Cookie Thread Act 3: The Cookie Strikes Back

General
#18931

they left out a bunch of possible views though

#18932

schrodinger’s cat was actually originally intended to show how ridiculous the copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics is. schrodinger would fucking hate how much it caught on in pop culture i think

#18933

I want applie pie with ice cream, good and not bad

#18934

this is why you got to get sound proof boxes for your philio experiments

2 Likes
#18935

:flushed:

1 Like
#18936

there were only like 2 choices so i don’t blame them for not being super deep

#18937

(which is inevitable in an end-post for a quiz that attempts to give a definitive list of the possible answers) (why did they make such an end post)

1 Like
#18938

atlas is here settle down

1 Like
#18939

hey litten wanna help advance science

image
image1167×97 18.8 KB

1 Like
#18940

no i htae science

1 Like
#18941

yeah me too tbh

#18942

:( Why

#18943

The Drowning Child

This activity looks at some of the issues raised by two articles written by philosopher Peter Singer: the first, the seminal, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality”; the second, a somewhat shorter article called, “The Drowning Child and the Expanding Circle” (it’s probably best if you read these articles after, rather than before, you undertake this activity).

It is necessary to make a couple of things clear before we get going. The first is that if you’re a moral nihilist - i.e., if you think there’s no such thing as right and wrong - then this activity probably isn’t for you. (Try out one of our logic exercises instead, such as Elementary, My Dear Wason?).

The second has to do with the nature of the scenarios you’re going to be asked about. These are variations on a single baseline scenario (which was first introduced by Professor Singer). The important point is that you should treat each variation on its own terms. In particular, the changes introduced in a particular variation don’t carry over to the next variation - all variations are a modification of the original baseline scenario.

Okay, that’s it really. You’re ready to go.

#18944

wrong one

#18945

how is it an unsolved problem it is the definition of a quantum superposition

#18946

Would You Eat Your Cat?

The aim of this activity is to tell you something about how you view the morality of behaviour that many people would consider to be “disgusting” or “repellent” or “obviously wrong”, but where it is difficult to explain exactly why the behaviour should be seen this way.

A couple of points before we start:

  1. The activity asks you to make judgements about a number of scenarios. You need to treat these as if they are accurate descriptions of real-world events. In other words, we’re interested in your judgements about the events as they are described here , not as you imagine they would actually occur if they really were real-world events.

  2. You will be asked to make Yes/No choices. If you aren’t sure whether to choose “Yes” or “No”, opt for the response you’re most inclined towards. You should then take this into account when you read the analysis at the end.

#18947

atlas is here
we can be rowdier because we know we won’t be allowed to stray too far

1 Like
#18948

you can’t solve superpositions that’s the point

#18949

:flushed:

#18950

As with most of the activities on this site, we need to start by asking you a few preliminary questions so we can get a general idea of your views about things. This won’t take long.

Question 1: A small girl is playing on a swing in a local playground when an adult comes along and pushes her off into the dirt for no other reason than that he’d had a bad day at work and wanted to take it out on somebody who couldn’t fight back. Are his actions morally wrong?

Yes
No