So. Typically speaking, men are seen as the colder and more rational under pressure of the sexes. Women are seen as making better emotional decisions as they are more compassionate and more able to empathize.
A few opposing thoughts on this:
Women's Brains are More Sensitive to Negative Emotions
Guess What? Men are More Emotionally Fragile Than Women
Is there a general rule for this or is it a crap shoot that depends on the wiring of each and every individual?
And...debate!
Or just discuss and philosophize. Either and/or...
How does a decision based on emotion be "better"?Women are seen as making better emotional decisions as they are more compassionate and more able to empathize.
How does a decision based on emotion be "better"?
It seems as there needs to be a logical component to it to make it "better". The more logic the better. Which then leads it to being a more rational decision.
So it seems to me that the person making the less emotional and more logical decision is the one being more rational, be that person a man or a woman.
Kobayashi Maru.It's probably not difficult to guess how you'd answer the Trolley Dilemma.
Kobayashi Maru.
By acknowledging that the former is different by being a no-win situation the other must have a winning (better) choice.The Kobayashi Maru wasn't a thought experiment so much as a test in how to deal with a no-win situation. The Trolley Dilemma is more of a personal morality rorschach test, for lack of a better comparison.
The Kobayashi Maru wasn't a thought experiment so much as a test in how to deal with a no-win situation. The Trolley Dilemma is more of a personal morality rorschach test, for lack of a better comparison.
So. Typically speaking, men are seen as the colder and more rational under pressure of the sexes. Women are seen as making better emotional decisions as they are more compassionate and more able to empathize.
A few opposing thoughts on this:
Women's Brains are More Sensitive to Negative Emotions
Guess What? Men are More Emotionally Fragile Than Women
Is there a general rule for this or is it a crap shoot that depends on the wiring of each and every individual?
And...debate!
Or just discuss and philosophize. Either and/or...
That is hilarious.Well as far as the election goes, Hillary is stronger than cry baby Trump
I'll admit, I don't get that. The Trolley Dilemma is an extreme, and therefore an easy, test of whether or not an individual will ever make a utilitarian decision, or whether they would simply pretend that "not-choosing" is anything but a choice.
By acknowledging that the former is different by being a no-win situation the other must have a winning (better) choice.
What is it? :mrgreen:
Well as far as the election goes, Hillary is stronger than cry baby Trump
Remember that all hands on the Starfleet test ship were killed. In the Trolley Problem you get to live to ponder the morality of your decision.
Are you saying that you do not want to acknowledge that one choice is better than the others?
Is this a logical response to the debate at hand? Could you expound on your answer?More feminist kerfuffle.
Maybe the Transplant Problem would be a better test for you. See my response to cpwill.
How does a decision based on emotion be "better"?
It seems as there needs to be a logical component to it to make it "better". The more logic the better. Which then leads it to being a more rational decision.
So it seems to me that the person making the less emotional and more logical decision is the one being more rational, be that person a man or a woman.
It's confusing to me as well. But as I've heard it, it contains two problems. The first is that by pulling the lever you are now a murderer because you've made a choice. That, however, is still over my head because inaction is still a choice. The second problem is that by pulling the lever you're officially playing God because you've made a life and death decision regarding the value of human life. And the problem with that is you've decided with zero prior information that multiple human lives are automatically worth more than one human life. And even if you did do the research on the accomplishments and potential of the five people versus the one, what gives you the authority to determine who has more value? Because one person has more shiny things than the other? Because one person would fare better on Jeopardy?
Still, though, the Trolley Problem has a degree of moral simplicity to it because of the relative physical aloofness of the Trolley conductor. Therefore, another dilemma was created to remove some of that ambiguity by removing the physical aloofness. In this example, you are a surgeon with five patients, all in need of crucial organs, and there are no transplant donors available to provide the organs. Then one day a perfect fit patient comes in for a standard checkup and you discover that his organs would be perfect for the five terminally ill patients. Do you take the healthy man's organs against his will to save five human lives?
Are you saying that you do not want to acknowledge that one choice is better than the others?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?