TheRobin

Why is doing nothing equivalent to killing 5 people?

Well, the problem states that you know you're gonna kill another person by diverting the trolley, so it's a concious choice to make. Essentially the question is, how far can you take self-defense, if others come to harm, I think.I mean, let's assume one of the 5 guys that are tied up have the switch, if we say, that they're completely moral for killing that other person to safe themselves from their own death, then the principle would be something like "If someone else causes you harm then you can divert that harm to other people to safe yourself" which would have some real world applications. Say, you end up in a robbery and someone shoots around, can you take another human and use them as a shield? The answer then would also have to be "yes". Furthermore, the principle isn't bound by the specific time of the incident. Like you can steal a bike back months later from the thief, that principle of self-defense by diverting the harm to others can not be tied to that single moment. So you'd need to go even so far as to say, that if you get stabbed and need a new kidney, you can take it violently from someone else, because that still would fall under self-defense then. So, while the trolley problem doesn't question morals, we should still be able to apply the same framework to it as to any other situation, which would imo mean, that, you can't just flip the switch without having some moral agency in the death of the person.

idk, but isn't it a rather straightforward problem anyway? I mean, the moment you do someting you take on moral responsibility for that action. So the moment you flip that switch you just murdered someone. Not doing anything isn't immoral.

Wow, lots of adjectives and ad hominem -_-' (only got through 5 minutes of the first video)

So, in other words, having a violent monopoly on justice and enforcement fails to keep people safe at best and enables dangerous behaviour at worst.

In a free market, all you try to do (and all you can do) is create a good enough win-win-situation with your customers by offering them something they value more than the money it costs for them to buy it. The end of another company not being able to make as good an offer is hardly then end of their emplyees. If that kind of competition to try and create the most positive situation for customers is a problem then we'd also stop having wifes/husbands as that would just be another way of comepting. (Or everyone would need to be morally obligated to sleep with everyone who wants them, yikes). In my opinion, just like Alfie Kohn, you seem to not seperate the win-lose competition (like a sportsmatch) from win-win creating competition (like trying to satisfy customers more than other people). (p.s that' just after watching the first 4 minutes, so if you retract those statemends ideas later, then ,obviously, forget waht I said)

I just found this little video on youtube. 16 Minute long argument about how a economic reset is gonna happen. As a economic newb I'm not sure how accurate this is, so i wonder what other people think of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICSoWW7pBeQ Do you think he's about right? Also, if so, do you think it would be worthwhile to invest a bit in the yuan as part of savings/investment?

Okay, can you at least give me some sources then? I mean, what have you read about it (books or online articles)?

Well, so far it isn't an info, but mere assertion without reasoning or evidence, or explanation what exactly the terms mean. I'm happy to hear the whole reasoing behind if you want to make another threat, so not to derail this one any further. But I have to say it really bugs me a little, when you someone makes very bold claims contrary to what is commonly held as true and accurate and then neither makes a good case for it nor explains when asked. I mean, in that case, why make a remark at all in the first place?

How did you get to that conclusion? (Or what do you mean with "mind"?) From what I can tell, neuroscience does a lot of that; stimulating certain experiences, seeing where it correlates in the brain and trying to figure out how the input is processed etc. I remember Kevin sharing a video of a talk where they found some correlation between degrees of consciousness and a certain activity in the brain (or something along those lines, was a while back, don't remember the details, sry).

Intersting article, thanks for sharing

Thanks Patrick, that makes a lot of sense

Obviously the article is garbage, but for what it's worth, I never quite understood what the difference is between "absolute truth" and "truth". To me the "absolute" seems kind of redundant, but maybe I'm missing something. Can anyone enlighten me here?

Sure, complacency can happen to anyone, but as an anarchist, my focus is primairly on the initiation of violence against the innocent. So focusing on areas where we can actually make a change is much better use of our time than trying to use some government scripture in the hopes of finding something there that helps aleivate the problem. So I'd rather talk with people about peaceful parenting than anarchy (especially when in a social gathering where I don't know many people directly) or IF I talk about government, then I'd first and foremost shwo them how it is always the use of violence (and ultimately threats of murder) to get what you want. That way you can get a sense of whether people actually care or not pretty quickly, plus once it's clear that they're okay with murdering you for not doing what they think is best, then any further discussion is just a farce anyway.

I found the IFS model to be really good, when it comes to self-therapy. I'd recommend the book Self-Therapy, as it both explains to process and has practical exercises/questionaires. I'd assume the addiction is there as an anesthetic to something else, so once you can uncover and heal that, there's no longer an urge/need for the addiction. (Yes, easier said then done). Of course there's always the possiblity that on top of that, you're still regularly in a situation where the same wound gets triggered over and over, in which case figuring that out and getting out of that situation/environment would also be very curcial (else you're just gonna have an internal battle for the rest of your life, which is also not really helpful or solving the problem) Try having a few regular times each week, where you can maybe set aside an hour or more for self-therapy and keep at it and do it properly and see how it goes. Anyway, really great of you to openly talk about it and ask for help.

Do you do that just with your parents or with people in general? In general a very helpful question often is "What are you afraid would happen if you didn't do it?"

Why is that causing you discomfort? Iirc that's one of the first things about syllogisms that I learned, that you can only judge whether the reasoning is valid and not whether the statements are factually correct.

Well, there's a difference between omiting things at public gatherings (like, openly stating you're an Anarchist/Atheist, when surrounded by statists and/or are in a gathering for something entirely different) and manipulatively lying in order to gain something. Also, I'd say, it depends on the person you lie to. If you consider them to be a good friend or a close partner, then lying is certainly a huge problem, but not telling your most intimate thoughts to a stranger you see on the bus surely isn't. I'd even say, it'd be kind of intrusive telling a stranger certain things without warning or asking if he/she is okay with it.The question about his sister: First things that came to my mind: IS she fat? If so, why? Shouldn't you be in charge of givign her healthy food? But as Robert suggested, being honest doesn't mean being a dick, and IF the dress looked terrible on her, why wouldn't he say it? I mean, everyone else will see her anyway once she's out in the streets (or wherever), so in a way it'd be cruel not to. Edit: Also I think one imporant thing is, if you're honest about lying in certain situations.

The link doesn't lead to anything. Did some editing happen since you posted this?

Haha, great find. Thanks for sharing

Ha, maybe, but only if there's no prejudice in their heads already in my opinion. Also I found that those who are manipulated into a belief can just as easily be manipulated out of one. It's even more about social comfort than truth woth those people, so they might completely agree with you one day and the next day they read somthing in the newspaper and change their beliefs again.But most of the time, when hearing something out of the norm, that they know gets rejected by most other people, they just attack, ridicule, evade in my experience.Also, just to be clear, with "intelligent" I mean the willingness and/or ability to judge an argument on its own and be open to correction by facts and reason.

If you're talking with intelligent and/or empathetic people, then using the word anarchy doesn't make a difference, cause they'll lsiten and reason just the same. If talking to unintelligent and unempathetic people, then not using the word makes no difference, as they'll just reject and attack no matter how you phrase it.

I see, thanks.(Haha, of ALL the things I knew, I really thought I figured out how to take a dump by now, lol)

Could you not just lean forward instead? Same angle in the end. (Actually, I remember doing that as a kid from time to time, whatever that means, haha)

Sounds pretty normal to me (for a mecosystem convo). Also, from a guy, who has "lost it" (had an intense 2 month schizophrenic/psychotic episode, about 10 years ago), the real thing you have to look out for if you're worried is, checking whether the thoughts and feelings (or parts) are really talking about reality or not, which you can check empirically and ask the parts themselves, and talk about with them too. One thing about parts of ourselves is, that they can get stuck in the past, when the emotion isn't listened to and processed. So a good thing after listening might be checking whether or not that relates to the present situation or not. (Ofc, that doesn't invalidate the feeling and shouldn't stop you from listening to that part, but just be clear, whether you're processing things from the past or reacting to a situation in the present).