Talk:Violinist (thought experiment)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
With regard to the criticism of the original thought experiment, the following modification to the original scenario is proposed:
(Rather than have them break into your home to hook you up) -
You enjoy going to concerts, however you are aware that once there, there is a chance that you will be hooked up to the famous violinist.
- A more accurate one would be this:
The Music Lovers Association has set up a system through which you can enter into a raffle to be hooked up to a famous violinist. In order to get people to participate, they provide free entertainment. You enjoy the entertainment, but you sabotage the raffle so that you don't get hooked up. One time, it doesn't work, or you decide to take a chance and not sabotage it. You are painlessly hooked up to the musician, and will stay that way for 9 months. At the end of those 9 months, deattachment surgery could be painful, but you are given the option of anesthesia. You can generally go about your everyday life while hooked up, and early deattachment may cause emotional and physical side affects to you. It will also involve not only deattaching the violinist, but mutilating him. The law assumes that rehabilitation will take 18 years, so you must house and feed him until then, but have the option of giving this responsibility to someone who wants it.
Under this more accurate analogy, you'd have to be both selfish and crazy to want to deattach him.
But that's beside the point. This article is about the original, and these deserve a "Proposed Improvements" section at most. Also, WP has a rule against original research. Junulo
[edit] POV Wars
This edit replaces the previous non-neutral material with more non-neutral material advocating the opposing viewpoint. Is this article the obscure place where the morality of abortion is being debated by editors? It shouldn't be.
I propose this article be merged with A_Defense_of_Abortion. Perhaps through the merge process, the POV on both sides can be made neutral, and more succinctly summarized. Comments? Blackworm (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
