About the dilemmas, in general

[Scowler]

These thought experiments are all over the place, Runaway trolleys, lifeboat scenarios, which patient to save when you only have limited resources. There is one common theme in all of them. They present two possible scenarios, both of which violate some deeply held ethical beliefs. The question is always: “what would you do in these circumstances?”. They are not “likely” scenarios, most probably no one will encounter them in “real” life. The aim of these games is to force people to examine their beliefs.

In every such dilemma there are a few predominant “responses”:

1. An attempt wiggle out by arguing that they are impossible in real life.
2. An attempt to change the parameters and “defuse” the dilemma - by introducing some new possibilities, which are clearly permissible under their ethical system.
3. Accusing the person who presents the dilemma of attempting to place the believers in “bad light”.

Mind you, in these dilemmas are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The point is how you defend your position - whatever it might be. What say you? Are you one of those, who tries to “escape” the dilemma?

 

[Xanthippe_Voorhees]

These thought experiments are all over the place, Runaway trolleys, lifeboat scenarios, which patient to save when you only have limited resources. There is one common theme in all of them. They present two possible scenarios, both of which violate some deeply held ethical beliefs. The question is always: “what would you do in these circumstances?”. They are not “likely” scenarios, most probably no one will encounter them in “real” life. The aim of these games is to force people to examine their beliefs.

In every such dilemma there are a few predominant “responses”:

1. An attempt wiggle out by arguing that they are impossible in real life.
2. An attempt to change the parameters and “defuse” the dilemma - by introducing some new possibilities, which are clearly permissible under their ethical system.
3. Accusing the person who presents the dilemma of attempting to place the believers in “bad light”.

Mind you, in these dilemmas are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The point is how you defend your position - whatever it might be. What say you? Are you one of those, who tries to “escape” the dilemma?

Life rarely offers dilemmas like the ones presented. I mean, I haven’t heard of people being tied to railroad tracks since Charlie Chapman.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I don’t see it as a wiggle-out to suggest that people’s time, or at least my time, is better served addressing real, practical life issues than unlikely theoretical dilemmas. I don’t find that stuff at all useful for my beliefs, having been through various dilemmas once in a moral reasoning class, seen the usual responses, and gotten the usual lessons (e.g. we may not do evil to achieve a good result, etc).

If somebody enjoys these kinds of mental gymnastics, I suppose it’s better than a lot of other things they could be doing instead, and if they have not pondered such dilemmas before in a class or reading on their own, maybe they learn something from it, so have at it.

 

[Scowler]

I don’t see it as a wiggle-out to suggest that people’s time, or at least my time, is better served addressing real, practical life issues than unlikely theoretical dilemmas.

Fortunately no one forces you to participate. If you don’t like the mental gymnastics, don’t engage in them. As the good old bumper sticker says: “Against abortion? Then don’t have one!”.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I do not feel “forced to participate”, but when someone opts out, you are characterizing it as wiggling out of some important exercise rather than saying some do not find this useful. Thus showing bias on your own part.

 

[ChunkMonk]

I’m the person that makes people who write those dumb arguments and scenarios get angry when I give them the obvious answer and prove their dilemma has no actual moral value at all.

Anyone who is comfortable with their beliefs will have no problem answering any stupid “dilemma” question.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I could answer them in 30 seconds too, but I fail to see any point.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The aim of these games is to force people to examine their beliefs.

What seems to be lost by those who pose these games is that to be a practicing Catholic at any point past adolescence in the world today, one must have already deeply examined our beliefs. No other faith is so persecuted, mocked, it is not easy to be a Catholic. It is MUCH easier to walk away to a feel-good form of loose Christianity. If we have not deeply examined our beliefs, when the storms hit we would have no roots and would be blown into some other set of beliefs.

We did not catch Catholicism off an unsanitized shopping cart at Walmart or blindly follow what our mommy told us (again, that might work until around age 11 in this world).

In the end, such games simply patronize persons who do not accept some stripe of utilitarianism. We know that there are moral absolutes in this world. We know where we can find the truth.

 

[MPat]

These thought experiments are all over the place, Runaway trolleys, lifeboat scenarios, which patient to save when you only have limited resources. There is one common theme in all of them. They present two possible scenarios, both of which violate some deeply held ethical beliefs. The question is always: “what would you do in these circumstances?”. They are not “likely” scenarios, most probably no one will encounter them in “real” life. The aim of these games is to force people to examine their beliefs.

In every such dilemma there are a few predominant “responses”:

1. An attempt wiggle out by arguing that they are impossible in real life.
2. An attempt to change the parameters and “defuse” the dilemma - by introducing some new possibilities, which are clearly permissible under their ethical system.
3. Accusing the person who presents the dilemma of attempting to place the believers in “bad light”.

Mind you, in these dilemmas are no “right” or “wrong” answers. The point is how you defend your position - whatever it might be. What say you? Are you one of those, who tries to “escape” the dilemma?

Have a look at Mark 12:13-34 which shows how Jesus dealt with dilemmas (or just questions).

We can see that he had different approaches to different dilemmas.

In one case the dilemma (Mark 12:14 “Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar; or shall we not give it?”) was completely dishonest. The ones who asked did not care about truth, they only tried to make Jesus give an answer that would prove unpopular among some influential men. And they got no “straight” answer of the kind that they expected (although the answer is still pretty clear). Instead, their dishonesty was pointed out (Mark 12:15 - “Who knowing their wiliness, saith to them: Why tempt you me? bring me a penny that I may see it.”).

In the second case the question (Mark 12:23 “In the resurrection therefore, when they shall rise again, whose wife shall she be of them? for the seven had her to wife.”) was meant to be a reductio ad absurdum argument, but it was flawed, as it included a hidden assumption. And the ones who asked were shown which assumption was wrong.

In the third case we have a good honest question (Mark 12:28 “And there came one of the scribes that had heard them reasoning together, and seeing that he had answered them well, asked him which was the first commandment of all.”). And here the question did receive a straight answer. We can see that the question was honest, as the asker did acknowledge that the answer was good. And he received praise from Jesus for that.

And likewise, some of dilemmas are dishonest, some are flawed (for example, include hidden assumptions), some are good. The right response to them will be different.

Thus it is important not to assume that the question is good without checking, even if the one asking would like that to happen.

 

[Scowler]

I do not feel “forced to participate”, but when someone opts out, you are characterizing it as wiggling out of some important exercise rather than saying some do not find this useful.

Staying silent is not the same as opting out. If you think that making a response is a waste of your time, then don’t. There are thousands of people on the board. Most of them never even see any specific thread, so they never participate. But if you see one, and waste your time on saying that you do not waste your time on responding, then you commit the same nonsense as IBM does, when in their manuals they say: “This page was intentionally left blank”.

 

[Scowler]

What seems to be lost by those who pose these games is that to be a practicing Catholic at any point past adolescence in the world today, one must have already deeply examined our beliefs.

That is very naïve. Most people do not examine their belief system, they simply follow what they have been told in their formatting years, before their critical skills developed. Yes, most people - not just Catholics - blindly follow what they have been told what by their parents / family / churches.

There is a cute advice: “How to make a Catholic to become an atheist? Send her to a seminary!”

 

[MPat]

But if you see one, and waste your time on saying that you do not waste your time on responding, then you commit the same nonsense as IBM does, when in their manuals they say: “This page was intentionally left blank”.

Printing that is not nonsense - it makes it clear that a blank page is not a misprint. And giving such a response is not waste of time - it points out potential waste of time to others.

There is also another point (given in, let’s say, God’s Blessings on February 16, 2017 – Chris Lansdown): if some of the readers might be intimidated by confidently offered dilemma, such an answer might be sufficient to neutralise that intimidation.

Thus perhaps it is not the best possible option, but it is not useless.

That is very naïve. Most people do not examine their belief system, they simply follow what they have been told in their formatting years, before their critical skills developed. Yes, most people - not just Catholics - blindly follow what they have been told what by their parents / family / churches.

Isn’t it interesting how such a grandiose proclamation is made without a shred of evidence being offered?

 

[Scowler]

Printing that is not nonsense - it makes it clear that a blank page is not a misprint.

Since that page always occurs between chapters (not between two random pages within one chapter), it is a waste.

And giving such a response is not waste of time - it points out potential waste of time to others.

Let them make that decision. They already “wasted” time on reading your useless disclaimer.

Isn’t it interesting how such a grandiose proclamation is made without a shred of evidence being offered?

Nope. There is no need to present evidence for the obvious. That would be another waste of time.

 

[MPat]

Since that page always occurs between chapters (not between two random pages within one chapter), it is a waste.

Perhaps it should be noted that discussion of blank pages (other than short jocular asides) has little to do with the topic…

Let them make that decision. They already “wasted” time on reading your useless disclaimer.

“My”? Have I written one recently?

Also, advice does not prevent one from making a decision.

Nope. There is no need to present evidence for the obvious. That would be another waste of time.

There is nothing obvious about the percentage of people who have thought about their beliefs. On the contrary, that could be an interesting research subject. Unfortunately, it is very hard to research - even people themselves might be mistaken on this matter…

But, of course, if you want a compromise with us agreeing that you personally did not examine your belief system, that can be done.

Or do you want to claim to be an exception to “most people”…?

 

[Zaccheus]

Scowler
(snipped)
The aim of these games is to force people to examine their beliefs.

Sometimes the aim is to force people to examine their beliefs.
Sometimes the aim is to play ‘gotcha!’ – to trap people into looking wrong.
I don’t want to play gotcha.

 

[Scowler]

There is nothing obvious about the percentage of people who have thought about their beliefs. On the contrary, that could be an interesting research subject. Unfortunately, it is very hard to research - even people themselves might be mistaken on this matter…

I agree with you. But the evidence is there. Most people are not deep thinkers.

But, of course, if you want a compromise with us agreeing that you personally did not examine your belief system, that can be done.

It was not a quick decision to become an atheist even in a family which was moderately religious. It took years to realize that Christianity is “not for me”. And no, I was not molested by any member of the clergy, every one of them was a wonderful, kind and respectable person. It took me about the first 22 years of my life to start to really doubt. But once the doubts began, it was impossible to deny them, no matter how much more satisfying it was to keep on believing. It was a hard, uphill battle.

Or do you want to claim to be an exception to “most people”…?

Yes, I do. I have a good reason for that, and my evidence is that only a small percentage of the people leaves religion for atheism, or vice-versa. So by definition I am an exception.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Your responses would infer that your exposure has been limited to non-practicing Catholics, or that you are very young.

As a philosophy professor friend of mine says, scratch an atheist find a protestant.

I’d challenge you to get to know some faithful, practicing Catholics in real life. Maybe at your school’s Newman Center.

 

[MPat]

It was not a quick decision to become an atheist even in a family which was moderately religious. It took years to realize that Christianity is “not for me”. And no, I was not molested by any member of the clergy, every one of them was a wonderful, kind and respectable person. It took me about the first 22 years of my life to start to really doubt. But once the doubts began, it was impossible to deny them, no matter how much more satisfying it was to keep on believing. It was a hard, uphill battle.

Wait, “moderately religious”? Is that an euphemism for “nominal Christians”, perhaps even “almost atheists pretending to be Christians (to themselves and to others) out of inertia or for social reasons”?

Also, isn’t it interesting how you try to give an account of you examining your beliefs, and yet fail to give any example of you actually examining, studying your beliefs, weighting arguments for and against them - or even any indirect indication of doing so?

And thus when you are supposed to talk about examination of one’s beliefs, you talk about conversions instead.

my evidence is that only a small percentage of the people leaves religion for atheism, or vice-versa.

And what about the people who convert to a different religion?

Let’s look at the actual evidence, for example, http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/ - “Faith in Flux” by “Pew Research Center”. And we can see that they found that 44% of respondents were converts, while 9% of respondents were reverts. After adding those numbers we get 53% of people who have converted at least once. Thus “most people” have converted at least once - and, by your criterion, they have “examined their beliefs”.

As you can see, sometimes evidence is useful even for “obvious” things…

Yes, I do. I have a good reason for that

No, you don’t - as you can see.

My question should have been a warning: you yourself claim that the “sample” you are most familiar with (that is, yourself) does not fit the pattern. You should be very careful in such case. Especially given that self-serving bias can be expected to work in just that direction… Some more formal precautions are in order to guard against it.

 

[Scowler]

Your responses would infer that your exposure has been limited to non-practicing Catholics, or that you are very young.

I would love to be very young again. But that label has expired about 50+ years ago. Who are those non-practicing Catholics? Those who disagree with you?

As a philosophy professor friend of mine says, scratch an atheist find a protestant.

Then he does not qualify to be called a professor. Someone who does not even understand what “atheist” and “protestant” means.

Also, isn’t it interesting how you try to give an account of you examining your beliefs, and yet fail to give any example of you actually examining, studying your beliefs, weighting arguments for and against them - or even any indirect indication of doing so?

Sorry, 3200 characters are insufficient to lay down my whole life. But I went through the usual “brainwashing” protocol, Bible studies, going to church every Sunday, etc., the whole nine yards. My brother is still religious, he is a high ranking lay man in his church.

And what about the people who convert to a different religion?

They change one flavor of ice-cream to another. Most change from one Protestant denomination to another.

 

[MPat]

Who are those non-practicing Catholics? Those who disagree with you?

The ones who, um, do not practice?

The ones who go to Mass about once a year etc.

Then he does not qualify to be called a professor. Someone who does not even understand what “atheist” and “protestant” means.

It is good that you do not set requirements given that you didn’t even ask what was actually meant.

Sorry, 3200 characters are insufficient to lay down my whole life. But I went through the usual “brainwashing” protocol, Bible studies, going to church every Sunday, etc., the whole nine yards. My brother is still religious, he is a high ranking lay man in his church.

So, more than 200 characters more - and still not much about actually examining your beliefs, I guess.

They change one flavor of ice-cream to another. Most change from one Protestant denomination to another.

I guess openly stating that by “examining one’s beliefs” you mean conversion to atheism has proved a bit too much.

But, of course, there aren’t many alternatives you didn’t rule out.

So, getting back to the original topic - did you actually achieve anything like that with those dilemmas?

Or does the only (or main) result consist in you feeling frustrated?

Aren’t they a waste of time for you as well?