|
|
Post by rosey1579 on Sept 28, 2018 16:14:55 GMT -5
Okay well
Vote: Legend
I can be convinced otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:16:21 GMT -5
Day one vote count:
Zinnia v. Zinnia
Legend v. Zinnia
Zinnia unvotes
Rosey v. Legend
Zinnia (1) - Legend
Legend (1) - Rosey
|
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 16:18:36 GMT -5
Alright, this is what I'm currently working on... Doctors A and B both perform operations, using general anesthesia. Both A and B are negligent in not checking whether their patients have epilepsy --- an important thing to do, with general anesthesia, although of course most people don’t have epilepsy. Dr. A is lucky. His patient doesn’t have epilepsy, and does fine. Dr. B is unlucky. His patient has epilepsy, and has a seizure and dies. Considering the moral paradox, The paradox of moral luck is that there are three separate claims needed to have moral responsibility. The claims are as follows:
1.) Control. We have no moral responsibility for things out of our control (i.e. we cannot be blamed for our parent’s actions prior to our birth).
2.) Responsibility. As humans, we have a moral responsibility for who we are, and we do (i.e. I caused a car wreck vs. you caused a car wreck).
3.) Luck. Who we are and what we do are predetermined by events occurring outside of our control (i.e. I might be considered lucky for winning the lottery, or I might be considered unlucky for losing the lottery, however both events are outside of my control).
would you say that... 1.) both doctors preformed the same operation and were negligent in the same fashion and therefore are equally blameworthy... or 2.) doctor A should feel guilty, but not be blamed for being negligent like we blame doctor B for losing his patient. Personally, I think that both doctors should be blamed for being negligent and both should feel guilty, but luck had no play in this. So my claim is that we throw out 3 and just rely on 1 and 2. I agree with you. We don't have control over anything but ourselves and therefore any action we take ought to be morally judged by ourselves and the people around us. However, are other people to judge about actions out of their control? Is judgement over others not always wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by Kat on Sept 28, 2018 16:20:41 GMT -5
What happened to Chameleon Goo. That used to be a role on the list. And grey Goo. Different set up. Idk if you figured that out yet I’m slowly reading bacm |
|
|
|
Post by choco on Sept 28, 2018 16:21:12 GMT -5
This is what we've been covering for the past few days in lectures, Bella. lol
|
|
|
|
Post by HungryPony27 on Sept 28, 2018 16:21:23 GMT -5
Okay well Vote: LegendI can be convinced otherwise. Mmkay. We'll discuss this in the morning. |
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:24:15 GMT -5
This is what we've been covering for the past few days in lectures, Bella. lol We're covering moral responsibility before looking at the classics. |
|
|
|
Post by rosey1579 on Sept 28, 2018 16:24:37 GMT -5
Is negligence morally wrong? If they considered checking and then decided nah they don’t care then I’d consider that immoral, but if they forgot then it’s just a whoops. Doctor B’s patient died, which caused him to notice his negligence and feel as if he has done something morally wrong, but it was human error, in reality. Had he deliberated not asked his patient because he didn’t care he would feel a whole lot worse. That would be the true immoral act.
|
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:27:22 GMT -5
Alright, this is what I'm currently working on... Doctors A and B both perform operations, using general anesthesia. Both A and B are negligent in not checking whether their patients have epilepsy --- an important thing to do, with general anesthesia, although of course most people don’t have epilepsy. Dr. A is lucky. His patient doesn’t have epilepsy, and does fine. Dr. B is unlucky. His patient has epilepsy, and has a seizure and dies. Considering the moral paradox, The paradox of moral luck is that there are three separate claims needed to have moral responsibility. The claims are as follows:
1.) Control. We have no moral responsibility for things out of our control (i.e. we cannot be blamed for our parent’s actions prior to our birth).
2.) Responsibility. As humans, we have a moral responsibility for who we are, and we do (i.e. I caused a car wreck vs. you caused a car wreck).
3.) Luck. Who we are and what we do are predetermined by events occurring outside of our control (i.e. I might be considered lucky for winning the lottery, or I might be considered unlucky for losing the lottery, however both events are outside of my control).
would you say that... 1.) both doctors preformed the same operation and were negligent in the same fashion and therefore are equally blameworthy... or 2.) doctor A should feel guilty, but not be blamed for being negligent like we blame doctor B for losing his patient. Personally, I think that both doctors should be blamed for being negligent and both should feel guilty, but luck had no play in this. So my claim is that we throw out 3 and just rely on 1 and 2. I agree with you. We don't have control over anything but ourselves and therefore any action we take ought to be morally judged by ourselves and the people around us. However, are other people to judge about actions out of their control? Is judgement over others not always wrong? Well, I think placing judgement over people is wrong, but that's not part of the question.  This is the assignment: Writing Exercise Due 9.29.18 How would you resolve the paradox of moral luck? That is, which of the claims in the paradox would you reject, and why? In your answer, be sure to address the following: (1) Explain what the paradox of moral luck is. (2) Identify which of the claims you think is false and explain your reasons for thinking that it is false. (In other words, offer an objection to the claim that you are rejecting.) |
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:28:30 GMT -5
Is negligence morally wrong? If they considered checking and then decided nah they don’t care then I’d consider that immoral, but if they forgot then it’s just a whoops. Doctor B’s patient died, which caused him to notice his negligence and feel as if he has done something morally wrong, but it was human error, in reality. Had he deliberated not asked his patient because he didn’t care he would feel a whole lot worse. That would be the true immoral act. Yes, yes. |
|
|
|
Post by Kat on Sept 28, 2018 16:28:47 GMT -5
Eh I didn’t find that very interesting to read and have no opinions yet
|
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:29:29 GMT -5
Eh I didn’t find that very interesting to read and have no opinions yet You don't have to. I'm just trying to get my posting count up so I can have a new level. |
|
|
|
Post by rosey1579 on Sept 28, 2018 16:30:34 GMT -5
I agree with you. We don't have control over anything but ourselves and therefore any action we take ought to be morally judged by ourselves and the people around us. However, are other people to judge about actions out of their control? Is judgement over others not always wrong? Well, I think placing judgement over people is wrong, but that's not part of the question.  This is the assignment: Writing Exercise Due 9.29.18 How would you resolve the paradox of moral luck? That is, which of the claims in the paradox would you reject, and why? In your answer, be sure to address the following: (1) Explain what the paradox of moral luck is. (2) Identify which of the claims you think is false and explain your reasons for thinking that it is false. (In other words, offer an objection to the claim that you are rejecting.) Those are some pretty rigid rules for free thought. |
|
|
|
Post by Skelda on Sept 28, 2018 16:39:33 GMT -5
90 town 20 mafia 18 Werewolf 9 alien 3 survivor 2 whacker 4 SK 2 Cult 1 Wildcard 146 Roles That translates to (for the first role and second roll) 61% Town 14% Mafia 12% Werewolf 6% Alien 2% Survivor 1.34% whacker 3% SK 1.34% Cult 0.66% Wildcard I Could do the math of how great the chance is to hit town twice, ETC ETC. But you can about HALF it for the same event to happen twice sucessfully so that's what I'll do 2xtown: 30 2xmaf: 7 2xww 6 2xalien 3 2x survivor 1 2x whacker <1 2x SK 1.5 2x cult <1 2x WC <1 (To get the same role twice is about 0.33 chance… I like those odds) And the COMBOS are somewhere between the percentages chance of 2x of both… So for example: You have about a 20% chance to get town maf. (The exact math is pointless because no one reads this besides me) CONCLUSION: TOWN IS THE MOST COMMON AND 2X TOWN IS STILL THE MOST COMMON. A TOWN DISCARD DOES NOT MEAN ANYTHING. AND IF ANYTHING, A SCUM DISCARD IS BETTER THAN A TOWN DISCARD. Why is a scum discard better than a Town discard? I think it depends on the person |
|
|
|
Post by bellagorilla on Sept 28, 2018 16:43:32 GMT -5
Well, I think placing judgement over people is wrong, but that's not part of the question. This is the assignment: Writing Exercise Due 9.29.18 How would you resolve the paradox of moral luck? That is, which of the claims in the paradox would you reject, and why? In your answer, be sure to address the following: (1) Explain what the paradox of moral luck is. (2) Identify which of the claims you think is false and explain your reasons for thinking that it is false. (In other words, offer an objection to the claim that you are rejecting.) Those are some pretty rigid rules for free thought. They are indeed. |
|
