​思辨實驗室

Debate Topic: Is taking and using unexpected property without permission and with knowledge of a system error, essentially 'theft'? Scenario: You go to an ATM to withdraw $100 (or NTD), but the machine dispenses $10,000! The printed receipt, however, still shows only $100 withdrawn. You check your account online and find that only £100 was debited. You hide the windfall in a safe place, thinking the bank will soon discover the error and ask for it back. Weeks pass, and the bank never contacts you. After two months, you decide no one will claim the money. You grab your bag with the hefty down payment, ready to buy your dream car. On the way to the dealership, you feel a pang of conscience. Isn't this theft? But you quickly convince yourself: "I didn't intentionally take it; it came to me. Besides, it wasn't stolen from an individual; it's a drop in the ocean for a large bank, and they're insured against such accidents. If the bank suffers a loss, it's their fault – their system is terrible." •If the object is changed to a small vendor's mistake in giving change, the proportion of people choosing to return it significantly increases. •Just as when you mistakenly take someone else's luggage at baggage claim, even if it was unintentional at first, you must never justify not returning it once you realize the other person's item is more valuable. Conversely, we get angry when our belongings are taken.

Welcome everyone, feel free to post! I also really want to leave comments under your posts ᐠ( ᑒ )ᐟ

Debate Topic: When genetically modified animals gain human language abilities and 'sincerely desire to be eaten by humans,' is it still unethical for humans to slaughter and consume them? Scenario: After years of genetic modification and breeding, scientists have successfully created a pig that 'can converse with humans' and 'sincerely desires to be eaten by humans.' This pig, named 'Fatty,' possesses high intelligence and emotions, conversing fluently with people. However, its core neural programming makes it believe: 'Being meticulously cooked and enjoyed by humans is the greatest happiness and highest honor of my life.' One evening, as you are seated at a high-end restaurant, 'Fatty' personally approaches your table, smiles, and with eyes full of reverence and anticipation, recommends the most succulent parts of its body, enthusiastically requesting that you order it and eat it, thereby allowing it to reach the pinnacle of its existence. At this moment, you, sitting at the dining table, fall into a profound dilemma: • If this were human: In the real world (e.g., the infamous 'Rotenburg cannibal case'), even if both parties were fully consenting, law and social ethics firmly prohibit cannibalism because we assert that the right to life is an inalienable bottom line. • Validity of Consent: 'Fatty's' willingness is 'imposed' upon it by humans through genetic and neural programming. If an individual's brain is designed to crave the end of its own life, can such 'consent' still be considered genuine free will? • The Pain Point of Traditional Animal Rights: Many people choose vegetarianism to avoid animals suffering unnecessary pain during rearing and slaughter.

Full Title: Gotta Get Home on Time Today | School Incident Meeting Survival Game • Author: "King Simba" A text-based choice simulation game. Players take on the role of a frontline elementary school teacher, facing a barrage of unexpected situations and parent complaints from morning self-study to class and dismissal. The choices are filled with unreasonable yet unavoidable 'minefield traps'—whether you choose to actively handle things or ignore them, you might instantly trigger a 'School Incident Meeting' and end the game for various absurd reasons (e.g., reported for not being married, complained about for apologizing for being late to class). Includes about 120 questions, with storylines adapted from real news casesヽ(:3ﾉ ヽ)ﾉ

Debate Topic: If both parties sign an agreement stating, 'payment is conditional upon winning the first lawsuit,' and the student deliberately avoids taking cases to evade the agreement, should the court override the original condition and compel the beneficiary to pay tuition? Scenario: A renowned lawyer takes on a bright student, Ali, and they agree: 'You will pay me tuition after you finish your training and win your first lawsuit.' Years pass, Ali graduates successfully but never takes on any cases, ensuring the condition of winning the first lawsuit will never be met. The lawyer, furious, sues Ali, presenting a seemingly foolproof argument: 'If the court rules in my favor, Ali must pay tuition as per the judgment. If the court rules in Ali's favor, then according to our agreement, Ali must also pay tuition. Therefore, no matter how the court rules, Ali has to pay!' However, Ali is not one to back down and counters: 'If the court rules in my favor, I don't have to pay tuition according to the agreement. If the court rules in the lawyer's favor, it means I 'lost' the case. Since I've never won my first lawsuit, I don't meet the payment condition stipulated in the agreement. Therefore, no matter how the court rules, I don't have to pay tuition!'

If your perception of colors was the exact opposite of everyone else's in the world, but you were never discovered your entire life, would you be considered a 'normal person'? - The Colorblind Paradox Scenario Story: Kobayashi was born with a unique brain processing mechanism. From childhood, whenever people pointed to a red apple or a red stop sign and said, 'This is red,' the signals Kobayashi's eyes received actually appeared as 'green' in his brain, and when he saw green trees or grass, he perceived it as 'red.' However, because everyone around him told him that the color of that apple was called 'red,' Kobayashi naturally labeled that subjective sensation as 'red.' Kobayashi grew up to become an excellent bus driver: • When he saw a red light, a green image would appear in his mind, but he knew it meant 'stop,' so he accurately applied the brakes every time, never having a violation or accident in decades. • He could pick ripe fruits at the market or design color schemes for company posters, and his judgments were always indistinguishable from the public's, with no one ever noticing anything unusual. The most fascinating and unsolvable aspect of the colorblind paradox is this: If a person's internal experience is completely inverted from the rest of the world's, yet they make no mistakes and cause no communication confusion or danger throughout their life, does this unprovable 'subjective difference' truly count as a defect in our real lives? Is the red you see truly the red in others' eyes? Question: How can you prove that you are not 'Kobayashi'?

Debate Topic: When technology can safely make fetuses smarter and healthier, should governments prohibit the wealthy from paying for their children's 'gene editing'? Scenario: In a major hospital's examination room, a new technology is officially launched: for tens of millions, doctors can modify a baby's genes before birth, guaranteeing the child will have 30% higher intelligence than average in the future, possess exceptional memory, and be virtually disease-free for life. A wealthy couple is preparing to sign the contract. Mr. Lin, the expectant father, says, "I'm using my legally earned wealth to give my child a head start from birth. How is this different from spending a fortune on elite private schools? Moreover, when these smarter children grow up to invent new energy sources or cure terminal illnesses, the whole world will benefit." However, outside the clinic, many ordinary families and protesters are holding up signs in opposition. They believe that while the rich could previously only buy sports cars or luxury homes, if intelligence and physical abilities can now be bought with money, this technology will only create 'gene aristocrats' who can never be surpassed. No matter how hard ordinary children study or strive, they will never be able to compete with money-customized geniuses. If the wealth gap becomes an inherent biological gap, the entire society will be filled with resentment and despair. Question: To prevent the poor from feeling despair and treated unfairly, is it reasonable for the government to directly ban wealthy parents from paying to make their children smarter?

Debate Topic: When an elderly person is diagnosed with an incurable terminal illness, do family members and doctors have the right to conceal the truth from them to maintain their psychological peace? Scenario: Mr. Lin, 75, is a sensitive, extremely timid, and anxious individual. Recently, he was hospitalized for persistent weight loss and loss of appetite. His attending physician discovered he had been diagnosed with terminal pancreatic cancer, with widespread metastasis, rendering it incurable by modern medical means. His estimated remaining lifespan is only about three months. After leaving the consultation room, his son, Ah Wei, and the doctor found themselves in a moral quandary in the depths of the corridor. Ah Wei insisted on completely concealing the truth from his father. Knowing his father's personality, he believed that upon learning of his impending death, his father would fall into uncontrollable panic and despair. If they told him it was just a 'severe chronic gastritis' and provided supportive care, his father could spend his remaining life in psychological peace, free from fear, and the family could accompany him through his final journey in a calm and warm atmosphere. However, the young resident physician raised a question: the last three months are his own life, and concealing the truth is equivalent to depriving Mr. Lin of his right to self-determination regarding his own life. He might have old friends he wishes to bid farewell to, or bequests and wishes he wants to fulfill. If a wall of benevolent lies is built, Mr. Lin will reach the end of his life unknowingly, losing the dignity to bid the world a proper farewell. Question: Is it morally justifiable to deprive a patient of their right to know their condition in order to completely spare them devastating psychological torment and fear in their final days?

Debate Topic: Should an extremely poor person, who vows never to waste any food, cook and eat their beloved cat that died accidentally but whose body is intact? Scenario: Aming grew up in extreme poverty, where skipping meals was a daily reality. Deeply inspired after reading 'Saga's Super Grandma,' he adopted 'making the most of everything and never wasting a single bite of food' as his ultimate survival principle. A stray cat that had accompanied him for many years was the only warmth and emotional support in his bleak life. One early morning, the cat was tragically hit and killed by a passing vehicle near his door. As Aming tearfully held his deceased cat, he discovered that aside from the fatal impact, the cat's body was otherwise intact and not yet decomposed. At this moment, the starving Aming falls into a great dilemma: If he cooks the cat, it's a precious source of meat that can substantially supplement his protein intake and prevent starvation, perfectly embodying his vow against food waste. However, if he were to actually put his once most beloved companion into a pot, he would be personally tearing apart their deep emotional bond. Questions: • Is there moral justification for overcoming emotional grief to eat a recently deceased pet in order to obtain survival calories and uphold the principle of never wasting food?

I've always been curious about this. How did language come to be? I can kind of accept that writing evolved from drawings. But why can languages be divided into so many types? If it was passed down from elders, then how did they... Like, what sound this character 'ㄚ' makes and what it means. And isn't it amazing that there are so many languages around the world?