Look, Chris...I'll admit I'm just arguing with his word choice here, but root/origin = first appearance.
Printable View
Look, Chris...I'll admit I'm just arguing with his word choice here, but root/origin = first appearance.
Here's a problem that's less a question of human free will or ethics, and more a bit of parodoxical logical confusion:
"94. The Sorites tax
"A Party Political Broadcast by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord Sorites.
"These are taxing times for our country. The last government left us with run-down public finances and the need to raise extra recvenue. But you, th people, do not want to have to foot the bill. So how can we raise the money we need without making you feel the pain?
"The answer is simple. Focus groups, opinion polls and economists have shown that charging an extr 0.01 percent tax has a negligible effect on personal income. No one who is comfortably off is made to struggle, no one rich is mad epoor, no one already struggling is made to struggle more, by paying 0.01 percent extra on their tax bill.
"So today we are raising income tax by 0.01 percent. And logically, since this small amount makes as little differnce to the person who earns 0.01 percent less than you than it does to you, we can repeat the step tomorrow, when you are in the position of that insignificantly poorer person. And so the nextday, and the next, for the next 300 days.
"Each time we raise the taxes, we do soin a way that makes no difference to your quality of life. And so your quality of life will not be affected. Yet, miraculously, thenet effect of these measures will be a large increase in government revenue, which we intend to use to cut the national debt and still have enough left over to buy everyone in the country a drink. We hope you will use it to toast our ingenuity."
Yeah, I can see how it would be that way. It reminded me of the whole "Take an additional 25% off of our 50% off sale," thing. However, it's the spin on the numbers that would have someone that isn't really reading falling for it. The only ones who would be toasting each other in that scenario would be the government.
I realize anyone can look at it and say, "Well, I'm not falling for it because it's obviously a 3% tax hike," but where, exactly, is the fault in the logic, then?
Remember, we are taking the assumption that 0.01% is indeed negligible.
So... This got moved here, and I'm wondering if anybody noticed... We were currently on "The Sorites Tax" above., if anyone wants to tell me how to resolve this logic problem...
It's basically a tax hike over time.
In the first month it's not noticable, but the net effect on lifestyle will be the same as if they said, "We're going to raise taxes by 3% in one year's time" because that's exactly what it is.
Yes, but try taking the logical steps outlines in the problem. Where, exactly, does it break down? At what point, exactly, does so many "negligible" increases turn into a noticeable one?
You wouldn't notice it happening probably, until you looked back and look at what happened.
Okay, so, I have many more problems to throw on here. I'll leave this for you people to choose, though: What next, an ethics question, or another logical paradox?
I vote ethics. :)
Logical paradox. :D
Wait... Which?
I found "The Good Bribe," an ethics one...
Fire away. You can post the other one later. (:
Okay!
"50. The Good Bribe
"The Prime Minister liked to think of himself as a 'pretty straight kind of guy.' He genuinely despised corruption and sleaze in government and wanted to run a cleaner, more honest administration.
"Something had happened, however, that presented him with a real dilemma. At a Downing Street reception, a businessman known for his lack of scruples, but who did not have a criminal or civil conviction ogainsthim, took the PM aside. Whispering conspiratorially into his ear, he said, 'Many people don't like me and don't respect the way I run my affairs. I don't give a damn about that. What does annoy me is that my reputation means I'll never be honoured by my country.
"'Well,' he continued, 'I'm sure you and I can do something about that. I'm prepared to give 10 million pounds to help provide clean water for hundreds of thousands of people in Africa, if you can garuntee that I'll be knighted in the New Year's honors list. If not, then I'll just spend it all on myself.'
"He slapped the PM on the back, said, 'Think it over,' and slipped back into the crowd. The Prime Minister knew that this was a kind of bribe. But could it really be wrong to sell one of his country's highest honours when the reward would be so obviously for the good?"
It's a bribe.
But is it worse than a politician awarding an honour to a person simply because they are a popular personallity and the said politician wishes to have his photo taken giving them an award?
It's a bribe because it is a conditional offer. If the money was offered without conditions attached then it would be an altruistic act. But it isn't, so it's a bribe and as in my example, it devalues the honour that is to be awarded and does poor service to the worthy recipients of the past and future. It is, in this respect, the very definition of corruption as it corrupts not only those directly involved in the incident but also the very foundation of the award itself. There is no ethical dillema. No matter how seductive a temptation may be or the percieved good that the bribe may be put to, it is still a bribe.
Yes, but... In this way, you'd be keeping your hands clean, sure, but you're also knowingly refusing to give possibly life-saving aid to so many people. Does this mean you simply don't have the moral courage to sacrifice this one act of "corruption" for the sake of good?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
You're also going on the assumption that the businessman would follow through on his given word. He's been described as lacking scruples, so it's not out of the realm of possibility. So, it's actually not only a bribe, but a potential really bad blight on the whole idea of 'honor'.
It opens Pandora's box. If this scrupulous politician can be talked into taking this bribe for a favour then what is to stop him from taking another bribe and another and another?
Meanwhile the population and the media see this buisnessman with the bad reputation recieving an honour and they become a little bit more disillusioned about their government and the system in general, especially if the media does it's job and investigates the reasons why this award was given.
If Mr. Prime Minister is so concerned about wells in Africa, then perhaps he should find a way to make it happen without the tainted money. $10 million is not much money to a national government.
I have to say, take most things in this book at face value, just for the sake of the argument. So: If the businessman says he'll donate a bunch of money, he will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fallbreeze
Well first of all, if you do it then make sure the guy gives the money BEFORE you knight him.
Also, after you knight him you could: de-knight him (if that's possible), bring charges against him for trying to bribe you...
I think that helping thousands of starving people is worth the downside of helping a single scumbag.
Wouldn't this be a little counterproductive in the way of removing corruption in government? Even though his motives might be good, it still shows that the PM can't be trusted...Quote:
Originally Posted by armbarchris
I imagine people would be a lot more ****ed if they found out that he passed up a chance to help thousands of starving people... I'd do it in a heart beat. After all, it's not helping HIM at all.
Part of the problem is one of principles, though. If you take a bribe for a very good reason, how difficult would it be to take one for a reason that's only kind of good? Or barely good? Soon enough, you might be taking them for things that aren't actually good reasons at all. You might believe you can restrain yourself at only very good, but in practice that's not so easy...
Imagine that you work for a charity organization. Let's say this organization builds shelters for homeless people. Someone offers to, say, repair the sewage system in one of those shelters that has been defective for several months. And let's say that no one else in the immediate area is capable of fixing this particular problem. But, in return, they want a favor of some sort. Not a 'kill my wife' kind of favor, just something helpful to them that doesn't hurt anyone else or break any laws. And let's add that, while this person has not been PROVEN of any wrong doing, they have a less than flattering reputation. Would you accept the deal? I would.
"70. An Inspector Calls
"When the health inspector visited Emilio's pizzeria and immeditely closed it down, none of his friends could believe he had let it happen. After all, they said, he knew that an inspection was imminent, so why didn't he clean things up?
"Emilio's answer was simple. He had been told that an inspector would be making a surprise call sometime before the end of the month. Emilio had sat down and wondered what day the inspection could be. It couldn't be on the 31st; if the inspector hadn't come before then, the inspection could only be on that day, and so it wouldn't be a surprise. If the 31st was ruled out, then sow the 30th, for the sam reason: the inspection couldn't be on the 31st, so if it hadn't taken place by the 29th, that would only leave the 30th, and so it again would not be a surprise. But if the inspection couldn't be on the 30th or 31st, then it couldn't be on the 29th either, for the same reasons. Working backwards, Emilio eventually concluded that there was no day the inspection could take place.
"Ironically, having concluded no surprise inspection was possible, Emilio was very unpleasantly surprised when the inspector walked through his door one day. What was wrong with his reasoning?"
Did this occur in February?
Be serious, please.
It was simply faulty logic on the "If Then Always" principle.
If I eat another bite of pie right now, I'll be sick.
Therefore, if I would be ill from eating more now, I'd be ill eating more tomorrow.
The day after would be the same, and basically I simply cannot eat any more at all ever.
It's a temporal assumption that is untrue.
Now hold on. Would you agree that an inspection on the 31st would not indeed be a surprise if it hadn't happened before then?
Bad logic is bad logic.
Just because the 31st might not be a suprise, it is not logical to make the assumption that is made and keep working backwards eliminating dates like that. As it was, when the inspection came it was a suprise so that shows the flawed logic right there.
Yes, but just because the conclusion was obviously wrong doesn't always mean the reasoning was as well. Examine the logic in itself, not the fact that he was wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodri
Why, exactly, can't you work backwards like that?
I might be stating the obvious answer to that, but with the backward logic, even the first day of the month would fall as 'sometime before the end of the month'. Which would beg the question, wouldn't the fact that the inspector said that the inspection would happen, though not on a clearly specified day, cancel the part about there not being a day TO hold the inspection?
(I swear, this all makes sense somehow...!)
*Homer Simpson voice*
"Ohhh... brain exercises!"
*proceeds to eat them*
(Gulp! Gulp! Crunch! Gulp!) "Mmmmmm.... brainy...."
I hope to god we are not helping you with your college homework because if we are I am going to be very very very angry....
/sarcasm
Response to The Inspector:
This is classic fallacious reasoning. Specifically failed deductive reasoning.
From the Wiki:
"A deductive fallacy is defined as a deductive argument that is invalid. The argument itself could have true premises, but still have a false conclusion. Thus, a deductive fallacy is a fallacy where deduction goes wrong, and is no longer a logical process."
The reasoning is also:
Affirming the Consequent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Q implies P on the basis that P implies Q
Argument: If people run barefoot, then their feet hurt. Billy's feet hurt. Therefore, Billy ran barefoot.
Problem: Other things, such as tight sandals, can result in sore feet.
Argument: If it rains, the ground gets wet. The ground is wet, therefore it rained.
Problem: There are other ways by which the ground could get wet (e.g. dew).
Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion by assuming Not P implies Not Q on the basis that P
Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy.
Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for it to be cloudy.
Let's strip the faulty assumption down to a more simple form. 'The inspector is coming for a suprise visit. But the inspector cannot suprise me. Therefore the inspector is not coming.'
Just because the shop owner may not be suprised does not mean the inspector will not come. In other words, the shop owner does not need to be suprised in order for the inspector to visit.
Response to The Good Bribe:
This is a very real world example. A rich person who wants "buy" a position or title or company board seat or whatever and in return offers to donate money to a cause or "scratch" someones back. This happens everyday. And this is where learning to balance social and moral responsibility with self gain becomes important. One cannot take a hard line against all "bribes". It is the same thing as Bill Gates donating 500 million dollars to University and in return that University builds a few buildings with his name on them and makes a statue or two of Bill Gates as well. Or that school must buy all Microsoft software in return.
In it's most simple form this story is about a rich man willing to do something Philanthropical in exchange for something. So is it wrong to do something Philanthropical in exchange for something that is self or business promoting? Only the individuals and parties involved can make that decision. But I know we see it everyday. A company donates 5 million to clean up a park or paint a apartment building for a poor community. And in return that company puts up a huge sign that says "Sponsored by XYZ Company" or they make a TV commercial highlighting their Philanthropical work. No different than the case you presented. But it is a decision of the parties involved and I would not call it a "bribe".
I haven't read all 8 pages yet, but has it been mentioned that this is the longest living thread about a *******ization of a Douglas Adams joke?
Douglas Adams intended it as a joke. Julian Baggini realized that, examined properly, it could actually be an interesting insight into human morality, as I hope you've realized from some of the replies people have posted to this.Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
The rest of the book has little to nothing to do with the particular "Pig that Wants to be Eaten" subject, that specific thought just happened to have been made into the book's title.
Bree, passages from Adam's writing are commonly used in philosophy courses due to their understated brilliance. He's not simply just a dead comedian.
Which is why Bagini used the idea in his book!Quote:
Originally Posted by rasterbee
I realize that Douglas Adams is awesome, in more ways than because he's funny.
As for the pig that wants to be eaten, the whole thing is wrong. Whether the pig wants to be eaten or not would be irrelevant to the vegetarian. He is clearly a vegetarian because he is anthropomorphizing all animals. Seeing it talk would just reinforce the anthropomorphism. Giving the sensation of cannibalism, which is a strong societal no-no. It would also make it seem to him to be no different then suicide.
***
As for the other, the Heisenburg principle protects our free will and the very way our brain works makes prediction impossible because of it.
***
As for the cat, the grandmother simply wasn't anthropomorphizing the cat while the child did. I think the child is more troublesome the the grandmother. If the child is willing to eat that which she had humanized, it could lead to very anti-social behavior.
***
As for Marsha the fact she doesn't have any hard evidence to convict the multiple murderer is the red flag. She has essentially made a judgment based on emotion rather then reason, and that is a big no-no.
***
As for number 31, his statements are unfounded conjecture unsupported by inductive arguments. Aesthetics is just as likely a reason as those he gave.
***
The Sorites Tax is obviously simply trying to point out the danger of complicity to gradual change. Nothing to discuss.
A large amount of force in a short amount of time is equal to a small amount of force over an extended period of time.
***
The good bribe is a matter of Principles vs Practicality, the problem here is that in this case the slippery slope is a viable argument. This is because what constitutes the greater good is vague and that the more a person does something the easier it gets.
***
Emelio's problem was that he based his logic on a faulty assumption. Mainly he assumed that , "If it didn't come before" That was the problem.
I don't think that I've answered these correctly or in the "logical" way, but I've been wanting to respond to some of these for a while and I finally had the time!
The chicken poses no moral issue to me, but I'd think that if genetic manipulation could produce talking, intelligent animals, then they would be taken off the menu. Some places in the world are extending "human" rights to chimps, and those are intelligent animals who don't converse intelligently with humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
But you stated earlier that the predictions aren't unerring. You said they are accurate within a very short future time frame and after that they degrade. So it's just a reasonable guesser and has no impact on philosophical issues of free will.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
Questions like this one are socioculturally relativistic. In times of scarcity, people will eat whatever they can to stay alive. Just ask the Donner party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
She needs to do her job properly. Compromising herself morally will result in compounded stress over the rest of her career and her performance on future cases could be reduced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
If so many people do it, is it really a sign of non-conformity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
This would work only until people started to notice the impact. It would be far better to make the necessary raise in one time and tell the truth to the people about it then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
This one is a no-brainer because this is the basis on which peerages are awarded in Britain anyway. Take the money for the good purpose and reward the donor, the title's are only meaningless baubles anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
One of the things wrong with his reasoning is the fact that he consciously cooks food for people in a below-par hygienic environment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher
Whoa... Nice. Let's see now...
No argument. I didn't even know what to think about this myself...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
It is indistinguishible from unerring-just for those few seconds. Does this change your response?Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
You're one of the few people to not say, "But the cat was a pet! Don't eat it!" Interesting...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
New take on it... You're saying that trumps the posiblity of "real justice?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
Good point, but the cap thing was just an example. The real question was whether all human behavior can be reduced to evolutionary selection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
But at what point would the impact be noticed? Nobody's answered that!Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
I like it...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav
Well, for the sake of argument, say that someone's trying to apply the same logic to a similar situation that doesn't involve endangering people's health...Quote:
Originally Posted by Boleslav