Ask RM something, not anything.

If I don't want to answer, I won't answer.

Lol you beat me to it, I've been thinking about doing an AMAM. Ask me almost anything. 

Anyways, If you were the last man on earth, And you could choose between these animal companions, dogs or cats? 

I assume you mean last human.

Regardless, Dogs. Dogs are much better actual friends.

Cats are great in their own way but wouldn't make me feel loved and sane in the same way.

Who on this site would you kiss? Who would you marry? Who would you kill?

Lol... That restricts by age and gender quite a bit.

As for 'kill' the entire point of that question is that you give three people I am forced to put in a slot.

My favourite member overall is probably whiteflame but he's married and I don't think he's bi. 

that answer is no fun >:(

Ask others then

How much did Gary Busey charge for the Charisma lessons?

You tell me.

If you were offered Absolute Power and Knowledge would you take it?

That's not an 'or' question... Of course I would but it no doubt has more stakes at play in the real life scenario where it's offered so I may decline.

who is your pfp

At the moment it's Eminem.

I don't get why people ask things like that though, the profile pics I use are meant to represent 'me' or a side of me, not the celebrity or character in the image necessarily. It's also just about art at times, I like to have a nice profile pic, it's something simple to flex.

just wondering, nothing deep

Appreciate that. No comment on the bi.

Ask me any philosophical scenario type things if you want.

Depends on the statement, if the statement has an 'if-then' type logic in it then (yes, ironic) it can, just like this statement.

This is unrelated, but suppose there was a trolley going down a track and you're the driver. You're headed towards five people you will know for certain will die. However, you can turn a steering wheel and hit one person sitting on the other track, killing him. Are you:

A) morally obligated to turn the wheel?

B) morally permitted, but not obligated to turn the wheel?

C) morally prohibited from turning the wheel?

The question can only be answered legally, morally it comes down to the moral code of the individual assessing that question and other specifics we never get told in the trolley scenario like how truly sure we are the lever even does save the five.

In the hypothetical, we know for certain that turning the wheel will kill the one, and not turning it will kill the five. I'm only asking what the moral thing to do would be. Are you suggesting that if the trolley driver has a moral rule that prescribes them an action, then that would be the moral thing to do? Not to get off track, which one a, b, or c, would you personally say?

You're trying to set out something here to blackmail me to admit to either manslaughter 5 by my choice to leace the train on course or commit murder of 1 individual to spare the 5, that is a legal issue and simply going 'yeah utilitarianism' after what i just said in the post above your question about the trolley scenario' will show sheer ignorance.

This scenario is never in real life in that split second decision as simple as '5v1' because an entire element of morally tough situations that makes hesitation occur is lack of information, which seems to be 'shut up and ignore it just tell me'.

This is also why when moral professors or wannabe 'hehe I made a good point' types ask 'would you go back in time and kill Hitler as an infant' I say 'of course not, if he dies then that Hitler wasn't the Hitler of our timeline anyway and could have changed or led a different life, if however it really is him then I already know he survives so this question is functionally moot'.

This scenario with the trolley has ignored major factors that make the decision tough. 

Let's say it's a 7 year old child who is the 1 but 5 elderly people nearing their deathbed... Suddenly shit seems reversed and obvious yes?

What if one of those elderly is your grandparent and the girl is growing up in a really bad household and neighborhood destined to be a criminal, drug addict, whore etc?

What then?

I didn't say 'whore' to be sexist, I am trying to illustrate the kind of things that could and would run in the background in your brain in a very cutthroat situation that mean the choice is rarely ever as easy and concrete as you imply it to be. How fucking shit would it feel to pull the lever, it malfunctions and you need to tell the 1 person and the news that no, you weren't a coward, you were just an attempted murderer instead.

This shit is very complex indeed. Troller scenario actually is a very TERRIBLE way to highlight utilitarianism and I object very much to its use. A far better way to prove that utilitarianism is a brilliant basis for moral systems and that left-wing politics is therefore inherently morally superior to right-wing politics is because very simply if we are all selfish, the selfishness of the many matter.

You could easier prove utilitarianism as inevitably optimal in a desert island scenario where resources are scarce.

Im not advocating for any particular answer, I'm just asking for a straight answer from you. It's not a real criticism in philosophy to say that a thought experiment isn't realistic. It's just a hypothetical to highlight a moral dilemma. I'm just trying to figure out what you believe.

For this question, we aren't adding any extra elements right now, just assume they're all strangers

This is a crucial point of disagreement between us and a major reason I feel most of philosophy has become a pseudointellectual pisstake.

Of course utilitarianism is default, we rather save 5 over 1 but that logic only goes so far in real life scenarios.

If you think that thought experiments being too literally unrealistic is a problem in philosophy, then you've missed the entire point of the thought experiment. Suppose your friend comes to you and and her hair is just ridiculous, but she says, "what do you think?" And you're thinking "yuck." Then you're faced with a moral dilemma. The dilemma is between being honest or being kind. The same dilemma occurs if the gestapo came to your door and asked if there are any Jews in your house, and you know there are. It doesn't matter how likely it is that the gestapo would ever actually come to your door, or that you'd ever be in that situation, but it does expose the underlying question: when faced with the dilemma between being honest and being kind, which should take precedence? It's the starting point of moral thinking.

What are some questions that you wouldn’t answer?

Why are you so irresistible to my grandmother and what's you're number? She wants to hit you up.

When you realised you were a genius, what was your home address? What is it now? What's your mother's maiden name?

I am sure you are familiar with the classic trolley problem so won't explain it in full. What would you do in the classic scenario with no modifications? (i.e. one person on one track, five people on the other, all complete strangers).

Already explored. I'm assuming you're trolling on purpose.