24-05-2003 13:14									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Grab the Architect, try to copy Agent Smith's copying technique, and one Neo goes through each door, with the real one going to save Trinity.

The "Austin Powers" solution.

	24-05-2003 13:47									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Knowing nothing else from your premise *assuming the Architect isn't lying, etc.), restarting Zion is the ony moral choice.

I would say that a situation where everyone dies is defintely worse than a situation where everyone but 23 people die. Since morality is a system of judging social actions, restarting Zion is clearly the more moral social interaction.

	24-05-2003 14:50									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I thought it was interesting that the Architect was not surprised or perturbed by Neo's choice, and didn't seem to do much to try and change his mind. If the Matrix is really hundreds of years old, I would have thought there would be a better protection mechanism at the point where Neo makes his choice.

After all, there have already been 5 'Neos' before who obviously made the other choice - if they had all made a random choice, the chance of the Matrix surviving this long would be 1 in 32. Clearly the choice is not 50-50 but still. Even if the choice was 90-10 in favour of the 'destroy Zion, save humanity' door, the probability of getting this far would only be about 60% (0.9^5).

In fact, to have a 90% chance of surviving 5 itterations, 'Neo' would have to choose the 'destroy Zion' door 98% of the time.

	24-05-2003 17:47									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker But they might be able to prevent their own deaths with legally bought guns.

I assumed for the sake of simplicity that Y is a subset of X, so the people in Y die regardless.

If you assume that Y is not necessarily a subset of X, then by helping to pass a law that banned handguns you would be partially complicit in the deaths of those members of Y that are disjoint from X (the bulk of the responsibility still rests on the criminal, of course -- your action or inaction merely enables the criminal to some greater or lesser extent, while the criminal is the one who is actually committing murder), whereas if you were capable of passing said law and did not (out of laziness or moral fetishism or whatever) then you would be complicit in the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y.

Similarly, if the law were already in place and you had the power to lift the gun restriction, then you would be complicit in the same deaths (members of Y disjoint from X) if you chose to maintain the status quo, and likewise you would be complicit in the same deaths (members of X disjoint from Y) were you to rescind the ban on guns. The ordering in this case doesn't matter (i.e. it doesn't matter if the status quo is total legality of guns or total illegality of guns, or if your power is the ability to outlaw handguns or to rescind the ban on handguns) -- all that matters is that you're assumed to be omniscient, that you are given only two choices (total commitment or total inaction), that there are no side-effects to action or inaction in addition to those listed in the hypothetical (the lifes or deaths of members of X or Y), and that you have the full power to enact your decisions.

	24-05-2003 19:25									#35
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The reasonning based on the numbers is not a reasonning on moral but on effectiveness of the choice.

I compare this situation, where both choices are bad and you are forced to choose anyway, to the situation of the prisonner tortured to denounce other people; he knows that he cannot resist indefinitely. It seems that the moral solution is to commit suicide, and some did.

	25-05-2003 02:59									#36
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Loinburger -

quote: I assumed for the sake of simplicity that Y is a subset of X, so the people in Y die regardless.

Y is not a subset of X, just a smaller number. X are the people who die because of legalised gun ownership and Y are the people who die because guns are outlawed. Some in Y would be alive if guns were legal and some in X would be alive if guns were illegal.

quote: If you assume that Y is not necessarily a subset of X, then by helping to pass a law that banned handguns you would be partially complicit in the deaths of those members of Y that are disjoint from X

I agree, if I want to ban guns and I get my way, I'm morally complicit when a criminal commits a murder that would have been prevented if guns had remained legal.

quote: whereas if you were capable of passing said law and did not (out of laziness or moral fetishism or whatever) then you would be complicit in the deaths of those members of X that are disjoint from Y.

If we accept this as true, and I would if I could prevent a murder with no one being harmed but the murderer, is the moral complicity equal? If I ban guns and you are murdered as a consequence, is my moral complicity greater than if I opposed banning guns and you were murdered as a consequence?

	25-05-2003 03:43									#37
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Berzerker If I ban guns and you are murdered as a consequence, is my moral complicity greater than if I opposed banning guns and you were murdered as a consequence?

I'd say that your complicity is the same in either case (assuming all other things being equal).

	25-05-2003 04:24									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hmm...so then if I outlaw a medicine you need to live, my moral complicity is equal to not outlawing the medicine you need, but not providing the medicine if you lack the means to buy it yourself?

	25-05-2003 05:18									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

It's somewhat dependent on the economic specifics. If I'm not able to buy the medicine myself due to my own stupidity ("I was on my way to buy the medicine, but I got side-tracked and wound up spending the money on expensive prostitutes") or laziness ("I was going to get a job so that I could afford medicine, but I'm a lazy bastard") or whatever, then your complicity in the latter case is reduced if not eliminated -- you can't be expected to save me from me. It also depends on whether or not you'd be put to any economic disadvantage in the latter case -- if you can acquire a limitless supply of medicine for free, then your complicity is greater than it would be were you to be put under any kind of economic strain (the greater the strain, the less the complicity) as a result of buying the medicine for me.

It also depends on whether or not you're working on a closed-world assumption. If I'm the only person in the world who needs this medicine, and if you're the only person in the world who is capable of buying the medicine for me, then (assuming that it's not my fault that I can't afford the medicine, and assuming that you are put under no economic strain by giving me the medicine) your complicity is equal in the former and latter cases.

	26-05-2003 02:53									#40
	Tired of ads?

I'm not backing away from my original position that going after Trinity is the most moral action, but let me rephrase the scenario a bit:

IF you choose to go after Trinity, are you responsible for the death of all humanity?

	26-05-2003 02:57									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: I thought it was interesting that the Architect was not surprised or perturbed by Neo's choice, and didn't seem to do much to try and change his mind. If the Matrix is really hundreds of years old, I would have thought there would be a better protection mechanism at the point where Neo makes his choice. After all, there have already been 5 'Neos' before who obviously made the other choice - if they had all made a random choice, the chance of the Matrix surviving this long would be 1 in 32. Clearly the choice is not 50-50 but still. Even if the choice was 90-10 in favour of the 'destroy Zion, save humanity' door, the probability of getting this far would only be about 60% (0.9^5). In fact, to have a 90% chance of surviving 5 itterations, 'Neo' would have to choose the 'destroy Zion' door 98% of the time.

Except, you dont have a choice. The choice has already been made for you.

quote: IF you choose to go after Trinity, are you responsible for the death of all humanity?

Yes, to a certain extent. You are not the one pulling the trigger so to speak, but you where given an oppertunity to save them and you didnt.

	26-05-2003 02:59									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Yes, to a certain extent. You are not the one pulling the trigger so to speak, but you where given an oppertunity to save them and you didnt.

Whoa, sorry, wrong. You never had the ability to save anyone - only the person controlling their collective fates did. That is, the AI machines. They are the ones ultimately responsible for the life or death of all of humanity, regardless of what you/Neo does.

All you can (potentially) control is the life or death of Trinity. Once you recognize that, then the choice, to me, becomes clear - you take responsibility for what YOU can do, and if someone ELSE behaves immorally, that isn't your responsibility.

	26-05-2003 03:05									#43
	Remove this text

Take responsibilty for your actions. If you choose Trinity over humanity, thats your choice. The consequence of this action is the death of humanity. If you choose humanity over Trinity, the consequence of this action is the death of trinity.

At that juncture, Neo did have the ability to save either humanity or trinity. Thats why there were two doors. If he chooses one over the other, then he is responsible for the death of the other, because he had the choice to. Either way, to some extent, he is responsible.

	26-05-2003 03:05									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Actually there is no opportunity, and instead of being a slave he chose freedom by saving Trinity - and actually he was the first "one" to do so after 6 of them - well that was the right choice, at least in the film, but in the real world too.

He actually did not have a choice of saving th race - he would just continue the cycle - he had a choice of freedom and fight + saving the women he loved vs submission and acceptance of his fate as the machines prescribed.

	26-05-2003 03:05									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I'm not backing away from my original position that going after Trinity is the most moral action

I thought that your original position was that the choice was amoral.

	26-05-2003 03:14									#46
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Take responsibilty for your actions. If you choose Trinity over humanity, thats your choice. The consequence of this action is the death of humanity. If you choose humanity over Trinity, the consequence of this action is the death of trinity.

This choice-consequence argument is ridiculous. Saving Trinity does not cause the death of humanity - machines cause the death of humanity, as the final outcome of a war of extermination.

quote: At that juncture, Neo did have the ability to save either humanity or trinity. Thats why there were two doors.

You are taking a simplistic view. The "Trinity Door" represented the only thing Neo could do and have any amount of control or freedom - his actions would allow him to save Trinity. Taking the other door would mean that he hoped someone else would decide not to murder billions of people, but the murder of these people was never up to Neo anyway - if he really had a choice, obviously he would have chosen life over death. But he never had a choice in this manner - only the machines did.

Loinburger,

Yes, you're right. I realized I was wrong - it would be immoral not to go after Trinity when you had a moral means of doing so.

	26-05-2003 04:58									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: This choice-consequence argument is ridiculous. Saving Trinity does not cause the death of humanity - machines cause the death of humanity, as the final outcome of a war of extermination.

Saving Trinity will cause the death of humanity because he chose not to save them.

quote: You are taking a simplistic view. The "Trinity Door" represented the only thing Neo could do and have any amount of control or freedom - his actions would allow him to save Trinity. Taking the other door would mean that he hoped someone else would decide not to murder billions of people, but the murder of these people was never up to Neo anyway - if he really had a choice, obviously he would have chosen life over death. But he never had a choice in this manner - only the machines did.

If Neo had chosen the other door, he would have prevented Zion from being destroyed. It was up to him to stop the machines from doing it, and he chose trinity.

	26-05-2003 09:20									#48
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Saving Trinity will cause the death of humanity because he chose not to save them.

Neo never had that choice. The machines did.

quote: It was up to him to stop the machines from doing it, and he chose trinity.

Walking through a door stopped/caused nothing. The decision made by the machines is what would cause life/death of humanity.

	26-05-2003 18:03									#49
	Inflate your Upload Space

LoA:

Look at it this way;

If it is immoral to have the ability to save someone, and yet allow them to die, there is no moral solution to the dilemma.

Both choices are immoral.

So we come back to the premise, is it immoral to not save someone's life when presented with the choice between two lives?

The only moral decision can be to refuse to make the choice, regardless of the consequences.

	26-05-2003 19:10									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: The only moral decision can be to refuse to make the choice, regardless of the consequences.

So, given the choice between saving one person (or one group of people) and saving nobody, it's better to save nobody? E.g., if you have access to one vial of medicine that will cure a terminal illness, but there are two people with this illness, then it's better for you to just keep the vial for yourself than to save only one of the people?

I just can't see how this makes any sense whatsoever. If you save one person, then you're partially complicit in the death of the person that you did not save. If you don't save anybody, then you're partially complicit in both deaths.

	26-05-2003 19:37									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by loinburger So, given the choice between saving one person (or one group of people) and saving nobody, it's better to save nobody? E.g., if you have access to one vial of medicine that will cure a terminal illness, but there are two people with this illness, then it's better for you to just keep the vial for yourself than to save only one of the people?

This example is not appropriate; this problem was solved long ago by medecine dealing with urgence or scarcity : they took the efficiency way, that is trying to cure the one who has the longest life expectancy. No moral choice at all.

When a demoniac mind corner you in a position where there are only bad solutions, as in the prisonner exemple I gave above, the moral decision is in not giving satisfaction to the demoniac mind, whatever are the consequences, as said by Obiwan, even suicide.

	26-05-2003 19:47									#52
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT No moral choice at all.

So you see absolutely nothing wrong (or even questionable) about refusing treatment to one person in lieu of another?

quote: When a demoniac mind corner you in a position where there are only bad solutions, as in the prisonner exemple I gave above, the moral decision is in not giving satisfaction to the demoniac mind, whatever are the consequences, as said by Obiwan, even suicide.

The point is that the Neo example is not one in which there are only bad solutions, or rather, it is not one in which all bad solutions are equal. In the prisoner example you cause less harm (or prevent more harm) by refusing to make a choice (i.e. by committing suicide) since you are not forced to denounce anybody that way, but in the Neo example you cause more harm (prevent less harm) by refusing to make a choice -- rather than saving somebody, you save nobody.

	26-05-2003 19:52									#53
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The point is that the Neo example is not one in which there are only bad solutions, or rather, it is not one in which all bad solutions are equal. In the prisoner example you cause less harm (or prevent more harm) by refusing to make a choice (i.e. by committing suicide) since you are not forced to denounce anybody that way, but in the Neo example you cause more harm (prevent less harm) by refusing to make a choice -- rather than saving somebody, you save nobody.

That is precisely what I call the efficiency solution: minimizing the QUANTITY of harm. But even a smaller number of death is immoral and therefore cannot be a choice more moral than the other, just more efficient.

	26-05-2003 19:59									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Then the only choice is to live your life as a moral fetishist. There's always an opportunity cost to any action -- if you try to cure AIDS then you're not devoting those resources to trying to cure cancer, if you try to outlaw firearms then you're not giving people the chance to defend themselves from attack whereas if you try to prevent the outlawing of firearms then you're enabling criminals, and if you try to save one person from an untimely death then you're failing to save another person. However, if you live as a moral fetishist, you can always just say "It's not my fault -- I didn't even try to do any good in the world."

	26-05-2003 20:16									#55
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by loinburger Then the only choice is to live your life as a moral fetishist. There's always an opportunity cost to any action -- if you try to cure AIDS then you're not devoting those resources to trying to cure cancer, if you try to outlaw firearms then you're not giving people the chance to defend themselves from attack whereas if you try to prevent the outlawing of firearms then you're enabling criminals, and if you try to save one person from an untimely death then you're failing to save another person. However, if you live as a moral fetishist, you can always just say "It's not my fault -- I didn't even try to do any good in the world."

This is why, when we are totally satisfied by an efficiency solution (doctors) it is useless to refer to the moral. We should keep it for the cases for which the efficiency solution let us in doubt regarding its moral meaning.

May I say also that the fire arms problem is not a moral dilemna as long as american people will tolerate an absurd rate of kills, as well as an incredibly high number of people in jail (proportionally five times more than in Europe), but you certainly know that.

	26-05-2003 22:20									#56
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

DAVOUT, you're missing the point. In my example, Neo does NOT have ANY control over the life or death of humanity. Therefore, the only moral question is whether or not he should go after Trinity.

	26-05-2003 22:22									#57
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Btw, Where's the "Kick Architect's Ass" Option?

	26-05-2003 23:01									#58
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: DAVOUT, you're missing the point. In my example, Neo does NOT have ANY control over the life or death of humanity. Therefore, the only moral question is whether or not he should go after Trinity.

IF that is true, then why was he gien a choice?

	26-05-2003 23:23									#59
	Remove this text

quote: If you save one person, then you're partially complicit in the death of the person that you did not save.

How can you be morally complicit when nothing you do will save both?

	26-05-2003 23:59									#60
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Your complicity would be greater if you did have the ability to save both. However, the fact that you're only capable of saving one doesn't change the fact that you're choosing to allow the other to die -- it can't be an amoral decision to judge that one person's life is more important than somebody else's. The main question in determining complicity in the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation is one of intent -- why save one person in lieu of the other?