OK...going one by one here:
@Draugnar:
First--I thought you were dead (at least in the WebDip sense?)
Secondly, while to a degree I would agree with you--and Kirk--that there's no such thing as a no-win scenario, this thought experiment--or if someone feels like calling it some ther title, be my guest, since I suppose it's more of a scenario than a straight experiment--is really just a way of framing the question of ends vs. means, and then in addition I threw in that bit that I myself believe, that is, that if the 1 is an Einstein and the 10 are just honest workers then the 1 should be saved here instead of--or, if you want to take it that both can be saved and just break the rules, lol--should be saved before the 10 workers.
@Smiley Face:
Re: Insurrection: While it's admittedly been forever since I've seen the film as, again, I really didn't care for it and just find it trampling over its own logic, I still don't see those 600 people on that planet being justified--after all, they kicked another race OUT for just disagreeing with them on the best way to live (the 600 are like Space Amish, for those who've never seen the film, and then the other people wanted to use technology...yeah, we're approaching critical-dork status even for me here...) so as far as their "sticking it to 'the man'" I'd have to say...they ARE "the man," or at least were on their planet with that OTHER race! Not to get political, but that's a bit of the reason why quite honestly I wish Israel would just either share their nation or find a solution so the Palestinians didn't have to be refugees or become terror agents against them, as they often have to resort to doing...I'm happy Israel exists, of course, but I DO find it hard to sympathize with Israel 100% when they say they're being bullied--which I do think they are, if nothing else by the sheer proximity and size of really unhappy neighbors--when they, in turn, are bullying the Palestinians to SOME extent, I'm not pretending this is a black-and-white, one's-good-one's-evil siotuation, both sides have done their share of wrong, and maybe the Space Amish people and the Technology Race on that planet both wronged each other. But when I'm supposed to feel these people are "sticking it to the man" it helps if these people haven't acted in the role of "the man" already. And then on the subject of the rings...this is STAR TREK, they could find a way to make cheese fly or the Detroit Lions win the Super Bowl if they scientifically had the inclination to, I find it hard to believe these people have shot torpedoes of medicine at a planet before and cured illness THAT way but here they can't do a simple matter of mining while saving the planet from being toxic. This is the show where every other actor is wearing a prosthetic something on their face and "quantum" gets thrown around so often I almost feel there should be a degree in the field of Trek bullshit Quantum Somethingsomething.
;)
Re: Romulans: Well, I never got the Dominion people were evil, they just had a different belief system and, well, they were conquerors...and so were most of the other races in Trek and on Earth at one point or another. They're obviously supposed to be the "bad guys," but I always saw them as bad buys with depth--as opposed to, say, Star Wars, were the Emprie is supposed to be just plain evil...they kill CHILD ACTORS POSING AS JEDIS, after all! ...Wait...how's that evil? Dork meter rising again, pulling out...but yeah, that's my reasoning, a lot of the show WAS played out like a game of Diplomacy in space, so they never came across as evil, just people trying to accomplish their own goals, and they thought unifying people under their banner would be good...by the same token they also made alliances with other folks, so who knows.
Re: 10 vs. 1: Again, that'd be because I'm a (modified) Utilitarian, NOT a Kantian ;)
@Invictus:
First--I DON'T think I'm making some point for the ages on this forum, or even some point for the week, I just enjoy the conversation adn most peole's opinions on these things because I think they're important and they obviously interest me, being someone who's majoring in this (I don't think I'll ever get a job with English, which is a shame because I love it and when I DO actually write a REAL essay, not these fun little posts, and so DO check things over and actually make coherent sense and I do well, but I honestly don't care what job I work so long as it's enough to support me and has medical benefits, because I need those--Spinoza somehow found time to write "Ethics" while being a lens-worker, and plenty of other great writers have found their time to write in their own free time.)
Are these things as important as scientific fact?
To be honest I'd say it depends on the issue; endds vs. means, probably not, but I would definitely say that something like the questions over what it means to be this or that or whether a God exists or not or, in particular, the battle and BALANCE of faith and fact--yes, I'd say that's just as important, if for no other reason then the fact I'd say that life lived by science alone, or math alone, or, hell, even philosophy alone is empty and missing part of the needed experience. Fact is what draws the lines for us in life and defines life, and then faith and philosophy and this sort of thng, I believe, colors it, gives meaning to those lines, otherwise "humanity" is just a definition, it's thought and feelings and that sort of thing that give that definition any sort of meaning, and I mean ANY sort--I'm not here to say that there is a set meaning to life and that Kant's wrong and Nietzsche's right...OK, maybe I DO think Kant's wrong and Nietzsche's...well, he's at least more open than Kant and has ideas I'd agree with more.
But that doesn't mean he's RIGHT or Kant's WRONG, and so it also doesn't mean that "philosophy" is spelled with a capital "P" to denote one, overriding Philosophy the same way a large "G" denotes the one, overriding God in some faiths. Faith and philosophy are just your way of coloring your own life, and as long as you don't choose the most absurd color possible--by, say, believing that man descended from a sample of pocket lint--then I might strongly disagree with someone, but I can't say I'm right and they're wrong, I don't overall agree with that idea, hence the reason I prefer reading philosophers to reading the Bible or Koran or Torah or whatever holy book you wish:
With philosophy I can mix an match and choose what I agree with and what I don't and actually disagree without being heretical, disagreeing and debating are part of the process, and I think it's fun (for the most part) and so Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill probably wouldn't have been caught dead in the same room as each other, but I like ideas from both of them and both inform whatever conception of the world I choose to build within those lines of scientific and logical fact.
I guess most people color their life in the way I mean with a religion, and I just prefer faith in those things I believe in about higher powers and all that myself and then also drawing on a group of authors who I agree with and even some I disagree with.
(Also, for the record--I DON'T check these or even, usually, take a lot of time on them, I actually type pretty fast so a 5 1/2 page paper--if it is that, again, I just type this in the little box below, I don't go to word and strucutre this and spellcheck or anything, this is for fun, not a comprehensive thesis--really isn't anything to me. I think I churned a 37 page paper out in a few hours flat once...granted it was on four Shakespeare plays--"Othello," "Richard III," "The Merchant of Venice," and "The Taming of the Shrew," if anyone cares, with references and mentions of other Shakespearean works such as "Hamlet"--and three philosophers--Nietzsche, Mill, and Locke--and how their philosophical viewpoints on morality and ethics may be read into or may be used in to develop diverging critical analyses of these plays and, by extension, Shakespeare's canon (hence the reason for one tragedy, one comedy, one problem play, and one history, to get a general feel, and then alluding to other works to broaden that), particularly on the issues of ethics, the treatment of women, the treatment of outcasts, and the various depictions of government and how people conduct themselves in it.
Granted it only had to be a 5-page paper on 1 play and just what we liked about it...but I was bored and hell, this was an Honors class, I didn't pay for that to do a glorified book report! :p (And we WERE allowed to write as much as we wanted and on what we wanted...if that rule still stands AFTER that ridiculously-fun-to-write epic, I don't know...I always write the maximum amount for all my ENG and PHIL classes, I usually have to chop down and edit what I've written by 3-5 pages after I'm done just to meet the page limit, but hey, it works, and I enjoy it.)
So bottom line--I enjoy this, I find something both meaningful in the discussion alone and just fun in hearing other viewpoints and trying to flesh out mine, and so this is not a polished report...as you've all seen by now. ;) I don't treat this stuff as sacred or generally keep anything I write here, I do all of that AFTER I log off and write down thoughts and ideas myself in an actual structure in an actual book (though come to think of it, if I actually DID save these damn posts I'd probably have a book-length text ready to go, albeit an extremely sloppy and poor one, full of mispellings and wink marks.) ;)
Like that one.
And finally, Invictus--I CAN'T build a snowman...I live in Southern California! About two hours away from Los Angeles! THERE'S NO SNOW! XD (There was a hell of a lot of rain last week, but no snow...we get snow about once every five years or so here, I think the last time was my senior year in HS we had a HUGE snowstorm for us and had about 1 1/2-2 ft. of snow...and a bunch of HS seniors from California acting like idiots in it, since we never get snow and...well, HS seniors are idiots.) LOL
@UOSnu:
When I said "a Mozart" I meant it, for the purposes of this thought experiment, literally.
This ISN'T merely someone who MIGHT produce a Mozart-caliber work, I'm saying this is someone who HAS done so already and continues to do so at the present, whereas there is no way to tell if the future will see the workers stay jsut workers or become Mozarts themselves or even one of them father a Mozart--so faced with the choice of killing someone I know is ALREADY at that level and has already PRODUCED at that level and still DOES produce at that level vs. killing ten who MIGHT, someday, possibly produce like that, I must take the greater one in the present, as I don't know the future, and kill the then, regrettably.
A counter to this, which you've already sort of put out there, may be "Well, even if your Mozart-figure is producing great works TODAY, since you'ce said you cannot see and thus cannot make ethical decisions based on the future, how can you save Mozart on the basis of his "greatness" when for all you know he'll go deaf, dumb, and blind that very night and never be that great composer again?"
To which I agree--but I'd point out that since that also applies, then, to the workers, and so I can't tell if, after saving them, they'll become geniuses or druggies or anything in between, I'd say we must totally exclude the future and thus the future potential of BOTH figures, as we can't see them, and only focus on the PRESENT, as that's what we are informed on and what we have to deal with now--and so as RIGHT NOW Mozart's a genius and they're just workers, I can only make my guesstimate based on THAT, and so I can only treat Mozart as a Mozart and the workers as workers, and so, again, would save the Mozart figure on the "greatness" argument, as there actually IS evidence to say our Mozart figure's great--ie, his musical pieces already written and the fact he's still writing--whereas we have no evidence that will be the case with the workers, because they have nothing to suggest this fact in the here and now.
Finally--seriously, how is arguing for greatness AND saying I'm not great stroking my own ego? I said this last thread and I've said it again here, repeatedly, that I don't think of myself as great or even good in these matters--I'd just like to think that there actually ARE people who are great at things, that there's real greatness rather than this "EVERYONE'S special!" garbage, and yeah, with hard work and persistance I'd like to think I can aspire to being better at writing and all of this than how I stand currently, I'd like to think there's greatness I could at least strive towards...what's wrong with that? The part where I have the audacity to hope that I can achieve a modicrum of success or the part where I say there's greatness at all? If it's the former, again, what's wrong with striving to improve yourself in the field you enjoy to try and reach its summit, however purely bullshit-theoretical that field might be, and if it's the latter...well, again, I'd rather believe that there ARE great people and great figures who are, yes, greater in their field than most other people rather than just punt and say "Well, everyone's special and it's their own opinion." Yes, its your opinion what you like in art, and yes, everyone is unique--but not everyone is a great writer in the capacity of a Shakespeare or a Steinbeck or an Eliot, and not everyone will be a great musician like a Mozart or Tchaikovsky or, heck, a John Lennon or Freddie Mercury, and so on.
In short, I prefer to believe in greatness for some than mediocrity for all.
I care about greatness and believe in it and cherish it, even though, again, while I may strive to get their someday, I am not AT ALL great or on the level of greatness.
@baumhaeuer:
LOL, again, these actually don't take a lot of time, usually; sometimes I have to really think about someone else's response carefully for a good long while because it was long, good, or both, and occasionally I'll really woinder what I myself should write, but again, usually I can just churn these out pretty fast, regardless of their length. I'm taking 4 ENG classes this upcoming semester--those and then another set the semester after and I should have my AA in ENG, which might be useless but I'm stuck in my city-town that long anyway before I can go to a real college, so might as well, it's at least fun--so you'd better believe I have to type fast, four classes' worth of essays! :)
But yeah, I AM trying to write a book on some views I have, mainly the ones everyone REALLY despise, that theory on art, and dividing that into an examination and defining art--because, again, I think that any definition of art forms SHOULD be broad and SHOULD be continually pushed, but without some boundaries you have nothing to push against or make them art FORMS, hence the need for an artistic axiom for each form, ie, "All sentences must have words/symbols," an examination of the Artist himself and what motivates people to become artists and why they are necessary, and both of these lead into my ultimate point which I hope to make, that being that to be an Artist is to be in control of one's perception of life and to create for oneself a freedom that does not, perhaps, exist in reality, either metaphysically--if you believe there's no free will--or practically, as most people are chained to a desk of some kind rather than, as I said above, coloring the facts of life with their OWN ideas of life. That's the basic gist of it, anyway, I'm nearing the end of the first draft of the first part, which is somewhere around 100+ pages...I also write other essays on the side for fun and then, both because I love that form and because I don't want to be Nietzsche-like in my book, I want THAT to try and be mostly analytic and not the literary style of Nietzsche that's full of soundbites but all voer the place, I also write apothogems, ie, those little 1/2/3+ sentence "bursts of thought" that Nietzsche uses and are particularly on display in "Human, All Too Human" and "Beyond Good and Evil," and I think I'm on the 27th page of those, now.
So I write a lot--but I like it, and watch TV or listen to music or something whist I do it and usually have a drink and something to eat (unless it's in math class I'm doing this, in which case I then write mainly to keep from falling asleep face-first...and still usually fail at preventing that) and it's nice... :)
Southeastern European Tm Fiesta Game
, 36hrs/turn, full press, NOT anon.
)
)
)
)