|
Post by Monolith on May 5, 2007 1:01:22 GMT -5
I don't know if 'sacrifice' is a fair term for it. Ultimately, you're given a choice between having one person or five people die. My opinion is that it isn't fair that 4 more people die because you're afraid of dirtying your hands. But another way to think of it is this: You are murdering 1 person and saving 5. That doesn't make the murder right though. If a doctor saved 5 people, that would not allow him to kill someone he didn't like and change his records to say he saved only 4. In the end the two are seperate. I think the doctor example is flawed because the murder was not necessary to save the 5, but I get what you mean. It doesn't make the murder right, but on the other hand letting 5 people just die isn't right either. It's a question of your own values, choosing the lesser of two evils, and whether you're willing to have blood on your hands to save people. In this particular instance, where all 6 people are already initially expecting death, I would still pull the switch. Ultimately, pretty much every one of these philisophical situations are rediculous yes or no questions, and are pretty much just there to make impossible to corectly answer questions to evaluate different philosophical codes, all of which are extremely unadaptable and try to create a single, definate answer where there is never such an ultimate code. I think even most religions call for a small range of adaptability. Of course, I'd say the only ideal answer in such a situation, were any sort of leeway actually allowed in the question's intent, would be to actually leap in front of the train and try to stop it. This is, of course, rediculous, but it's the only option in which you can attempt to save everyone, even if it means self sacrifice.
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 5, 2007 1:10:41 GMT -5
I would kill the lone man.
Whether it is immoral to kill or not, this is the logical choice. As the train runs over the five people, I am responsible because I know that I can save them. That is murder.
One murder is less bad than five.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 5, 2007 2:04:06 GMT -5
I think the doctor example is flawed because the murder was not necessary to save the 5, but I get what you mean. It doesn't make the murder right, but on the other hand letting 5 people just die isn't right either. It's a question of your own values, choosing the lesser of two evils, and whether you're willing to have blood on your hands to save people. In this particular instance, where all 6 people are already initially expecting death, I would still pull the switch. I would be inclined to agree with switching the track too since it was my first reaction to hearing this scenario. It does give the greatest utility with 5 alive at the end rather than 1. I do respect the idea of doing nothing though, since we may not have the moral authority to take a life even if a greater good resulted from it. It seems either choice has its merits. We are assuming that the trolley is empty so no one other than those tied to the tracks are in danger.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 5, 2007 2:07:23 GMT -5
Legally, maybe. Morally -- depends on who you ask. "Philosophical codes"? And here I thought we were discussing ideas regarding a challenging moral conundrum. It's definitely true that the question has no answer, but that's what makes it so much fun! I think I'm the only person who mentioned anything resemblant of a "philosophical code" so far.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 5, 2007 2:42:34 GMT -5
Sorry, the 'codes' I mentioned are outside the current conversation. There are several of these based off the ideas of philosophers. They dictate set rules for approaching any situation. For instance, there is the code (don't remember the name) that says the best way out of any situation is the one with the least loss of life. Then there's the relativism one I'm sure your familiar with. A lot of these situations were created as counter-examples to the internal workings of one code or another, or as ways to test them and explain their differences. Basically what I'm trying to say is I'm not a fan of most philosophy because it tries to force lables and laws on everything that almost always end in failure. I whine and complain about this stuff too much though, I should probably just stay out of these conversations.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 5, 2007 3:02:58 GMT -5
Well, it's still an interesting question. Who cares what philosophers use it for?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 5, 2007 8:42:04 GMT -5
Sorry, the 'codes' I mentioned are outside the current conversation. There are several of these based off the ideas of philosophers. They dictate set rules for approaching any situation. For instance, there is the code (don't remember the name) that says the best way out of any situation is the one with the least loss of life. Then there's the relativism one I'm sure your familiar with. A lot of these situations were created as counter-examples to the internal workings of one code or another, or as ways to test them and explain their differences. Basically what I'm trying to say is I'm not a fan of most philosophy because it tries to force lables and laws on everything that almost always end in failure. I whine and complain about this stuff too much though, I should probably just stay out of these conversations. the question is a tool to let you look at different points of view. I think that the point of questions like this is to show you that here is a case where there are 2 very distinct points of view, with 2 very distinct outcomes. However, both points of view are equally understandable, and, in some ways, morally correct. The point then, is to analyze both sets of choices, and to try and decide why they are both correct, in an effort to better understand how humans make choices, then to decide whether one of the choices is the morally superior outcome.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 6, 2007 12:55:16 GMT -5
Scenario 2: This time there is no one on the second track. If you were to switch the track, it would crash harmlessly into a wall. However this time there is no switch. You do have a really fat man standing next to you. If you were to push him over the bridge onto the tracks, he will stop the trolley with his body, which kills him, but save 5 others. Would you push him over?
If you do not push this time but switched the track the last time, how would pushing him over be any morally different than in the first one?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 6, 2007 15:08:57 GMT -5
It would not be different to me on a moral level, but aesthetically it would be much worse.
I suppose I would have to do it, though.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 6, 2007 15:50:00 GMT -5
In this case, I wouldn't for reasons at which I hinted earlier. The person tied to the tracks is likely already expecting death. The fat man (who would have to be really huge to stop a train) is not. He is also capable of making the decision to jump over the edge himself, though I doubt the question is intended to include this.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 6, 2007 17:00:51 GMT -5
You're assuming I'm strong enough to push said fat man. Tsk tsk. Never underestimate the weakness of scrawny white nerds.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 7, 2007 15:58:26 GMT -5
In this case, I wouldn't for reasons at which I hinted earlier. The person tied to the tracks is likely already expecting death. The fat man (who would have to be really huge to stop a train) is not. He is also capable of making the decision to jump over the edge himself, though I doubt the question is intended to include this. That is a good observation. The man is not directly involved this time around. His death is a deliberate way to stop the train, not an unwanted side effect from switching the rail. This time, it is closer to murder.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 9, 2007 15:29:20 GMT -5
Last Scenario: This time it is back to 1 person and 5 others. However that one person is a loved one as in a girl/boyfriend or a family member. Or what if the 5 people are criminals and those who wronged you and the 1 person is a stranger? Do you still sacrifice one to save 5? Is it okay to think “selfishly” or would that be understandable?
|
|
|
Post by henry on May 9, 2007 16:06:53 GMT -5
The value of the 5 people must be greater than the value of the one person for me to choose them over the one. In other words, no, I would not sacrifice a person who I value for 5 people who I do not.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 9, 2007 20:20:15 GMT -5
I agree with henry.
|
|