Old Ethical Dilema

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Switch it is still the only moral answer.

As for the question of whether doing nothing is or isn't moral as discussed by Shauna and MILF, it depends. If you do nothing because you have no knowledge of the situation at hand then sure, you're not responsible. But since the situation presupposes that you are aware, doing nothing is still a choice being consciously made. Doing nothing is choosing to let five people die rather than minimizing the casualties and killing one. You may not have set events in motion, but you chose not to save four people when you had the power to do so.

Not a good choice.

---

I do not think it is so simple. You are still condemning a life. Just because you saved five lives doesn't take away that one was sacrificed. I see the logic of it, do not get me wrong, but I cannot agree with it. I think that both options are horrible. I refuse to accept that there is only one "moral" answer because I refuse to accept a utilitarian notion of justice or ethics. At best, I can see that one choice is less problematic/more pragmatic than another, but I would not say that either choice is morally "right". Moreover, the question itself reduces a human life to simple mathematics to the point it is a stand-in for an abstract notion of life. Saying to save five at the sacrifice of one life is the only moral choice feels more like an absolution to the fact that someone was killed. It seems to take away from the gravity of the fact that someone had to die and the responsibility towards that life.

All in all, I always found this problem deeply troubling and have conflicting views on it.

Honestly I'm trying to figure out a way to save all 5 by sacrificing myself. Doesn't seem to be an option though.

Like TSoL said, this really is a big moral dilemma. It's very easy to pick the sacrifice one for the good of the many as the better option, but things are more complicated than that. What if that one person would go on to save many more lives and the others wouldn't?

More so though, it is easy to sacrifice one if that isn't a person you know or are close to. It gets much more complicated if it was like "Theyre are 5 people. You can save 4 by killing one. That one is your son." I know that saving 4 lives is generally the better option, but I mean, that's my son. And that one person who get sacrificed, who knows who that person is or how they influence the lives of others. If someone killed my son to save four people, I won't be able to look at it rationally, I'll just be all "wtf you killed my son that's not fair why did it have to be my son of all people why is" yada yada.

I would chose to save 4 people because 1 death is better than 5 theoretically, but I would be miserable for the rest of my life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

I do not think it is so simple. You are still condemning a life.

---

You're not condemning a life actually. Assuming the two possibilities detailed in the questions are the only ones, one person is condemned already. Your choice is whether you'll save four or let four die.

Quote:

---

Just because you saved five lives doesn't take away that one was sacrificed. I see the logic of it, do not get me wrong, but I cannot agree with it. I think that both options are horrible. I refuse to accept that there is only one "moral" answer because I refuse to accept a utilitarian notion of justice or ethics.

---

Of course both choices are awful because someone dies either way. but you're looking at it as choosing to kill someone. This is incorrect since you have no choice in whether or not someone dies. The only choice you have to make is whether or not to save four people. And I can't see any argument for how, given what we know, choosing not to save four people isn't better than choosing to save one. You can talk about wanting to refuse to accept a utilitarian notion of ethics, but what you want to accept isn't really that relevant. You either save four people or you save one. We can sit around talking about the value of even a single human life until the cows come home, but with no other information, saving four is a better choice than saving one when either outcome is guaranteed.

Quote:

---

At best, I can see that one choice is less problematic/more pragmatic than another, but I would not say that either choice is morally "right". Moreover, the question itself reduces a human life to simple mathematics to the point it is a stand-in for an abstract notion of life. Saying to save five at the sacrifice of one life is the only moral choice feels more like an absolution to the fact that someone was killed. It seems to take away from the gravity of the fact that someone had to die and the responsibility towards that life.

---

I don't see how acknowledging that saving four people instead of saving one is the better choice somehow takes away from the gravity of a single human death. A single death is still awful and always will be. But one death is preferable to five every time given no other information. And as much as you may find reducing the choice of how many people to save to simple mathematics appalling, it's far from the sort of thing that's unheard of in the real world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shion

It's very easy to pick the sacrifice one for the good of the many as the better option, but things are more complicated than that. What if that one person would go on to save many more lives and the others wouldn't?

---

I generally dislike things like this. Sure, it's interesting to consider the possibilities of the different choices we make, but such possibilities aren't relevant since they require a perfect knowledge of all potential futures to ever be relevant in the real world. Interesting things to think about, but if we spent all of our time thinking about what may or may not happen as a result of our immediate decisions we'd never make any. The person working the cash register at the grocery store might turn out to be the next Hitler. Doesn't mean I kill them on the off chance, and it would have no bearing on a decision to save them if a car were about to run them over.

Fact is, we'll never know things like that, so the only moral choice to be made is to preserve as many lives as possible. And it is the only moral choice because it is the least awful choice we can make.

I understand what you're saying, Vivi. Its just hard to not think about those things given the gravity of the situation. Considering the type of person I am, I act very quickly and calmly under pressure, which I guess is good for being a mother, but it surprises me because I'm not that type of person at all. So I'm pretty sure in the situation I would make the switch without sitting there pondering it before its too late. But I do know myself well enough to know that afterwards I would constantly be thinking about that stuff. I'm not as stable of a person to just say "I saved four, its what I had to do" my brain would always be wondering what I could have done differently, was there any way to save them all, did I do the right thing. That's why I said I would be miserable for ever afterwards. Its an awful thing to live with either way, because my brain wouldn't be saying "you svaed four people" it would be saying "you killed someone".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

You're not condemning a life actually. Assuming the two possibilities detailed in the questions are the only ones, one person is condemned already. Your choice is whether you'll save four or let four die.

---

One person or five are already condemn, unless you want to consider the person who may or may not pull the lever as the condemn. Otherwise, by saying one person was condemned already is to state that the single person was going to die. Also, you are still participating in such a scheme since accordingly, it is your decision that is decisive. Therefore, even though there are lives that are already condemn you still make the choice of who survives. It is inescapable. Either way you participate in killing someone. Though I do blame the orchestrator of the whole thing to be at fault but that's going outside of the box, isn't it?

Also, if you hold that the only moral answer to this question is to kill the one person, and you are a moral person, then choice is an empty word. While you could say that the moral person could have chosen otherwise, by the very nature of them being moral and the "only moral answer" being to kill the one person, they do not have the freedom to choose.

Quote:

---

Of course both choices are awful because someone dies either way. but you're looking at it as choosing to kill someone. This is incorrect since you have no choice in whether or not someone dies. The only choice you have to make is whether or not to save four people. And I can't see any argument for how, given what we know, choosing not to save four people isn't better than choosing to save one. You can talk about wanting to refuse to accept a utilitarian notion of ethics, but what you want to accept isn't really that relevant. You either save four people or you save one. We can sit around talking about the value of even a single human life until the cows come home, but with no other information, saving four is a better choice than saving one when either outcome is guaranteed.

---

This is mostly just semantical footwork to explain the situation in a more positive fashion. It is just like good marketing. It doesn't change the fact of the situation, but makes one look more appealing than the other. Saying you are "saving five lives" instead of killing one, merely brings to the fore the rescue and puts the death to the background. I would rather say that no single life is more important than another. Moreover, it is hard to say that five are necessarily more important than one. Abstractly, without reference to the character of the individual, I have a hard time to accept that fives lives are greater than one. I can see problems with such a statement, problems that I haven't quite resolved myself but I also think the solution lies in my own understanding of the world and the impossibility to measure the value of a life. Five impossible to measure lives do not necessarily outweigh or balance one immeasurable life.

Quote:

---

I don't see how acknowledging that saving four people instead of saving one is the better choice somehow takes away from the gravity of a single human death. A single death is still awful and always will be. But one death is preferable to five every time given no other information. And as much as you may find reducing the choice of how many people to save to simple mathematics appalling, it's far from the sort of thing that's unheard of in the real world.

---

Saying that it is the only morally right action does. It justifies killing someone. I find it very hard to justify killing someone. Moreover, by spinning it as "saving five lives" you are putting the fact that someone dies, and is essentially killed since your actions killed them, to the background. While it doesn't change the someone dies, it mutes it and distance it.

Yes, in the real world this does happen. Doesn't mean I like it either. Moreover, it is a thought experiment so a bit of idealism is allowed, or so one would think.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Of course both choices are awful because someone dies either way. but you're looking at it as choosing to kill someone. This is incorrect since you have no choice in whether or not someone dies. The only choice you have to make is whether or not to save four people. And I can't see any argument for how, given what we know, choosing not to save four people isn't better than choosing to save one. You can talk about wanting to refuse to accept a utilitarian notion of ethics, but what you want to accept isn't really that relevant. You either save four people or you save one. We can sit around talking about the value of even a single human life until the cows come home, but with no other information, saving four is a better choice than saving one when either outcome is guaranteed.

---

This is mostly just semantical footwork to explain the situation in a more positive fashion. It is just like good marketing. It doesn't change the fact of the situation, but makes one look more appealing than the other. Saying you are "saving five lives" instead of killing one, merely brings to the fore the rescue and puts the death to the background. I would rather say that no single life is more important than another. Moreover, it is hard to say that five are necessarily more important than one. Abstractly, without reference to the character of the individual, I have a hard time to accept that fives lives are greater than one. I can see problems with such a statement, problems that I haven't quite resolved myself but I also think the solution lies in my own understanding of the world and the impossibility to measure the value of a life. Five impossible to measure lives do not necessarily outweigh or balance one immeasurable life.

---

---

I see what you're trying to say here but it's more than just fancy footwork. We'll use you're own spin and see how it works.

"I saved a life." It's correct, and it would be a positive spin to the fact that by not pulling the switch you let 5 people die. I know it's difficult to put a value on that one life, but it's equally difficult to put a value on the other 5. You say one immeasurable life is difficult to weigh against 5 immeasurable lives, but let's do the classic example of upping the stakes. Switching the track will keep the whole train from derailing, killing 300. Or derailing into a busy metro area, killing thousands. When does it become less of a perfect ideal in your mind versus a sad truth that you must pull the switch? In this case, the best anyone can do is attempt to save as many lives as possible. Inaction doesn't make someone morally correct, it just makes them indecisive and unwilling to accept the situation they've been forced into.

A person may not like it, in fact I hope they wouldn't, but once they are aware of the situation given and aware of the way they can affect that situation they are inextricably involved in that situation. Choosing to not pull the switch doesn't make them uninvolved, it is simply them making the choice to save that one life/kill 5.

Reprogram the simulation to where I have access to the emergency brake stopping the train before the switch point and saving all six people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackmage_nuke

(Particularly for those who said they wouldnt kill anyone in the thread about killing people)

You are on an uncontrollable train headed towards a rail switch. There are five people tied down to one branch of the track and one person tied to the other. You can leave the switch alone and it will kill the five or you can switch the track and it will kill the one. What do you do?

---

You're still not killing anyone. Unless you're the one who caused the train to become uncontrollable in the first place. What you're doing is minimizing casualities caused by a disaster outside of your control.

I would switch it, assuming I could turn on my logic circuits in time, and not just stand by and watch things happen, incapable of making a decision in the heat of the moment. It's not like this is any sort of realistic situation that I have experience with, so who knows what I would have actually done. I can pretend to be Jack Bauer on the internet but I'm not really IRL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToriJ

Reprogram the simulation to where I have access to the emergency brake stopping the train before the switch point and saving all six people.

---

http://blog.richmond.edu/heroes/file...ptain-kirk.jpg

I don't believe in a no-win scenario.

I would switch the track and then probably die trying to save the one person.

I found this interesting variant on Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I Took the Red Pill

I found this interesting variant on Wikipedia:

Quote:

---

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

---

---

Well in this case I can ask his consent and if he says no then the death of the five doesnt rest entirely on my shoulders. Also I could go to jail for pushing the guy. So I'd want to but I probably wouldnt be able to bring myself to do it since it requires more will than flicking a switch

I don't take trains for this very reason.

I would question why anyone would allow me behind the controls of a smurfing train.

It would certainly change Selphie's train song in Final Fantasy 8.

Train, train, take us away...
How many people should I kill today?

Bubba why did you vote to switch it? The only difference between this dillema and the one I argued in the thread about killing someone was that in the other thread the guy on the switched track is the one who sets the train in motion!