#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[Athene]

I would NOT be responsible for killing the five people. That would be due to a set of circumstances set into motion PRIOR to my arrival, that I was unable to prevent. Committing an act of cold-blooded murder towards an innocent person in order to rescue another or others does NOT constitute saving a life in my opinion; It's simply trading a life. Sure, five people could be "saved" if I murder one. So what? 

See, here's the thing-- you think by not flipping a switch, you are absolved of guilt because you haven't "done anything."  But you have-- you've made a decision to end those  5 people's lives rather than save them.  Making decisions is doing something too.

You're talking about about flipping a switch, and my answers have generally been in response to the "more fun" (as the OP put it) dilemma of whether to push a man to his death with my bare hands. They essentially present the same conundrum in my view, though flipping the switch might be easier in allowing the decider to feel as though he/she would be less culpable in the solitary man's death.

At any rate, I continue to reject your assertion that my answer would be deciding to end five people's lives, when in my view I'd be choosing to NOT to resort to murder in order to save them. If you feel that I'm a monster for NOT being willing to chuck some innocent bastard onto a set of train tracks because he's the closest object available, so be it.

 Thena wrote
Even more people could be saved by plucking some poor schmuck off the street, murdering him, and harvesting his vital organs. Is that acceptable?  Would one be 'letting' potential recipients die or more dramatically put, be 'killing them' by simply leaving this man alone and allowing him to live out the fucking life he was given? I don't think so. 

I already asked you about how things work in hospitals in more realistic scenarios than this, in actual real life.  I'll go back and see if you answered.

I'm a charge nurse, benny; I do patient care and medication management. I'm not on any Medical Executive Committee, nor am I a Hospital Administrator, insurance specialist, or attorney. However, if you're asking if there's a person or persons who arbitrarily decides to kill patients in order to harvest their organs, the answer is no. A patient, family, or POA's consent is required for organ donation in the US, though there has been some debate over adopting a presumed consent policy that would require individuals to opt-out of organ donation.

In the OP scenario, however, either you will "let" 5 people die, or you will "make" 1 person die: there's very little complexity there.  You are required to make a decision-- and once you make your decision about what to do, you are acting with intent.  You INTEND to let the 5 die so you don't have to cause the 1 death.  And death with intent is still murder, even if you don't pull the trigger or administer the poison, or tie the people to the train tracks.

You're playing fast and loose with definition of murder there, aren't you bennyboy? I'm no attorney, but it certainly seems as though some malice should come into play, at least for 1st degree murder. You wouldn't find a judge (in the States at least) who would convict you for NOT pushing a man (actually committing murder, mind you) in order to save five strangers, but you sure as hell could find one who would sentence your ass for shoving a man off a cliff.

Food for thought.

What if I saw a child drowning, and decided I didn't want to get my new suit wet?  Could I say, "Yeah, I saw the kid, but I didn't start the process of drowning, so his death isn't on my hands."  Of course not-- decisions are active process, and actions made on decisions demonstrate intent. . . in this case, criminal intent.

Criminal intent?

Yowsa. And...Yikes.
See my quote above.

So 5 > 1.  One death is bad, but 5 are worse.

As a response, I offer the following from my previous post; Apparently it was 'overlooked'.

Thena wrote

What's the method for determining the worth of people's lives in these situations, anyway? Age? Net worth? Lifetime earning potential? Total number of dependents? 
Or is it just a matter of simple ratios?

If it should just boil down to numbers, then what is the magic number of people that warrants killing one person for the greater good? Is it five? A couple of hundred? 
Why not merely TWO, if doing the "right thing" in these scenarios simply comes down to a matter of math?

[Thumpalumpacus]

A second variation of the problem involves a “fat man” and no second track — a man so large that, if you were to push him onto the tracks, his body would prevent the trolley from smashing into the group of five. So what do you do? Nothing? Or push him onto the tracks?

What would you do?  
[/quote]

I'd put that man on a fucking diet, a guy fat enough to stop a trolley needs more lettuce and fewer french fries.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol @ EP's blue text.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

-Family before strangers.
-Young before old.
-Weak before strong.
-Many before few.

And behind every one of those lies a whole lot of selfish interest.
-Family can provide for you. (food or emotional support)
-young are better at serving the society, society comprises of you, ie,young can serve you better.
-Weak before strong, this one is particularly interesting.why? Let me ask you this: "weak" and "strong" relative to what? weak and strong relative to the person that chooses who will live,ie,you. This is a classic primitive mindset, to be the alpha of the tribe. You want to take out competition so that you can be the alpha,so choosing to let someone stronger live is shooting yourself in the foot. Of course ppl will give some classic PC answer that the weak needs protection and I'm a nice guy so I protect blablabla, but THIS is the one true and real reason,imo.
-Many before one, this just goes to show another self interest. More people in your society = better chances of your society surviving and flourishing. The more your society flourishes - the more it benefits you.

Morality is fascinating,I'm starting to think what morality actually means is the ability of a person to construct their self interest in such a way as it is interpreted as the best for the group -interest.

So in short, the most moral person is the one who has their self interest aligned with the group interest.

For example, if everyone is out in the cold and I decide to go gather firewood then I'm the most moral person because I managed to align my self interest with the group interest.

Wow, I cracked the matrix here yayy.

[Excited Penguin]

Lol @ EP's blue text.

What about it?

EP

I've just decided to only color my posts when I think they're better than average. So thanks for that, I guess.

[The Grand Nudger]

And behind every one of those lies a whole lot of selfish interest.

-and? I think you may have gone off the rails in your elaboration of the family-before-strangers and weak-before-strong bit, but meh. As to the latter, you ask why, but I've already given my answer. The strong are assumed to be more capable of helping themselves.

Morality is fascinating,I'm starting to think what morality actually means is the ability of a person to construct their self interest in such a way as it is interpreted as the best for the group -interest.

I'd agree-ish.

So in short, the most moral person is the one who has their self interest aligned with the group interest.

Might explain all this incredibly public "who's more moral" dick waiving, huh?

I think I have to mention, lol, that I didn't offer any of those up as moral instructions or value judgements. Only my priority list for action, instilled in me by god knows who, god knows when.

[bennyboy]

You're playing fast and loose with definition of murder there, aren't you bennyboy? I'm no attorney, but it certainly seems as though some malice should come into play, at least for 1st degree murder. You wouldn't find a judge (in the States at least) who would convict you for NOT pushing a man (actually committing murder, mind you) in order to save five strangers, but you sure as hell could find one who would sentence your ass for shoving a man off a cliff.[/color]

Okay, so you think throwing the switch would be murder, and not throwing the switch would be manslaughter? I can agree with this semantic, but either way, I think choosing the greater good is more important than preserving one's sense of moral integrity.

Criminal intent?

Yowsa. And...Yikes.

I'm pretty sure it's against the law to knowingly allow a vehicle under your control to kill people, even in a crisis situation.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lol @ EP's blue text.

What about it?

EP

I've just decided to only color my posts when I think they're better than average. So thanks for that, I guess.

YOU ARE WELCOME!!!

#green
#mod
#turtle

[Athene]

You're playing fast and loose with definition of murder there, aren't you bennyboy? I'm no attorney, but it certainly seems as though some malice should come into play, at least for 1st degree murder. You wouldn't find a judge (in the States at least) who would convict you for NOT pushing a man (actually committing murder, mind you) in order to save five strangers, but you sure as hell could find one who would sentence your ass for shoving a man off a cliff.[/color]

Okay, so you think throwing the switch would be murder, and not throwing the switch would be manslaughter?  I can agree with this semantic, but either way, I think choosing the greater good is more important than preserving one's sense of moral integrity.

Criminal intent?

Yowsa. And...Yikes.

I'm pretty sure it's against the law to knowingly allow a vehicle under your control to kill people, even in a crisis situation.

Pretty sure?   
It many cases, yes. In the trolley scenario, I'm absolutely positive that it wouldn't be.

If you want to look into that, go for it. As for me, I'm about trolley-ed out for now.
Thanks for interesting discussion.
.