Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Better yet, I'll answer the question as it reads:

"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?"

No, you should not flip the switch. You don't have any right to decide who lives and who dies.

Both choices have the same moral consequence, people die. Most people go for the utilitarian root and say 5 is more than one, so let just that one person die yet utilitarian is a poor system to base one's ethics on (if murdering 1 innocent person saves 2 innocent people, would doing so truely be ethical and morally right?).

Others take the path of going to the logical conclusion of negative rights, where inaction is not a moral hazard while action is, but this too doesn't suffice because both choices are done willingly. If you willingly let the 5 people die, how is it any different from willingly letting the 1 person die?

My conclusion is that both are ethically wrong and there really is no true answer to this situation given what we should do.

At 3/31/08 09:58 PM, Imperator wrote: No, you should not flip the switch. You don't have any right to decide who lives and who dies.

bam! divine command ftw.

At 3/31/08 10:45 PM, SolInvictus wrote: bam! divine command ftw.

hahaha, damn!

Ok, we've officially moved up the bar.
No more of this "I got an A in ethics once!", we're on to metaethic theorem.

At 3/27/08 11:56 AM, ThePretenders wrote: 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.

Whereas your lack of intervention killed 5 people you could have easily saved. Thanks alot, Adolf.

At 3/27/08 08:16 PM, positively-negative wrote: Well, I think it's time to add the fat man into the mix.

Should You push him?

Push him and tell the authorities and anyone who asks that you did, indeed, push him.

At 3/28/08 06:52 AM, positively-negative wrote:

What do you do and why?

You explain to the man that he is being used as a scapegoat, apologise to him, and use him.

At 3/31/08 12:42 PM, Major-n0ob wrote:

Clearly you guys have no clue what the hell you are talking about. I have had an ethics class from professor Duncan at Millikan University and I am telling you...THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER TO EVERY ETHICAL QUESTION!!! I got an A in that class and I bet most of you have never even taken a college ethics class! I know, for a fact, that I am right because this was an ethics question on my final. I bid you all good day!

Ug. You're an idiot.

Theres not a "correct" answer to ethics. Ethics are not universal. My ethic code may involve me slaughtering innocent people for self gain, your ethic code may entail sacraficing your life for the greater good.

At 4/1/08 03:20 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
Whereas your lack of intervention killed 5 people you could have easily saved. Thanks alot, Adolf.

Only if lack of intervention can be considered an action in and of itself though.....
So not really Adolf, but more like the Pope during WWII.

Adolf actively killed, maybe you could say the Pope "passively" killed by not intervening.

Likewise there's a whole theory built around "Defensive Imperialism" which I've (of course) heard applied to Rome, but might weedle it's way into modern nations.....

At 4/1/08 03:51 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 4/1/08 03:20 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:
Whereas your lack of intervention killed 5 people you could have easily saved.

Only if lack of intervention can be considered an action in and of itself though.....

;
Perhaps so, both arguments for saving the one or for saving the five, can be 'judged to be equally correct.
But that in my mind changes completely when you look at Sevens response & make one of the choices 'personal'. In the delema of the 1 or 5 unknown people... no matter what you do, someones going to die. In putting a large number of people dying , against my child dying... is for me a no brainer.
There isn't anything to consider, Except the saving of my child !
That's all there is , what was the other choice again... it doesn't matter, in a situatiojn where unknowns are put up against family, family is the 'RIGHT' answer, as far as I'm concerned.

The way I figure it, if there are 6 people stupid enough to hang out on train tracks then removing the largest number possible is the best course for humanity. Thus I do not flip the switch, because they're dirtying my gene pool.

eugenics ftw!

At 4/1/08 12:24 PM, Ravariel wrote: The way I figure it, if there are 6 people stupid enough to hang out on train tracks then removing the largest number possible is the best course for humanity. Thus I do not flip the switch, because they're dirtying my gene pool.

;
I really like the way your thinking here, And maybe just maybe you could do like bowling & if another trolley is right behind the first ,you could flip the switch & get the last one for the 'spare'.

6 down , millions to go.

At 3/27/08 12:13 PM, positively-negative wrote: 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.

I have and it was an insular womb like environment where any criticism instantly gets you ostracised, the class was supposed to be about several viewpoints but some viewpoints were never explored beyond heavily politicised basics and what people's motivations were for following them. For instance I suggested that moral relativism and religious morals are not the only kind of morality and cited utilitarianism which defines morality logically as being to cause sufferring to sapient beings, for the next 10 minutes the teacher almost sociopathically questionned my intentions first attempting to claim I was a secret christian (liberals always seem to have something against christians), then a fascist saying stuff like "and I suppose some people are more sapient than others" before looking at the class like she had made some sort of epic point.

:Well that's your point of view.
Well that's your point of view. Except my view has facts to back it up of course, though I suppose whether that concerns you or not is up to your "opinion".

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.

"Thought experiment" doesn't suggest that breaking the mechanism isn't an option. I can be wrong, in fact I do it all the time. Perhaps the word "action" was wrong, I hereby admit I was wrong and replace it with "option". Inaction is as much of an option as action. Not taking responsibility, especially in a situation as serious as that, is wrong.

At 4/1/08 09:27 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Perhaps so, both arguments for saving the one or for saving the five, can be 'judged to be equally correct.
But that in my mind changes completely when you look at Sevens response & make one of the choices 'personal'. In the delema of the 1 or 5 unknown people... no matter what you do, someones going to die. In putting a large number of people dying , against my child dying... is for me a no brainer.
There isn't anything to consider, Except the saving of my child !
That's all there is , what was the other choice again... it doesn't matter, in a situatiojn where unknowns are put up against family, family is the 'RIGHT' answer, as far as I'm concerned.

Yeah, adding in different factors always makes the question more interesting. I think if it was pretty much anyone I knew, regardless of relation, I'd be more inclined to save them and sacrifice the rest.

I've always found "ethics" sort of an interesting topic because what they really refer to are morals, and morals are largely cultural or based on perspective.

I've studied cultures that praise stealing, mainly because they don't have the same values for individual property rights as we do in Western societies. Things are generally shared collectively and ideas of ownership (and thus stealing) don't apply in the same senses that we have for the words. The BaMbuti Pygmies for example.

At 4/1/08 04:41 PM, Imperator wrote: I've always found "ethics" sort of an interesting topic because what they really refer to are morals, and morals are largely cultural or based on perspective.

I've always thought of ethics and morals as two different things and an action can be ethical but still be immoral (and vice versa).

If they were one and the same then "legal ethics" would be a contradiction in terms, and lawyers would be unable to practice. (NOTE: I'm not saying the latter would be a bad thing...)

At 4/3/08 04:27 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/1/08 04:41 PM, Imperator wrote: I've always found "ethics" sort of an interesting topic because what they really refer to are morals, and morals are largely cultural or based on perspective.

I've always thought of ethics and morals as two different things and an action can be ethical but still be immoral (and vice versa).

i.e. killing in self defense, choosing one life over 5 or vice versa, etc...

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.

Old post, yes, but I just have to make a point that people do ride trains.

I think Utilitarianism is bullshit, so I would simply walk away.

At 4/3/08 04:31 PM, Ravariel wrote:

At 4/3/08 04:27 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 4/1/08 04:41 PM, Imperator wrote: I've always found "ethics" sort of an interesting topic because what they really refer to are morals, and morals are largely cultural or based on perspective.

I've always thought of ethics and morals as two different things and an action can be ethical but still be immoral (and vice versa).

i.e. killing in self defense, choosing one life over 5 or vice versa, etc...

And ironically, I have to note, this is not a distinction anyone ever made in any of my morality threads( (all 2 of them, I think... one might even be a subdiscussion in Heathenry, I dunno)... for which I am disappointed... because it is EXACTLY the idea I was trying to get across. Using two separate definitions of "moral" I think may have confused the issue. Rather I should have split the two into "Ethics" which is what should be done mitigating circumstances considered, and "morals" which is a purer idea of right and wrong, where in a perfect world we can assume that a or b is wrong without having to delve into justifications et al.

I shall try better next time.

Now, I know you probably won't like me putting up my own question, but these trolley questions I find aren't very good. As a matter of fact, I just thought up what I now believe to be the ultimate morality test.

You are very close to your brother. He is a medical genius. One day, while you are out, he devises a possible cure for cancer (or some other disease for the matter). Rushing to the phone to call the Medical Research Center, he does not bother to write down the cure. He has a heart problem and suddenly gets an attack before he can tell the cure. Just then, you come home. You call 911, and soon you find out he has devised a cure for cancer from the person on the phone. At the hospital, the doctor tells you that if your brother does not get a new heart, he won't be able to wake up. Your heart is the only compatible one. Do you A) switch hearts and put your life in heavy risk, for the purpose of saving your close brother, knowing that his cure may not work or that he may not remember it, or B) keep your heart, knowing that your brother would hate himself for your death, possibly blaming himself and his cure and forget about it, and allow the cure to die with him?

I myself cannot choose at all.

At 4/3/08 05:26 PM, AznWarlord wrote:

I myself cannot choose at all.

;
Choice is easy.
I'm going to hell for all eternity (ask any religious zealot who posts regularly here)
I'm in no hurry to get there.
I live everyone else dies ...Hopefully for them they the right religion, they picked the right god & they go to heaven for all eternity .
See easy , no problemo at all.

Problem, there are no problems ,only answers .

At 4/3/08 04:27 PM, TheMason wrote:

I've always thought of ethics and morals as two different things and an action can be ethical but still be immoral (and vice versa).

They are.

At 3/27/08 08:16 PM, positively-negative wrote: Well, I think it's time to add the fat man into the mix.
The Fat Man and the Trolley Car:
Should You push him?

Here is the only truly ethical answer; if you value the concept of human life, that is a human being is a human being, and that the life itself has intrinsic value, you can not kill one to save others in a matter of circumstance. The people who will die (if you believe they lived to begin with) through their choices in life have put themselves in mortal peril. The fat man has not. If you value life, you can not presume to decide you are more knowing and foresighted than everyone else involved to the point that you get to decide who dies. Unless it is you who decides to die, because in that instance, you have maintained respect for individuality by taking your own action, and not forcing others. Though your story rules out suicide, so the only ethical course of action would be to do anything possible to avert the disaster without commiting murder. This of course may include telling the fat man he can choose to die to save the others. But you can't ethically make that choice.

At 3/31/08 09:26 AM, MickTheChampion wrote: I'd make a brutal example of anyone trying to incite race riots or anyone known for Cross Burning and assaulting black people.

I'd probably implement judges who had a harsh stance against this kind of behaviour, so naturally they'd come from out of town. I'd encourage brutal sentencing too, perhaps a public flogging followed by a long prison sentence.

I'd make sure that the rapist got a fair trial, and I'd accept whatever sentence the judge gave him.

And this, friends and neighbors, is why Mick is fucking kickass.

Okay on an actually related note, I'd throw the switch. If the family comes after me for murder I'll (try anyways) to explain that if I hadn't done what I did, 5 people instead of one would have died. But if it was someone I knew...I dunno...I think I'd try and figure something out then the trolley would go by and my problem would be solved...sort of.

On the bit about the fat person question, sure I'd push 'em, but why the hell is the trolley going this slow in the first place?

At 3/31/08 05:13 PM, Imperator wrote: Yeah I read your post moron, why do you think I answered the question?
I don't give a fuck if it WAS on your final, it's not an ethical question, because the answer is gonna depend on cultural ubringing ASS.

Fuck, guys like me WRITE your finals, so don't lecture me on what is or isn't the answer to your test, dick.

Jesus titting fucking christ, I never thought I'd see Imperator get pissed off.

Actually, now that I think about it, try and flip the switch halfway and hope the thing crashes, killing no one. If that doesn't work, feel stupid.

Okay, haven't posted on in a while but I got given a good one not long ago.

Okay, a certain rockstar goes to Africa to help save starving children. Because of this album sales double. Realising this, said rockstar continues going to Africa after ever new album release helping starving children, only to boost album sales as he doesn't give a flying fuck about starving Africans but the money is all good.

Is he doing the right thing by going?

At 4/24/08 05:34 AM, positively-negative wrote: Okay, haven't posted on in a while but I got given a good one not long ago.

Okay, a certain rockstar goes to Africa to help save starving children. Because of this album sales double. Realising this, said rockstar continues going to Africa after ever new album release helping starving children, only to boost album sales as he doesn't give a flying fuck about starving Africans but the money is all good.

Is he doing the right thing by going?

Certainly. In this case I can't see how his changei n motive should change the benefit of his act.