Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Even though it isn't entirely political, I do consider this the best place to post a thought experiment or two that deal with ethics (stolen from my university lectures, but shh!!) It is crucial also to remember that with many of the questions the idea is not "would you do it" but "should you do it."

The first one:

The Runaway Trolley Car:
A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person.
Should you flip the switch?

I think the ethics class answer is no, you shouldn't, because then you're directly responsible for the death of that person through your actions.

Of course, this ignores that you're kind of responsible for what happened to the other five people due to inaction, but whatever.

I would. Five lives or one life.....I go with five on the basis of the sanctity of life :)

At which point does the fat man come into it?

At 3/27/08 10:15 AM, Elfer wrote: I think the ethics class answer is no, you shouldn't, because then you're directly responsible for the death of that person through your actions.

Actually there was no given answer. In fact in our tutorials when we discussed it we did not all agree on the correct ethical course of action and even at times voices were getting a little heated so one might say.

At 3/27/08 10:16 AM, Slizor wrote: I would. Five lives or one life.....I go with five on the basis of the sanctity of life :)

At which point does the fat man come into it?

I'll give it a while to stew before throwing the new ball into the juggling act I think. Plus it's always fun to compare the change in views when he comes aboard.

If you flicked the switch when the trolley was exactly on the bit that moves, the force would make it fall over. killing no one.

At 3/27/08 10:30 AM, Bobby444 wrote: If you flicked the switch when the trolley was exactly on the bit that moves, the force would make it fall over. killing no one.

Buddy, that may be a possibility if it were a real life problem that you had to solve. But this is a thought experiment so real life doesn't feature into it. Now, does one die or five?

Philosophy and ethics classes are full of fruit liberals who think not taking responsibility is always the way to go.

Not pulling that lever is a form of action as much as pulling it.

Also bobby made the most intelligent answer. Just admit you're not some philosophical genius and not as smart as bobby. Jeez you're so arrogant.

I'm guessing the next step will be 5 people or one baby. Or maybe the other way round. Or that you love the 1 person but don't know the 5.

I suppose the simple answer is to save 5 over 1. It's a tough decision but I'd probably go with that.

I thought about and I have decided that I would left it. I don't think its right to sacrifice someones life to save five other people. Even though you are saving more lives, your intervention killed an innocent person who shouldn't have died, had I not been there.

I thought about and I have decided that I would left it. I don't think its right to sacrifice someones life to save five other people. Even though you are saving more lives, your intervention killed an innocent person who shouldn't have died, had I not been there.

Obvious point here - you were there and your inaction let 4 more (innocent) people die. I wonder, what would you say if there wasn't one person on another track - it was empty - but there were still 5 people on the track and you are able to divert the train. If you didn't do it, would you hold yourself responsible, would you feel you had killed them?

Is the idea that the rights of the individual should be respected a good idea? Yes.
Also, is the idea that the rights of a group can trump the rights of an individual a good idea? Yes.
Is there a tension between these two ideas? Yes.
Do I have a problem with this tension? Nope.

At 3/27/08 11:29 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Philosophy and ethics classes are full of fruit liberals who think not taking responsibility is always the way to go.

Have you been in a philosophy or ethics class ever. We do more than speak as though we are hippy idealists, we discuss serious moral ideology and it's merits as well the reasons why we have ethical codes in the first place.

Not pulling that lever is a form of action as much as pulling it.

Well that's your point of view. Not that hard to say is it.

At 3/27/08 11:30 AM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Also bobby made the most intelligent answer. Just admit you're not some philosophical genius and not as smart as bobby. Jeez you're so arrogant.

I'm arrogant yes I'll admit, but at no stage did I make any remarks concerning me being better than him or regarding my own intelligence, I was meerly stating the difference between constructed problems and real ones.

there is obviously no correct answer to the question, but most people would choose to save the five for different reasons. inaction resulting in death is the same as doing something to kill someone.

if you could flip the switch, and no one would be killed, you would obviously do it because not doing it would be the same as murder. so adding one person to the other side of the tracks who would be killed shouldn't change anything, you are still saving 5 people's lives.

and since you can be either indirectly responsible for 5 deaths or responsible for one, for most people the direct cause of 1 would seem to be the better choice

This was in 'The God Delusion".

Not to say that this is where said question originated, which it probably didn't.

Well, I think it's time to add the fat man into the mix.

The Fat Man and the Trolley Car:
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.
Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know.
Should You push him?

If a trolley is moving slow enough to be stopped by any single person, it is moving slow enough so that the people would notice or could be notified of danger.

Do you believe in Fate?
Which means our lives are all
predetermined?

Either yes, it is useless for us to fight destiny. Let the 5 people die! The 1 person shouldn't be harmed for staying in the would be safe zone.
Or no, we're the masters of our own destinies. Save 4 people. Live with the knowledge that you played a role in keeping death away for 5 people, while taking away life of another.

Is it God's intent for you to do whatever action?
If so, anything is ethical, since God is not ethical.

Eh, just ignore all that, switch the path and shout at the one guy to GTFA
Ta da, the option of saving all, and to think it's kind of a compromise which benefits both parties.

At 3/27/08 08:25 PM, n64kid wrote:
Either yes, it is useless for us to fight destiny. Let the 5 people die! The 1 person shouldn't be harmed for staying in the would be safe zone.

i agree. with the other one, nobody should have been standing on tracks so blissfully unaware in the first place, on either side of the tracks. but with this, the fat man is innocently standing somewhere where he should not be harmed. the first one was like choosing one path and letting the people on the other path die. but with this, you are forcing him into a position that he wouldn't that he wouldn't have been otherwise.

Ever read the darwin awards? most of those people deserve to die. the people on those tracks would surely win an award. in the other example, both parties were standing on the tracks, and so the smaller loss is better. but the fat man, obviously smarter for not standing on the tracks where the chances are good that a train will come by, should have the right to stay alive. he should contribute his jeans (get it?) and be able to help create a slightly smarter population.

but by killing him, you are allowing 5 idiots to breed who shouldn't be alive anyway, and punishing an innocent man for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. and you cannot say that the other 5 people on the tracks are in the wrong place at the wrong time, because there should never be a right time to just hang out on train tracks

No. More corpses = more amusing to witness. Also, if I do flip the switch, I'll probably end up in court for murder.

At 3/27/08 08:39 PM, jew193 wrote:

At 3/27/08 08:25 PM, n64kid wrote:

Stuff about it being the people on the tracks fault.

Fine then how about we change it a bit, the 5 people are aboard a train carrying fuel that if it gets hit will blow up into an outragously huge fireball of movie proportions that will kill them all even if they try to run and the other one guy in the first one is working on the line facing the opposite direction using a jackhammer so he can't hear you!

I hate people avoid the main issue of the question!!

Hypothetically, k guys?

At 3/27/08 07:30 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This was in 'The God Delusion".

Not to say that this is where said question originated, which it probably didn't.

It was.

I'd also push Dawkins' hypothetical three fatties onto the track, and I'd butcher someone for their organs in a hospital waiting room too, if the people who needed them were equally hypothetical.

So yeah, my morality is, save as many people as possible, even if that involves killing people.

At 3/27/08 10:15 AM, Elfer wrote: I think the ethics class answer is no, you shouldn't, because then you're directly responsible for the death of that person through your actions.

there are many ethical theories, some that would say yes you should and others that say the opposite. so there is no "one" ethical answer.

At 3/27/08 08:49 PM, positively-negative wrote:

Fine then how about we change it a bit, the 5 people are aboard a train carrying fuel that if it gets hit will blow up into an outragously huge fireball of movie proportions that will kill them all even if they try to run and the other one guy in the first one is working on the line facing the opposite direction using a jackhammer so he can't hear you!

I hate people avoid the main issue of the question!!

I would want to see the explosion. But I would use instant transmission to save everyone, thus destroying the need of any dilemma since I am superman.

At 3/27/08 09:16 PM, Earfetish wrote: and I'd butcher someone for their organs in a hospital waiting room too, if the people who needed them were equally hypothetical.

Well, Dawkins said that most people would choose to spare the healthy person, based on their instincts on what is right and wrong, even if it means that more people will die. It doesn't feel right, so I wouldn't do it. For most people, it's still hard to explain why you would choose to save the healthy person at the cost of the others.

Perhaps the evolutionary purpose of such instinct is that while it's acceptable and advantageous to look after the ill and weak, a healthy individual should not be denied the chance to live. Of course, if the healthy person decided to sacrifice himself to save the others, he would be considered a great hero. It's strange.

Question: Is the area that this is happening in have good Samiritan laws?

The ethical answer is to flip the switch, but you are much more likely to get blamed for murder if you kill the one instead of letting the five die. It all depends on personal feelings and courage.

At 3/27/08 11:14 PM, Srath wrote: The ethical answer is to flip the switch, but you are much more likely to get blamed for murder if you kill the one instead of letting the five die. It all depends on personal feelings and courage.

once again; there are many ethical and moral theories. ethics is not its own set of beliefs and ideals, ethical theories answer those.

At 3/27/08 09:16 PM, Earfetish wrote:

At 3/27/08 07:30 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: This was in 'The God Delusion".

Not to say that this is where said question originated, which it probably didn't.

It was.

Actually the question was originally offered by Philippa Foot and modified to the Fat Man by Judith Jarvis Thompson (creater of the Thompson's violinist problem.) Dawkin's just makes use of it as do many other philosophers.

Anyway new one fresh from today's lecture to do with Utilitarianism.

You are the sheriff in a town where there is racial tension. A black man rapes a white woman, which results in race riots. White mobs start assaulting and killing black people. They are set to kill hundreds. You have the power to stop the killings by picking a black man you know to be innocent and lying to the mob about his guilt. If you lie to them they will hang him.

What do you do and why?