Society/Culture Your favourite philosophical thought experiments

[Seeds]

What thought experiements amuse you or provide you with insight?

can you share here?

one thought experiment i find interesting is the happy pill prison experiment. Not so much because its well thought out but mostly because all philosophers seem to get the answer wrong.

happy pill prison thought experiment:
Would you rather be locked in a cage for your whole life where you would be given a pill each day that would guarantee to make your life happier than the alternative where you are free to live your life as you please out in the real world? Or would you choose freedom in the real world despite it being guaranteed to provide you with less happiness?

Most philosophers answer that everyone would reject the cage and choose freedom and then argue that this answer is proof that happiness is not the goal of life. They claim this prooves utilitarinism is wrong. I argue they are wrong. Happiness is the goal of life and we should take the cage option. Now why do i think they get the answer wrong?

Because everything else we are told about the experiment implies the cage choice is the unhappy outcome and we fail to grasp the true meaning of what the happiness pill is. Cages take away our freedom and our potential to find meaning in the external world. who would want this? However, the reason these things are bad is solely because they create unhappiness, which we are told the pill more then compensates for. We confuse means with an end. We struggle to understand the greatness of the pill.

We also assume, despite being told otherwise, that taking the freedom option has the potential to provide us with more happiness because in reality our happiness is not pre determined but a function of what happens to us. Our subconciousness struggles to rationalize the outcome of the experiement with the settings provided because they dont make logical sense in reality.

for these reasons I think the philosophers are wrong in their conclusions for this experiement.

thoughts? Do you have other thought experiments to share?

 

[FireKrakouer]

waves to Seeds

I enjoy the grandfather paradox about time travel.



A solution to this could be the many worlds theory, where it could be possible to travel backwards in time but you would no longer be in the same universe. So you could kill your own grandfather and you will never be born in that universe but will still exist as the tourist you from another universe.

Another one is the whole Truman Show scenario. I was telling some of my brahs in the smoko shed at work recently that I thought I was in an equivalent of the Truman Show. They laughed at me and called me paranoid. I said "yeah I bet you'd get paid a fair amount to say that wouldn't you" but they just laughed even more... exactly how a paid actor would behave.

I jest. Partly.

 

[Seeds]

waves to Seeds

I enjoy the grandfather paradox about time travel.

View attachment 1649917

A solution to this could be the many worlds theory, where it could be possible to travel backwards in time but you would no longer be in the same universe. So you could kill your own grandfather and you will never be born in that universe but will still exist as the tourist you from another universe.

Another one is the whole Truman Show scenario. I was telling some of my brahs in the smoko shed at work recently that I thought I was in an equivalent of the Truman Show. They laughed at me and called me paranoid. I said "yeah I bet you'd get paid a fair amount to say that wouldn't you" but they just laughed even more... exactly how a paid actor would behave.

I jest. Partly.

Well yes you create an alternative timeline if you go back into the past and change it. Although i never figured out how old biff got back to the original timeline after he already created a new one. he should of remained a tourist on the new one. it doesnt make any sense.

the only person we know exists is ourselves. And theres nothing anyone can do to convince us otherwise.

life is lonely unless you pretend everyone else is real.

 

[Frank Bunn]

What thought experiements amuse you or provide you with insight?

can you share here?

one thought experiment i find interesting is the happy pill prison experiment. Not so much because its well thought out but mostly because all philosophers seem to get the answer wrong.

happy pill prison thought experiment:
Would you rather be locked in a cage for your whole life where you would be given a pill each day that would guarantee to make your life happier than the alternative where you are free to live your life as you please out in the real world? Or would you choose freedom in the real world despite it being guaranteed to provide you with less happiness?

Most philosophers answer that everyone would reject the cage and choose freedom and then argue that this answer is proof that happiness is not the goal of life. They claim this prooves utilitarinism is wrong. I argue they are wrong. Happiness is the goal of life and we should take the cage option. Now why do i think they get the answer wrong?

Because everything else we are told about the experiment implies the cage choice is the unhappy outcome and we fail to grasp the true meaning of what the happiness pill is. Cages take away our freedom and our potential to find meaning in the external world. who would want this? However, the reason these things are bad is solely because they create unhappiness, which we are told the pill more then compensates for. We confuse means with an end. We struggle to understand the greatness of the pill.

We also assume, despite being told otherwise, that taking the freedom option has the potential to provide us with more happiness because in reality our happiness is not pre determined but a function of what happens to us. Our subconciousness struggles to rationalize the outcome of the experiement with the settings provided because they dont make logical sense in reality.

for these reasons I think the philosophers are wrong in their conclusions for this experiement.

thoughts? Do you have other thought experiments to share?

It's a hypothetical scenario based on a false dilemma with unrealistic assumptions. I don't think the point is to argue for whether one choice is correct over the other. It'a about provoking thought on human nature. Such as - short term feeling good over long term satisfaction. Personal choice over government control. Hedonism over building meaningful relationships.

On your death bed, probably alone, after a lifetime of popping the happy pills in the cage how would you look back on your life?

 

[Frank Bunn]

Most people misunderstand Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment. He wasn't implying a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time until the radioactive box is opened and the state of the cat observed. He was highlighting the absurdity of the consequences that follow from applying the principles of quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects.

 

[Frank Bunn]

waves to Seeds

I enjoy the grandfather paradox about time travel.

View attachment 1649917

A solution to this could be the many worlds theory, where it could be possible to travel backwards in time but you would no longer be in the same universe. So you could kill your own grandfather and you will never be born in that universe but will still exist as the tourist you from another universe.

Another one is the whole Truman Show scenario. I was telling some of my brahs in the smoko shed at work recently that I thought I was in an equivalent of the Truman Show. They laughed at me and called me paranoid. I said "yeah I bet you'd get paid a fair amount to say that wouldn't you" but they just laughed even more... exactly how a paid actor would behave.

I jest. Partly.

Don't watch the move Predestination. It will freak you right out!

 

[Mofra]

Rawls' veil of ignorance.
Although he used it as a thought experiment to determine his 'perfect' system of justice, it can be useful when stuck on a problem to 'veil' externalities and consider a perfect solution, then work backwards.

 

[rank and file]

When there is a drought,I wonder if the Milesian
School of Thought is legit.
End up taking the happy pill and fall into Absurdism.

 

[Seeds]

Rawls' veil of ignorance.
Although he used it as a thought experiment to determine his 'perfect' system of justice, it can be useful when stuck on a problem to 'veil' externalities and consider a perfect solution, then work backwards.

rawls veil of ignorance was indeed a good one. Although I think rawls made the wrong conclusion about how a rational person would choose to structure society if they existed under the veil of ignorance. His conclusion instead was based on the ordinary person rather then the rational person and the ordinary person has common fallacies in their thinking. Such as the fallacy that you will be the extreme example, and this results in the ordinary person giving far too much weight to this outcome.

 

[Seeds]

It's a hypothetical scenario based on a false dilemma with unrealistic assumptions. I don't think the point is to argue for whether one choice is correct over the other. It'a about provoking thought on human nature. Such as - short term feeling good over long term satisfaction. Personal choice over government control. Hedonism over building meaningful relationships.

On your death bed, probably alone, after a lifetime of popping the happy pills in the cage how would you look back on your life?

the value of ones life isnt just evaluated by reflection in their last moments of life. Humans are a stream of consciousness that exist in moments of time. Reflection of the past is important but only because it influences your net happiness in the moment you are undertaking the reflection. The value of ones life is a sum of its net happiness over the entirety of all moments that take place in ones life. No moment has a higher weighting in this calculation.

 

[RedStarUncle]

What thought experiements amuse you or provide you with insight?

can you share here?

one thought experiment i find interesting is the happy pill prison experiment. Not so much because its well thought out but mostly because all philosophers seem to get the answer wrong.

happy pill prison thought experiment:
Would you rather be locked in a cage for your whole life where you would be given a pill each day that would guarantee to make your life happier than the alternative where you are free to live your life as you please out in the real world? Or would you choose freedom in the real world despite it being guaranteed to provide you with less happiness?

Most philosophers answer that everyone would reject the cage and choose freedom and then argue that this answer is proof that happiness is not the goal of life. They claim this prooves utilitarinism is wrong. I argue they are wrong. Happiness is the goal of life and we should take the cage option. Now why do i think they get the answer wrong?

Because everything else we are told about the experiment implies the cage choice is the unhappy outcome and we fail to grasp the true meaning of what the happiness pill is. Cages take away our freedom and our potential to find meaning in the external world. who would want this? However, the reason these things are bad is solely because they create unhappiness, which we are told the pill more then compensates for. We confuse means with an end. We struggle to understand the greatness of the pill.

We also assume, despite being told otherwise, that taking the freedom option has the potential to provide us with more happiness because in reality our happiness is not pre determined but a function of what happens to us. Our subconciousness struggles to rationalize the outcome of the experiement with the settings provided because they dont make logical sense in reality.

for these reasons I think the philosophers are wrong in their conclusions for this experiement.

thoughts? Do you have other thought experiments to share?

I think this though experiment falls down on the basis of a "pill guaranteed to make your life happier" being unrealistic and not existent.

No one can truly answer the thought experiment as intended, because there will be an inherent scepticism about the supposed pill. That scepticism pushes us to seek out happiness as we understand and experience it, rather than trust the pill that does not reflect any of our true experiences of happiness.




That said, if somehow the scepticism could be removed from the equation I can still see an argument for not accepting the pill/cage combination. Because it still comes back to our human experience and understanding of happiness. Happiness isn't a single measurable experience, but rather something we attain in fleeting and immeasurable moments throughout our pursuits in life. "Pure, unending happiness" is not something we can experience and therefore we have no ability to conceptualise if it's even a good thing. In fact, the usual human experience is that if you park yourself in a static arrangement that makes you happy, you soon become unsatisfied by it (think retiring to a tropical paradise - only to eventually become sick of the mundanity of every day being the same happy existence but with an absence of struggle for purpose and achievement).

 

[Mofra]

rawls veil of ignorance was indeed a good one. Although I think rawls made the wrong conclusion about how a rational person would choose to structure society if they existed under the veil of ignorance. His conclusion instead was based on the ordinary person rather then the rational person and the ordinary person has common fallacies in their thinking. Such as the fallacy that you will be the extreme example, and this results in the ordinary person giving far too much weight to this outcome.

I actually have also read Sen's rebuttal to Rawls and I'm swayed by it.

In a practical sense, incrementalism is a much easier practice in the real world - and celebrating improvement over lamenting imperfection is a much happier way to live.

 

[Melvin]

The value of ones life is a sum of its net happiness over the entirety of all moments that take place in ones life.

I'm interested in how you've decided this. I certainly cant claim to give a succinct meaning of life summary myself but why does more happiness = more value?

Is there value in other emotions? If someone lives happily in a cage for their whole life is their life of more value than another who was largely unhappy but interacting and contributing to society?

 

[kranky al]

I'm interested in how you've decided this. I certainly cant claim to give a succinct meaning of life summary myself but why does more happiness = more value?

Is there value in other emotions? If someone lives happily in a cage for their whole life is their life of more value than another who was largely unhappy but interacting and contributing to society?

Furthermore:

Just being happy all your life is kind of meh, great lows that are overcome lead to soaring highs.

I want to experience exhilaration, ecstacy, amazement, awe and wonder.

Not plain jane happy.

The cost of those experiences is often the inverse, because you have to overcome adversity to get the rewards.

Some times you fail all together and have to pick yourself up and start again.

Yeah nah stick your happy pills up your scomo!!

 

[PTizzle]

I always like this one when I want a bit of existential dread. Basically the Ship of Theseus but with consciousness.

 

[Seeds]

I'm interested in how you've decided this. I certainly cant claim to give a succinct meaning of life summary myself but why does more happiness = more value?

Is there value in other emotions? If someone lives happily in a cage for their whole life is their life of more value than another who was largely unhappy but interacting and contributing to society?

Because humans are biological robots that exist through moments of time with a reward and penalty system. Our rewards are positive emotions and our penalties are negative emotions. We have no choice over this fact. Its simply what we are.

we only value experiences that we believe will ultimately provide us with increased net positive emotions or reduced net negative emotions, whether these emotions are felt immediately or expected to occur in the long run.

humans do have some ability to decide what makes us happy and unhappy but we dont get to choose that happiness is the ultimate reward. No matter how much some of us try.

 

[Seeds]

I actually have also read Sen's rebuttal to Rawls and I'm swayed by it.

In a practical sense, incrementalism is a much easier practice in the real world - and celebrating improvement over lamenting imperfection is a much happier way to live.

Incrementalism is the only effective way to implement large charges without revolution.

 

[kickazz]

With a lot of these, it comes down to your assumptions but that in itself makes the experiments interesting.


I like the Trolley Problem. (Trolley on tracks is hurtling toward 5 people and will likely kill them. You can pull a lever to switch the tracks, saving the 5, but killing one person on the other track)

I'm in the minority and think leaving things alone is the correct action, where more people die but I do not intervene.

Most people intervene, and justify the decision on pure numbers, treating each life equally.


My justification is complex, but it's based on the idea that when I intervene, the death is on me, totally. Who am I to play God and decide who lives and dies? For all I know, the large group of people destined to die could be railway workers who are getting highly paid for risky work, but that decision was theirs, they accepted the risk. Other things may also be at play that I do not know about that ameliorate any possible disasters on the "expected path".

The single person on the other track could be an innocent child. There may be much less ameliorative things in place there because the trolley was never supposed to go there. Yeah sure, I can feel good about reducing number of deaths, but I don't know the full picture, it is arrogant to think I do.

Other ways of framing the problem that get people thinking differently:

1. A terrorist has two hostages. He says you must kill one, or he will kill both. Numbers game again, but there is also a bit of "do I believe him" and "* you" in this one.

2. In a remote jungle, a talented surgeon has three people - each will die soon if they do not get a heart, lungs and liver transplant respectively. All have good recovery prospects after that. A healthy backpacker appears out of nowhere. Should the surgeon kill the backpacker and save three lives? This one makes you think again if your original decision was purely numbers based.

What is good about these problems is how people unravel the assumptions. On the pill in the cage, I dispute the idea of constant happiness in the first place; you need to feel the troughs to experience the peaks kind of thing.


Good thread Seeds, I must get around to responding to a couple of others you have started too, really good discussion points.

 

[Frank Bunn]

the value of ones life isnt just evaluated by reflection in their last moments of life. Humans are a stream of consciousness that exist in moments of time. Reflection of the past is important but only because it influences your net happiness in the moment you are undertaking the reflection. The value of ones life is a sum of its net happiness over the entirety of all moments that take place in ones life. No moment has a higher weighting in this calculation.

You say the value of one's life is the sum of its net happiness over the entirety of all moments that take place in ones life. Surely, you can only assess that towards the end of your life? But it's good that you've come around to thoughts on human nature rather than deciding a choice in a false dilemma in an unrealistic hypothetical scenario. It gets more interesting when you add real world factors.

What's the incentive to lock random people up? It costs money to maintain these happy zombies. For criminal inmates, it might keep them quiet but create addicts and provide a disincentive for prison when it's supposed to be a punishment and rehabilitative. Could it be used to keep POWs under control?

Whats the closest we have to happy pills? Alcohol? Heroin? Fentanyl? The evidence suggests such sedation doesn't end well for people's health, their relationships, careers.

 

[kickazz]

I always like this one when I want a bit of existential dread. Basically the Ship of Theseus but with consciousness.

Pretty cool video, but I think it has a couple of deeply flawed assumptions. Particularly the end where she says "I'm a new me, without the guilt (of destroying the scientist) or obligations (bills to pay) of the old me. So basically, not a perfect copy. Likewise the idea that the original scientist would be the better chess player - I don't understand a logical reason for that assumption.

Reminds me of

Spoiler: the movie

The Prestige

where this basically happens.

My thoughts though, if you assume that it makes an otherwise perfect copy (physically, mentally, memories, etc) then the second you make the copy they begin to no longer be identical as they have subtly different experiences in life - even if it is a second inside the machine.

As for using it as transportation - I guess it would only be cool if the "original" does not suffer pain when they are destroyed, and/or if their consciousness is somehow seamlessly transferred to the copy. I guess the issue with this though is that when you use it, will you always wonder about your "other self" and did they suffer?

 

[kickazz]

Whats the closest we have to happy pills? Alcohol? Heroin? Fentanyl? The evidence suggests such sedation doesn't end well for people's health, their relationships, careers.

Well you could take it to a higher level of abstraction and say that our happy pills are our "bread and circuses" - you know, the footy, Netflix, nice food and holiday now and then - all distracting us from the (disputable) idea that we are all trapped in a system, working for the "man", obeying the law, paying our bills and not living truly free lives to our best potential.

 

[Seeds]

You say the value of one's life is the sum of its net happiness over the entirety of all moments that take place in ones life. Surely, you can only assess that towards the end of your life? But it's good that you've come around to thoughts on human nature rather than deciding a choice in a false dilemma in an unrealistic hypothetical scenario. It gets more interesting when you add real world factors.

What's the incentive to lock random people up? It costs money to maintain these happy zombies. For criminal inmates, it might keep them quiet but create addicts and provide a disincentive for prison when it's supposed to be a punishment and rehabilitative. Could it be used to keep POWs under control?

Whats the closest we have to happy pills? Alcohol? Heroin? Fentanyl? The evidence suggests such sedation doesn't end well for people's health, their relationships, careers.

Its a purely theoretical abstract example that has been used in my view to falsely conclude that happiness is not the meaning of life.

it says nothing about prisons or pleasure pills/drugs that exist in the real world. Indeed part of its trick that makes most people come to the wrong conclusion is it makes you mistakenly think about pills, prisons and the uncertainty of freedom in the real world rather then the abstract theoretical versions you are supposed to use.
.

 

[Seeds]

Well you could take it to a higher level of abstraction and say that our happy pills are our "bread and circuses" - you know, the footy, Netflix, nice food and holiday now and then - all distracting us from the (disputable) idea that we are all trapped in a system, working for the "man", obeying the law, paying our bills and not living truly free lives to our best potential.

The happiness pills dont just provide pleasure. They provide you with enduring contentment and satisfaction as well. All the positive emotions you can experience in the real world are provided by the happiness pills. Just in higher doses.

 

[Seeds]

With a lot of these, it comes down to your assumptions but that in itself makes the experiments interesting.


I like the Trolley Problem. (Trolley on tracks is hurtling toward 5 people and will likely kill them. You can pull a lever to switch the tracks, saving the 5, but killing one person on the other track)

I'm in the minority and think leaving things alone is the correct action, where more people die but I do not intervene.

Most people intervene, and justify the decision on pure numbers, treating each life equally.


My justification is complex, but it's based on the idea that when I intervene, the death is on me, totally. Who am I to play God and decide who lives and dies? For all I know, the large group of people destined to die could be railway workers who are getting highly paid for risky work, but that decision was theirs, they accepted the risk. Other things may also be at play that I do not know about that ameliorate any possible disasters on the "expected path".

The single person on the other track could be an innocent child. There may be much less ameliorative things in place there because the trolley was never supposed to go there. Yeah sure, I can feel good about reducing number of deaths, but I don't know the full picture, it is arrogant to think I do.

Other ways of framing the problem that get people thinking differently:

1. A terrorist has two hostages. He says you must kill one, or he will kill both. Numbers game again, but there is also a bit of "do I believe him" and "* you" in this one.

2. In a remote jungle, a talented surgeon has three people - each will die soon if they do not get a heart, lungs and liver transplant respectively. All have good recovery prospects after that. A healthy backpacker appears out of nowhere. Should the surgeon kill the backpacker and save three lives? This one makes you think again if your original decision was purely numbers based.

What is good about these problems is how people unravel the assumptions. On the pill in the cage, I dispute the idea of constant happiness in the first place; you need to feel the troughs to experience the peaks kind of thing.


Good thread Seeds, I must get around to responding to a couple of others you have started too, really good discussion points.

love a good trolley debate. Thanks for the post. Im going to be blunt with my answers as its just easier to be blunt when writing on an ipad. Plus wheres the fun if we all just agree with each other. In my view i think you have made the wrong decision because you have made two faulty assumptions. Assumptions that many make so you arent alone.

one) you have not considered to not act is also to play god. You became a god as soon as you were put in the position to decide. Its not the decision to change the outcome from the starting position to the alternative that makes you a god. Its the fact you have a decision at all. Not making the change is just as much your choice as is making the change. You cant hide from the fact you have been given this god like power. If you decide to not change the outcome despite having been given the power then you have decided to kill 5 people rather then to kill 1.

two) yes there may be good underlying reasons why the starting position of the trolley is hurtling towards the 5 and not the 1. But there could also equally be bad underlying reasons as well. The single person on one track could be a mass murderer and the 5 on the other track could be charity workers that were tricked by the mass murderer. You simply dont know and theres no reason in this theoretical example why you should expect the starting position has a higher probability of good underlying reasons then the alternative.

as for your examples 1) you say there is a chance the terrorist is bluffing so this example is completely different to the trolley problem. its impossible to answer as to what the right choice is here unless we can get some idea what probability the terrorist is bluffing. Once we know this probability the answer is easy.

2) this is a much more murkier trolley problem without an easy answer. Lets assume the age of the 3 sick people is the same as the backpacker and the surgery has guranteed success that will provide high quality of life. Then if these two conditions are met the answer depends on whether the murder of the backpacker can happen in a vacuum where knowledge of the backpacker murder will never get out to the public nor the 3 people it saved. If this is the case then you would have to consider the murder. Because it saves more innocent lives then it costs and can have no negative ramifications for public fear nor regret on behalf of the sick people that were saved. Ofcourse in reality the vacuum doesnt exist nor can surgery success ever be remotely guranteed so in reality you wouldnt kill the backpacker. But there is a theoretical environment where you probably should. Because its results in the best outcome for life. and in my view life is all there is.

 

[Roby]

I recently faced an ethical dilemma at work, where I was part responsible for promoting one team member to a newly created senior role which would have brought a significant increase in salary. There were two leading candidates that were virtually equally deserving of the promotion based on their performance and expertise, but their personal circumstances were quite different. One employee had a sick family member with high medical expenses, while the other employee was single with no dependents.

What would you have done?