Cooler Dirt

As we often do on Foolosophy Friday, we’re going to start with a conundrum. Here are the basics;

1. You are a train conductor. One day you are happily moving along the tracks when you see something terrible ahead.  On the track you are on, two people are tied up and laying unconscious.  If you continue, they will die.
2. Luckily, there is a side track you can take.  Less than lucky is that on this track lies a single person, similarly tied up, unconscious and immobile.   If you switch to the other track, that person will die.
3. If you continue on the tracks, the two people will be killed. If you change tracks, the one person will be killed.  You can’t stop the train or do anything else to avoid hitting either the pair or the lone person.

Now the question is this:  What do you do? Do you go ahead and kill the two people, or do you change tracks and kill the one?

How do you decide? Should you decide on the basis of doing the least harm?  If so, you’ll probably change tracks.  Yes, you’ll kill someone, but you’ll save two lives.  If you continue without switching tracks, don’t you inflict more harm?

Does it change anything if the single person is conscious and can see you coming?  Or if instead of 2 people it is 100? Or they are children?   Why does that make a difference?

Think about this:  If you continue, you don’t have to change anything.  By acting you choose to do something, namely kill a person that otherwise would have been alive.  Are you a murderer because you chose to kill the one person?

These kind of hypotheticals are simplistic, but they aren’t designed to teach you what to do in these kinds of situations.  The question asks what we mean by morality, or more specifically, by the concept of the most good to the most people.  (Or the least harm to the least number of people.)   If you believe acting so as to bring about the most good for the most people, this kind of problem may arise.  But if you think choosing to take the life of someone is wrong, then in this situation at least, you will have to cause more harm than good.

Hmm.

(Photo courtesy jamesfischer’s flickr page through Creative Commons license. Thanks, james fischer!)

Foolosophy Friday blog, life

Here’s a conversation topic that came up the other day.  A friend of mine likes the show Dexter.  But, because he doesn’t have cable, he can only watch the show after it is released on DVD or, as he prefers, download the show illegally.  He doesn’t believe downloading the show constitutes theft, and further, it is not immoral.  Another friend held the opposite opinion.  Here are the 2 basic arguments

File Sharing IS NOT Stealing:

1. Intellectual property is intangible: When you steal a car, you deprive someone of that car.  When you download a file, you aren’t depriving anyone of anything.  The property is intangible, and you can’t really ‘take’ it.  Therefore, it isn’t stealing.
2. Downloading a file doesn’t prevent the creator from making money: A writer, movie maker, song writer , etc., can still make money from their creations.   They can use alternate distribution models, they can use subscriptions, etc.  Not only that, but people downloading files often go out and buy the tangible good.  (The CD or DVD, etc.)  They also become fans of the artist and pay them money in other ways, like going to their website, concerts, etc.

File Sharing IS Stealing:

1. You are taking something of value: The file you are downloading is someone’s property, and it has value.  That you can’t hold it is irrelevant.  There are lots of things you can’t hold (a logo, your cable subscription, your neighbor’s wi-fi access), but that doesn’t mean everyone can use them.  If you cut into your neighbor’s cable, or access their wi-fi, or use a corporate logo for yourself, you are still stealing.  It has value and doesn’t belong to you.  So taking it is theft.
2. How do you know: Lots of people depend on intellectual property for their living, and more specifically, on the right to exclusively make and sell copies of their work. (Anyone who makes music, entertainemnt, etc, or is involved in the process.)  If you remove the copyright protetions, that may take all, some or a portion of those jobs away.  Yes, those jobs might still exist if you change the protections, but that’s a hell of a gamble.  If it doesn’t, the jobs are lost and all you have left is “Oops, my bad.”.

What do you think?  Where is the line when it comes to file sharing (or illegally downloading)?  Is it theft? Is it immoral?

Is it….EVIL?!?!?

(Photo courtesy KUNTA.TOKYO’s Flickr page through Creative Commons.  Thanks, KUNTA.TOKYO!)

Foolosophy Friday conversation, conversation topic, dexter, evil, file sharing, foolosophy friday, illegal downloading, music, peer-to-peer, ptp, theft

Every Friday, we’re going to post a brain teaser of sorts. We don’t want to go so far as to call what we do philosophy, but we are going to ask the kinds of questions you usually only ask when under the influence of substances that aren’t exactly legal. (Which, by the way, is the only reason we ever wanted to go to grad school.)

So, consider the following hypothetical situation.

1. Last night, and unbeknownst to you, a group of mad scientists snuck into your bedroom and removed your brain.
2. Fortunately for you, they didn’t leave you hanging. Instead of letting you die, these scientists placed your brain in a vat of super-awesome science liquid that keeps your brain alive. (Ever seen that Steve Martin movie, The Man with Two Brains? It’s kind of like that. Here’s a clip.)
3. Further, in all the places where the nerves of your brain connected with your body, they placed microscopic radio transmitters. These allow your brain to communicate with your body even if it is no longer there. So even though you believe your brain is still there, it is really in a jar somewhere in the dark lair of the evil scientists.

So, here is the question: Where are you?
Though your body is currently where you are, your brain is in the hideout. It could be millions of miles away on a distant planet. And everything you think, feel, see, taste and perceive are going on in that hideout. So are you in the hideout, or are you where you are now?

Here’s another question. What if your body is destroyed? Are you dead? You would no longer be able to perceive anything, but you could still think. You’d still have all your memories, still dream, still have desires.

We’ll let you think about that one for a while. What do you think? What do your friends think?

If this question asks anything, doesn’t it ask what it means when we identify ourselves?

In other words: Who, or what, makes you, you?

(Photo courtesy sirtrentalot’s Flickr page, rights granted through Creative Commons license. Thanks, sirtrentalot!)

Foolosophy Friday blog, brain, friends, philosophy, science