Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Again, I define an axiom question as one where there is really no right or wrong answer EXCEPT once you give your answer, it has implications as to what your answer should be to other questions. If you want to claim you are consistent that is.

1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.

2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No
2. Y

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No. Make the headache last >8 hours or so and i would probably do it.

2. Patient Y. Make it >35% or so and i would give it to X.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No.
2. Flip coin. Not my place to judge either one.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Your Axiom 0: The ends justify the means.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1-Depending on the severity of the pain, yes. Hell, if the pain was bad enough kill 10.

2-Flip a coin Sounds good to me

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Don't get your post.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't get your post.

[/ QUOTE ]


I mean that both here and in other past threads, you clearly seem to hold the axiom that various acts never belong to a class of ones that are always wrong no matter the context. Thus it's all "relative", and some otherwise objectively evil acts become acceptable because of discrete subjective circumstances, and there are no exceptions that are always wrong and can never be permissible no matter the circumstances.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Unless I've missed the point (possible to likely) I guess DS's point is that the answer varies consistently depending on which premise you hold to be most important.

ie;
i) Premise: to alleviate human suffering is most important
Answer: 1) Yes 2) X
ii) Premise: to protect the innocent is most important
Answer: 1) No 2) Y

Having said that my personal answer would be
1) No - I could not kill a dog with some hope of survival, and besides, the migraine pain would be mine alone.
2) X - I believe X's need is greater right now and that it's not important how X and Y got into this mess.

I feel consistent.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]

i) Premise: to alleviate human suffering is most important
Answer: 1) Yes 2) X


[/ QUOTE ]

Alleviating human suffering was not really the option. Relieving my personal pain was. I may have had a different opinion if it had been another person with the migraine.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to claim you are consistent that is.


[/ QUOTE ]


Who wants to be consistent?


-Zeno

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. Life in itself is so important to be preserved - even for 3 more days - that I choose to live with my 1 hour headache, beyond any reason.
2. A 10% extra pain is an already self-assumed "bonus" by the smoker and I expect him to feel it and think "Is this all? All what I feared about in all those years?" Anyway, this problem postulates that the pain is something absolutely horrible, not worth to be endured, no matter the reasons or causes - which is not true at all.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. I dont think I would decree that all the dogs in the world be euthanized but im having a hard time picking a number that i would stop at.

2. i really cant decide. probably flip a coin. given the exact scenario described i think i give it to Y. But it seems like you can manipulate the % to a point where the intent of the question remains teh same but I would want to switch my answer to X.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Life in itself is so important to be preserved - even for 3 more days - that I choose to live with my 1 hour headache, beyond any reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who says it is important to preserve life.

Better not use antibiotics. Bacteria is also a form of life.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Killing is something I was against even before getting any form of education or moral conduct principles.
As for those tiny beautiful bacteria, why don't you take one for a pet, as long as you don't see the difference?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No, the 10% chance that the dog might be adopted is the key. I can live with a headache to have a chance to really save a dog's life. Make the situation where the dog will be euthanized regardless and I say go for it.

2. Patient X. I don't think that patients should get worse care based on whether they were smokers or not. That seems like a really arbitrary thing for a hospital to punish someone for. Whoever needs the medication most should get it. (FTR, I'm not a smoker.)

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No
2. X

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
1. Life in itself is so important to be preserved


[/ QUOTE ]

You did not say there that life that comes in the form that can be made a pet is so important.

[ QUOTE ]

As for those tiny beautiful bacteria, why don't you take one for a pet, as long as you don't see the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

So now you are saying the only form of life that should be preserved are pets? So lets change the question. Would you kill a scorpion to get rid of your headache, or tarantula. I have also seen people keep these at pets.

I find it slightly hypocritical when people say "no I would not kill the dog to get rid of my headache" But you will eat the chicken, eat the steak of animals killed. Aside from that you can imagine the ammount of products that come from killing animals or testing on animals that are around your house right now. You can not say that killing a dog to get rid of my horrible migraine is so wrong, but then bite into a piece of chicken to get rid of your hunger with something that tastes good.


Gelatin. Gel.
Protein obtained by boiling skin, tendons, ligaments, and/or bones with water. From cows and pigs. Used in shampoos, face masks, and other cosmetics. Used as a thickener for fruit gelatins and puddings (e.g., "Jello"). In candies, marshmallows, cakes, ice cream, yogurts. On photographic film and in vitamins as a coating and as capsules. Sometimes used to assist in "clearing" wines

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

I would like people to answer question no.2 stating if they are themselves smokers or non-smokers. I assume it is easy to be biased.

1. Spontaneously no for a 1h of headaches. Change the variables around a bit and I can see myself having that dog killed.

2. Patient Y (I am a non-smoker). The differences in pain levels need to be really severe to swing my vote.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]

ii) Premise: to protect the innocent is most important
Answer: 1) No 2) Y


[/ QUOTE ]
Queston no.1 asks about protecting an innocent dog while no.2 refers to human beings. I think I could be consistent by answering 1) Yes 2) Y if I do not value human beings and dogs equally.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. No. Change the dog to my boss and then it's a closer decision.

2. I really don't care. If I had to choose (you're holding a gun to my head) then the later one, the one in less (but still intense) pain through no fault of his own. But in practice, everyone has some fault and the smoker isn't 100% to blame.

Do we get to pick the people in pain?

3. Who's consistent all the time?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

Okay, what if the dog is a smoker? What then?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

I think people are saying no to question one to fast due to one mistake. They are choosing between having a headache for an hour or killing a dog. When the question is actually having a migraine headache or killing a random dog with a 10 % chance at life past three days. What's the difference you ask?

A headache is a condition of pain in the head; sometimes neck or upper back pain may also be interpreted as a headache. It ranks amongst the most common local pain complaints.

Migraine is a painful neurological condition, of which the most common symptom is an intense and disabling episodic headache. Migraine headaches are usually characterized by severe pain on one or both sides of the head. Migraines are often accompanied by photophobia (hypersensitivity to light), phonophobia (hypersensitivity to sound) and nausea.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think people are saying no to question one to fast due to one mistake. They are choosing between having a headache for an hour or killing a dog. When the question is actually having a migraine headache or killing a random dog with a 10 % chance at life past three days. What's the difference you ask?

A headache is a condition of pain in the head; sometimes neck or upper back pain may also be interpreted as a headache. It ranks amongst the most common local pain complaints.

Migraine is a painful neurological condition, of which the most common symptom is an intense and disabling episodic headache. Migraine headaches are usually characterized by severe pain on one or both sides of the head. Migraines are often accompanied by photophobia (hypersensitivity to light), phonophobia (hypersensitivity to sound) and nausea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay then, put down my boss.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
I mean that both here and in other past threads, you clearly seem to hold the axiom that various acts never belong to a class of ones that are always wrong no matter the context. Thus it's all "relative", and some otherwise objectively evil acts become acceptable because of discrete subjective circumstances, and there are no exceptions that are always wrong and can never be permissible no matter the circumstances.

[/ QUOTE ]

What BluffTHIS is saying is that you belong to the school of moral philosophy known as consequentialism. The opposing school of deontology is often adhered to by theists. Almost everyone is a deontologist to some extent. Human liberties are deontological values; for example, freedom of speech. If you knew in advance that the publication of cartoons depicting Muhammad in Jyllands-Posten would lead to riots in which 139 people worldwide were killed, would you suppress publication? If not, why not?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

are you people bored?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. Yes
2. X

Have you been watching Jigsaw?

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1.) Absolutely!!

2.) The patient who did not smoke.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. I hope no.

2. No preference.

chez

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1)No, a migraine is not too bad to deal with and not worth it to the dog.
2)Y simply it was knowledge known to him so i dont feel for him

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. Don't think so, if it's not that bad and only lasts one hour i don't care. (and taken that there is NO chance at all that irriversible damage is taken.)

2. Y

I would love to see DS's own answer and explanation.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]

1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.


[/ QUOTE ]

As somebody who does suffer migraines (but only rarely), I can say that the proposition would be sorely tempting. But I would have to say "no". The funny thing about most pain is that you never remember how bad it is, after it goes away.

Now, if we were talking about something more traumatic, like the kind of pain that actually damages someone psychologically (like third-degree burns), I think you should sacrifice as many puppies as it takes to end the pain early, for the sake of the victim's mind.


[ QUOTE ]

2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The one who is in more pain should get the medicine. Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. Yes. Why? I'm selfish, and random dogs die every day.

If you're a softhead, you could always rationalize the premature death of one dog as giving the others in the pool of potential adoptees a better shot at not getting killed. Or maybe "at least this dog didn't die in vain, as it had a 90% chance of doing without me." Or something.

2. Y. Actually, I'd be tempted to learn more about X and Y and "play God" based on additional merit-based criteria. If X were Mother Teresa and Y were Adolph Hitler... you catch my drift.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes
2. X


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

simple find a new group of ppl to diss as u will find many, lol

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

1. yeah, there are too many dogs at the pound anyways. if you mean that if this one dies another dog will not have a 10 percent chance than my answer would be different.

2. patient y, 10 percent more pain is nothing. both are experienceing pain that makes their lives miserable. let the non smoker live out his days without pain.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this about animals in laboratories?

In any case, I don't want dogs to die only because I got a headache, but I usually smack flies just because they are annoying. Btw, in China they eat dogs for lunch and in India they think rats are holy creatures.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want lung-cancer patients to lose their health insurance?

In any case, the two should throw dice for it - or better, the doctors should do it.

In medicine only the status quo counts, not how you got there. Otherwise you should never treat any patients who got injured while doing extreme sports or other silly things. Btw, I always wondered why parachute-jumpers wear a helmet.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
In medicine only the status quo counts, not how you got there. Otherwise you should never treat any patients who got injured while doing extreme sports or other silly things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true when you have the capability to treat many patients.

I wouldn't treat those injured during extreme sports before those who were innocently injured, say, by another person -- if I could only treat one.

Re: Two More \"Axiom\" Questions
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to do better than that. Give a reason. What you said sounds exactly like "he deserved it". It's retribution. So far, you're just making my point.