welshbairn Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Would anyone pull the lever if it meant you would die and the 5 would be saved? Or pull the lever to save yourself and kill the 5? Wonder if you'd get done for murder with the latter option.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 There's another version of 2 where it's a railway trolley rather than a full train, and you're standing on a bridge over the line next to a fat man. If you push the fat man over the bridge onto the line his body will derail the trolley and save the 5 lives.Most people would pull the lever but not push the fat man off the bridge, although the dilemma is the same. They are slightly different. I would feel morally ok with pulling the lever but I wouldn't feel it was morally acceptable to push the fat man onto the tracks, even if ultimately the consequences are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Would anyone pull the lever if it meant you would die and the 5 would be saved? Or pull the lever to save yourself and kill the 5? Wonder if you'd get done for murder with the latter option.. That's a better (ie harder) question than the poll one poses. I think most would like to think they'd do the heroic thing and save fives lives by sacrificing their own, but in practice I think it'd be hard to literally throw yourself under a train to save five strangers, especially if, as the scenario seems to imply, you'd have time to think before acting. Maybe just me, but I'm more likely to put myself in harm's way if I don't stop to think about it first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 That's a better (ie harder) question than the poll one poses. I think most would like to think they'd do the heroic thing and save fives lives by sacrificing their own, but in practice I think it'd be hard to literally throw yourself under a train to save five strangers, especially if, as the scenario seems to imply, you'd have time to think before acting. Maybe just me, but I'm more likely to put myself in harm's way if I don't stop to think about it first. I'd like to think I might do it if it was a group of school kids, but if was a bunch of French tourists, fcuk em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon EF Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 1. If I had kids I'd stay with them but I don't. If I was the one that couldn't swim there's no way I'd let any of may family stay with me to die so I'd swim for it. But only if death was certain for everyone if I stayed. If I could try and help any of them but increase my personal risk, I'd do it. 2. Easy. Pull the lever. Even though I'm taking an action, everyone involved is basically just in the wrong place at the wrong time, it's dumb luck. Taking the action that causes less loss of life is best. 3. Don't harvest the organs. Similar to number 2 but illness is different to dumb luck and the traveler isn't in the wrong place at the wrong time. You're actively putting him there. Results are similar to number 2 but I'd take the other decision this time. Couldn't harvest the traveler's organs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deeboy Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Of course the traveller is in the wrong place at the wrong time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I think these examples highlight some of the problems with consequentialism. Very few people would think it justified to murder the traveller to save the ill people, though a utilitarian would potentially be forced to argue that the positive utility of saving the transplant needers outweighs the negative utility of slicing Little Miss Gap Year's organs out, however it still seems morally wrong. The one defence I could think of is that a consequentialist may argue that killing the healthy traveler has implications for the future. If people do not trust doctors not to kill them for their organs then nobody would go to the hospital and more people would end up dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sweet Pete Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I'd like to think I might do it if it was a group of school kids, but if was a bunch of French tourists, fcuk em. Ah, see, you've gone and improved it again. My previous answer was assuming it was a group of adults needing saved through self sacrifice. If it's kids then the self preservation instinct is lessened and it would become a more decidely simple matter of saving them through killing yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlipperyP Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Well well well, what do we have here. I've voted, I'll leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cigarette Smoking Man Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I'd save myself. As for the other two? I couldn't give a toss what happens to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honest_Man#1 Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 That's a better (ie harder) question than the poll one poses. I think most would like to think they'd do the heroic thing and save fives lives by sacrificing their own, but in practice I think it'd be hard to literally throw yourself under a train to save five strangers, especially if, as the scenario seems to imply, you'd have time to think before acting. Maybe just me, but I'm more likely to put myself in harm's way if I don't stop to think about it first. In terms of your last sentence, I defintely agree. If you're just out for a walk or something and someone's about to walk into traffic I'd be much more likely to jump out to try and save them and put my self into danger due to just in the moment not thinking about it. If I knew something like that was going to happen in advance I'm not so sure I'd dive into open traffic to save a stranger knowing that I'd likely be hurt/killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paranoid android Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Are you suggesting Throbber is a preeminent scientist and surgeon? He's not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamieStevenson Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 I for one, never did learn to swim so I imagine I'd have great difficulty with the first scenario. Although if there's ever a time to give it a go it would be then . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Chlamydia Kid Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 1. If it was anyone bar my daughter then I would swim to shore. If I couldn't save my daughter then I wouldn't want to live. 2. Someone is dying regardless of the situation and one family being distraught is not as bad as the 5. 3. Contradictory in light of my last post but just feels ethically wrong to kill someone who is fine to save others who aren't but it is exactly the same as above I suppose, but more premeditated and callous than an under pressure decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Being a fat kunt I'd turn myself into a flotation device, thus saving everykunt. The five people just happened to be wearing green n grey... The young traveler also happened to be wearing green n grey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Venti Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Aren't 2 & 3 the same? Saving the many by killing one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Three questions in poll. Sinking ship 1. You're on a sinking ship/boat with family. There are no lifeboats, no buoyancy devices, no life jackets, and no chance of a rescue party. Shore is a potentially swimmable distance away by your swimming ability. Some family members cannot swim (including a kid if you have kids). Do you swim for shore given you have a decent chance of saving yourself, or share your last dying, terrifying breaths with family (kid(s) if you have any) who cannot swim? Swim for shore. There's no point wasting a life for sentimentality. Runaway train 2. (Known as the Trolley Problem). There is a runaway train barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The train is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the train will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. Do you do nothing, and the train kills the five people on the main track, or pull the lever, diverting the train onto the side track where it will kill one person? It doesn't matter, but if you feel like it, you pull the lever. You weren't culpable for the existence and imminence of the original threat so any action you take in respect of the lever is morally neutral and any decision you take can be motivated by whatever you feel like. If you want to save more lives, cool, pull the lever. Organ transplant 3. 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? You do not support the doctor's intervention. Doctors are put in a position of trust to treat patients as individuals, and they violate that trust when they willingly subordinate an individual against their will to the ends of others. This is different from the trolley problem because no such prior position of trust exists if you find yourself spontaneously at a set of points with a lever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Aren't 2 & 3 the same? Saving the many by killing one. Nah there is a difference, but it's subtle. If we throw in the survival rates for transplant patients then number 3 gets even easier than it already is. Anyone who is murdering the poor fucker is a psychopath. And who the f**k would leave their kids to die? That's not a difficult choice either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dee Man Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Swim for shore. There's no point wasting a life for sentimentality. It doesn't matter, but if you feel like it, you pull the lever. You weren't culpable for the existence and imminence of the original threat so any action you take in respect of the lever is morally neutral and any decision you take can be motivated by whatever you feel like. If you want to save more lives, cool, pull the lever. You do not support the doctor's intervention. Doctors are put in a position of trust to treat patients as individuals, and they violate that trust when they willingly subordinate an individual against their will to the ends of others. This is different from the trolley problem because no such prior position of trust exists if you find yourself spontaneously at a set of points with a lever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmothecat Posted November 11, 2015 Share Posted November 11, 2015 Swim for shore. There's no point wasting a life for sentimentality. Seriously? The thought of my wife not only drowning, but in her last moments of life seeing me leave her to suffer her fate alone is harrowing. I would rather die. Couldn't live with that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.