RE: #1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"
May 18, 2016 at 9:49 pm
(This post was last modified: May 18, 2016 at 9:50 pm by ErGingerbreadMandude.)
I think this Moral problem really boils down to:
1) Have an indirect hand in saving 5 people but a direct hand in murdering some poor bastard,which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.
2) Have a direct hand in "saving" one person, since you're choosing not to murder the poor dude, but have an indirect hand in murdering 5 people, which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.
So essentially, you can either kill someone but not enjoy the direct benefits of saving 5 others since your involvement is indirect but have to deal with the consequences of your murder anyway since your involvement was direct.
Or,you can "save" a person by choosing not to kill him but have a hand in killing 5 others,although indirectly. In this case however you do not get any backlash for killing 5 others since your involvement was indirect but you'll have satisfaction of mind since you choosing not to kill,ie,"save", the fat dude was direct.
1) Have an indirect hand in saving 5 people but a direct hand in murdering some poor bastard,which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.
2) Have a direct hand in "saving" one person, since you're choosing not to murder the poor dude, but have an indirect hand in murdering 5 people, which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.
So essentially, you can either kill someone but not enjoy the direct benefits of saving 5 others since your involvement is indirect but have to deal with the consequences of your murder anyway since your involvement was direct.
Or,you can "save" a person by choosing not to kill him but have a hand in killing 5 others,although indirectly. In this case however you do not get any backlash for killing 5 others since your involvement was indirect but you'll have satisfaction of mind since you choosing not to kill,ie,"save", the fat dude was direct.