Ah, And feel like we are getting off topic, can we start talking about deep stuff?

Very different, we wouldn’t have the nuclear bomb, among many other things.

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

What do you think of life?

 It is what you make of it

If you wish to hold some actual philosophical discussions--here are a few topics to get you started:

----

One of the classic philosophy questions is that of the Trolly Problem.  You are in a trolly with no breaks and no driver.  In front of you is a fork in the track.  You are currently on the path to hit and kill 5 people.  You could pull a lever and change the track, but in so doing, the trolly would hit and kill a single person. If you take no action, five will die, but not due to any overt action by yourself.  If you take action, one will die, but they will die by your choice and action. 

What do you do?  Why?

Once you have that answer: What if those five people were criminals and the one person was a charitable man who might save others?  What if the one was young and the five were old and near the end of their natural lives?  In what other situations might you switch your initial answer? 

Be sure to explain why you make any such choice.  Be sure to change the hypothetical--the numbers of people on each side, the nature of the people, how much effort must be done to change the outcome.  Be sure to ask others for clarification if you do not understand why they made a choice, and explain why your opinion differed from theirs.  Do not merely post your comments--read others' comments, critique them, and try to better understand how they came to their conclusions--and see if their explanations cause you to rethink your own answers.

----

This hypothetical is designed to examine a few issues.  The first--is something worse because it was an action, or can inaction be just as bad as taking overt action?  Second, is all life equal in value?  If so, why? If not, how does one ascribe value to life?  Third, is that value absolute and objective, or does each of us ascribe value to each other?  And if we are ascribing value and making choices based on that value, who conferred the right to make such a decision upon the value of others' lives?

 The Trolly Problem might be cliché, but has a decent bit of depth to it.  That is why it is one of the first questions posed to Philosophy 101 students--it can provide a fair bit of discourse and is rather helpful at getting students and individuals who clearly lack a philosophy background to open up to philosophical discussion.  That which works for new students of philosophy might be a good place for you folks on the forums, new to the field, to get your start as well.

And, with that, I wish you all luck on your thread.  May you enjoy your first forays into this enigmatic field of study.

I’m going to have to think about that.

*begins thinking*

 Ah, the classic trolley problem. The reason why I avoid trolleys like the plague. 

Posting here so I can come back and discuss when I have more time. 

Quote from PJtheARCHER >>

Stertle every time i see your Captain of Yondor i think of Gondor.

 I am Boromir

Quote from KoboldNerdmobile >>

Quote from Stertle09 >>

 In the beninging (Beginning) God created the heavens and the earth.

 That is if you look at it from a religious viewpoint, there is also science, which says otherwise.

 No science does not necissarily say otherwise

Quote from KoboldNerdmobile >>

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

What harry potter house are you again KoboldNerd?

 I have always been ravenclaw, unless you are talking about the tavern, I’m not on that.

 Yes. Fellow Ravenclaw

yeah i probably should

Is rain the opposite of bubbles underwater? 

I did. 

What does Bilbo Baggins have in his pocketses

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

If you wish to hold some actual philosophical discussions--here are a few topics to get you started:

----

One of the classic philosophy questions is that of the Trolly Problem.  You are in a trolly with no breaks and no driver.  In front of you is a fork in the track.  You are currently on the path to hit and kill 5 people.  You could pull a lever and change the track, but in so doing, the trolly would hit and kill a single person. If you take no action, five will die, but not due to any overt action by yourself.  If you take action, one will die, but they will die by your choice and action. 

What do you do?  Why?

Once you have that answer: What if those five people were criminals and the one person was a charitable man who might save others?  What if the one was young and the five were old and near the end of their natural lives?  In what other situations might you switch your initial answer? 

Be sure to explain why you make any such choice.  Be sure to change the hypothetical--the numbers of people on each side, the nature of the people, how much effort must be done to change the outcome.  Be sure to ask others for clarification if you do not understand why they made a choice, and explain why your opinion differed from theirs.  Do not merely post your comments--read others' comments, critique them, and try to better understand how they came to their conclusions--and see if their explanations cause you to rethink your own answers.

----

This hypothetical is designed to examine a few issues.  The first--is something worse because it was an action, or can inaction be just as bad as taking overt action?  Second, is all life equal in value?  If so, why? If not, how does one ascribe value to life?  Third, is that value absolute and objective, or does each of us ascribe value to each other?  And if we are ascribing value and making choices based on that value, who conferred the right to make such a decision upon the value of others' lives?

 The Trolly Problem might be cliché, but has a decent bit of depth to it.  That is why it is one of the first questions posed to Philosophy 101 students--it can provide a fair bit of discourse and is rather helpful at getting students and individuals who clearly lack a philosophy background to open up to philosophical discussion.  That which works for new students of philosophy might be a good place for you folks on the forums, new to the field, to get your start as well.

And, with that, I wish you all luck on your thread.  May you enjoy your first forays into this enigmatic field of study.

 Ah yes the trolly problem, see, the normal solution would be to pull the lever allowing the five to live and only one dies. I believe all life is equal in the beginning, it's the actions you take during it that may shift it in a direction.

Of course in the case of the trolley problem, there's no concrete way to determine if anyone is actually more valuable than another, but there's a greater chance that someone of the five is a good person, and if at least one is of a higher value then it's better to save them than the one on the other track because there's the chance more than one would have a positive value.

But we must also consider that these people must be strung up to the track for a reason, therefore, if they all are bad people the best course of action would be to leave the lever alone and allow the trolley to kill the five.

And then there's the option of not participating in the scenario. Any option is going to play on your mind because, in the end, at least one person will have died due to your actions. By making no choice there really isn't anything you have to worry about is there? Technically you made the choice of not pulling the lever, and 2/3 of all possible actions (Assuming this is a perfect simulation with naught but the trolley problem and yourself) lead to killing 5 people.

Actually, I find that last bit interesting, 2/3 of all the options lead to killing 5 people. And pulling the lever will only kill one person, so probably, the best option is to just pull the lever and sort out the remaining 5 later.

Every option will play on your mind, but killing one will play on it less

I have found my answer!:

Quote from KoboldNerdmobile >>

I have found my answer!:

Get an extra trolly, now you don't have to think about it.

 

 

 I like it!

Yeah, that way is certainly the fairest way!

Hey Woods!

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

If you wish to hold some actual philosophical discussions--here are a few topics to get you started:

----

One of the classic philosophy questions is that of the Trolly Problem.  You are in a trolly with no breaks and no driver.  In front of you is a fork in the track.  You are currently on the path to hit and kill 5 people.  You could pull a lever and change the track, but in so doing, the trolly would hit and kill a single person. If you take no action, five will die, but not due to any overt action by yourself.  If you take action, one will die, but they will die by your choice and action. 

What do you do?  Why?

Once you have that answer: What if those five people were criminals and the one person was a charitable man who might save others?  What if the one was young and the five were old and near the end of their natural lives?  In what other situations might you switch your initial answer? 

Be sure to explain why you make any such choice.  Be sure to change the hypothetical--the numbers of people on each side, the nature of the people, how much effort must be done to change the outcome.  Be sure to ask others for clarification if you do not understand why they made a choice, and explain why your opinion differed from theirs.  Do not merely post your comments--read others' comments, critique them, and try to better understand how they came to their conclusions--and see if their explanations cause you to rethink your own answers.

----

This hypothetical is designed to examine a few issues.  The first--is something worse because it was an action, or can inaction be just as bad as taking overt action?  Second, is all life equal in value?  If so, why? If not, how does one ascribe value to life?  Third, is that value absolute and objective, or does each of us ascribe value to each other?  And if we are ascribing value and making choices based on that value, who conferred the right to make such a decision upon the value of others' lives?

 The Trolly Problem might be cliché, but has a decent bit of depth to it.  That is why it is one of the first questions posed to Philosophy 101 students--it can provide a fair bit of discourse and is rather helpful at getting students and individuals who clearly lack a philosophy background to open up to philosophical discussion.  That which works for new students of philosophy might be a good place for you folks on the forums, new to the field, to get your start as well.

And, with that, I wish you all luck on your thread.  May you enjoy your first forays into this enigmatic field of study.

 Or you could just be hulk and pick it up

In all seriousness this has made me think for several days :)

Quote from PJtheARCHER >>

is The Simpsons overrated?

 No never

Quote from Stertle09 >>

Quote from KoboldNerdmobile >>

Quote from PJtheACHER >>

What harry potter house are you again KoboldNerd?

 I have always been ravenclaw, unless you are talking about the tavern, I’m not on that.

 Yes. Fellow Ravenclaw

 Ravenclaw boizz