[cardguy]

Just want to give a shout out to the Harvard professor - Michael Sandel.

He has become world famous over the past couple of years as a result of his brilliant lectures on moral philosophy. Usually this can be quite a dry and boring subject. But the way Sandel teaches it is unique and interesting.

He stands before hundreds of students and poses thought experiments to help tease out their reasoning through difficult problems. The back and forth he has with the audience is wonderful, and often funny. I have never seen lectures given in such a compelling way. It is Scoratic dialogue at its best - and brings philosophy back to the way it was originally done 2500 years ago.

So - for those looking for something fun and educational. You should go spend some time with the professor...

[cardguy]

I think evolution underpins why we feel uncomfortable making some of the decisions talked about in the thought experiments above. Even though some of the actions - are logical, they leave us uncomfortable.

But I don't think philosophy helps us understand why. Humans are logical and emotional animals.

Think about how easy it is to kill another human being. For example - a small 10 year old girl could easily kill the strongest man in the world by simply using an ordinary weapon, and waiting for the man to sleep.

As such - ever since the following:

The human brain has evolved very strong instincts to stop this incredible power from only being used in exceptional circumstances due to the likelihood of a deadly retaliation.

As such - the conflict between what is logical and what feels right due to the taboos programmed into us through Natural Selection underlies most of the moral dilemmas given in the video above.

Sadly - philosophers rarely make use of science when trying to answer such questions. Which to me is dumb since the distinction between philosophy and science is quite arbitrary.

[void]

That is why I am a fan of quantifiable sciences.

[Mike_Doe]

Paused the first video numerous times to ponder.

In regards to the Parker situation, there's one huge flaw in the logic - morality being a luxury of society.

Fuck yes that 17 year old would get eaten. The fact that he drank the sea water and was on his way out cements the decision.

Are these people that pious they think themselves above the admittedly unsavoury acts these men committed to survive in a life or death situation?