#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[Athene]

---

@Thena,  
You're of the opinion that you would prefer to do nothing, right?  

The most fascinating thing about this Morality thought experiment is when you slightly change the variables, it completely changes the scenario.  

What if you had 6 children ,5 of your children are at the tracks and one of your children is the fat man. What would you do then?

Would you kill one of your child to save 5 of yours or would you choose to do nothing and inevitably kill 5 of your children(Although indirectly,but can you live with that?) ?

Morality is fascinating, even more fascinating when your actions will have direct impact on the rest of your life.  :-)

---

No. And I wouldn't be killing my other children by NOT murdering the one; That's not how it works.
The fucked up tracks would be what killed them.

I actually did offer a variable in which I could conceivably kill the fat man in post #38, though. So, perhaps I would if I knew that my son the fat man was a vicious murderer/child molesting sociopath, or something along those lines. My mind would probably be unable to avoid seeing that as 'out'...saving my other children by sacrificing the one that willfully creates chaos and destruction in people's lives. Kind of similar to the scenario in the film "The Good Son".

Otherwise, no.

Bottom line: I'd need a reason to kill someone. A good one.
Killing someone because five people may die as unavoidable consequence of being in the wrong place at the wrong time is just isn't a good reason to decide to take someone's life, IMO. 

Sacrificing my own life is another issue entirely; I've put my life on the line many times in an effort to save others. 
So, I'm not unwilling to do what it takes..But goddamn, I've got to draw a line somewhere.

Murder seems like a reasonable place to start.

[The Valkyrie]

Btw, "Clang, clang, clang went the trolley..." Totally stuck in my brain, now.

[bennyboy]

I don't think a total of five individuals is necessarily sufficient enough to warrant the act of killing an individual in the name of "the greater good".

Tell that to the five families.  The only real issue at stake is you getting to look in the mirror and not see a killer.  You are weighing that value against the value of four human lives.  That you think not flipping the switching absolves you of the guilt of those 5 deaths, though their lives are clearly in your hands, seems inexplicable to me.  It's like you're saying, "La la la people die.  No blood on my hands!"

I care much less about whether I have blood on my hands actively or passively than I care about 5 people I could save.  If I have to burn in psychological torment, constantly dreaming about that poor 1 guy who got smooshed, then it's my duty as a citizen to accept the psychological consequences of my actions and save the 5 anyway.

[Athene]

I don't think a total of five individuals is necessarily sufficient enough to warrant the act of killing an individual in the name of "the greater good".

Tell that to the five families.  The only real issue at stake is you getting to look in the mirror and not see a killer.  You are weighing that value against the value of four human lives.  That you think not flipping the switching absolves you of the guilt of those 5 deaths, though their lives are clearly in your hands, seems inexplicable to me.  It's like you're saying, "La la la people die.  No blood on my hands!"

I care much less about whether I have blood on my hands actively or passively than I care about 5 people I could save.  If I have to burn in psychological torment, constantly dreaming about that poor 1 guy who got smooshed, then it's my duty as a citizen to accept the psychological consequences of my actions and save the 5 anyway.

Wow. Utterly fascinating.

Clearly, you deserve a nomination for Hypothetical Citizen of the Month, then.
Good on you, mate! 

And congratulations!

[bennyboy]

Wow. Utterly fascinating.

Clearly, you deserve a nomination for Hypothetical Citizen of the Month, then.
Good on you, mate! 

And congratulations!

I've risked my own health and safety on several occasions in my life, because I think taking responsibility for the well-being of those around me is one of the most important roles of a good citizen. Not that many years ago, I confronted a Korean gangster (I'm in Korea) who was attacking a woman in a poorly-lit construction site, almost certainly saving her from a beating (I should say, more of a beating, because she was in pretty poor shape already) or worse. I thought I was very likely going to be harmed, but he let her run around behind me and down the street with no shoes, and told me, "No peu-ro-be-lem." I saw at least 3 or 4 people either hanging around watching curiously, or quickly walking past, and I know if I hadn't done anything, nobody else would have. I've also walked into a fairly major fire (whole walls aflame, room filled with smoke, etc.) to check for children in an English school here. My reward was a blackened face, a partly melted shirt (damn poly blends!), and a clean conscience.

So yeah, you can golf-clap all you want, but the choice to serve the greater good, or to take a moral position that lets you slink away in safety with your squeaky-clean hands theoretically blood-free, isn't really about fat men and trains. It's about real life. The problem with your position is that you're not thinking about the 5 people who will die-- you're thinking about what you personally can "live with. And this kind of moral cowardice is the beginning of the end of a moral society.

[Athene]

I've risked my own health and safety on several occasions in my life, because I think taking responsibility for the well-being of those around me is one of the most important roles of a good citizen.  Not that many years ago, I confronted a Korean gangster (I'm in Korea) who was attacking a woman in a poorly-lit construction site, almost certainly saving her from a beating (I should say, more of a beating, because she was in pretty poor shape already) or worse.  I thought I was very likely going to be harmed, but he let her run around behind me and down the street with no shoes, and told me, "No peu-ro-be-lem."  I saw at least 3 or 4 people either hanging around watching curiously, or quickly walking past, and I know if I hadn't done anything, nobody else would have.

So yeah, you can golf-clap all you want, but the opportunity to help someone, or to take a moral position that lets you slink away in safety with your squeaky-clean hands theoretically blood-free, isn't really about fat men and trains.  It's about real life.

I don't "slink away in safety", bennyboy. I'm a nurse and volunteer EMT...in real life.
I've put my ass on the line more times than I can count; I'm well aware of what it takes to save a life.

So, you can get off your f*cking high horse at any moment.
Thanks.

[bennyboy]

I don't "slink away in safety", bennyboy. I'm a nurse and volunteer EMT...in real life.
I've put my ass on the line more times than I can count; I'm well aware of what it takes to save a life.

So, you can get off your f*cking high horse at any moment.
Thanks.

Okay, great. So you are a person of action. Why, then, would you take a position of inaction causing the deaths of 5 innocent people? I'd think that a nurse would be so horrified at killing 5 people that she'd instinctively turn away from them. And I think that's the difference in our positions-- you are worried about who you'd turn TOWARD than who you might be able to turn AWAY FROM.

Actually, your job gives me a great question. What if you had a sick older patient, or someone in the ER, and this person was of a low socio-economic status, or perhaps a felon on medical leave from prison. Would as much effort go into saving him as into say saving a young Obama daughter, or would there be a kind of "Hmmm. . . hmmmm. . . it's not looking good. . . hmmm maybe we should prep transportation just in case and check the organ transplant lists"? I strongly suspect there is a lot of that, especially in the states, which is much more lucrative than say Canadian hospitals-- am I wrong to think so?

[robvalue]

I don't know if I'd freeze up or not. I'm happy to say I've never been in a position where I've been required to quickly make decisions of such magnitude. I hope I never will.

In this case, I wouldn't consider anything to be murder. I wouldn't even call it manslaughter. I'd call it attempting to save lives through damage control. But if you did want to term it manslaughter, then letting 5 people die would be manslaughter by neglect.

I don't consider the lever to be relevant. It would only be relevant if there was a really good reason why it was set the way it was, rather than how it happened to be when this weird scenario started. But imagining why it would be set up that way is difficult.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

So, Thena,just to be clear, you would rather not do anything and see your 5 children die due to your inaction?

Also, @Benny, would you rather kill one of your children and save 5 or "save" one and see the other 5 get killed?

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I don't know if I'd freeze up or not. I'm happy to say I've never been in a position where I've been required to quickly make decisions of such magnitude. I hope I never will.

In this case, I wouldn't consider anything to be murder. I wouldn't even call it manslaughter. I'd call it attempting to save lives through damage control. But if you did want to term it manslaughter, then letting 5 people die would be manslaughter by neglect.

I don't consider the lever to be relevant. It would only be relevant if there was a really good reason why it was set the way it was, rather than how it happened to be when this weird scenario started. But imagining why it would be set up that way is difficult.

Rob, would you rather kill one of your children and save 5 or "save" one(by not killing the child ) and get the rest of the 5 killed?