Skybird
10-24-18, 02:17 PM
http://moralmachine.mit.edu/
Play it through, and see what it may or may not make you to think about it.
I tend to see survival interests of car passengers, who actively decided for this transportation, as secondary to the survival interests of people in the surrounding environment who did not at all decide for them to use that car or not. Gender and age were almost unimportant for me to make a call, so were fitness, social status and age. You are responsible for your decision to use a car or not or having kids with you in that car or not, while people in the habitat around you are not responsible for your decision. Why then should they face the same risk of getting killed in any of these accidents if they are not responsible for your decision-making?
If people in the environment now violate existing rules (jumping red traffic lights, etc) they have to share growing amount of responsibility and risk themselves, too.
I found only two of the thirteen situations difficult to judge so that I spend some time to think about them. the other eleven I found pretty comfortable to judge, and I see no moral dilemma in them at all. In fact imo most of the cases, 11 of 13, are pretty clear calls. Maybe they collide with public views of today, or the intention of legislation, but that is no problem for me. Why should I be expected to share a commonly held belief just because the majority claims it to be "the consensus"...? With sufficient media training and propaganda, you can turn almost everyting into the "consensus". The claimed consensus should never be your standard by which to make your judgement calls.
The methodology behind this "game/study" seems to have a pretty serious problem, however. After you have judged the 13 exmaples, you are being asked about your criteria, and after that you get a summary of your de factor results from the 13 cases' judgement: a body count, so to speak. As I said I failed to see the moral dilemma in most examples, and I can say with certainty that I did not even pay attention to some of the criteria that nevertheless get summarised at the end as "results": that I saved more of this than of that gender, or young as higher than old. Some criteria I did not even notice (fit versus obese people). Still, the body count gets done by them, and then gets presented as a "result" that they base conclusions about my preferences on (I learned that from the German article where I found the link to this site in). That is a big flaw in their methodology, the body-count per category/criterion at the end should have been skipped. If they base interpretations on it, it indeed is a very major, significant flaw for sure.
Play it through, and see what it may or may not make you to think about it.
I tend to see survival interests of car passengers, who actively decided for this transportation, as secondary to the survival interests of people in the surrounding environment who did not at all decide for them to use that car or not. Gender and age were almost unimportant for me to make a call, so were fitness, social status and age. You are responsible for your decision to use a car or not or having kids with you in that car or not, while people in the habitat around you are not responsible for your decision. Why then should they face the same risk of getting killed in any of these accidents if they are not responsible for your decision-making?
If people in the environment now violate existing rules (jumping red traffic lights, etc) they have to share growing amount of responsibility and risk themselves, too.
I found only two of the thirteen situations difficult to judge so that I spend some time to think about them. the other eleven I found pretty comfortable to judge, and I see no moral dilemma in them at all. In fact imo most of the cases, 11 of 13, are pretty clear calls. Maybe they collide with public views of today, or the intention of legislation, but that is no problem for me. Why should I be expected to share a commonly held belief just because the majority claims it to be "the consensus"...? With sufficient media training and propaganda, you can turn almost everyting into the "consensus". The claimed consensus should never be your standard by which to make your judgement calls.
The methodology behind this "game/study" seems to have a pretty serious problem, however. After you have judged the 13 exmaples, you are being asked about your criteria, and after that you get a summary of your de factor results from the 13 cases' judgement: a body count, so to speak. As I said I failed to see the moral dilemma in most examples, and I can say with certainty that I did not even pay attention to some of the criteria that nevertheless get summarised at the end as "results": that I saved more of this than of that gender, or young as higher than old. Some criteria I did not even notice (fit versus obese people). Still, the body count gets done by them, and then gets presented as a "result" that they base conclusions about my preferences on (I learned that from the German article where I found the link to this site in). That is a big flaw in their methodology, the body-count per category/criterion at the end should have been skipped. If they base interpretations on it, it indeed is a very major, significant flaw for sure.