cdowis Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 (edited) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw&index=19&list=RDx86hLtOkou8 Edited June 9, 2018 by cdowis
theplains Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 24 minutes ago, cdowis said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOpf6KcWYyw&index=19&list=RDx86hLtOkou8 I would pull the lever but not push the man off the bridge.
cdowis Posted June 9, 2018 Author Posted June 9, 2018 16 minutes ago, theplains said: I would pull the lever but not push the man off the bridge. Why not?
theplains Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 2 minutes ago, cdowis said: Why not? Pulling the lever is an attempt to spare 5 lives. Pushing the man would seem like an act of murder to spare the 5 lives. If the man asked for help in being pushed off the bridge to save all those people, I would help push him off. Or I would jump off myself. Sometimes a willing sacrifice is required. Maybe the one man on that track would also ask you to pull the lever to save the other 5. If not, I would have to seek the best option to save as most as I could. Even firefighters, hospital workers, and police officers have to make a conscious decision as to whom to save when its not possible to save all in a disaster. 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 Since fate (or God) was obviously in control in each case, one should simply allow fate to control the outcome -- not intervene -- and that is the usual response of humans in the face of such mordant choices. In fact, any such action is likely to bring both criminal charges and civil lawsuits. Good intentions are no excuse. Someone whose responsibility it is to make such decisions (first responders) can apply the principles of triage or of pre-existing rules. Yet, even then, a boss or other highly placed persons may subsequently second-guess the hapless first responder, leading to his getting fired or worse. In some cases, the law requires a response, in which case there may be even more atrocious consequences. 1
MorningStar Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 The five guys on the track should assume a train will come, but the one guy is in an area where a train would not be expected to come. Not fair to kill him to save the 5 dummies. The fat man is standing safely on the bridge instead of on the tracks. Not fair to push him onto the tracks to save the 5 dummies either. Also, I'm pretty sure one fat man would not stop the train and that would mean a dead fat man and 5 dead dummies. I would try my best to yell, "Get off the tracks, dummies!" and then probably watch them die in horror. Then the fat guy would probably have a heart attack while watching it too, but I would do CPR and hopefully he would live. I would be a hero! 2
strappinglad Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 The 5 guys are not stupid. They have no expectation of a train coming as it was a runaway. The idea that a stranger would have the key to the switching level is not likely. As has been said, a fat man would stop a train? Fat chance !. Too many variables. For myself, if possible I would switch the track as that would save 5 guys and give more time to warn the other fellow.
Maidservant Posted June 9, 2018 Posted June 9, 2018 Watch The Good Place on NBC. In Season Two they do the trolley problem. They even draw it into the mid season finale (so tender!), so I'm not going to do a spoiler here.
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Since fate (or God) was obviously in control in each case, one should simply allow fate to control the outcome -- not intervene -- and that is the usual response of humans in the face of such mordant choices. In fact, any such action is likely to bring both criminal charges and civil lawsuits. Good intentions are no excuse. Someone whose responsibility it is to make such decisions (first responders) can apply the principles of triage or of pre-existing rules. Yet, even then, a boss or other highly placed persons may subsequently second-guess the hapless first responder, leading to his getting fired or worse. In some cases, the law requires a response, in which case there may be even more atrocious consequences. If people are about to die and I am considering the potential legal ramifications instead of, you know, trying to save people then I am probably doing it wrong. 3
The Nehor Posted June 10, 2018 Posted June 10, 2018 I like this variant: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives? Is this also an equivalent scenario? 2
Robert F. Smith Posted June 11, 2018 Posted June 11, 2018 20 hours ago, The Nehor said: I like this variant: A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor. Do you support the morality of the doctor to kill that tourist and provide his healthy organs to those five dying persons and save their lives? Is this also an equivalent scenario? Can he get a good price for each organ? Greatest good for the greatest number.
Robert F. Smith Posted June 11, 2018 Posted June 11, 2018 On 6/9/2018 at 10:54 PM, The Nehor said: If people are about to die and I am considering the potential legal ramifications instead of, you know, trying to save people then I am probably doing it wrong. Self-abnegation is a wonderful and admirable thing -- and I will fully support you that endeavor from the sidelines.
Amulek Posted June 11, 2018 Posted June 11, 2018 On 6/9/2018 at 9:59 AM, cdowis said: What would you do? The trolley problem. In the hypothetical, I would probably pull the switch. In the real world however, I would probably do nothing. You know, because in the real world at least one of the guys would see the train coming and warn the others. That's why these lifeboat scenarios are all kind of useless. The way to developing good ethics is to work on being a good person, so that - when presented with a situation - the choice you make will be moral. 1
Recommended Posts