we're finally notdotq anymore

[re; 117]Situation: someone’s life is in danger, but saving this one person puts into jeopardy the lives of many, many more. What do you do?

Would a moral person assign priority to the short term and save this one person? The reasoning was that Koiji and Ikumi couldn’t sit around and watch someone die. Yuki, on the other hand, views all lives equally regardless of context and stops the two from jeopardizing the lives of man others.

Perhaps Koiji and Ikumi were deluding themselves from the more crucial fact that they were hypocrites? – if Yuki had asked them “what would you say if you were that one person in danger?” would they respond “I’d be selfless and say ‘leave me behind for the sake of many others’”? If so, they would be contradicting themselves. If not, they would appear selfish, but that too would contradict their position of “selflessness” because they’re putting their lives at stake for the sake of one person.

[If 'what if' statements are not legit in philosophy then oops.]

But I think we can use ‘what if’ statements because Koiji and Ikumi were thinking not of the person in danger but of themselves, of their egos. Perhaps, the central theme here and thing which undermines the position of the two is the fact that Koiji and Ikumi wanted to save not so much the concrete existence of the person as their own abstract selves. This is supported because, as it were, this “concrete existence” isn’t even concrete to Koiji and Ikumi – they never see this person, only their representation on a digital device. Maybe.

Thus: does knowledge alone of a real thing make it concrete? If I know it’s there but do not, with my senses, perceive that it is there, does that still make it as concrete as if I were really perceiving it with my senses? If, then, suddenly I can perceive this real thing with my senses – I can see it, touch it, hear it – does that change the nature of the thing or, perhaps moreso, my own perception of that thing not in simple terms of the magnitude of my emotions directed towards the thing, but in terms of why these emotions arise within myself and to what they are really directed?

[hermeneutic sidepoint: essentially, considering the anime, trying to draw a conclusion is futile because we can never know the true intentions of Koiji and Ikumi (unless they admit to us the nature of their egos).]

Pragmatic conclusion: a life is a life, we should ignore our abstract selves and save as many lives as possible, thus, the person dies.

Realist conclusion: the effect of the symbolic representation of this real person has on us is worthless because a concrete person exists beyond our idea of it. Do we save it? – ask the deontologists!

Idealist conclusion: the effect of the symbolic representation of this real person has on us enormous effect. Do we save it? – ask the pragmatists!

Deontological conclusion: focus on the immediate effects of the act – you are directly neglecting to save a life, thus not saving this life is morally wrong. Save it!

ObersteinConsequentialist conclusion: yes indeed a life is a life, that is why we should save as many as possible. The ends justify the means.

[note: it may seem like I'm misinterpreting idealism because, nevertheless, this person is still real and exists outside our immediate ideas of it, though it is only known through the proxy of an abstract representation. I do not know of any ethical philosophy which deals with semiotics...though I've never really read much of any of the philosophies I've cited except a bit of The Prince.]

So a couple entities renowned for their manga punditry conducted an experiment recently. These two entities are Scott of The Anime Almanac and the Reverse Thieves team. The experiment was this: can bigoted humans who value principles over entertainment enjoy entertainment that violates their principles? Wait. Before I go any further, chew on that for a moment. Scott calls it a “fun challenge,” but really, what is it?

It’s an opportunity to reinforce ignorance.

» Continue reading this…