3 ms·
> Is it possible to be passively unethical? If that's the question you want to ask, then the problem is badly under-specified. > "out of bounds" Including th
by pdkl95 10y ago
> Is it possible to be passively unethical?
If that's the question you want to ask, then the problem is badly under-specified.
> "out of bounds"
Including the prior probability that the situation can even happen is important information; if a specific value for this probability was desired, the problem should have included it.
> dismisses the spirit of the problem
Quite a few people in this thread seem are dismissing the Bayesian solution even though it does resolve an ethical dilemma.
Is it better to take an unethical action to prevent a greater tragedy? If the situation is very unusual and easily-confused human senses are a more probable explanation, then the ethical response is to recognize your own limitations.
Leaving out these details results in a model that won't actually match anything in the real world.
- icebraining 10y agoLeaving out these details results in a model that won't actually match anything in the real world. Yes. It's not supposed to.
- dsacco 10y agoCorrect - because it's a thought "experiment", not a physics experiment. There is an attempt at logical and rational rigor, but there is a reason philosophy is not a hard science. It doesn't attempt to model the world accurately, it attempts to make concrete understanding from abstract principles. Unlike the sciences, the experiments are not designed to conclusive, they're designed to be instructive. One could take issue with philosophy as a discipline for working this way, but "them's the rules."