Poemranker [Replying] Sat Nov 23 23:30:01 PST 2024

Replying to a comment on:

. <> . . . . = end . . . = etcetera ; <> ./, ; = interrupt ./, = 2. ? <> â ? = open â = answered & <> % & = more to come % = part ; â & â¦

zodiac

2-Mar-06/10:39 AM

A new movement in philosophy, called Experimental Philosophy or x-phi, seeks to test so-called fundamental intuitions (ie, "common sense") against real people's intuitions. That is, to remove philosophy from its remove from the real world.

For example, it's commonly held that moral responsibility requires free will. If you're forced to kill someone against your will, it's not your fault, right? X-phi researchers decided to test that against real data. They presented the following scenario to two groups:

Bill and his wife are flying home from vacation with their friend Frank, who is having an affair with Bill's wife. Bill knows about this. Kidnappers inject Bill with a drug that forces him to obey orders, then tell him to shoot Frank in the head. He does.

The first group is told that Bill has long wanted Frank dead, on account of the affair, and grieves very little. The second group is told that Bill hates what he's done. According to traditional philosophy, Bill is not responsible for Frank's death; but in the x-phi study, the first group said that Bill DID deserve the blame for the killing; the second group said he didn't.

In another example, UNC-CH students were asked the following questions: If a businessman interested only in profits knowingly harms the environment, should we say he did so intentionally? What if he knowingly HELPS the environment? The students said yes to the first question, no to the second.

In another example having to do with intentionality, a man tries to shoot his aunt, misfires, but somehow gets lucky and hits her anyway. Most people say he killed her intentionally, even though he didn't really have the skill to. It's enough that he wanted to.

The argument against x-phi is that respondents may be deciding based on the language of the questions, rather than the philosophical principles involved. For example, here's a psychology experiment you can try yourself.

1. Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows:

- If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved.

- If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.

Which of the two programs would you favor?

2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed:

- If Program C is adopted 400 people will die.

- If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die.

Which of THESE two programs would you favor?

Track and Plan your submissions ; Read some Comics ; Get Paid for your Poetry

An internet tradition since June 9, 2001