever justified, not even in a situation where by employing it one might be able to save all those people whose lives would otherwise be lost in a nuclear explosion. Maybeyour opposition to torture is more emotional than rational.

 The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is better), which is 78%.

The last question gave me pause. I'd also like to say that I didn't answer the questions based on my previous answers and I didn't I retake the test. I also don't think that "higher is better". I just disliked the way the last question was formulated. It was too ideal. The game was rigged.

I got 83% consistent. one question was considered inconsistent because I did not agree with how the question was worded. (It is not about the person's "happiness" but what they agree is in their "best interests", so I said no cuz how this was worded based on "happiness" which was too vague. sometimes what they AGREE are their best interests goes against feelings.

People can be "happy" with really screwed up legislation that is not in their best interest. So I don't consider the majority opinion based on what they think makes them "happy." i would go for consensus so any conflicts are worked out, to establish the best interest of all people based on what they AGREE on.

As for the torture question, since the Al Qaeda bust in Afghanistan to get Bin Laden was based on torture used by the Bush admin, I learned it is sometimes deemed necessary.

Again, it's not what I personally believe in doing, or what makes people happy, but in that case, it was in the best interest of the public to follow through. Though I disagree personally, I separate my feelings/beliefs on this from what is needed for public closure.

For the other questions, of course if death or suffering can be avoided we should avoid it.

But it is not always the role of this person or that person to take life or save life.

I don't consider this a "moral" obligation, like an outside person "judging" others.

I believe it is a NATURAL law by conscience that people will act by FREE WILL to do the best possible in any given situation. If they fail to act, maybe it wasn't their job to do so. (If ppl VOW to take on greater responsibility, such as an military or police officer, yes, I might hold that person to their job of protecting or saving lives, but can't go against what they believe was right for THEM to do. If they have higher reasons, I would try to respect that.) So again I disagreed with the wording making it some kind of "moral code" when it can easily be followed freely as a "natural law" based on choice, not forced on people.

I might have answered differently if those questions weren't worded with biases I rejected.

Yes, I got 83% too. It's not for Happiness, it's for Humanity and it's survival as a whole! That comes first.

Also, I said torture is bad, but then they said that torture gives a 75% success rate to save 1 million people... so I made an exception... but I think the website is biased. Who is to say that torture has a 75% success rate??

Hi Luna. And what if just "interrogating people civilly" counted as "torture"? Like if I were the one in charge? they didn't explain what was considered torture. Water boarding is bad but it doesn't kill or maim anyone, it just wears them out. so some ppl consider that within reason

I thought there were too many facts about the torture question which weren't realistic.

I'm doing this one if anyone's interested. It's just that I've missed these kinds of tests altogether:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/Default.aspx

Should You Kill the Fat Man? - Analysis 1

A Matter of Consistency

The first thing to note is that your consistency score is 100%. This is higher than the average score for this test (where higher is
better), which is 78%.

It is often thought to be a good thing if one's moral choices are governed by a small number of consistently applied moral principles. If this is not the case, then there is the worry that moral choices are essentially arbitrary - just a matter of intuition or making it up as you go along. Suppose, for example, you think it is justified to divert the train in the first scenario simply because it is the best way to maximise human happiness, but you do not think this justification applies in the case of the fat man on the bridge. The problem here is that unless you're able to identify morally relevant differences between the two scenarios, then it isn't clear what role the justification plays in the first case. Put simply, it seems that the justification is neither necessary nor sufficient for the moral judgement that it is right to divert the train.

You've done better than average in this test, but now is not the time to rest on your laurels, because let's face it, most people don't think very clearly about morality.

....................................

I chose to kill the fat man and torture him.

by Legga

I'm doing this one if anyone's interested. It's just that I've missed these kinds of tests altogether:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/singer/Default.aspx

My Result:

Moral Nihilism?

Hmmm, that's a somewhat implausible response. Peter Singer has stated that his students, when asked about this scenario, unanimously respond that they do have a moral obligation to save the child.

Okay, let's see if we can get somewhere by asking a slightly different question. If you don't attempt to rescue the child, given the situation as described, do you think people would be justified in thinking badly of you - perhaps, for example, blaming you if the child ends up drowning?

Fair enough! It seems likely you're a moral nihilist. This activity really isn't for you. If you want to proceed, then you're going to have to pretend that you think there is some sort of moral obligation to save the child. However, we suggest that you give this activity a miss, and try one of the logic tests on this site instead.

....................................

lol, That test definitely isn't for me.

I couldn't even finish this clownery of a quiz, for fuck's sake. Is this what they call philosophizing these days? "Phillipa Foot" and her kind, lol. They haven't got a clue about anything. Never mind that they never put an "I don't care" option, and they forget I'm deciding for THE SUBJECT THEY CHOSE, not me. So, for example, I answered that the guy riding the train would be better off killing just one "innocent", instead of five, since I assumed he was an uneducated, superstitious Christian, who would choke on feelings of guilt and be tormented by his bad conscience if he didn't press the fucking button. I'm aware that the moron would STILL feel guilty and "traumatized" (lol), but killing 4 LESS people, would logically make him feel LESS guilty â€” and all with just a press of a button! So the correct answer is indeed mine, despite their idiotic warning that there was no correct answer, lol.

For this quiz to have any relevancy, they'd have to ask you what YOU would do, not what "John", or "Paul", or "Santa Claus" would. And as it happens, I've been quite bored for the last couple of weeks and if I was indeed riding that train, I might have decided to smash those 5 "innocents"! Knowing full well I could later excuse myself of being "paralyzed and shocked by fear and incapable of deciding what was morally right or wrong, etc. etc.", thereby ensuring I wouldn't be sent off to rot in jail or whatever.

So, you can see already how these so-called "philosophers" are nothing more than idiots, incapable of understanding the simplest things â€” and with good reason. You see, these Anglo-Saxon utilitarians love to ramble about "collective happiness" and "justice", and basically all those pack of lies that have been effectively debunked since the 19th century. What is certain in all this is that the Englishman knows nothing about happiness and justice.