Ethics Problems~

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Because variables exist. The question is ethical, it isn't about choosing one or the other.

Not in the case Aix put up. It was a very simple five vs one there. You can ADD variables yes

[chairman ali]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_ethics

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Not in the case Aix put up. It was a very simple five vs one there. You can ADD variables yes

Just because he didn't initially say the variable doesn't mean it isn't there.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

this should be a fun one.

 

What if the one who could save millions also had, say, a 40% chance of causing millions of lives to be lost?

 

49%?

Question about this one is are the millions that would be saved certain to be lost without them?

In that case then you'd have to go with the odds.

However what if it's something like....

The one might save a million lives, but has a 40% chance to cause 5 million to die?

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Question about this one is are the millions that would be saved certain to be lost without them?

In that case then you'd have to go with the odds.

However what if it's something like....

The one might save a million lives, but has a 40% chance to cause 5 million to die?

let's say 1 million people die in roomba accidents per year. This person is capable of preventing all of these accidents. However, they are also capable of doubling said accidents.

 

The roomba menace is a frightening one.

[宇佐見 蓮子@C94]

i'd save the 5 because "5 saved in heroic train rescue" looks better and more impressive than 1

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

I'd rather pull the lever, since it is the only viable option to save a life at least........not pulling will cause certain death to 5....

[ihop]

The trouble I have here is that by saving the five people I am essentially personally killing the one person who would have survived and lived to see another day had I not stepped in. Totally disregarding mental states or any other variables I'd be more willing to let 5 people who would have died anyway die than kill one person to save 5 people. After all, I wouldn't be prepared to die to save the lives of 5 people, there's no reason to assume the one person is and at any rate that's not my decision to make.

 

edit: This is especially true in the second scenario where you're pushing a fat person off a bridge. I'd be a lot more willing to kill someone who's already on a set of train tracks than someone who's safe on a bridge.

[chairman ali]

The trouble I have here is that by saving the five people I am essentially personally killing the one person who would have survived and lived to see another day had I not stepped in. Totally disregarding mental states or any other variables I'd be more willing to let 5 people who would have died anyway die than kill one person to save 5 people. After all, I wouldn't be prepared to die to save the lives of 5 people, there's no reason to assume the one person is and at any rate that's not my decision to make.

 

edit: This is especially true in the second scenario where you're pushing a fat person off a bridge. I'd be a lot more willing to kill someone who's already on a set of train tracks than someone who's safe on a bridge.

If you saw it and didn't step in to do anything, you're still responsible for the murder (it is now considered murder) of either choice.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

If you saw it and didn't step in to do anything, you're still responsible for the murder (it is now considered murder) of either choice.

the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another

 

Eh, you could make a case to get off

[ihop]

If you saw it and didn't step in to do anything, you're still responsible for the murder (it is now considered murder) of either choice.

 

How? People aren't inherently responsible to keep each other alive, especially if it requires killing someone else to save them.

[Snatch Steal]

There is no real right answer here. But personally I'd save the five. Because, assuming I don't know anything about them, I find it better to save more. Because more people means more potential, and less waste of life. Tragic either way, but hopefully less tragic.

 

 

What if the one person knew the cure to cancer, and the other 5 people were all part of ISIS and, subsequently, blew up the train from underneath?

Not everything is that simple.

[vla1ne]

If you saw it and didn't step in to do anything, you're still responsible for the murder (it is now considered murder) of either choice.

 

Because variables exist. The question is ethical, it isn't about choosing one or the other.

made the mistake of posting without typing

 

actually, if you do nothing, there's no evidence that you were ever there OR could have done anything at all. by actively choosing the one, you then leave evidence of your presence and decision which would be far harder to support in court.

 

and i think winter meant he was deciding only by the criteria in aix's very first situation, in which case, neither of you are wrong, since the initial criteria assumes that you don't have any more information than 5 or people are about to die unless you kill 1.

 

[Aix]

How? People aren't inherently responsible to keep each other alive, especially if it requires killing someone else to save them.

Many would argue that not taking action when you easily could have is wrong.

[ihop]

Many would argue that not taking action when you easily could have is wrong.

 

I would argue that if you have to kill a man to do it you could not have "easily taken action". If it really was easy to save a person I'd definitely feel morally wrong if I didn't, but not if I had to kill a man.

[chairman ali]

You guys are thinking too much about law. Don't forget that you'll have to live with it for the rest of your life. Even if no one saw, it is a matter of ethics, not about going to jail.

 

This is all philosophy, not what happens after the choice. People here seem to not understand this.

[Miror B]

Kill the 5. We already have a population issue anyways, you'll thank me later.

[Spinny]

The actual/more official question makes that 1 person a family member or someone you care about deeply but this still works.

The point of the question is more to determine what mindset you have more than anything, a utilitarian view would be that you save the 5 because you then have saved more lives, but you can also argue that it's purely circumstantial and that that 1 person could be more valuable.

No right answer, more like a brain tease.

[chairman ali]

/facepalm

 

I think Aix shouldn't have posted it on this forum.

[vla1ne]

you know, after thinking about it, if you have the ability to switch tracks, by hand or by electricity, you could save both lives by causing a runoff.

 

it's likely to hit somebody else, but that somebody would likely have a higher chance of surviving with minimal injury, or avoiding it altogether.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

What if the one person knew the cure to cancer, and the other 5 people were all part of ISIS and, subsequently, blew up the train from underneath?

Not everything is that simple.

I don't understand how you can say this when the thing I you quoted specified "assuming I don't know anything about them". Are we gonna continue every several posts to point out that things would be different depending on the situation specifics?

 

Also guys really it's not a PUZZLE.

[The Amazing Avian]

Knowing myself, I would stare at it until it was too late to do anything. Alternatively attempt to time the switch so the trolley loses alignment and falls off the track.

[Spinny]

This is Kinda similar, idk felt relevant

[cr47t]

you know, after thinking about it, if you have the ability to switch tracks, by hand or by electricity, you could save both lives by causing a runoff.

 

it's likely ht somebody else, but that somebody would likely have a higher chance of surviving with minimal injury, or avoiding it altogether.

I would probably do this.

[Miror B]

/facepalm

 

I think Aix shouldn't have posted it on this forum.

It's not a problem that can really be answered in the first place. There's far too much that we don't know about the 6 people and it'll pretty much end in "saving the many is better than saving the few".

 

Besides I guarantee you most people here will end up freaking out and not do anything due to being put under stress.