(May 18, 2016 at 7:27 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Do you see a "should" anywhere in life, or should we just get rid of the word entirely?

Obviously not where some people do, eh?  The world...no, my kids are in it.  People who leap to absurd suggestions about burning the world because someone disagreed with their moral assesment of the trolley problem or it's ability to speak in any meaningful sense to our moralities.....maybe

(May 18, 2016 at 7:27 pm)bennyboy Wrote: You think so?  I know that in a lot of emergencies, dozens of people will stand around with their thumbs up their asses assuming that if nobody else is doing anything, they probably don't need to either.  Meanwhile, women are getting raped, babies are getting burned up in fires, stabbed people are bleeding to death on the street.

I do think so, yeah.  I related a similar experience a few posts back...wherein people just stand there staring what would be, even to them, emergencies. I'm not going to condemn them for it.

Shitty things happen to people, sure..but I don't know that women are getting raped -because people do nothing, that babies are getting burnt up in fires -because people do nothing, or that people are being stabbed and bleed out on the street -because people do nothing-.  Must be some cases like that, but probably not enough consider them representative. I assume that you would also see such a statement to be wildly simplistic.  I also assume that you could come up with examples of bad things happening to people precisely -because- people do something.  Those moral majority types are do-gooders..you know. Military "interventionists"...do-gooders....and how about those honor killings, amiright? All just people trying to do the right thing, as they see it.

In that sense, inaction might be considered a hedge against those -many- moments when our moral intuitions...or appraisals of a situation, are fundamentally flawed by reference to a standard that we have no control over or hand in.

Sacrifice the 5.

Better looting potential.

(May 18, 2016 at 6:44 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(May 18, 2016 at 3:49 pm)Thena323 Wrote: I wouldn't consider my response to be depraved indifference when the ONLY solution afforded to me would be to murder an innocent individual. I would hardly consider the decision to NOT kill a person who is of no threat to anyone, a failure to take 'reasonable' action.

Unless of course, offering human sacrifices is considered a reasonable action.

What if it was between your family and an innocent person?

No. Without having prior knowledge of said dilemma, I honestly don't think offing some guy who just happens to be standing around in order to save a family member would even occur to me. 

I know that I wouldn't expect that any of my family members should up and deliberately kill innocent bystanders because my life is being threatened. I'd actually be quite pissed to discover they'd done something like that on my behalf .

Some people won't be comfortable with committing a murder, in order to avoid a tragedy. More than comfort, some simply couldn;t -bring- themselves to do it..not much choice. I think that's understandable.

In my view, choosing to do nothing isn't a matter of being passive in this dilemma at all. In this hypothetical there's absolutely nothing to be done  save for killing another person; Ending a human life...in apparent attempt to preserve human life. 

That's in no way comparable to turning your speakers up, walking away, or failing to make a phone call.

This hypothetical has been done to death many times.

As has objective morality, evolution and poo. It's very fatiguing....

(May 18, 2016 at 9:22 pm)ignoramus Wrote: This hypothetical has been done to death many times.

As has objective morality, evolution and poo.  It's very fatiguing....

Yeah, but think of the challenge to taking them ALL out!

(May 18, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Some people won't be comfortable with committing a murder, in order to avoid a tragedy.  More than comfort, some simply couldn;t -bring- themselves to do it..not much choice.  I think that's understandable.

I'm pretty certain I could bring myself to murder someone...Just not some poor schmuck who hasn't done anything.

A person whom I knew to be a horrendously, evil fuckwad in the place of the fat man could easily get the switch.
I feel my mind would definitely see an opening there. A little dehumanization, some rationalization...and down the tracks he would go!

In the OP's scenario he's just some guy, though.

If I 100% knew that killing one person would save 5, yes. The first experiment, where you flip a switch is clearer, and easier not only because of the switch, but because it lacks ambiguity. You flip a switch, the train changes tracks. No what ifs.

The problem I've always had with the second is this assumption that a fat guy would stop a train. I know, I know, its a thought experiment. But I simply cannot imagine how I would know the fat guy stops the train, so I have a hard time when I.try and actually imagine myself in the situation. I've never seen a human body stop.a train, even a huge one, have you? I think I also detect some issue with a fat person being worth less because they are fat.

But in scenario 1, where you flip a switch, yes I'm sure I would because even though I'm killing a person, I'm certain that their death actually prevents 5 others. In scenario 2, that is not the case. I always feel like the train will chop up the fat guy and go on to kill the 5 as well. The sentence " and you know his body will stop the train" is meaningless to me, because I know no such thing, whereas I know how train switches work.

If the 5 were Mexicans Drumpf would gladly kill them all.