Thought Experiment(s)

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I'll begin with...

Mary's Room

Mary is a brilliant scientist who is, for whatever reason, forced to investigate the world from a black and white room via a black and white television monitor. She specializes in the neurophysiology of vision and acquires, let us suppose, all the physical information there is to obtain about what goes on when we see ripe tomatoes, or the sky, and use terms like ‘red’, ‘blue’, and so on. She discovers, for example, just which wavelength combinations from the sky stimulate the retina, and exactly how this produces via the central nervous system the contraction of the vocal cords and expulsion of air from the lungs that results in the uttering of the sentence ‘The sky is blue’. [...] What will happen when Mary is released from her black and white room or is given a color television monitor? Will she learn anything or not?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I go with the "she would gain a new experience but not new knowledge." camp. Experience is the way sensory input is processed by your brain. Science and materialism are still valid.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, for the sake of argument I'll disagree.

What you describe sounds very similar to a thought experiment known as the "Chinese room," proposed by John Searle. Based on what you describe above, I would have to infer that the scientist:

-has somehow learned enough about the material structure of a human language so as to be able to develop her knowlege of the human sciences; presumably, she knows how the rules of this language work even though she has never interacted with someone who spoke them (since if she has, then presumably she would also already know what 'red' and 'blue' look like)l thus, she
-knows how human physiology works because she's been educated as to its rules/laws, and that
-these rules allow her to deduce that certain quantities/arragements of natural information produce different sense perceptions, to which
-she is able to ascribe the proper terms/words/verbal signs, etc.

She is entirely capable within her closed system of accessing information, understanding its rules and laws, and ordering the information she receives in ways that reflect the learned structure, and hence give the impression of knowledge (and she does have knowledge, in some respect).

My refutation would be that while she understands how certain pieces of information go together based on the rules that govern them (which she presumably learned also while she was in the room), she has no concept of their meaning. She may understand that the concept 'red' pertains to a certain wavelength, and be able to compile further information based on this rule; but while this may give the semblance of meaning, there's no guarantee that she actually understands the meaning behind the information she's compiling, the sensations such as 'red' or 'blue' being what we refer to when we say such things.

In short, what she'll learn upon leaving her room is - in a sense - a new language.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I like this classic problem..

Resultant moral luck.
For instance, two persons behave in a morally culpable way, such as driving carelessly, but end up producing unequal amounts of harm: one strikes a pedestrian and kills him, while the other does not. That one driver caused a death and the other did not is no part of the drivers' intentional actions; yet most observers would likely ascribe greater blame to the driver who killed.

 

[Dak]

How could you ascribe blame for nothing?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

So your sentence(law) is a matter of luck and/or chance?

 

[viewerfromnihil]

Luck and chance are matters of gambling. This problem is a matter of circumstances. Personally, I'm not a big fan of these sort of things. I try to pick them apart though that goes against the intent of the proposition.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I understand the circumstance and since there was no intent to kill the only gamble they both took was driving carelessly.

 

[Dak]

I understand the circumstance and since there was no intent to kill the only gamble they both took was driving carelessly.

No harm no foul. Yes it was a gamble and one driver lost it, and the other could lose in the future. Hopefully one's loss will be a lesson for others.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

So the question of "moral luck" is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control, yes?

 

[Dak]

So the question of "moral luck" is how our moral responsibility is changed by factors over which we have no control, yes?

"Moral" luck? That's such an ambiguous term you could put every bad thing that never happened in a volume with that title. It's moral luck that I apply the proper pressure on the brake pedal every time I come to a stop so as not to rear-end the person in front of me, or are accidents immoral at all? I don't really see what you are trying to get at.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Moral luck occurs when an agent can be correctly treated as an object of moral judgment despite the fact that a significant aspect of what he/she is assessed for depends on factors beyond her control. Bernard Williams writes, “when I first introduced the expression moral luck, I expected to suggest an oxymoron” (Williams 1993, 251). Indeed, immunity from luck has been thought by many to be part of the very essence of morality.

Williams (1981) and Thomas Nagel (1979) showed in their now classic pair of articles, it appears that our everyday judgments and practices commit us to the existence of moral luck. The problem of moral luck arises because we seem to be committed to the general principle that we are morally assessable only to the extent that what we are assessed for depends on factors under our control (call this the “Control Principle&#8221. At the same time, when it comes to countless particular cases, we morally assess agents for things that depend on factors that are not in their control. And making the situation still more problematic is the fact that a very natural line of reasoning suggests that it is impossible to morally assess anyone for anything if we adhere to the Control Principle.


http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-luck/

 

[Dak]

Do "We" all assess moral agents for things outside their control? I see a lot of broad language, and it almost sounds as if the author is not aware of general principles of risk management etc.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Well that's your conclusion.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

t's moral luck that I apply the proper pressure on the brake pedal every time I come to a stop so as not to rear-end the person in front of me

Oh and No to this. Thats in your control. Were talking about someone or "we" making a moral assessment based on something that happened to you in a position where it was out of your control.

 

[Einherjar86]

Oh and No to this. Thats in your control. Were talking about someone or "we" making a moral assessment based on something that happened to you in a position where it was out of your control.

In that case, the "reckless driver" scenario might not be the best example. While neither driver intended to strike someone, they both had the power to drive responsibly. Now, we might argue over what the definition of "responsible" is; but I believe we could all settle on a fair definition provided we specified the situation and circumstances.

In this scenario, neither driver intended to kill anyone; that's an important factor, in my opinion. Intentions have no role in assigning guilt, or very little role. We judge cases based on the material consequences.

Another situation that might be more ethically concerned involves euthanasia. Two identical material situations: one man assists another in helping him commit suicide. The first secretly loathes the victim and actually derived some enjoyment from the act. The second was begged for help by the victim, and is secretly torn by shame over his involvement.

Both would be convicted of the same crime, yet both had very different intentions. The second man particularly could be said to be acting ethically, yet he receives no praise despite his intentions.

 

[Dak]

Oh and No to this. Thats in your control. Were talking about someone or "we" making a moral assessment based on something that happened to you in a position where it was out of your control.

What if I had ignored or did not understand proper care maintenance to the vehicle and although applying what was normally the proper pressure, due to wear on the brake pads and rotors, it was not enough or the brakes failed entirely? What if the brakes failed on their own even with proper care?

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I hear where both of you are coming from and I agree with most of what both of you guys are saying. Remember I'm not posing the question(s), this has been an unsolved problem in philosophy for a while now. Philosophers generally accord serious philosophical problems specific names or questions that indicate a particular method of attack or line of reasoning. This makes broad and untenable topics become manageable.

I'll post some more in the future. If you guys have any interesting problems/experiments go for it!

"Another situation that might be more ethically concerned involves euthanasia. Two identical material situations: one man assists another in helping him commit suicide. The first secretly loathes the victim and actually derived some enjoyment from the act. The second was begged for help by the victim, and is secretly torn by shame over his involvement.

Both would be convicted of the same crime, yet both had very different intentions. The second man particularly could be said to be acting ethically, yet he receives no praise despite his intentions."

I like this one Ein. It reminds me of the idea in "hate crimes"