Ethics Problems~

[epicmemesbro]

 

here is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

 

It depends on who either people are. One may be of more use to the potential savior than the other, such as potentially giving a bigger reward, although I am sure that saving 5 will be more rewarding than saving 1, unless the 1 was of more importance and wealth. Either party that can be saved might meet their fate justly. In other words they might be more deserving of taking the hit. 

[cr47t]

 

 

It depends on who either people are. One may be of more use to the potential savior than the other, such as potentially giving a bigger reward, although I am sure that saving 5 will be more rewarding than saving 1, unless the 1 was of more importance and wealth. Either party that can be saved might meet their fate justly. In other words they might be more deserving of taking the hit. 

 

A lot of people in the world are good, and a lot of people in the world are bad, but I think that out of all of the people in the world only a very small portion would be worth taking such a hit.

[VCR_CAT]

In terms of ethics, it's funny how utilitarianism, or more specifically the mindset of qualifying a human being based on their perceived value towards the big picture, is actually kinda fundamentally unethical and has been used as an argument to justify some of the most heinous acts in history.

 

Food for thought.

[mitchermitcher]

I really hate every time someone brings up this trolley problem. There's no real correct answer as the situation can be modified endlessly, yet people keep bringing it up. Sure it's great as an introspective tool (barring the fact that chances are you won't react the same way you say you would to the actual situation) but there's pretty much nothing to discuss, beyond introducing new factors into the existing situation to make you reconsider the answer. As a hypothetical model I do think it works great at demonstrating moral concepts, but discussing it as is holds absolutely no value to me and I consider it an absolute waste of time.

[vla1ne]

I really hate every time someone brings up this trolley problem. There's no real correct answer as the situation can be modified endlessly, yet people keep bringing it up. Sure it's great as an introspective tool (barring the fact that chances are you won't react the same way you say you would to the actual situation) but there's pretty much nothing to discuss, beyond introducing new factors into the existing situation to make you reconsider the answer. As a hypothetical model I do think it works great at demonstrating moral concepts, but discussing it as is holds absolutely no value to me and I consider it an absolute waste of time.

It's fun because of that though. hypothetical situations let you contemplate what you would do, and even with the meager information in the scenario, you can sometimes think of brand new ways to handle old situations. there's often more than one or two answers, and questions like these let you see how far outside the box you can think.

 

or you can just freeze up/ go the utilitarian route by default. but even inaction reveals a bit about hw you think when presented with no-win situations. for example, in this scenario, if you look at it from a realistic lens, some people would be glad to walk away and avoid all involvement if they are unable to save both parties. and others might let 5 to die because killing the one would mean you actively participating in the death of a person. instead of passively watching 5 die, some might choose to actively kill 1. it's a fun, and safer way to place ourselves in these kinds of hypothetical situations that lets you look at yourself and come up with an honest solution (or attempt to avoid the deaths steins gate style).

[mitchermitcher]

It's fun because of that though. hypothetical situations let you contemplate what you would do, and even with the meager information in the scenario, you can sometimes think of brand new ways to handle old situations. there's often more than one or two answers, and questions like these let you see how far outside the box you can think.

 

or you can just freeze up/ go the utilitarian route by default. but even inaction reveals a bit about hw you think when presented with no-win situations. for example, in this scenario, if you look at it from a realistic lens, some people would be glad to walk away and avoid all involvement if they are unable to save both parties. and others might let 5 to die because killing the one would mean you actively participating in the death of a person. instead of passively watching 5 die, some might choose to actively kill 1. it's a fun, and safer way to place ourselves in these kinds of hypothetical situations that lets you look at yourself and come up with an honest solution (or attempt to avoid the deaths steins gate style).

I can appreciate that perspective but, I feel that's the sort of thing you keep thinking about by yourself, rather than something to discuss with fellow people.

 

In a way, I agree with

/facepalm

 

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

but for the opposite reason.

 

I guess I'm just sick of people bringing up this problem as an ethical debate, since I see it brought up all the time.

[Aix]

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.

I didn't want to continue in this thread but...

 

That is not the point. It's not simple as that. The problem is asking you about your opinion on both utilitarian values and whether your actions constitute as murder. Do you have the right to decide who lives or dies? Is deciding to do nothing wrong? Do you have a moral obligation to participate? Is letting random chance run its course right? And more.

 

And for good reason, I followed up with the question of what if you had to push a guy off a bridge in order to save 5 lives? You are actively doing harm in this case whereas changing the switch could have just been a natural consequence of saving 5 lives.

 

 

 

I'm going to leave this thread with an apparently real life situation this time that I recall being talked about once in Civics class.

 

A man was once charged with several counts of murder for not allowing people onto a lifeboat when their ship was sinking. If he had allowed them on, the lifeboat would have been over capacity, potentially dooming them all, so he save the people he could. I think the teacher said he was hanged, because this was an old case. Thoughts?

[vla1ne]

I'm going to leave this thread with an apparently real life situation this time that I recall being talked about once in Civics class.

 

A man was once charged with several counts of murder for not allowing people onto a lifeboat when their ship was sinking. If he had allowed them on, the lifeboat would have been over capacity, potentially dooming them all, so he save the people he could. I think the teacher said he was hanged, because this was an old case. Thoughts?

that's some catch 22 stuff right there. he was killed for saving the people he could. honestly, that's the kind of case where i can't find any fault in the convicted person. he saved lives and was killed for not going over his absolute capacity.

[Miror B]

I didn't want to continue in this thread but...

 

That is not the point. It's not simple as that. The problem is asking you about your opinion on both utilitarian values and whether your actions constitute as murder. Do you have the right to decide who lives or dies? Is deciding to do nothing wrong? Do you have a moral obligation to participate? Is letting random chance run its course right? And more.

 

And for good reason, I followed up with the question of what if you had to push a guy off a bridge in order to save 5 lives? You are actively doing harm in this case whereas changing the switch could have just been a natural consequence of saving 5 lives.

The problem is  you've given a situation where, no matter what,  someone's dying for your actions and no matter what, it's your choice. If  you choose to do nothing, you can be seen as an immoral prick for not acting when you could have. If  you choose to do something,  you can again be seen as an immoral prick for deciding who lives and who dies.

 

I'm going to leave this thread with an apparently real life situation this time that I recall being talked about once in Civics class.

 

A man was once charged with several counts of murder for not allowing people onto a lifeboat when their ship was sinking. If he had allowed them on, the lifeboat would have been over capacity, potentially dooming them all, so he save the people he could. I think the teacher said he was hanged, because this was an old case. Thoughts?

Again, no right answer. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario, where  you're either dead or you're dead.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The problem is  you've given a situation where, no matter what,  someone's dying for your actions and no matter what, it's your choice. If  you choose to do nothing, you can be seen as an immoral prick for not acting when you could have. If  you choose to do something,  you can again be seen as an immoral prick for deciding who lives and who dies.

 

Again, no right answer. It's a damned if you do damned if you don't scenario, where  you're either dead or you're dead.

But it's not a case of how others see you, but how you personally see it, which is what's being asked here.

[mitchermitcher]

But it's not a case of how others see you, but how you personally see it, which is what's being asked here.

In that case there's even less of a right answer. It depends entirely on your personal morals that not everyone else will share. That said, I can argue that choosing an action based on how others will perceive it is in itself indicative of your own morals and is a valid answer to 'how you personally see it' tbh.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

In that case there's even less of a right answer. It depends entirely on your personal morals that not everyone else will share. That said, I can argue that choosing an action based on how others will perceive it is in itself indicative of your own morals and is a valid answer to 'how you personally see it' tbh.

There's not supposed to be a right answer really.

But that's not the case here. It's not choosing an action based on how others perceive it. In the case of the one I was quoting it's a case of saying that both answers aren't viable because in both cases people would judge you.

If it was choosing an action because of other's, then sure. But the post in question was saying that people could perceive it as wrong either way. It wasn't an answer of any sort.

[Bellringer Angel]

So, if I choose A, I might get framed for murder. If I choose B, I might also get framed for murder...

 

Just to be safe let the train hit the 5 then kill the 6th yourself. No witnesses.

I support Enguin. #Enguin4president

[ihop]

And for good reason, I followed up with the question of what if you had to push a guy off a bridge in order to save 5 lives? You are actively doing harm in this case whereas changing the switch could have just been a natural consequence of saving 5 lives.

 

In either case I'd still feel very uncomfortable stepping in. My thinking is that I am letting the 5 die, whereas I am killing the one, and in my mind there's a big difference between the two. Totally irrespective of number of people or other nonsense like how important the people are to society I'd be much happier to let people die than to kill people. As I said before, I know I wouldn't be prepared to die in order to save 5 others, so it's not my right to decide whether someone else would be happy to.

[Trebuchet MS]

Slight diversion from the discussion:

 

[mitchermitcher]

Oh my god, I can't stop laughing. This is general and not misc and all but that made my day, can't think of anything else to say.

[~~~~]

In terms of ethics, it's funny how utilitarianism, or more specifically the mindset of qualifying a human being based on their perceived value towards the big picture, is actually kinda fundamentally unethical and has been used as an argument to justify some of the most heinous acts in history.

 

Food for thought.

Give 1 valid example of utilitarianism being followed properly and yet resulting in the wrong choices being made, and I'll give you it.

[VCR_CAT]

Give 1 valid example of utilitarianism being followed properly and yet resulting in the wrong choices being made, and I'll give you it.

 

The Holocaust; and just towards the Jews, but much more specifically what they were doing to kill off people with disabilities or deformities as a sort of mission to "cleanse the human genome for future generations".

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is Kinda similar, idk felt relevant

Oh I'd push the fat guy to save 5. It's utilitarian ethics mate

The Holocaust; and just towards the Jews, but much more specifically what they were doing to kill off people with disabilities or deformities as a sort of mission to "cleanse the human genome for future generations".

Uh no, that's not utilitarian ethics cause the killing of the jews didn't produce the most favorable outcome.

[Spinny]

The Holocaust; and just towards the Jews, but much more specifically what they were doing to kill off people with disabilities or deformities as a sort of mission to "cleanse the human genome for future generations".

That was probably the least favorable outcome for most people o.o

[cr47t]

Slight diversion from the discussion:

 

What is this supposed to be?

[vla1ne]

What is this supposed to be?

if buridan pulls the lever, then socrates will have spoken the truth, meaning that buridan will contradict his own statement. if he doesn't pull the lever, then socrates will have been lying, meaning that buridan will contradict his own statement.

 

in other words, buridan will be a liar no matter what he does.

[cr47t]

if buridan pulls the lever, then socrates will have spoken the truth, meaning that buridan will contradict his own statement. if he doesn't pull the lever, then socrates will have been lying, meaning that buridan will contradict his own statement.

 

in other words, buridan will be a liar no matter what he does.

I got that but thanks. I meant where did he find it.

[ihop]

ffs hitler didnt just kill jews he killed disabled people who were "useless" clear utilitarianism

Like death camps are the clear example of enforced euthanasia

Slight diversion from the discussion:

 

Also this reminds me of a schoplfriend who would ask "youre about to disagree with me aren't you?" Which I could never answer

[VCR_CAT]

Oh I'd push the fat guy to save 5. It's utilitarian ethics mate

 

Uh no, that's not utilitarian ethics cause the killing of the jews didn't produce the most favorable outcome.

 

 

ffs hitler didnt just kill jews he killed disabled people who were "useless" clear utilitarianism

Like death camps are the clear example of enforced euthanasia

 

Also, FYI, but the final outcome being bad is not relevant to the fact that his mindset towards said action was utilitarianism. Also, killing someone just because they're fat is completely short-sighted and honestly pretty stupid. You have no way of telling of what worth or use a single person is towards all of humanity by their physical traits (health, intelligence, physique, etc.) alone. Whether someone is severely disable does not mean they can't be one of the most important scientific minds of the past century, or whether someone is really physically fit is in no way guaranteeing that they aren't going to do something really awful and end up killing a lot of people.

 

Also, Phil hit that nail on the head. Utilitarianism on its own has a lot of flaws, and as I said, can be used to "justify" some utterly heinous acts. Heck, the concept alone is assuming that said one person actually knows what's best for people. And Winter, if your post is any indication, you would be one of the last people I would trust in any position of significant responsibility like that if that's your mindset.