Maemo Morality

[dkwatts]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

[qwerty12]

1. Pull the switch.
2. Push him.
3. Pull it.

[Patola]

These are classic questions about morality. For some reason we condone solution #1 but condemn solution #2, even if they are very similar (the second solution involves a more active role though). Question #3 is just like question #2.

[afaq]

I came in thinking I needed to discuss the mysterious powers of Meemo which some might consider evil - and whether using such an awesome system is moral as it makes everyone look so silly :D
As for the scenario - I cant be jumping and saving people with the N900 in my pocket.

[dkwatts]

I am not a murderer:

#1 Don't pull it
#2 Don't push him
#3 Don't pull it

[daperl]

I am not a murderer:

#1 Don't pull it
#2 Don't push him
#3 Don't pull it

Nor a savior. Okay, I give up. Who are you?

[dkwatts]

Nor a savior. Okay, I give up. Who are you?

Too skinny. Besides, jumping in front of the train is not an option.

[rm42]

And lets say that you know that the 5 people in option 1 are people involved with the mafia. Also, the people in the train are people convicted of being terrorists.

Or a variation. Say that you know that the 5 people and those on the train are terminally ill.

[quipper8]

the above really tests more the difference in personal action vs inpersonal action than the basic question, is it ok to kill one to save five

if you like this kind of stuff, you should check out the harvard moral sense test

http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/

[twoboxen]

Note that there is no way you could know that the fat guy would stop the train if you pushed him into it. You would, however, be able to surmise that the train being on the other track would have a predictable outcome.

Your brain isn't just trying to avoid direct, causal responsibility, but it's properly evaluating statistical likelihoods.

[ysss]

I will push/pull all the switches and I will give the fat guy a really bad guilt trip so he'll jump on his own accord.

[festivalnut]

i was trying to think of some trick to save everyone, but if its basically would you take action if it meant four more people being alive than if you hadn't, then i'd rather have one death on my conscience than 5. not taking action wouldn't absolve you of guilt when you know you could have saved them...

now if the 3rd alternative was to throw my n900 on the tracks and save everyone, that really would be a moral dilemma!

[rmerren]

In every scenario the train will be delayed or derailed, so I will leave quickly to go catch a bus.

[daperl]

Too skinny. Besides, jumping in front of the train is not an option.

I must be having a dense moment. I thought we push the fat guy because he has committed the deadly sin of gluttony, and thus some of us would rationalize pushing him would be okay then. But you (or the question) seem to be saying that the fat guy actually has enough mass to have a significant affect on the train's momentum. I was confused because I find the latter hard to believe. Or is there a third possibility: He's so fat that the conductor sees him in time? Regardless, if I'm sure of the outcome by pushing him, he goes. I murder 2, save 5; I get a +3 in the bottom right corner of my spreadsheet for the win!

If, of course, we're talkin' about who these people are, everything's different: Hot chicks and loved ones first, then the spreadsheet thing. But you said the singular person was a dude, and I probably don't know him, so...

[Dak]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

1. Do nothing. I am not God, and I do not choose who lives or dies. If I act, it would be for a specific reason (eg. my child/wife is among the 5), not merely because of statistics - the one deserves to die no more or less than the five.

2. No. I am not a murderer.

3. No. I am not a murderer.


...or maybe I just film the carnage for youtube

...or take bets on the splatter radius

[gryedouge]

I have just given up on the morality test, it is a load of *****! the tests are based on a ***** who has broken procedure/protocal and in order to rectify his mistake, someone has to die. Morality researchers need to get themselves a proper job!

[quipper8]

push and pull everything, then kill the others. Only way to save 50000 african children from starving to death.

just kidding

[fnordianslip]

1,2 & 3 - Answer: Scream like a girl, and do nothing decisive.

Do we have time to get their watches and wallets before they get mangled by the train?

[giannoug]

I would take out my N900 and record the splatter with it's 5MP camera. Then I would troll the other guy over his iPhone 3GSXPSKDOSO for having a 3.2MP camera.

[festivalnut]

1,2 & 3 - Answer: Scream like a girl, and do nothing decisive.

Do we have time to get their watches and wallets before they get mangled by the train?

nope, i took all their valuables before i tied them to the tracks (for starting meego threads on here, entirely justified!)

[optimistprime]

With all of these people tied to tracks, crazy trains, and broken swithches, where the fluck is Superman?

[gom4381]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

1. Pull the switch
2. Try to untie. The fat man is not to get pushed. Why is there not an answer to put yourself on there if you want to be so heroic? Just because he is fat he has to die. That is messed up.
3. Don't pull the lever. Survival of the fittest! What did those five people do to be in that situation? I would more likely get video and Youtube that stuff. Or sell it to Faces of Death.

[mankir]

With all of these people tied to tracks, crazy trains, and broken swithches, where the fluck is Superman?

He's busy on PR1.2...

The question should be: If you have an update, which is fixing 5 bugs. Would you deliver it, when 1 bug is not fixed at all? Even it's a major bug?

[attila77]

I will push/pull all the switches and I will give the fat guy a really bad guilt trip so he'll jump on his own accord.

Yeah, convincing the fat guy to be a hero is a good option, but would be good to try and find large enough objects to replace him first. Other good options would be flipping the switch on-off fast or precisely enough so maybe the train derails (would need to know if it’s a freighter and the speed/terrain config). I would also hunt down those who tie people to tracks, and those who sabotage both normal and emergency brakes or intentionally direct trains over people tied to tracks.

PS. #3 and #1 is not the same, in #1 the ’alterative’ has no choice, in #3 you can talk to the fat guy which opens a whole slew of other options.

[timwatt]

The first principle is do no harm, if you feel you have to choose who to kill you are being manipulated. (one life has infinite possibility 5 have infinite possibility)

You don't have to kill anyone. The choice to kill the 5 or 1 person was made by someone else. To quote Douglass Adams it is an SEP "Someone Else's Problem".

Hell for all I know it could even be a democratic state execution.

[mmurfin87]

If one has an ability to do something right, or cause an event to unfold in a morally correct way, but doesn't, does he have any moral responsibility for the outcome?

Thats sort of the question at the root of your questions. There is another question having to do with whether the moral value of humans is additive, and I think that no one can argue that over the long run it isn't.

[GameboyRMH]

These are all basically the same question. In each case I'd sacrifice the 1 person to save the other 5. A lot of people think that's wrong for some reason, but if I have a choice of either letting 5 random people die or letting 1 random person die, it's an easy decision. Unless you believe in fate or some crap like that it should be a no-brainer.

[attila77]

The first principle is do no harm, if you feel you have to choose who to kill you are being manipulated. (one life has infinite possibility 5 have infinite possibility)

Of course, the first assumption is that the situation is real and spontaneous. Otherwise, it could be a Steven Seagal movie sequel for all you know (let’s assume for a second no states do execution by running trains over convicts).

[Venemo]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

1. I would pull the switch, but only halfway, so the train wouldn't run over any of the people. Perhaps it would crash, and the people inside the train could get injured, but none of them, nor the tied people would die.

2. and 3. The weight of a "fat" person is 120-150 kg at best, and the weight of only an electronic engine is 80 tonne, so the fat man wouldn't stop it.
Instead, I would jump onto the train, and try to activate the emergency break.

[Dak]

...and that single person might have gone on to discover the cure for cancer, while one of the 5 may go on to become the next Hitler, or rapist/murderer/serial killer.

[ysss]

Ok, I've figured it out.

This is a trick question.

The answer is the same for all three questions. You don't do anything and let the situation mount into utter desperation. In the last second Chuck Norris will show up and roundhouse kick the train into PR1.2.

Right...? Right...??

[festivalnut]

Ok, I've figured it out.

This is a trick question.

The answer is the same for all three questions. You don't do anything and let the situation mount into utter desperation. In the last second Chuck Norris will show up and roundhouse kick the train into PR1.2.

Right...? Right...??

RIGHT!!! pick any prize from the top shelf! did someone just mention hitler? someone call godwin.

[GameboyRMH]

...and that single person might have gone on to discover the cure for cancer, while one of the 5 may go on to become the next Hitler, or rapist/murderer/serial killer.

True, but you have no way of knowing. It could be the other way around for all you know.

[fms]

Quick question:
Is there any way to arrange all six of them in front of that train?

[CepiPerez]

With all of these people tied to tracks, crazy trains, and broken swithches, where the fluck is Superman?

He's busy on PR1.2...

The question should be: If you have an update, which is fixing 5 bugs. Would you deliver it, when 1 bug is not fixed at all? Even it's a major bug?

LMFAO!

1- Unless one of them are family or friend, I let the 5 persons die.
2/3- Fat guy is not guilty for the stupid tied persons

[Venemo]

Here is another one:

You're driving a sports car, and you are approaching a bus stop.

You see that there is an old lady in the bus stop who is having a heart attack. Your car is fast enough to take her to the nearest hospital, but by the time the ambulance arrived, she would die.

You also notice that there is an old and very good friend of yours in the bus stop, and he asks you to drive him home. You know that he would be angry for you for a very-very long time if you didn't.

And also there is the best woman you have ever seen in your life. You know that you would never see her again if you pass the opportunity to meet her now.

What would you do in this situation?

[Dak]

True, but you have no way of knowing. It could be the other way around for all you know.
Correct. The point being that there is a seemingly infinite set of things we don't know, yet despite this most profound state of ignorance we presume to assert that saving 5 is somehow 'better' than saving one.

The point at which you decide to pull that switch (with no deeper knowledge of the people involved than their count) is the point at which you become an active decisive participant in a process that will end life.

That's significant. Far more significant than some cheap pop-psychology conundrum.

[festivalnut]

Here is another one:

You're driving a sports car, and you are approaching a bus stop.

You see that there is an old lady in the bus stop who is having a heart attack. Your car is fast enough to take her to the nearest hospital, but by the time the ambulance arrived, she would die.

You also notice that there is an old and very good friend of yours in the bus stop, and he asks you to drive him home. You know that he would be angry for you for a very-very long time if you didn't.

And also there is the best woman you have ever seen in your life. You know that you would never see her again if you pass the opportunity to meet her now.

What would you do in this situation?

let ur mate drive the granny and catch the bus with the hotty!

[anidel]

I would open Google Chrome on my N900 and look for a better solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrDHrwLUtvk

[Dak]

Here is another one:

You're driving a sports car, and you are approaching a bus stop.

You see that there is an old lady in the bus stop who is having a heart attack. Your car is fast enough to take her to the nearest hospital, but by the time the ambulance arrived, she would die.

You also notice that there is an old and very good friend of yours in the bus stop, and he asks you to drive him home. You know that he would be angry for you for a very-very long time if you didn't.

And also there is the best woman you have ever seen in your life. You know that you would never see her again if you pass the opportunity to meet her now.

What would you do in this situation?
No friend of mine would object to being stood up for some quality poontang...so I'd throw the old lady in the back, play the hero so the hot chick swoons into the front seat, and burn off into the sunset where rampant heroic sex awaits...hopefully with the hot chick, but if not, I doubt an old bag in cardiac arrest will be much of a struggle.

[festivalnut]

Correct. The point being that there is a seemingly infinite set of things we don't know, yet despite this most profound state of ignorance we presume to assert that saving 5 is somehow 'better' than saving one.

The point at which you decide to pull that switch (with no deeper knowledge of the people involved than their count) is the point at which you become an active decisive participant in a process that will end life.

That's significant. Far more significant than some cheap pop-psychology conundrum.

the point at which you decide to ignore the problem makes you a participant, infact as soon as you observe the situation and realise you could make a difference you are a participant. being an "inactive" participant just means you lack the stones to do anything. and in this example yes saving five people is better than saving one, knowing more about them doesn't help, its one thing to do the maths with 5 equal lifes, another to start judging which lives are worth more than others

[anidel]

And btw I would ask Jack Bauer as he's always dealing with these kind of situation daily for the last 8 days at least.

[anidel]

On a serious note, I would choose to save the 5 people all the times.
Sorry man...

[Luz]

No friend of mine would object to being stood up for some quality poontang...so I'd throw the old lady in the back, play the hero so the hot chick swoons into the front seat, and burn off into the sunset where rampant heroic sex awaits...hopefully with the hot chick, but if not, I doubt an old bag in cardiac arrest will be much of a struggle.

lol!!!

that last bit made me laugh!!!

[mmurfin87]

The point at which you decide to pull that switch (with no deeper knowledge of the people involved than their count) is the point at which you become an active decisive participant in a process that will end life.

That's significant. Far more significant than some cheap pop-psychology conundrum.

The point at which you become aware of the situation you become a part of it. If you are aware of your ability to save 5 people then it becomes a question of costs. Doing nothing to save those 5 people when you are aware of a way to avert their fate puts some responsibility on you. Certainly not as much as the person who knowingly put the whole charade in motion, but you still have some.

The question then becomes, does the cost involved with in killing one person outweigh the profits of saving 5 people?

Simple moral economics.

But make no mistake, if you are aware of something, you are a part of it and thus share responsibility in its outcome.

[Sopwith]

Maemo MorTality

[RevdKathy]

If the brakes are out, how is the train going to stop when it reaches the terminus? The people on the train are alll doomed anyway!

Anyway, what if I carry a knife to cut the ropes with? (Not to mention dialling 999 on my n900 as I do so)

It's easy: I'd scoff so much chocolate that I'd become as fat as the fat man, and then interpose my podgy self between the train and the people on the tracks. That way, the only life lost is mine, and cadbury's shares rise through the roof.

[omri]

The point at which you become aware of the situation you become a part of it. If you are aware of your ability to save 5 people then it becomes a question of costs. Doing nothing to save those 5 people when you are aware of a way to avert their fate puts some responsibility on you. Certainly not as much as the person who knowingly put the whole charade in motion, but you still have some.

The question then becomes, does the cost involved with in killing one person outweigh the profits of saving 5 people?

Simple moral economics.

But make no mistake, if you are aware of something, you are a part of it and thus share responsibility in its outcome.

Even this is a simplification.

I am quite aware that if I go to medical school and become a doctor I have a good chance to save lives. Am I now responsible for these theoretical lives because I chose to be a programmer?
More specifically, lets say I am a doctor. Should I wait by an unsafe intersection in the rain because there is a good likelihood there will be an accident there and I will be able to save people?
What about giving all my money to charity to help starving people somewhere? I choose not to do that. Am I responsible for them?

I am not saying I am not responsible at all in these cases, and I am not saying I am. I am saying responsibility is cultural. There is no universal right or wrong, even within specific morality.

[javicq]

Nor a savior.

Frankly, I find "not being a murderer" a far more reasonable and desirable goal than "being a savior".

the point at which you decide to ignore the problem makes you a participant

In some way yes. But not as much as if you actively tried to affect the outcome of the situation. I know that the thought "I actively killed a man" would haunt me for life. "I refused to kill a man to save other 5 that would have died anyway if I wasn't there", not so much.

[Sopwith]

Frankly, I find "not being a murderer" a far more reasonable and desirable goal than "being a savior".




There are a few million "reasonable" people behind every dictator...

[Dak]

@festivalnut & mmurfin87 - you are both articulating the classic justification for "good samaritan" laws (there's an episode of Seinfeld about that).

The idea that inaction confers responsibility just as action does.

This flies in the face of one of the most important underpinnings of our concept of justice - mens rea.

This is why such laws are routinely struck down as being immoral, among other reasons.

The "good samaritan" concept is typically championed by those of a 'collectivist' persuasion, under the banner of 'social justice' - where the essential dignity of individual humanity is degraded into a statistical function, and people are no more than a herd to be administered with a view to balancing such a function so that an elitist societal ideal can be achieved.

Choose your bedfellows wisely ;)

[festivalnut]

Frankly, I find "not being a murderer" a far more reasonable and desirable goal than "being a savior".



In some way yes. But not as much as if you actively tried to affect the outcome of the situation. I know that the thought "I actively killed a man" would haunt me for life. "I refused to kill a man to save other 5 that would have died anyway if I wasn't there", not so much.

yes i definately find your reasoning behind it more valid (not that anyones reasons are not valid but you know what i mean!) and more what the original question is trying to evoke on a moral level. yet in this instance you are sacrificing the 4 extra lives based on semantics and how you will personally feel about it later. is that the morally right thing to do?

[javicq]

There are a few million "reasonable" people behind every dictator...

Funny you say that, beacuse dictators tend to be more of the "savior" than the "not murderer" type...

[Dak]

There are a few million "reasonable" people behind every dictator...
Godwin by allusion! Quite an achievement, sir!

[festivalnut]

Godwin by allusion! Quite an achievement, sir!

i'm sure i already called godwin earlier in this thread! 2 counts by page 5? perhaps the maemo community should just abandon philosophy!

[festivalnut]

@festivalnut & mmurfin87 - you are both articulating the classic justification for "good samaritan" laws (there's an episode of Seinfeld about that).

The idea that inaction confers responsibility just as action does.

This flies in the face of one of the most important underpinnings of our concept of justice - mens rea.

This is why such laws are routinely struck down as being immoral, among other reasons.

The "good samaritan" concept is typically championed by those of a 'collectivist' persuasion, under the banner of 'social justice' - where the essential dignity of individual humanity is degraded into a statistical function, and people are no more than a herd to be administered with a view to balancing such a function so that an elitist societal ideal can be achieved.

Choose your bedfellows wisely ;)

sorry i didn't know i wanted to bring about an elitist societal ideal! wouldn't valuing one life over five be more of a elitist thing to do?

[Dak]

i'm sure i already called godwin earlier in this thread!
Merely mentioning the name "Hitler" doesn't count. It is the comparison of Hitler/Nazism to some aspect of a debate in order to fallaciously drag down anothers' argument, that is at the heart of Godwin's Law.

I needn't have mentioned Hitler, but it seemed expedient to emphasize the actual point that the people you save may not be very good people, and ultimately cause more harm.

[Dak]

sorry i didn't know i wanted to bring about an elitist societal ideal! wouldn't valuing one life over five be more of a elitist thing to do?
That would imply I have some measure for evaluating their lives. I don't, and never claimed to. Therefore I cannot consciously choose to end any life over any other life. My rational participation in this scenario is not possible.

However, as I mentioned originally, if my child/wife was among the 5, then I do have a rational basis for evaluating lives - namely that the life of my child/wife is infinitely more valuable to me than any of the other lives, and I will act to preserve it.

[Thesandlord]

These tests are quite silly. If something like this ever happens in my life I would just flip a coin...

[mrojas]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

Will it Blend? That is the question.

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

I don't believe in no-win scenarios. /bites apple

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/33.jpg

[festivalnut]

That would imply I have some measure for evaluating their lives. I don't, and never claimed to. Therefore I cannot consciously choose to end any life over any other life. My rational participation in this scenario is not possible.

and if you did have means and measure to evaluate they lives, you believe you have the ability or right to choose which is more valuable? and you could then conciously participate?

[Dak]

http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/33.jpg

Awesome :D

[Dak]

and if you did have means and measure to evaluate they lives, you believe you have the ability or right to choose which is more valuable? and you could then conciously participate?

As a thinking individual, I have the ability to choose, and as a free individual, I have the right. I do not grant anyone else the right to dictate my choices, they belong to me.

My evaluation of life is subject to my morals, values and intellect. Nobody thinks for me, and I think for nobody else.

[fnordianslip]

I've reconsidered my earlier decision to scream, and now think i would hold a poll amongst the potential victims, and let them decide, thus absolving myself of responsibility.

[geneven]

I agree with the "do nothing" answer. The number of people saved is not a criterion to base a choice on. The fat man could be about to cure cancer. You have no way of knowing or calculating the consequences of any response to the scenario. Cultivate your own garden.

[festivalnut]

As a thinking individual, I have the ability to choose, and as a free individual, I have the right. I do not grant anyone else the right to dictate my choices, they belong to me.

My evaluation of life is subject to my morals, values and intellect. Nobody thinks for me, and I think for nobody else.

of course you can think and choose, as well as rationally debate, my point is that given the circumstances is it right for you to decide what makes one life better than another? i would not assume to think for you, but the statistical valuation of life seems to me weighed towards the elitist society you mentioned before a lot more than assuming every life is sacred and 5 should be worth more than 1.

oh and i know it takes more than just mentioning hitler, but saying one of the five might turn out to be him as a justification for inaction seemed close enough to me!

[festivalnut]

I've reconsidered my earlier decision to scream, and now think i would hold a poll amongst the potential victims, and let them decide, thus absolving myself of responsibility.
lol there's no time to untie anyone, but theres always time for democracy! would you employ a "hands up" count? :P

still i see a 5-1 count in favour of taking action every time!

[ysss]

How about if we look for women and children among the five?
And then we do a bit of socio-economic profiling based on their clothing and looks?

Oh, this is good too:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-wont-have-my-daughter-bringing-a-black-man-into,17246/

[pinsh]

2 & 3: I would drop a piece of cake onto the tracks, so the fat guy would jump down by himself to get it.

[gobuki]

As a thinking individual, I have the ability to choose, and as a free individual, I have the right. I do not grant anyone else the right to dictate my choices, they belong to me.

My evaluation of life is subject to my morals, values and intellect. Nobody thinks for me, and I think for nobody else.

Spontaneously i would have pulled the switch in the first scenario. But i guess i would be passive in the second two out of confusion.

I read the whole thread and i didn't like your first post. But your following posts convinced me to respect your opinion and were interesting to read.

What if we change the scenario for a little experiment. Say you are driving on the street and get rammed by a car. The impact was so heavy that you are now on the sidewalk and you are steering right into 5 people. You can't stop in time, but you could steer further onto the sidewalk and kill only one.

Would you still be passive and run over the 5 people? I don't know .. probably not. But what is the difference really?

[Dak]

festivalnut, the point is that I am not deciding that one life is better than another, nor am I deciding that five is better than one. The information needed for any meaningful calculus is simply not there in the original pop-psychology conundrum.

The mention of Hitler was part of highlighting that you simply do not truthfully know that saving the five is 'better' than saving the one. Ultimately, the only remaining argument (save the five because there's more of them) reduces to an example of mob rule - that simple weight of numbers denotes righteousness. A horrible fallacy, and one that has enabled much historical evil.

[festivalnut]

How about if we look for women and children among the five?
And then we do a bit of socio-economic profiling based on their clothing and looks?

Oh, this is good too:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-wont-have-my-daughter-bringing-a-black-man-into,17246/

well yeah if theres a hot chick in there morality can go to hell!

yeah it was good, but i must be missing the relevence...

[javicq]

yes i definately find your reasoning behind it more valid (not that anyones reasons are not valid but you know what i mean!) and more what the original question is trying to evoke on a moral level. yet in this instance you are sacrificing the 4 extra lives based on semantics and how you will personally feel about it later. is that the morally right thing to do?

Well, it's all about semantics after all. For you, not taking action means actually killing these people, for me it just means not saving them, which is entirely different.
What's the morally right thing to do? Morality is a largely subjective matter, and while in some very clear scenarios there seems to be universal agreement (eg, killing a man, in a vacuum, is almost universally perceived as a bad thing), in most cases (especially in extreme cases like the ones presented) there is room for interpretation, semantics, and case by case analyses.
I don't think there is a right or bad thing to do, but I do know what would work for me. I don't claim to have the answers, in fact I don't think there's a right answer (actually those that claim to have all the right answers tend to scare the hell out of me :D)

[festivalnut]

festivalnut, the point is that I am not deciding that one life is better than another, nor am I deciding that five is better than one. The information needed for any meaningful calculus is simply not there in the original pop-psychology conundrum.

The mention of Hitler was part of highlighting that you simply do not truthfully know that saving the five is 'better' than saving the one. Ultimately, the only remaining argument (save the five because there's more of them) reduces to an example of mob rule - that simple weight of numbers denotes righteousness. A horrible fallacy, and one that has enabled much historical evil.

well democracy reduces to mob rule does it not? what does the alternative reduce to? i get what you are saying, i just dont agree with it. if i was the 1 on the track i wouldn't thank you for your inaction (although if i was the 1 i'm sure you'd be a lot quicker to sacrifice me! :P )

[rambo]

Take the time to read some really tough moral thinking disquised as first-encounter scifi (some good geek jokes in it too):

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

Really: do it if you're actually interested in ethics/metaethics.

[attila77]

The mention of Hitler was part of highlighting that you simply do not truthfully know that saving the five is 'better' than saving the one. Ultimately, the only remaining argument (save the five because there's more of them) reduces to an example of mob rule - that simple weight of numbers denotes righteousness. A horrible fallacy, and one that has enabled much historical evil.

So, what you are saying is that, say, the concept of quarantines should be abandoned ? There is no way of knowing if the cancer cure dude gets killed because of it or that the disease would not kill Hitler if left to spread. You're awfully close to fatalism :)

[Dak]

well democracy reduces to mob rule does it not?

It does indeed. I despise democracy. So did certain Founders of the USA.

Even though we do not agree, I've enjoyed our little debate. I'm going to go drink some beer in your honor ;)

[SAABoy]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

My friend brought up a good point when I asked him only #2... This man that is so fat that he will stop a train, how can you PUSH him?!?!

[CrashandDie]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

Except that you don't have enough information to make that decision. Based on the very limited information, one would have to assume that 5 people is worth more than 1 person, every single time. This is not necessarily the case.

What should also be taken into account, is who will have the greatest potential after survival.

Scenario 1, if the lone victim has a couple of doctorates, and is about to cure cancer, and the 5 people are babies/elderly people, it is logical to kill the 5 people and save the important person. These kind of games are fun, but they really aren't contextual enough to make a good decision.

Regardless, it has been proven time and time again, that most people would not do anything. When faced with a difficult situation, most people would not react, and stay frozen. They may have their hand on the lever, or just about to push the subject, but in reality, very few (less than than 1% of the population) would have the courage to make a decision. Even so, no matter what decision they make, they would feel guilt, as their action, or inaction, regardless of the outcome, killed at least a person. Not many can cope with that, and if anyone stands up and say "I could do it, and not feel any remorse", then I'm afraid you quite underestimate the power of your subconscious mind.

The obvious solution, in any case, is to make other people aware of the situation, as many as you can, and as competent as you can get them. In many cases, this involves calling emergency services. Who knows, they could stop the train through other means?

Source: Anyone who took a psychology class for a month knows this.

[Flynx]

I would be very interested to ask this question to war vets who have actually killed people before. I think their answers would be statistically different.

[geneven]

Spontaneously i would have pulled the switch in the first scenario. But i guess i would be passive in the second two out of confusion.

I read the whole thread and i didn't like your first post. But your following posts convinced me to respect your opinion and were interesting to read.

What if we change the scenario for a little experiment. Say you are driving on the street and get rammed by a car. The impact was so heavy that you are now on the sidewalk and you are steering right into 5 people. You can't stop in time, but you could steer further onto the sidewalk and kill only one.

Would you still be passive and run over the 5 people? I don't know .. probably not. But what is the difference really?

This is easier because you are in fact dealing with probability here. The car might not kill all five, or the one. You would make your best guess. Probably the one. But if the one was your kid, probably the five.

[geneven]

I would be very interested to ask this question to war vets who have actually killed people before. I think their answers would be statistically different.

More mundanely, I think that surprisingly many people have made similar choices during the huge numbers of car crashes there are. They could probably be studied statistically. It would make an interesting dissertation.

[YoDude]

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

Light up a joint and walk away...

It is very easy. In all 3 situations action = murder. Simple azat.

Depraved indifference isn't murder.

The classic Hitler question "If you knew in 1939 that Hitler would eventually exterminate 11 million people and you had the chance to kill him; would You?" is the same moral dilemma but the answer is also the same. If action equals murder than morally you should not act.

Inaction never equals murder.

'cus you don't know everything but, you are resposible for what you actually do.

[ysss]

I know who can answer this definitively...

http://www.marplescouts.co.uk/archive/files/precog.jpg

[CrashandDie]

The classic Hitler question "If you knew in 1939 that Hitler would eventually exterminate 11 million people and you had the chance to kill him; would You?" is the same moral dilemma but the answer is also the same. If action equals murder than morally you should not act.

Another way to look at it, is that your action would make Hitler a hero/martyr rather than a mass murdering bastard. In 1939, he had changed Germany's morale and economy, and inspired more people than most current politicians can only dream of. I'm not saying saying that 1930-1939 were extremely good years, but compared to what happened after those dates, it wasn't extremely bad.

Another way to look at it is this: If you had the opportunity to murder him when he was a child. In essence, you would murder an innocent child, as he hadn't done anything bad, and would never be able to.

[RevdKathy]

Another way to look at it, is that your action would make Hitler a hero/martyr rather than a mass murdering bastard. In 1939, he had changed Germany's morale and economy, and inspired more people than most current politicians can only dream of. I'm not saying saying that 1930-1939 were extremely good years, but compared to what happened after those dates, it wasn't extremely bad.

Another way to look at it is this: If you had the opportunity to murder him when he was a child. In essence, you would murder an innocent child, as he hadn't done anything bad, and would never be able to.

I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)

[attila77]

Light up a joint and walk away...

It is very easy. In all 3 situations action = murder. Simple azat.

Depraved indifference isn't murder.

The point of the question is to see how you deal with your own choices. It’s easy (in a morbid way) as there are no good or bad choices, only the question is which outcome bothers the decision maker more. As crashanddie says, reality says most people will not react, but that does not imply it is the correct or moral way to do it.

A closely related dilemma that actually DOES happen (and to which people are being prepared to/talked about), is the case where the doctor(s) have to make a choice, for example with a pregnant woman who is heavily injured. The doctor can choose to save the mother, the child, or just be indifferent and do nothing, which will very likely (but not certainly!) result in the death of both. It’s a very sad decision to make and it’s very difficult to say indifference is the ’easy choice’.

[Patola]

This thread only leads me to conclude two things:

1. Based on the responses, we need an ethical resolver application for the N900. Urgently!

2. Nokia doesn't care to ethics, thus PR1.2 is late.

[CrashandDie]

I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)

Wow, I never made that link. Thanks!

[rambo]

Eating babies is good (http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/).

Discuss (read the linked article first though).

[SavageD]

1) I would pull it. However I would first try to untie that one person. This act is indirect.

2) I would not push the 'fat man' as there is no guarantee he would stop the train....what is his weight? 1000pounds or something o.o....Even if I tried to push him, he would easily overpower me and I may instead be the one being thrown infront the train...

Also this act is direct, no way am I gonna willingly kill a man in such a situation. If I did, I would clearly be a cold and heartless bastard, with no regard for human life or anyone standing next to me.

3) Basically the same ans. as no. 2


Edit: I just realized that there is no true measure to the value of life, however life is to be highly valued. The one person separate person tied to the track would represent me. In this case I would have given my life to save the other five people.

In the case of the 'fat man', this fat man would also represent 'me', of course in this case I would not have liked to have been shoved unto the train tracks by some random person and of course I would have given up a fight.

[TomJ]

I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)

Not recently, but I've seen Restoration....

<dalek>WOULD YOU CARE FOR SOME TEA?</dalek (http://bunny-comic.com/?id=1175)>

[ndi]

I'm missing something, maybe, but on 1) I have a choice between killing 5 and killing 1? No time to untie means no time to get to know them, also, it's likely going to be a fast, pressured decision. Where's the moral dilemma in that? One would kill 5 to save 1?

Also, what is this about inaction? Inaction is tolerable when you are surrounded by 500 people and one guy smacks his gf upside the head. I'm not going to set things straight and frankly it's not like she's kidnapped. She chose him.

But really, you're the only one there, and you have the switch. Whatever happens rests on you. This is not the time for inaction. If you don't act, you've killed 5 people by yourself and your inability to make a decision. If you do, you've saved 5 and the one that died you didn't kill. They guy who tied him to the tracks did.

How is throwing the switch murder? Is the second to last piece in a domino responsible for the setup collapse?

[ysss]

@ndi: your decision and action affects the situation.

What about these two situations:

1. You're standing right there and the switch is already in your grip.

2. The switch is located about 30m away and you have to run like hell to throw the switch in time to affect the crash.

Does that make the situation any different?

[RevdKathy]

Sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many

[gobuki]

@ndi: your decision and action affects the situation.

What about these two situations:

1. You're standing right there and the switch is already in your grip.

2. The switch is located about 30m away and you have to run like hell to throw the switch in time to affect the crash.

Does that make the situation any different?

Hmm. I can see no difference other that i would have less time to think about it in the 2nd case. Can you please elaborate on why it would change something for you? Given that your opinion differs.

IMHO it's the outcome that's important.
And while I wouldn't dare to contradict Spock ... ;)
What he said is is not reason to let five people die for one if you don't know them all.

[ysss]

3. What if the lever is guarded by a guy who you need to kill first, before you can flick it?

By your math, you'll still be up 3 lives for the 2 you've forsaken. One will be killed by a flick of the switch, the other you'll have to kill by gun or knife.

[festivalnut]

3. What if the lever is guarded by a guy who you need to kill first, before you can flick it?

By your math, you'll still be up 3 lives for the 2 you've forsaken. One will be killed by a flick of the switch, the other you'll have to kill by gun or knife.

stop adding "what if's" until it swings an opinion! what if it was 10 people on the other track? 100? 1million? you still want to get to know their life stories before deciding to actually make a choice?

[gryedouge]

I would be very interested to ask this question to war vets who have actually killed people before. I think their answers would be statistically different.

In terms of this, firstly the issue of morality is debated ad nauseam amongst academics who have never had to save someone.

As a serving member in a maritime combat unit, we were taught that if an accident occurs, the value of the whole outweighs the value of the few; however, we are a unit and so every effort is made to save the few without endangering the whole or yourself but if it reaches the point where the saving of the few endangers the whole, then the few have to be sacrificed. Have i experienced this for real and in combat. yes and we were lucky.

Another morality question for the philosophists...you see a guy getting mugged by 5 others, do you walk on or go to his assistance?

The issue of your morality is dependant on the circumstance and occasion. Do you freeze/run around like a screaming girl/or take action and try to save someone?

[ndi]

@ndi: your decision and action affects the situation.


My decision isn't murder. People already died. It is now a question of how many. It's not like I have an option with chances, so I'd get 80% for 5 people. Whatever my decision is, a person is already dead. It's up to me to save the rest. While hypothetical, the question aims for a real resolution, not a "I'd save them all" kind of American directed movie.

So a person (at the very least) is already dead, killed by an unmentioned person by means of a train. Question now is: Do you switch the train and get 0 additional victims, or not switch and get 4 more?

How is this a dilemma?

[fatalsaint]

All three questions are identical in my opinion. The underlying point of the debate is:

Is 1 life worth many?

The answer to me is No. Granted, I'm human, and thus there is a certain weighted system I apply personally: Such as, if the 1 is my wife - you can stack up hundreds and get nothing out of me.

OTOH: Talking simply about strangers, I hold no imagination that I'm god. I do, however, have a logical mind and the way I see it is this.

The idea that life is priceless is actually incomprehensible because then obviously life equals other life. That is truly what it boils down, a mathematical equation. 1 == 1. No one life, at a fundamental level, is worth any more or less than any other life. Ted Bundy is worth no more or less than Albert Einstein. The operative here is what that life is worth to you.

Save 4 strangers; or allow 4 to die - I have a higher chance of getting at least worthwhile person in the lot of 5 :D. (although the reverse is also true, higher chance of saving a murderer/rapist/thief/general a-hole/etc).

To me, flipping the switch is worth it. Police Officers are faced with this sort or thing all the time.

Does a Police Officer shoot at a suspect who is armed and firing randomly into a crowd: Knowing full well that his bullet can miss and possibly hit an innocent bystander, including a child? IMHO - Yes.

I am also a former Military man and would not have survived without this mentality.

[festivalnut]

In terms of this, firstly the issue of morality is debated ad nauseam amongst academics who have never had to save someone.

As a serving member in a maritime combat unit, we were taught that if an accident occurs, the value of the whole outweighs the value of the few; however, we are a unit and so every effort is made to save the few without endangering the whole or yourself but if it reaches the point where the saving of the few endangers the whole, then the few have to be sacrificed. Have i experienced this for real and in combat. yes and we were lucky.

Another morality question for the philosophists...you see a guy getting mugged by 5 others, do you walk on or go to his assistance?

The issue of your morality is dependant on the circumstance and occasion. Do you freeze/run around like a screaming girl/or take action and try to save someone?

well said! although as for the mugging i think i'd walk on bye, it wouldn't be easy because my first instinct would be to help, but i've known of occasions when a straightforward mugging where no one would have been seriously hurt (okay having your wallet nicked kinda hurts, but not THAT much), turned into a serious stabbing because someone tried to help...

[YoDude]

....bla, blah, blah...


Edit: I just realized that there is no true measure to the value of life, however life is to be highly valued. The one person separate person tied to the track would represent me. In this case I would have given my life to save the other five people.

In the case of the 'fat man', this fat man would also represent 'me', of course in this case I would not have liked to have been shoved unto the train tracks by some random person and of course I would have given up a fight.

Almost. :)

There is no true measure of the difference in the value of a particular life compared to another.

All life has value. Morally the value is the same whether it is 1, 5, or 11 million lives. The act of snuffing one out has the same moral consequences as hosing a million.

I would do nothing and live with that consequence rather than any of the other choices.
You have no control over a lot of factors and therefore can not predict the outcome with any certainty. Even if you could you are asked to make a value judgment based on what? How fat someone is?

What would change would be, as you suggested, if you were any of the affected actors and had the opportunity to make such decisions. Then, I believe your moral obligation is to do what you have to do in order to survive. But that's me thinking logically. I don't know if I would actually sacrifice myself for the good of the many.


The trap here is we are thinking if this then that. When there is a third choice... do nothing. "mu"

[fatalsaint]

Another morality question for the philosophists...you see a guy getting mugged by 5 others, do you walk on or go to his assistance?

The issue of your morality is dependant on the circumstance and occasion. Do you freeze/run around like a screaming girl/or take action and try to save someone?

There's a reason I believe in the United States Second Amendment and the right for citizens to bear arms and protect themselves. I consider that to be at the very heart of this "morality" discussion.

So, I personally, would take action (because I personally would have the means to) - and then have to deal with the fallout of the people that like to hind-sight/sideline quarterback high adrenaline and dynamic situations after the fact.

[gobuki]

No, that complicates the situation. I wouldn't kill anybody actively other than in self defense.
The first situation is relatively simple so you can give a short answer based on math.
But most real situations aren't that simple, so you know something about what happened before and who are the people and else.

I believe most people would apply math if they are forced to give a quick answer on the street. But they are totally disconnected from the situation. This being easily exploitable by warmongers makes it a good choice as propaganda material. :rolleyes:

@ysss: A slight variation. There is a blackbox with 6 people in it. And it has a knob that let's you choose how many people it kills. It has two settings, 1 and 6 and it's set to 6. Do you change it to 1? :D

[fatalsaint]

The trap here is we are thinking if this then that. When there is a third choice... do nothing. "mu"

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Unknown

;)

[ndi]

Another morality question for the philosophists...you see a guy getting mugged by 5 others, do you walk on or go to his assistance?

The issue of your morality is dependant on the circumstance and occasion. Do you freeze/run around like a screaming girl/or take action and try to save someone?

Morality and military training are not the same. The question is about a switch and no repercussions for a reason. What if five armoire-sized people are beating on <whatever> and I'm a little girl? What if I know they are drunk and likely to kill me too? Do I still render assistance? Knowing I have no assistance to give, am not trained nor prepared and going to increase the body count to 2?

I am not trained in combat, and if I see a scrawny guy abusing another I might get in on it. If they are large I will not. Morality of the situation is the same, with different results.

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for people who risk personal harm to save others. Note the word "risk", by which I mean non-zero change of harm. When chances of harm/death reach close to 100%, it's no longer courage. I don't plan on dieing with someone for the heck of it nor do I expect anyone to jump in to keep me company.

The only reason people help is because they think they have a decent chance of making it out alive. After all, if someone is mugged and you pull out a gun and blow your brains all over them that'd likely end that robbery right there. The approach is unpopular.

[fatalsaint]

Morality and military training are not the same. The question is about a switch and no repercussions for a reason.

I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States. If you played a hand at all in who died you would end up in court. Either Legal or Civil, depending on the state/county you live in, who your AG is, and whether the family members of the one choose to Sue you for everything you own for killing their precious son/daughter/husband/wife/whatever.

EDIT: Actually, I'd venture even the family of the 5 could sue you if you were even *there* and did nothing... courts here kinda suck in that regard...

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for people who risk personal harm to save others. Note the word "risk", by which I mean non-zero change of harm. When chances of harm/death reach close to 100%, it's no longer courage. I don't plan on dieing with someone for the heck of it nor do I expect anyone to jump in to keep me company.

The only reason people help is because they think they have a decent chance of making it out alive.

To the first: If their chance of survival is pretty much 0% and your chance to change that is greater than 0% is it not worth pursuing to at least have a chance?

As to the second I disagree: Nobody, usually, intends to get themselves killed by helping another person - but the moment you make the decision to assist you accept that possible outcome.

[ndi]

I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States.

Indeed that is a possibility. In Europe chances of actually getting hung for this is slim (figuratively). In Romania, stuff like this happened a few times (including shot burglars) and each time the defender had no penal repercussions tacked.


beloved ...

They tried that too here - career burglar shot at night in someone's house. Sister argued loss of income. To my knowledge, no penalty was invoked. Also, general sentiment within the populace (the ones I hang around with at least) was the family should pay him the $2 worth of spent bullet. It's a bit of a half joke, still, people started exploiting the "ouch booboo" suits and law has changed accordingly. Could be a legend, but I doubt it. There were already-hurt people jumping in front of cars on zebras. Good luck proving that. Law was adjusted accordingly (previous law said driver has to slow as to avert any danger - unattainable).

Also, we have a different court system here, you're not judged by some bleeding hearts with zero training. As a side note, in the same spirit, getting hit by a car in a marked passing place lays full blame in all respects to the driver. Getting hit in an unmarked/illegal place reverses the situation so, at least in theory, once you* get out of the hospital you start paying for the fender. Don't know if it was ever applied like this.

To the first: If their chance of survival is pretty much 0% and your chance to change that is greater than 0% is it not worth pursuing to at least have a chance?

It depends on chance though. As worded by you, yes. I'm not sure if the hole there is intentional or not. Let me rephrase: If his chances are 0%, and OUR chances are low, then no. I'm not getting in on the action. I have a threshold, even if not directly numerical. We'll arbitrarily call it 50%. If it drops below that, I'm out. I'll keep exploring other options, though, I might start making calls, drawing attention, etc. I'll just skip the self-rationalization of the whole shebang, but trust me, I have my regrets grounds covered.

As to the second I disagree: Nobody, usually, intends to get themselves killed by helping another person - but the moment you make the decision to assist you accept that possible outcome.

Accept, yes. When you cross the street you accept the possibility you'll never make it to the other side. The chances are acceptable when light is green and cars are stopped. Chances are not acceptable when compressed traffic on 5 lanes is zooming 200KPH and you know that if you jump in, your chances in percent of getting out alive are sub-unity and getting out with a running brain and working legs just about null.

Though, this is a theoretical issue. So if your question is, in principle, if his chances are 0 and mine non-zero then no, as a rule I'll stand aside. Fifty percent, I'll think about it.

I have a grasp of percentages. Only in movies 3% chance is an acceptable risk and Picard just barely makes it. In real life, 3% means that if you*, your family and most of your close friends and colleagues all try in a row there's a good chance they all fail.

I have no intention of playing those odds.

*) Bleed from native language. By "you" I mean "one". Not personal.

Again, this is math only. In real life there's always a way to increase that. Just route power to the shields or something. Like running away screaming like nuts hitting all the cars on the way making an incredible racket.

Also, strangers only.

[fatalsaint]

They tried that too here - career burglar shot at night in someone's house. Sister argued loss of income. To my knowledge, no penalty was invoked. Also, general sentiment within the populace (the ones I hang around with at least) was the family should pay him the $2 worth of spent bullet.

I don't know where here is, but in the U.S. there is actually many examples of people shot and the shooting being declared legal, but then the shooter getting sued by the family and losing everything.

Looking outside the US, you have popular cases such as Tony Martin ('http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29') who were actually imprisoned for longer than the burglars or thieves for shooting and wounding/killing the robbers. Granted there is controversy over "in the back", but the point still remains.

As far as the rest of your post I can say we mostly agree, it's just we have a different threshold of when to interfere. I don't necessarily need to see a likely chance of success, just a chance of success with a likely chance of not making things worse (worse not including me, but other people.)

[ndi]

I don't know where here is,

Ndi
Posts: 524 | Thanked: 192 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Bucharest


Looking outside the US, you have popular cases such as Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29)

Tony Martin's fame has reached me when it happened (didn't know he had a wikipedia page though). Makes one want to immigrate, IMO.

Don't know if this is a coincidence, but US and UK basically have the same law system.

I don't necessarily need to see a likely chance of success, just a chance of success with a likely chance of not making things worse (worse not including me, but other people.)

Then disagree it is. Not only I don't feel like playing worse-than-roulette odds for strangers, I'd likely have a regretful life if anyone lost their life to save me from my disgruntled dealer/loan shark.

Heck, don't even count the possibility that someone gained a life in a wheelchair to save me. I'd be the worse ever saved person. I wouldn't be able to face you in your chair, and I would _certainly_ not have the guts to look your family in their eyes. I do NOT want to explain to your little girl why daddy is in a wheelchair. My soul would have hole in it the size of Tunguska.

Morality shmorality.

[YoDude]

I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States....


EDIT: Actually, I'd venture even the family of the 5 could sue you if you were even *there* and did nothing... courts here kinda suck in that regard...



To the first: If their chance of survival is pretty much 0% and your chance to change that is greater than 0% is it not worth pursuing to at least have a chance?

As to the second I disagree: Nobody, usually, intends to get themselves killed by helping another person - but the moment you make the decision to assist you accept that possible outcome.


In most states "doing nothing" could be prosecuted as "Depraved indifference"


However, to constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In other words you would have to show proof that I knew for certain that someone could be saved AND it would not have required me to commit a crime.

No matter how you look at it any of the "actions" would result in the death of a human being. I am responsible for my actions and could at the very least be prosecuted for manslaughter and if I "knew" the switch or level would cause just 1 death I could be prosecuted for murder.

I didn't tie anybody to the tracks, I am not driving the train. I did not maintain the brakes. These are all things that will effect the outcome and that I have no control over. By pulling a lever, hitting a switch, or pushing a fat dude I would be directly responsible for the death of another human being.

In looking up the morality of murder I found this and I am listening to it now and it sounds real familiar... >> http://academicearth.org/lectures/morality-of-muder-and-cannibalism





...walk away and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :)

[dkwatts]

In looking up the morality of murder I found this and I am listening to it now and it sounds real familiar... >> http://academicearth.org/lectures/morality-of-muder-and-cannibalism

...walk away and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :)

Interesting 'RADIOLAB' podcast from earlier this month (http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/DxZ5jhi5yVM/radiolab_podcast203morality.mp3) that inspired the thread.

Summary: In this hour on Morality, we’ll explore where our sense of right and wrong come from. We peer inside the brains of people contemplating moral dilemmas, watch chimps at a primate research center share blackberries, observe a playgroup of 3 year-olds fighting over toys, and tour the country’s first penitentiary, Eastern State Prison.

[YoDude]

Interesting 'RADIOLAB' podcast from earlier this month (http://feeds.wnyc.org/~r/radiolab/~5/DxZ5jhi5yVM/radiolab_podcast203morality.mp3) that inspired the thread.

Summary: In this hour on Morality, we’ll explore where our sense of right and wrong come from. We peer inside the brains of people contemplating moral dilemmas, watch chimps at a primate research center share blackberries, observe a playgroup of 3 year-olds fighting over toys, and tour the country’s first penitentiary, Eastern State Prison.

Yup. It ain't like this stuff has never been thunk before. :p

I did like Professor Sandel's tests on the 5 for 1 scenario though.

Suppose you're a doctor and 5 patients come in as an emergency while you are giving a healthy individual his annual physical. You move quickly to stabilize their injuries and learn that 2 need kidneys, 1 has a lacerated liver, 1 has a ruptured spleen, and 1 has a torn aorta. In fact all 5 desperately need organ transplants or they will die.
You go back to the examination room where you were conducting the physical and you find that your healthy patient has fallen fast asleep. You look at him resting peacefully with his healthy kidneys, liver, spleen, and heart intact and then look at the other 5 patients. H'mmm....

The same 5 for 1 as the train switch. :eek:

Here's a tip:
If your Doctor is a "man of action", never fall asleep in the examination room. :D

[ndi]

I didn't tie anybody to the tracks, I am not driving the train. I did not maintain the brakes. These are all things that will effect the outcome and that I have no control over. By pulling a lever, hitting a switch, or pushing a fat dude I would be directly responsible for the death of another human being.

Is this based on law, or just an opinion? I can't believe that any legal system in any civilized part of the world would convict a person for flipping the switch in the above scenario.

By this measure, if a truck pushes me off the road and I'm heading 100 KPH into a group of children I shouldn't swerve to avoid them because heaven forbid I hit one adult in my way. If I hit the kids, the bus driver killed them. If I swerve, *I* killed the adult.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. As a driver, it is my responsibility to minimize the damage I do in ANY circumstance, regardless of fault.

Au contraire, if I was heading for children and there were no skid marks I'd be facing some very uncomfortable questions.

This is now officially off topic, since we moved from moral to legal.

(I'm listening to the MP3 tomorrow, it's very, very late here)

[Benson]

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. As a driver, it is my responsibility to minimize the damage I do in ANY circumstance, regardless of fault.As a driver, yes, which seems to make this analogy unsuited to the situation where one is a completely uninvolved bystander. Especially in light of YoDude's "I am not driving the train", which you just quoted...

[ndi]

Bystander or driver - no difference. In both cases the wheel is in your hands. Just because the steering of the train is not IN the train but outside doesn't make you anything else than responsible.

You are the only one there, so you are driving the train, regardless of whether or not you agreed to it - heck, let's just assume you came legally out of tunnel and there's no time to stop, but you do have a button on board that switches tracks. Exact same problem, you're driving the train.

[woody14619]

Duh.. it's a train.

1. Pull the rail half way and it will derail at the junction, saving all 6 people.
2. Fat guys can't stop trains (unless they wear capes and have Xray vision).
3. Break the lever, slam it into the track slot, run. Train derails. See #1.

You people need to get out more... or learn more about trains. :)

[YoDude]

Is this based on law, or just an opinion? I can't believe that any legal system in any civilized part of the world would convict a person for flipping the switch in the above scenario.

By this measure, if a truck pushes me off the road and I'm heading 100 KPH into a group of children I shouldn't swerve to avoid them because heaven forbid I hit one adult in my way. If I hit the kids, the bus driver killed them. If I swerve, *I* killed the adult.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. As a driver, it is my responsibility to minimize the damage I do in ANY circumstance, regardless of fault.

Au contraire, if I was heading for children and there were no skid marks I'd be facing some very uncomfortable questions.

This is now officially off topic, since we moved from moral to legal.

(I'm listening to the MP3 tomorrow, it's very, very late here)

We are missing the point. Swerving or reacting, emotion, and state of mind come in to play when it's the law. This isn't about the law. This is about the intent to kill another human being.

In all the given choices action means that you decided to kill another human being, period. It was not a reaction, it was not an emotion, but you clearly knew that your actions would result in the death of a human being.

BTW, this is hypothetical and extreme. How many times have you seen or heard of anybody being tied to railroad tracks? As it's been stated, morality is situational...
How come the freakin' fat dude doesn't pull the switch? If you told him to do so and he did; would the same moral standard apply?

Also, if it were people just standing or working on the track I would pull the switch because then I wouldn't "know" that someone would die and the probability of possibilities would then come into play. But when you physically restrain someone you kind of take Nash and Pascal out of the picture and as one of them I think once said: "Either light up or leave me alone." :)

***

I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. I can only imagine that sometime after you decided to pull the switch things like this would be decided in a court room.

In that time that has passed we get to know the names of the 5 people you saved as well as the what? What do you call the other individual who we now know as the plumber, Joe Smith? The victim... the victim of what? :confused:

In that court room I would imagine that your defense will have all 5 of the saved souls lined up as character witnesses unless one of them is Hitler or Charlie Manson and, provided the judge allows them to testify.

I also imagine that a good prosecutor would put a face on Joe the plumber and make sure everyone knows as much about his life as he could present. He can't compel you to testify but if he did, after allowing you to explain your rational, the final question he would ask you is:

Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"
(He wouldn't humanize them by calling them people, BTW. But Joe we now know as the coach of the towns little league baseball team, etc.)

You: "No, I..."

Him: "You testified that you knew that pulling the lever would switch the train to the track that Joe was tied helplessly to, didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "You did pull the lever didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "The train switched tracks because of that didn't it?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "Joe the plumber is now dead because of what you did; Isn't he?"

You: "But..."

Him: "Isn't he?"

You: "Yes... but I..."

Him: "No further questions your Honor"

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

:p

[CrashandDie]

Him: "No further questions your Honor"

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

At which point, cross-examination would take place, and your lawyer would be able to expose how your heroic action saved 5 human beings, or nearly half the jury. If you hadn't done anything, your inaction would have cost five precious human lives.

Also, if someone ordered you to pull the switch (prevailing that that person had any kind of authority -- any form of authority, parent or legal guardian, police officer, doctor, military, etc), then that person would be to blame (see why dictators, high-ranking military and others are guilty of mass-murder, even though they didn't fire a gun once in their lifetime); not you specifically.

As I said before, this is a hypothetical situation and it doesn't provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Most humans will take their decision based on their emotions, and there is no way to remove it from the equation. However this allegory isn't about action versus inaction. What failed to be specified was that you *have* to take action.

A slightly different version of this allegory is the one that measures action vs inaction.

A married couple (man and woman) are in danger of death (how isn't important). Both are pleading you to take action which will ensure the other one lives, as they are both equally ready to put their life down for the sake of the other person. If you act, you have to chose who lives. If you do not act, the person who dies and the one who lives will be absolutely random.

Regardless of the outcome (you acting and selecting the one who dies, or not doing anything and leaving it to be random), the person who survives will blame you. What do you do?

[Texrat]

This thread is the reason I won't watch the Saw movies. :p

[fixerdave]

It's a lose-lose situation. Therefore, as we all know, the proven answer is to flip open your communicator and tell Scotty to beam up all the people tied to the tracks. If you're in command, you don't accept lose-lose situations, unless some expendable engineering red-shirt is in the line of fire.

On a more serious note, these situations are ones that you have to react to rather than think through. Thus, logic is irrelevant. If you had time to think it through logically, any intelligent person would spend that time trying to stop it from happening, trying to save everyone. Eventually, if these efforts failed, then the decision would again be irrational, instinctive. Basically, in a situation like this, your brain is just going to scan through the people in peril and make a snap-judgment... probably based on which person you'd like to have sex with the most, or which is the closest relation...or, maybe if you have strong maternal instincts, which is the youngest. Instinct, not logical morality.

This is also what society would expect a person to do. Anyone that could logically determine the correct moral choice and then act on it, rather than wasting this time trying to save everyone, would not be considered human. Vulcan maybe, but not human.

[CrashandDie]

unless some expendable engineering red-shirt is in the line of fire.

Pleonasm!

Red shirts are always expendable, and (nearly) always in the line of fire.

[ossipena]

I'd save the five people in every situation of course.

5 > 1

Q.E.D.

[YoDude]

It's a lose-lose situation. Therefore, as we all know, the proven answer is to flip open your communicator and tell Scotty to beam up all the people tied to the tracks. If you're in command, you don't accept lose-lose situations, unless some expendable engineering red-shirt is in the line of fire...

... Anyone that could logically determine the correct moral choice and then act on it, rather than wasting this time trying to save everyone, would not be considered human. Vulcan maybe, but not human.

Yes. James T's take on the "Light up or leave me alone." approach...

I think he was the only cadet to ever use that at the Star Fleet Academy when he was in training. :D

[Dak]

According to that radiolab show, and some Harvard dude, I can outthink 99% of the population. This is not news to me.

[attila77]

So... ? You bite your lips, turn green and stop the train with your bare hands ? ;) Or are you saying this is a Kobayashi Maru test ?

[fixerdave]

So... ? ... Or are you saying this is a Kobayashi Maru test ?

Yes, exactly. In this situation, the 'right' thing to do is not stand there logically debating the correct moal action, it is to hack into the computer the night before and alter the scenario such that you can save everyone.

In other words, the correct moral answer is to use all available time trying to save everyone. Failing that, and with no time left for logical reasoning, the decision to save one over the other becomes emotional, illogical, instinctive, human...

The question is wrong.

[fixerdave]

According to that radiolab show, and some Harvard dude, I can outthink 99% of the population. This is not news to me.

Um... I hate to tell you this... but... you're, like, saying your logical thought processes are in line with someone that has a doctorate in philosphy... A philosophy degree and a food-safe certificate makes you qualified to work at MacDonalds.

I've got an AA in philosopy (half a degree - ya, weird, I know) and I'll admit philosophy is fun. But, if philosophy types can outhink 99% of the population, that only proves that thinking is highly overated.

[fatalsaint]

Yup. It ain't like this stuff has never been thunk before. :p

I did like Professor Sandel's tests on the 5 for 1 scenario though.


This scenario was an interesting read but I see it different. In the case of a healthy patient that the doctor kills for spare parts would be akin to you being able to stop the train by pulling the switch.. but before doing so you tied a person to the other track.

In the first scenario you didn't tie anybody anywhere.

I would consider this one to be a closer analogy:

You're a doctor and you have a dying patient. This patient is dying from something operable but totally unrelated to his organs (at least, the ones needed below). The surgery for this is extremely difficult and time consuming.

5 others come in from a bus wreck or whatever. All of them require a different organ, and by the light of god, the original dying patient is a matching donor for all other patients.

The 5 other patients surgeries are easier, higher chance of success, and you can do all 5 surgeries before they die.

The original patient's surgery is complicated, takes many hours, and by the time you were done doing that surgery all the other patients would be dead.

You are the only doctor within a time-allowable distance to perform any of the 6 different surgeries.

What do you do? Let the original patient die for the organs - after all, you didn't poison him or make him sick? Or save the original patient and let the 5 die while you're in surgery?

This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.

[pety]

i would try to slow down the train until Pr1.2 got released which would give me more options.

[fixerdave]

... This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.

These moral dilemmas are already solved in real life; the answer is what people actually do. In this case, the doctor would, in a private hospital, call the first guy's HMO and ask a bunch of dumb questions that take a long time to answer. In a public hospital, the doctor would strike a committee to form a panel to recommend... In both cases, the original patient dies while waiting and the organs are used to save however many of the others are left alive. Through bureaucratic inertia, the doctor is saved from the moral dilemma. That's one of the reasons bureaucracies exist. They shield individuals from moral dilemmas, and a lot of other things.

The only individuals that will typically face this dilemma alone are military commanders. The classic: do I risk sending 5 guys to rescue the 1 trapped? Again, the answer is already defined. Absolutely yes (unless completely suicidal), risk the 5 guys - otherwise the next time you order your soldiers into a bad situation, they won't go. But, if rescuing the one guy risks the battle, then absolutely no. The battle comes first and every soldier knows this. Thus, the moral dilemma becomes a simple, "does this risk the battle," kind of question. This is not a moral question, it's tactical. Most everyone else, with time, can hide behind bureaucracy. Without time, it becomes instinctual rather than logical.

Philosophy can either describe what is or proscribe what should be. Society has already worked around these moral dilemmas and proscribing solutions depends on your philosophic underpinnings. Me, I'm very mechanistic and happen to think that the compromises society has already come up with are likely the best we're going to get.



Edit: "absolutely yes... unless, but...." I should probably re-word that ;)

[fatalsaint]

These moral dilemmas are already solved in real life; the answer is what people actually do. In this case, the doctor would, in a private hospital, call the first guy's HMO and ask a bunch of dumb questions that take a long time to answer. In a public hospital, the doctor would strike a committee to form a panel to recommend... In both cases, the original patient dies while waiting and the organs are used to save however many of the others are left alive. Through bureaucratic inertia, the doctor is saved from the moral dilemma. That's one of the reasons bureaucracies exist. They shield individuals from moral dilemmas, and a lot of other things.

The only individuals that will typically face this dilemma alone are military commanders. The classic: do I risk sending 5 guys to rescue the 1 trapped? Again, the answer is already defined. Absolutely yes (unless completely suicidal), risk the 5 guys - otherwise the next time you order your soldiers into a bad situation, they won't go. But, if rescuing the one guy risks the battle, then absolutely no. The battle comes first and every soldier knows this. Thus, the moral dilemma becomes a simple, "does this risk the battle," kind of question. This is not a moral question, it's tactical. Most everyone else, with time, can hide behind bureaucracy. Without time, it becomes instinctual rather than logical.

Philosophy can either describe what is or proscribe what should be. Society has already worked around these moral dilemmas and proscribing solutions depends on your philosophic underpinnings. Me, I'm very mechanistic and happen to think that the compromises society has already come up with are likely the best we're going to get.

This post is just all kinds of awesome.

I disagree with your last summation tho.. I really don't think the correct solution is to allow people to separate themselves from the decision. That is one of the leading reasons why so many people are after scapegoats when sh** goes wrong instead of taking personal responsibility for their action.

The individual should be made to choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice. A choice without consequence, or no choice at all, are bad solutions.

[ndi]

According to that radiolab show, and some Harvard dude, I can outthink 99% of the population. This is not news to me.

Big deal, so can the rest of us 60-70 million. You know what they say, if you're one in a million, you have 1000 clones in China.

This is about the intent to kill another human being.


It's only intent if I intend to do it, in the sense that I make preparations, this is how intent is proven. Also, I'll reiterate my argument that I didn't kill them people, the train did. Once the situation was without solutions in which 0 people die, I chose the solution where 1 people dies.

In all the given choices action means that you decided to kill another human being, period. It was not a reaction, it was not an emotion, but you clearly knew that your actions would result in the death of a human being.

Just because I knew s/he would die means not that I killed him/her. What, if an idiot jumps in front of a bus on bridge, I am to jump off to try and save him, killing all on board?

Sometimes actions kill people. While there are alternatives where nobody dies, you are obligated to take that (that's another discussion right there). But once there is no way around it, we no longer take that into account.

This is basically how war works. And self defense. Once you know the guy in front of you is going to kill someone (you, namely), then one body is already on its way to the bag, and you have to choose between a murderer and a victim. Pre-made, pre-heated, ready-to-eat decision.

Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"

You: "No"

Him: "You testified that you knew that pulling the lever would switch the train to the track that Joe was tied helplessly to, didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "You did pull the lever didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "The train switched tracks because of that didn't it?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "Joe the plumber is now dead because of what you did; Isn't he?"

You: "No."

Him: "Isn't he?"

You: "No. Joe was dead when I arrived there."

Him: "He was breathing and screaming for help"

You: "There's nothing anybody could have done"

Him: "You could have left the switch alone"

You: "You are suggesting more death would serve a purpose?"

<objection, yes or no!>

You: "Yes, I could have killed more people."

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

This scenario was an interesting read but I see it different. In the case of a healthy patient that the doctor

This much harder or much easier, depending on situation. In theory, a doctor has to do no harm. As long as the damned organ hoarder keeps breathing, there's nothing TO do, as a doctor is not allowed to kill under any circumstances.

However, I'm pretty sure there are rules to obey, guidelines set by the medical community much like the military. I don't know which they are, but a doctor working the emergency in a hospital ready for such a large transplant operation would.


You're a doctor and you have a dying patient. This patient is dying from something operable

Then tough luck. Just because someone ELSE is dying doesn't mean you can harvest me. Now if I couldn't be saved, we discuss. If I can, then no, you can't kill me.

This would mean that you can't go to a hospital because if some dolt was riding a tandem bike and they both cracked their heads I might just be harvested. Who would go to such a hospital?

The 5 other patients surgeries are easier, higher chance of success, and you can do all 5 surgeries before they die.

If I decide to sacrifice myself for 5 others, fine. But each patient that comes to a hospital has its own case, unrelated to others. I can't be going there for a radiography and get tackled down and harvested because, you know, you kind of needed it.

The original patient's surgery is complicated, takes many hours, and by the time you were done doing that surgery all the other patients would be dead.

This happens all the time. You don't hack other people apart to save them.

Let the original patient die

IMO, if you are a doctor and you let someone die for organs, you should be dragged out to a garbage dump and shot. Malpraxis is for those that may redeem themselves. (Dawn of War 40k)

This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.

Not to me. In the train scenario, one of them is inoperable and WILL die. If there's a change that the train would derail, then the plot thickens. A 20% chance of derailment on the 5-people carpool suicide lane would kind of make things difficult. I'd still pull it.

Man that's a large post.

[fixerdave]

...I disagree with your last summation tho.. I really don't think the correct solution is to allow people to separate themselves from the decision. That is one of the leading reasons why so many people are after scapegoats when sh** goes wrong instead of taking personal responsibility for their action.

The individual should be made to choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice. A choice without consequence, or no choice at all, are bad solutions.

This can go off in all kinds of directions, as philosophy is want to do, so I'll leave most it with this: when "what is" is different than what you proscribe, it's interesting go work back through your assumptions to see where things change course. That's the moral patient verses moral agent stuff, and even farther up the line.

Where I'd like to go with this is related to the: "instead of taking personal responsibility for their action" part. I think people should not be forced to take personal responsibility, they should be allowed to. Why? Because taking responsibility is an extremely powerful thing to do. It separates the winners from the losers.

Responsibility and control are two sides of the same coin. If you are in control of something, you are responsible for the outcome. If you have control without responsibility, really bad things can happen... absolute power corrupts absolutely kind of things. Conversely, having responsibility for an outcome that you have no control over is also likely to generate poor results, not least of which is letting the real controlling person off the hook. Scapegoats, by definition, are people thrust into situations where they have responsibility but no control.

Many people avoid taking responsibility. What they fail to realise is that, at the same time, they are also giving away their control. Blaming other people for your misfortune simply states that they are in control of your life rather than you. Losers do this, over and over again. Winners, on the other hand, take every situation and find places where they can seize responsibility; finding a place to be responsible give a winner a point of control. The more control, the more power people have over their lives.

Demanding a person be responsible is the same as forcing people to be in control. Some (most) people are not ready to be in control of anything - they would prefer that life be something that happens to them rather than something they choose to live. Pushing these people will not benefit society. It is far better to let the masses hide behind bureaucracy and let the leaders (the winners) rise to the top. The people willing, or even seeking, to take responsibility are the ones you want making choices, not some shmuck you force into the position. Until that person comes along, bureaucratic muddling does well enough for societies needs.

Now, to bring this slightly back on topic, I'll add this: In these lose-lose moral situations where applied control, either way, isn't going to produce good results (maybe more or less bad, but not good), what's the point of forcing people to make a rational choice and being responsible for the results? Generally speaking, society doesn't do this.

[ndi]

Well, under US Law, I'd walk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity).

"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"

"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"

a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.

Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.

[fatalsaint]

Well, under US Law, I'd walk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity).

"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"

"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"

a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.

Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.

Wait you confuse me. Under U.S. law you would walk, when U.S. law is the one with the necessity clauses?

Like you said:

The danger outweighed what I did.. 5>1
No reasonable alternative: No time to untie anybody, or stop the train
Ceased to engage: I didn't then go quickly untie and retie the other 5 further down the other track...
Didn't create the situation: I didn't do the tying.

Under that wiki article (and we all know wiki is law) - In US law you would be justified. In English law you would not. So if you're in the *UK* you should walk.... I still personally wouldn't because I'd feel a morale, not legal, obligation but not the point.

ETA: Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law evidently there *is* a law...

[ndi]

No, you confuse me. :)

I thought walking means no guillotine, not walk as in the plank. In which case, in US I'd walk free since Necessity is in US law, meaning I'd have no legal responsibility, with Necessity being my defense.

Now that UK has one, I'd walk there too.

Hmm, that there article is muddier than the English law. Well, if I'd eat Joe the plumber, I'd be in there home free.

--

"Dudley and Stevens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later shortened to just six months in prison."

You can't shorten a death sentence. Wrong typecast.

[CrashandDie]

A philosophy degree and a food-safe certificate makes you qualified to work at MacDonalds.

Spoken like someone who never managed to achieve a complete degree, let alone a PsyD. You'll be allowed to criticise once you've gone through the full education system.

[fixerdave]

Spoken like someone who never managed to achieve a complete degree, let alone a PsyD. You'll be allowed to criticise once you've gone through the full education system.

Nah, the AA was for fun. I'm trained as a technologist (electronics engineering) and have worked in education for near 20 years (where I can take philosophy courses for free). The above was just a spin-off of an old engineering school joke... An engineering graduate will ask "how can I improved this?" A computing graduate will ask "how can I make this run more efficiently?" A business grad will ask "How can I market this better?" A liberal arts grad will ask "do you want fries with that?"

It was a geek joke, no harm intended... My apologies if I stepped on any toes. But, you have to admit, career wise, a degree in philosophy by itself doesn't get you far on it's own these days. Paired with something else, on the other hand, philosophy can add a lot.

[CrashandDie]

A degree in CS won't give you that much anymore either. A lonely degree in anything won't bring you as much as a handful of them.

Degrees are a falacy, and the wrong way to judge people's abilities. In the next 50 years, more people will obtain degrees than since the beginning of popular schooling. This is due to demographics, and cultural changes. This also means that degrees are effectively worthless. You can already see this. When your grandfather came out of school, and he had a degree, he was assured to have a job for as long as he lived. Now, high-school won't even get you into McDonalds.

[fatalsaint]

I thought walking means no guillotine, not walk as in the plank. In which case, in US I'd walk free since Necessity is in US law, meaning I'd have no legal responsibility, with Necessity being my defense.

Yeah I totally got confused. I thought you meant "walk" as in "walk away" from the scenario instead of flipping the switch.

Not walk as in "Not Guilty" in the courts.

I'm all straightened out now :D.

[YoDude]

Yeah I totally got confused. I thought you meant "walk" as in "walk away" from the scenario instead of flipping the switch.

Not walk as in "Not Guilty" in the courts.

I'm all straightened out now :D.

Maybe he would only "walk" if it was cows or personal property tied to the tracks or we were under attack or suttin' :)

Not being a lawyer doesn't mean I haven't studied some in my lifetime. The moral difference is "killing" or "letting" someone die....

As I posted earlier, it's not like these thoughts have never been thunk.

Andreas Teuber, Proffesor of Philosophy at Brandeis proposed that the Nessesity defense could be used in such a case in a book he wrote:

John is the driver of a trolley, whose brakes have failed. On the track ahead of him are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. The track has a spur leading off to the right, and John can turn the trolley onto it. Unfortunately, there is one person on the right hand track. John can turn the trolley, killing the one; or he can refrain from turning the trolley. John elects to turn the trolley onto the right hand track, killing the one person.
Would you defend John on grounds of necessity? Why? If not, why not? In its general form, as stated in the Model Penal Code, the principle appears to involve the making of some sort of a calculation. "Harm to be avoided" has to be calculated and added up and then set against the "[harm] sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged." The principle itself, however, gives little guidance as to how the balance is to be struck or for that matter much guidance as to what weights to assign in the first place. John's trolley dilemma would appear to be fairly uncomplicated in this regard. It would appear to involve the weighing of the loss of five lives against the loss of just one. Is this the choice, are these the alternatives? It would appear that the loss of five lives is worse (would be worse) than the loss of only one life.

But is this the best way to couch the choice? Isn't there another difference between the two alternatives, a difference that might make a difference, that is not captured by describing the alternatives as a chocie between the number of lives lost? If John chooses, for instance, the latter alternative over the former, he actually kills another human being, whereas if he does not turn the trolley he is letting five die. There may be only a small difference in this situation between killing and letting die, but generally we take it to be a difference that makes some moral difference. Does the moral difference between killing and letting die prompt you to give different weights to the alternatives John faces, to assign, for instance, a greater weight to the harm John would cause by turning the trolley onto the right hand track? Does the moral difference in this case between killing and letting die make enough of a difference to effect how, in applying the necessity principle, the balance of relative harms would be (ought to be) struck? The moral difference between killing and letting die would appear to make just this sort of a difference in the following (hypothetical) case:

It should be noted that Teuber also is not a lawyer, although he may have played one on TV. >> http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/bio.html

He is also applying hypothetical law to a hypothetical case where no one is "tied" to the tracks.

And my opinion is not based on law. Besides, didn't someone earlier post that quoting or bringing "laws" into the thread was changing the topic? :p

Back on topic: :)

My opinion is based on my moral belief that "killing" someone is wrong. Period.
Letting someone die is sometimes unavoidable and as a result, it is my belief that it is not even measured on the same moral scale that killing is.

That BTW is my belief, I won't force it on anyone or judge anyone who thinks differently.


If this discussion has sparked anyones interest in exploring this further, you might want to check out >>this<< (http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php) group from the Departments of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine, University of Virginia, and the University of Southern California.

Your participation in their surveys may help in developing new theories on why we do what we do and contribute to ongoing psychological research. (http://www.yourmorals.org/blog/)

[fatalsaint]

My opinion is based on my moral belief that "killing" someone is wrong. Period.
Letting someone die is sometimes unavoidable and as a result, it is my belief that it is not even measured on the same moral scale that killing is.


And I would of course never try and change you. But take the following:

Someone breaks into my home and is holding a gun to my wifes head. I am armed. I can either: Let my wife be executed, or kill the assailant.

I will always choose the latter; and no amount of psychology, philosophy, laws or morality of killing would ever stay my hand to save my wife's life.

Using your definition above that it is always wrong, and always letting someone die is a better option - I should walk away and sacrifice my wife. Won't happen.

However, having said that and under the understanding we'll never agree - I'll still buy you a drink if you come to town ;).

[YoDude]

And I would of course never try and change you. But take the following:

Someone breaks into my home and is holding a gun to my wifes head. I am armed. I can either: Let my wife be executed, or kill the assailant.

I will always choose the latter; and no amount of psychology, philosophy, laws or morality of killing would ever stay my hand to save my wife's life.

Using your definition above that it is always wrong, and always letting someone die is a better option - I should walk away and sacrifice my wife. Won't happen.

However, having said that and under the understanding we'll never agree - I'll still buy you a drink if you come to town ;).

And I will drink that drink under no moral obligation to do so. :D

BTW, I would kill the dude too.
I didn't say I was a wuss. :cool:

[Dak]

Um... I hate to tell you this... but... you're, like, saying your logical thought processes are in line with someone that has a doctorate in philosphy... A philosophy degree and a food-safe certificate makes you qualified to work at MacDonalds.

I've got an AA in philosopy (half a degree - ya, weird, I know) and I'll admit philosophy is fun. But, if philosophy types can outhink 99% of the population, that only proves that thinking is highly overated.

Ya, like, ya, like, ya, like, totally, like, overrated.

Actually, Bill (or is it Ted?), it's more like, y'know, like my thought processes are in line with someone in the upper bounds of the high IQ society. Y'know, where, like, we actually think about the deeper implications of concepts such as "good" and "value" and "rights".

Y'know, like, whatever.

[fatalsaint]

BTW, I would kill the dude too.
I didn't say I was a wuss. :cool:

Which is fine too ;); I was just laying out that I would hold no personal ill will to anyone that has taken the ideal that killing is always wrong - period.

But I am curious now: How is the letting of people die in the first scenario more preferable to killing the one - but the killing the one to save one in this last scenario is the preferable option?

Is it merely that it's now your family in the equation, and you have a separate immeasurable moral duty to your family that outweighs the moral duty you have to strangers... or is that the life you are taking now is the life of the man that is directly responsible of the situation at hand?

In which case - take the first train scenario and picture that the man on the second track is the man that tied everyone (including himself) up... is flipping the switch then the preferable choice?

[Dak]

Fatalsaint - the fallacy lies in asserting that by doing nothing you have somehow stamped your will upon the scenario. This is a grossly unprovable non sequitur. The scenario, as encountered, has nothing to do with you...until you choose to participate. By pulling a lever, you are making the ultimate decision to terminate one life over another.

By what authority do you make this choice? What cosmic gift of perspective grants you the vision to determine the relative value of unknown lives?

[fatalsaint]

By what authority do you make this choice? What cosmic gift of perspective grants you the vision to determine the relative value of unknown lives?

I already addressed that in my first post: No cosmic power of any kind beyond the mathematical numbers that 5 > 1. Saving 4 > losing 1.

In my opinion, by refusing to make a choice, or by walking you are making that choice - and you still share part of the responsibility of the outcome.

I'm not here to say anyone should be prosecuted for making either decision. I don't think either decision is fundamentally wrong. I just know that I would not live with myself or be able to look my children in the eye having known that I "let", "allowed", "chose", or any other word you choose to use - 5 people die; when it was within my power to make that 5, 1.

With power comes responsibility: By the unlucky nature of you being at that spot at that time the power is granted to you to change the scenario, whether you want it or not. How you wield, or don't wield, that power is entirely up to you. But it's on you to live with that choice, as that is what it was.

[Dak]

"By the unlucky nature of you being at that spot at that time the power is granted to you to change the scenario, whether you want it or not"

Religious hocus pocus.

You remain an innocent bystander.


Althought I appreciate your honesty, you are advocating the insidious reasoning of "might makes right".

[Dak]

5 is not necessarily greater than 1.

To think otherwise is a brutal affront to humanity - to suggest that an individual life is only worthy until the mob decides differently.

Those that toy with meting death to others may find it inspiring to consider their ideological bedfellows.....

[Slick]

1.
If the area where the train track switches is a open field(if I can see the group of 5 and the1 person I should be able to see this as well) I'd pull the switch halfway to derail the train. after all the train isn't said to be a passenger train and the conductor and crew would half a higher chance of living then the people tied to the tracks.

2.
I'd go untie the people
3.
I'd go untie the people

:)

[Slick]

No, that complicates the situation. I wouldn't kill anybody actively other than in self defense.
The first situation is relatively simple so you can give a short answer based on math.
But most real situations aren't that simple, so you know something about what happened before and who are the people and else.

I believe most people would apply math if they are forced to give a quick answer on the street. But they are totally disconnected from the situation. This being easily exploitable by warmongers makes it a good choice as propaganda material. :rolleyes:

@ysss: A slight variation. There is a blackbox with 6 people in it. And it has a knob that let's you choose how many people it kills. It has two settings, 1 and 6 and it's set to 6. Do you change it to 1? :D
i would unplug the box then let everyone out

[Slick]

I would consider this one to be a closer analogy:

You're a doctor and you have a dying patient. This patient is dying from something operable but totally unrelated to his organs (at least, the ones needed below). The surgery for this is extremely difficult and time consuming.

5 others come in from a bus wreck or whatever. All of them require a different organ, and by the light of god, the original dying patient is a matching donor for all other patients.

The 5 other patients surgeries are easier, higher chance of success, and you can do all 5 surgeries before they die.

The original patient's surgery is complicated, takes many hours, and by the time you were done doing that surgery all the other patients would be dead.

You are the only doctor within a time-allowable distance to perform any of the 6 different surgeries.

What do you do? Let the original patient die for the organs - after all, you didn't poison him or make him sick? Or save the original patient and let the 5 die while you're in surgery?

This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.

I would check his id first to see if he's a donor, if so I'd tell him the situation and ask him if he wanted me to save him or the people. If he's not a donor then I'd operate on him.

[ndi]

"By the unlucky nature of you being at that spot at that time the power is granted to you to change the scenario, whether you want it or not"

Religious hocus pocus.

You remain an innocent bystander.


a) i see zero religion. Power being granted onto one is realistic and legal. Looking at and issue from one angle only and dismissing it as bogus is the best and fastest way to ignore an issue.

b) By your measure of an innocent bystander, if I work at a hole in the street and you see a preoccupied driver flooring it towards me you will say nothing, since you are an innocent bystander. You are legally and morallly obligated to yell or push in any way you can, short of endangering yourself.

Innocent bystanding is for people who were there and could do nothing, like in a drive-by. If you could do something and you didn't just because, you might and should be responslible.

Standard N900 post appoligies.

[ndi]

I would check his id first to see if he's a donor, if so I'd tell him the situation and ask him if he wanted me to save him or the people. If he's not a donor then I'd operate on him.

If he agrees there's no moral dilemma. You might be legally responsible for assisted suicide.

[festivalnut]

i had written an extremely long, drawn out and detailed reply, (which was perfect, infallible, and it would work...) but pressed previous thread with my fat thumbs, (... but the earth was destroyed before she could get to a telephone and tell anyone.) i cant be bothered typing it all again so heres the bullet points-

1. why is everyone suddenly debating the legality? in this situation the legal consequences wouldn't even come to my mind, save the five, any procurator with common sense wouldn't even take it o court anyway.

2. the opinion of my peers however would bother me (no i'm not tagging my torrents with "i let 5 people die to save 1") i couldn't tell my family i walked away and let the 5 die for the sake of killing 1. i couldn't expect my friends to respect me if i told them i'd done that.

3. walking away and absolving yourself of any moral responsibility on the grounds that "well i didn't do anything" to me shows an inhuman detachment bordering on psychotic :P

4. the doctor and military commander analogies aren't as relevant. their professional ethics will have been conditioned. a doctor takes a vow to do no harm and should stick to it. a military commander can kill 600 people from 100 miles away who were completely uinaware before breakfast, and sit down to his cornflakes thinking its a good start to the day.

[fatalsaint]

5 is not necessarily greater than 1.

To think otherwise is a brutal affront to humanity - to suggest that an individual life is only worthy until the mob decides differently.

Those that toy with meting death to others may find it inspiring to consider their ideological bedfellows.....

I actually would claim the opposite.

To say that 1 life is worth 5 is a brutal affront to humanity. Life should be equal.

As I said previously, no one life is any more or less than any one other life - even if you compare a sociopath to a scientist or great historical figure. They are both still equal.

The instant you have more than 1 life at risk for 1 life; the logical solution is to save as many as possible greater than 1.

Logic of course plays no part if you happen know any of the people; because there is no getting around the human factor that your family or friends are going to hold a higher value to you than random strangers. However, that still doesn't make the decision to save your wife and letting hundreds die (as an example) - the right decision. It does, though, make it an understandable one.

It would not be understandable to me if you were somehow in the position to save a hundred lives from a bomb or something else at great risk to a single someone else; and you just walked away deciding "not your business" because you didn't know anybody.. why should you care?

However, I wouldn't agree with anyone trying to say that you had a legal requirement to do anything.. I just personally think you should have a moral obligation too. *shrug*

[Texrat]

It's easy to indulge options in a forum discussion, but odds are in real life a person faced with these immediate choices would suffer analysis paralysis.

[fatalsaint]

It's easy to indulge options in a forum discussion, but odds are in real life a person faced with these immediate choices would suffer analysis paralysis.

This is possible. Especially someone that has never faced life or death situations before.

ETA: Also, one thing you learn about situations like this is the more you talk about it and think about possibilities of situations you are to be and decide before-hand your stance.. the easier it is to make a decision in those situations. So these kinds of debates *are* actually useful.

[gobuki]

i would unplug the box then let everyone out

Gobuki rolls the dice...

You walk around the box to find the power cord. ...
You stumble over it. After picking yourself up you try to pull the plug, but it doesn't move. Apparently you are to weak. While you recognize it, you notice a crushing sound.


That was no option. :D

[Dak]

I find these debates to be profoundly non-useful in and of themselves, but they do reveal much about the way we discipline our thinking.

Firstly, to force the issue, these "thought experiments" tend to have to warp reality to the point where they are absurd - the idea that there are only two choices, frex...there is always scope for choice with free will.

I'm the kind of guy that does lean towards helping people if I can, but not at the expense of my life or those of others I care about. I carry a gun for self defense, and would use it to defend an unknown woman from violent assault, but I wouldn't use it to intervene in some gangbangers conflict.

What I see of interest here is the way many people are conditioned to follow the life-evaluating calculus of "more = better". Why is it better to save 5 rather than 1? Why isn't it just as immoral to condemn 1 to death as it is 5? How do you 'value' human life, after all?

If I know none of the victims, they are literally of no 'value' to me at all. The world will continue turning after their death, my life will go on undisturbed. In fact, there is an argument to suggest that there is greater 'value' in letting 5 die to reduce competition for resources.

Concepts such as "value" and "worth" are very treacherous things at times.

[dkwatts]

What I see of interest here is the way many people are conditioned to follow the life-evaluating calculus of "more = better". Why is it better to save 5 rather than 1? Why isn't it just as immoral to condemn 1 to death as it is 5? How do you 'value' human life, after all?

There has to be a tipping point: 5-to-1, 10-to-1, 1000-to-1, etc.

My tipping point for the lever? ~100-to-1 lives saved.

[Slick]

If he agrees there's no moral dilemma. You might be legally responsible for assisted suicide.
they would have to prove that while I was stabilizing the other 6 people and he passed that I killed him or assisted him in dying. Kind of impossible.

[RevdKathy]

On reflection, I'd rather be haunted by one angry ghost than five... is that relevent?

[Slick]

Gobuki rolls the dice...

You walk around the box to find the power cord. ...
You stumble over it. After picking yourself up you try to pull the plug, but it doesn't move. Apparently you are to weak. While you recognize it, you notice a crushing sound.


That was no option. :D

so now not only is the scenario dictated, my actions in reaction to the ordeal is being dictated ? I'd consider that more of a short story and not a moral dilemma.

[Texrat]

so now not only is the scenario dictated, my actions in reaction to the ordeal is being dictated ? I'd consider that more of a short story and not a moral dilemma.

/me votes gobuki out of Heaven and restores the natural order.

[geneven]

In actual fact, now that I think of it, if I were faced with any situation remotely like any of those mentioned, I have no idea how I would respond and I wouldn't want to commit myself in advance to act logically. I'm sure I'd regret any decision I made.

[Texrat]

^ what he said

[CrashandDie]

is that relevent?

Dunno, but it definitely is relevant.

[fixerdave]

... the doctor and military commander analogies aren't as relevant. their professional ethics will have been conditioned....

Yes, the people likely to be put in these decisions have already been prepared, prepared to the point where they aren't even making moral decisions anymore. Doctors doing mass-casualty triage aren't going to be debating ethics, they're just going to follow accepted process. Society does not expect untrained people to make these decisions either, as most of us would either freeze or run around trying to save everyone, even if it's logically impossible. When there was no time left to think, we'd just go on instinct. This is, of course, a descriptive analysis.

If you take the other approach and try to derive a proscribed solution, what we should do, then it becomes an analysis of underlying values. I suppose this is the whole point of the exercise. Do you value 5 lives over 1, decisive action over passive acceptance? Who should benefit from your moral choices: people, animals, society? A person that valued all life equally could justifiably argue that saving 5 dogs warrants killing 1 person, though probably not in a human law court. If 2 reasonable people come to different conclusions, then there's some underlying difference in values that accounts for this. An Afghan warrior and a Wall-St. businessman are probably going to come to significantly different conclusions. Of course, I'd say both were horribly wrong :)

[YoDude]

i had written an extremely long, drawn out and detailed reply...

3. walking away and absolving yourself of any moral responsibility on the grounds that "well i didn't do anything" to me shows an inhuman detachment bordering on psychotic :P



That's why you need to smoke a joint.

Drug induced psycosis. :)

***

This isn't a test and it is not based on any known reality. So judging people based on their response is just as foolish as the response may seem.

Commanders and Physicians aren't trained on how to handle situations like this because they never exist. You are never given or can process information so detailed and so specificbefore being required to make such a decision.

The fact is most people will do all they can to save everyone they perceive to be in danger and as a result any value decision will be made at the last possible moment and at that time it will be instinct or rote that determines the outcome. The details usually come after the fact just as we can change the moral balance after the fact with various what ifs like "What if your wife was the one person on that track. Would you still save the other 5?"

In the reality of a situation like this no one is asking you anything. You do the best you can and what you think at the time, is the right thing to do.

Human beings are capable of so much and their response in times like these is unpredictable and often surprising. People have taken a bullet for a stranger of covered an explosive with their own body in order to save others.

However, if someone requires you to answer how you would respond before such a situation occurs, you should look them square in the eye and say: "Either light up or leave me alone, dude." :eek:

[festivalnut]

That's why you need to smoke a joint.

Drug induced psycosis. :)

***


are you suggesting i'd encroach on psychology without sufficient tokage? duuuuuuude! i aint bailing out planes without my parachute!

[Lazarpandar]

Not Saving =/= Killing

If I don't interfere my hands are clean and so is my conscience.

[ndi]

they would have to prove that while I was stabilizing the other 6 people and he passed that I killed him or assisted him in dying. Kind of impossible.

You think they'd notice the strangle marks, the unnecessary surgery and the fact that he's missing 5 vital organs. And then there's the surveillance cameras they likely use to keep mal praxis suits away.


To say that 1 life is worth 5 is a brutal affront to humanity. Life should be equal.

Ahem. 2 lives are equal in the eyes of the law because law is blind and meant to work in all circumstances. But given a choice between using train with criminal or using train with Einstein, well, basically criminal burgers.

I don't know how many people are worth an Einstein. Or what kind of people.

As I said previously, no one life is any more or less than any one other life

Maybe in the eyes of the law. No, wait, law says if you choose, choose the murderer over the police officer, over the victim, basically if you hold a gun at someone you just moved yourself to the top of the list.

Also, during a high-risk arrest, raid, etc, I strongly recommend you don't even POINT a gun at an officer or hostage. You might just forfeit your right to live.

Then who? Religion? How do I put this so I don't get dragged into a religion dispute?

I don't. I don't have to.

Personal morality, maybe. Of a few select people. Not that I know any. Really. I don't know anyone who would choose a stranger over an important to them person.

However, I wouldn't agree with anyone trying to say that you had a legal requirement to do anything.. I just personally think you should have a moral obligation too. *shrug*

But you do, under many legislations. Which, to me, is silly, if well intended. I really, REALLY don't want the first person to see something to immediately intervene with deadly force.

This is why I disagree with the duty of all drivers to know and apply first aid in a car crash. I might have something broken and dolt #32184 thinks they should raise my feet. Keep off and call an ambulance. I'd bet a large sum of money not 50% of drivers that had mandatory courses could make a good decision.

I agree with the rest though.


Someone breaks into my home and is holding a gun to my wifes head. I am armed. I can either: Let my wife be executed, or kill the assailant.


This is not only legal, but frankly, if it weren't, I couldn't care less.

In this situation, all other moral and legal directives have been rescinded.


1. why is everyone suddenly debating the legality? in this situation the legal consequences wouldn't even come to my mind, save the five, any procurator with common sense wouldn't even take it o court anyway.


Because legality is not an invention, but a derivative. Law, when designed the first time, embedded local law, local custom, morality, religion, common practice, as well as ideals, wishes, etc.

This became the basis of law, it's not a coincidence that most of the commandments were translated into law. And it's not coincidence that ideals were translated into first books for several people (If you think first books were given, I'm cool with that, I won't try to convince you, don't try to convince me).

Law is basically what people have accepted to be correct and moral. Some of the laws have since evolved and were expanded to include other activities for which no morals were defined, or were adjusted for new morality.

Additionally, I'm in Romania and, like most of Europe and some of the world we base out system in Roman Law. This works quite differently from Common law in US and UK. Yet I made reference to it because Common law is directly adjusted by historic references to other cases. These cases are decided by a jury in most cases (judge can overrule) and the decision of people is basically a reflection of morality.

Our law system is similar in form, but since it's not obtained directly by morality of the many, I skipped it.

The reason why I brought up law is because in most cases law is nothing but pre-made decision, since one, as a citizen, is expected to adjust his actions according to it, bypassing personal morality or upbringing. IMO it's one of they few arguments when it comes to opinions on morality. Having the same direction as the law means in most cases having the direction of the masses.


3. walking away and absolving yourself of any moral responsibility on the grounds that "well i didn't do anything" to me shows an inhuman detachment bordering on psychotic :P

Agreed. Perhaps with less strong words, but yes, if anyone would look me in the eye and say that "yes I let them die. What, move a muscle and save them?" I'd have the urge to strangle.

And detachment is not what I find infuriating. What I find infuriating is that someone values a concept like personal content with oneself rank above 4 lives.

So, what, now that I'm dead along with my family you can sleep soundly at night? Who equates life to feelings? Is that what's keeping people from killing each other? A good night sleep?

a military commander can kill 600 people from 100 miles away who were completely uinaware before breakfast, and sit down to his cornflakes thinking its a good start to the day.

If he's good. :)

[fatalsaint]

You and I don't really disagree, per se, ndi; except that I am thinking at an objective level.

As I said before; nothing makes Bundys life inherently "less" than Einsteins life. 1==1.

Now, as I said before, we are all human and add a personal weight to the equation. And that is a point in which every individual decides for themselves who is more or less important. (IE: A child over an adult? A woman over a Man? A pregnant woman over ... etc.)

[attila77]

Fatalsaint - the fallacy lies in asserting that by doing nothing you have somehow stamped your will upon the scenario. This is a grossly unprovable non sequitur. The scenario, as encountered, has nothing to do with you...until you choose to participate.

If you did nothing BY CHOICE, then it WAS your will. Your argument is faulty in terms that in that case even if there was NO person tied to the alternate track, it's still cool not to flip the switch. The scenario, as encountered, has nothing to with you...until you choose to participate, right ? The moral dilemma stems from you WANTING to interfere and help people but being forced in a choice while doing that.

By what authority do you make this choice? What cosmic gift of perspective grants you the vision to determine the relative value of unknown lives?

I can do better than that ! By what authority, cosmic gift or perspective did you choose chicken over beef, or brokkoli over carrots for your last meal, actively contributing to the overall death toll of that species ? You could have done nothing and no life would have ended !

[davbost]

Pray to God for help. There is nothing you can do alone.

[jerryfreak]

honestly if the guy is fat enough to stop a train, theres no way i can push him

[attila77]

To think otherwise is a brutal affront to humanity - to suggest that an individual life is only worthy until the mob decides differently.

And one last thing - you’re mixing two questions into one. The question of (in)action consequences, and the question of comparing values like lives, that are NaN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NaN) by definition.

This alone makes the morality dispute problematic. Let me suggest another scenario for your morality test. You had five people on the tracks, one in a runaway accelerating train, and have a choice of switching to an alternate track and/or triggering the brakes (for which you KNOW it will late for the people on the track or to stop the train from falling in to the abyss). Thus choices would be a) flip switch so train goes into an abyss, the people on the tracks live, b) hit the brakes, person on the train lives, or c) do nothing and everybody dies.

Surely letting everybody die is not less an affront to humanity than the other two choices ?

[ndi]

Pray to God for help. There is nothing you can do alone.

Ha. Every time I hear that I remember this sort of joke I heard a while ago. I don't think it's a joke.

There was this God-fearing farmer that lived all his life under strict prayer and obeying all the rules, etc. You know, Flanders.

One day a flood came. Farmer took refuge on the roof of the house and looked up, saying "OK, God, I've been nice all my life, you owe me one, save me".

Nothing happened. No light, no intervention, nothing.

He still believed.

A rescue worker came by in a boat, offering a ride. "No," he said, "God will save me". Later, another boat. "No", he said. Then another boat. "Last chance" said the army man. "No, God will save me, I have no doubt".

Flood came, he died.

Up in Heaven, at the gates, Flanders was definitely irked. "Dude," he said, "what gives? All my life, dedicated, all I did, you let me die?".

"Hmmm," mutters God, picking up a dusty book and flipping pages. "Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. The book says I sent you three boats."

--

So yes, I can't wait till you're at judgment day and you hear "Dude, I have no idea what you're all about. It says here you had a SWITCH."

[Flandry]

My girlfriend used to ask me all kinds of questions like this, and i would tell her "It's a hypothetical situation. Nobody really knows how they would act until they are in that situation."

Then she would go on to make it an impossible question to answer by putting herself into it as a possible victim, whereupon i would infuriate her by repeating myself. In all honesty i couldn't say anything different, but it ceased to become worth the dramatics that then ensued...

So, there is one hypothetical question i can answer: if your significant other takes offense at honesty, would you leave her?

[festivalnut]

My girlfriend used to ask me all kinds of questions like this, and i would tell her "It's a hypothetical situation. Nobody really knows how they would act until they are in that situation."

Then she would go on to make it an impossible question to answer by putting herself into it as a possible victim, whereupon i would infuriate her by repeating myself. In all honesty i couldn't say anything different, but it ceased to become worth the dramatics that then ensued...

So, there is one hypothetical question i can answer: if your significant other takes offense at honesty, would you leave her?

my EX once asked me if she was the best i'd ever slept with...

i replied honestly...

[ndi]

So, there is one hypothetical question i can answer: if your significant other takes offense at honesty, would you leave her?

D-cup.

padpadpad

[ndi]

In all fairness, she knows by now I'm gonna be honest so she gets what she asked. In time she learned to never ask what she doesn't want to hear.

Got me rid of those pesky "do you still love me" questions, too. Brutal honesty is the best thing. I really, really wish I could be 100% honest more of the time. But I have to work somewhere, so, I'm sweetened-honest. With a degree in business and a nice engine under the cranium I can weasel my way out of most stuff without lying.

Also, off topic, so, that's it for me.

[fatalsaint]

So yes, I can't wait till you're at judgment day and you hear "Dude, I have no idea what you're all about. It says here you had a SWITCH."

When I heard this story it was presented as "The moral of this story is: God helps those that help themselves."