But they’re incapable of experiencing pleasure or pain. If you’ve never seen Star Trek, Vulcans experience rich forms of cognitive and sensory consciousness they see and hear and reflect on the world around them. But Dave’s intuitions are quite different. So, which features of consciousness qualify someone for moral consideration? One view is that the only conscious states that matter are those that have a positive or negative quality, like pleasure and suffering. Many people think you should divert the trolley, precisely because the lack of conscious experience means the moral status of the zombies is greatly reduced, or absent entirely. If you flip a switch to redirect the trolley, you can save the conscious human, but in so doing kill the five non-conscious humanoid zombies. If you do nothing, a trolley will hit and kill the conscious human. Suppose you have a conscious human on one train track, and five non-conscious humanoid zombies on another. In a forthcoming book he poses a classic ‘trolley problem’: The concept of these so-called ‘philosophical zombies’ was popularised by today’s guest - celebrated philosophy professor David Chalmers - in order to explore the nature of consciousness.
If you spill that coffee on them, they’ll jump like anyone else, but inside they’ll feel no pain and have no thoughts: the lights are off. Now imagine beings that are identical to humans, except for one thing: they lack conscious experience. There’s a lot going on in your head - your conscious experiences. What is it like to be you right now? You’re seeing this text on the screen, you smell the coffee next to you, feel the warmth of the cup, and hear your housemates arguing about whether Home Alone was better than Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. And still, it just actually seems monstrous to me to think about killing such a being. I’m inclined to think that I can imagine a being with the ability to consciously think and perceive, but no ability to feel pleasure or pain.
The panel held that plaintiffs set forth sufficient allegations regarding the continuation of the Grant Benefit during the employees' lifetime to survive a motion to dismiss. The panel held, however, that the district court erred in dismissing some of plaintiffs' contract claims. 2014) California law did not fault the County for offering different benefits to retirees and to active employees at the outset, absent a FEHA violation the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act applied to plaintiffs and plaintiffs' claim of unlawful age discrimination under FEHA failed as a matter of law. A class of retired employees filed suit alleging that two reforms adopted by the County of Orange violated their vested rights when it restructured its health benefits program, in violation of the County's contractual obligations, and constituted age discrimination in violation of California's Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA).The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the FEHA claim, holding that plaintiffs had no contractual right to continue receiving the Retiree Premium Subsidy pursuant to the holding in Retired Emps.
0 kommentar(er)
