P
PRmerger
Guest
The hypothesis?
Did you mean to use this word?
As stated, your sentence makes no sense.
- Status
Did you mean to use this word?
As stated, your sentence makes no sense.
P
PRmerger
Guest
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Hypothesis can mean an assumption or proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Who gives the authority to a judge and jury in any society except the members of that society? In an isolated island or in an isolated boat, you can have a small society making the rules.
P
PRmerger
Guest
P
PRmerger
Guest
Really?
Everything I’ve just looked up says “assumption” and “proposition” are not the same thing as “hypothesis”
google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=hypothesis%20assumption%20presumption.
Nevertheless, it’s a nonsensical “hypothesis”.
I could very well say in this scenario that there’s a married bachelor, and a 4-sided triangle…but what would be the point?
Why don’t you give an example that’s consonant with reality?
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
“Hypothetical” is the word you are looking for.
The hypothesis is a proposed explanation which forms the basis for inquiry or research which is designed to determine if the proposed explanation (the hypothesis) bears out.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
A judge and jury are not necessarily tyrannical.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are absolutely correct here.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
In any case the assumption in the dilemma is that the captain, for some reason or another, is not willing to throw herself overboard.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Wow. That’s really sexist.
You set up the scenario with a cowardly captain…and it’s a woman.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The English language does not have a neutral gender third person singular pronoun to refer to a person. Repeated use of phrases such as “he or she” is awkward and the modern tendency to use “they” as a singular pronoun is grammatically offensive. So in an attempt at a stylistically unbiased presentation, which is perhaps unconventional, I alternate between the words “he” or “she” or similar pronouns to refer to an impersonal or metaphorical abstract person. It is not meant to carry any implication as to the sex of the abstract person so identified.
B
Bradski
Guest
Good grief. How long is this going to go on with no-one actually having the cojones to give the obvious answer.
Actually, avoiding the answer or proposing some solution to avoid having to give the answer amounts to the same thing. An admission that Catholics, or at least the ones responding in this thread, do not want to take the responsibility for the decision. Even in a hypothetical situation.
Anything except make a decision. Best leave it to someone else.
I
inocente
Guest
Your original scenario was “Lots of children in a lifeboat plus two men. One very big, fit and strong and has never been in a small boat before. The other is small and weak but an expert seaman. The boat is sinking and all will drown if it goes down.”
In following posts the big guy morphed into an evil monster, then one of the guys was promoted to captain and then had a sex change. It’s all a bit confusing to me, I suggest this dilemma needs version control
.Most people answer these dilemmas by thinking along traditional lines, which are valid whatever one’s faith:
Virtue ethics - try to be one of the characters and throw yourself overboard, or else recommend one of them jumps. One poster suggested this but was ruled offside.
Consequentialist ethics - sacrifice one of the adults to save the majority. This seems to be the preferred answer for most Westerners, including most Catholics.
Duty ethics - sacrifice no one, on the basis that it’s categorically wrong to use anyone as a means to an end. Dignity of the person is important in some cultures, e.g. it’s written into the German Constitution.
I’ll choose the latter, on the basis that some people get really upset - “Think of the children!” - youtube.com/watch?v=RybNI0KB1bg
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Would you say that it is OK to directly kill one of the adults to save the others? Assuming that the adult being thrown over was some innocent Joe, wouldn’t this be a case of a good end justifying a bad means - which is not allowed according to Catholic teaching? Or does some kind of exception kick in?
B
Bradski
Guest
And we had shooting sharks. Where did sharks come into it? And who had a gun? I even had to throw myself overboard and I’m not on the boat. Maybe the sat nav and the priest will save the day.
But as I said, it’s anything and everything except answer the question. Want to save a boat load of children? Well throw the big guy overboard. That’s it. There is no other reasonable answer.
Yes, we are playing God. That’s the bloody point of the hypothetical. To show that we have to. Thumbing through the catechism won’t save the kids. Praying won’t save them. Not making a decision will definately kill them. There IS only one answer that all reasonable people would come to.
In passing, I mentioned this problem to my wife. That Is, that people on the forum seem to dislike them. Seem not to understand that they can’t change the rules to suit want they want the answer to be. She said she didn’t like them as well. So I said: ‘If I asked you a hypothetical question, would you answer it?’
She said no. Which had me giggling all day.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Or, you could have simply said, “the captain”.
O
o_mlly
Guest
I answered your query in post #131. Since all have an equal right to life (and all are sinners), anyone may remove anyone from the boat. Want to go deep sea fishing with me?
J
James_Tyler
Guest
OMG! You throw no one out and you all sink together! DUH! You never just start throwing people out of a sinking boat to save your own life! I thought everybody knew that except two dimensional bad guys on TV.
J
James_Tyler
Guest
Captain of the cruise ship: “Now hear this! We are taking on water. In order to keep from sinking we ask that parents please throw their kids overboard immediately!”
Catholic philosopher: “Well does that meet the double effect criteria?”
- Status