Ethics Problems~

[ihop]

I'm so drunk Icouldn't hit a nail with a barn door IRL so I guess my mind is working ok

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

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.

Pretty sure the point of the fat thing was one person over 5.

And really, you're going to such extremes. You act as though every instance of "going with the many over the few" will lead to Hitler.

Also insults aren't a good way to get your point across.

[ihop]

Hitler didn't kill jews through utilitarianism he killed them through plain old hatred. He killed disabled people through utalitarianism.

but idc I made my opinion on this clear people talking about how useful people are are missing the point and trying to "cheat" the question

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

but idc I made my opinion on this clear people talking about how useful people are are missing the point and trying to "cheat" the question

I can agree with this for the most part. When thinking about the base question at least, it doesn't matter how "useful" the people are. The main question is if you'd feel wrong with actively doing something that would lead to death and such.

 

Still unsure why Hitler was brought into this honestly, lol

Except that Hitler somehow worms his way into 90% of discussions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Why would I not sacrifice an obese man for 5 people with no negative characteristics give? 

 

You're not looking at Hitler right, the act of killing diverted much needed resources away from the War, while killing the disabled was the "utilitarian" choice, dedicating resources to that extermination was not. He should have send them into Russia to die, or anything that didn't require investment on the 3rd's part.

 

 

Still unsure why Hitler was brought into this honestly, lol

 

Godwin's Law

 

Anyway feeling doesn't matter. Of course anyone would feel shitty about pushing a fat guy over, but it's the "correct" choice to make

[Agro]

[spoiler=What would I do?]

 

 

[Trebuchet MS]

Let's mix things up a bit, now introducing the Prisoner's Dilemma into the equation.

 

 

Other fundamental assumptions to make:

• You have no knowledge of the people trapped on the track and cannot determine their worth should they live.
• All your previous attempts to avert this crisis has failed, landing you in this position to begin with. If you could find an alternative to this choice, you would not be here.
• You have no knowledge of the second rail operator, and cannot discern if he will be a rational decision maker.
• All lever mechanisms are assumed to be fully functional.

So, now: Will you pull your lever?

 

Image source: "Trolley problem memes" on Facebook. There's an entire Facebook group devoted to analyzing, creating variations, and just poking fun at the whole trolley dilemma.

[vla1ne]

yes, I know it's selfish, but those 5 people are out of luck (and the guy on the other end as well if he doesn't think like i do). the equation assumes i'd put people i know nothing about ahead of myself. when i know nothing of anybody involved, and my own life is on the line, i would definitely sacrifice those 5.

 

 

i don't know the guys tied to the sides, i don't know the guys tied to the center, and i don't trust the guy on the other end. i might be inclined to save them instead of myself if i knew any of them, but since i don't...

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Let's mix things up a bit, now introducing the Prisoner's Dilemma into the equation.

 

 

Other fundamental assumptions to make:

 

• You have no knowledge of the people trapped on the track and cannot determine their worth should they live.
• All your previous attempts to avert this crisis has failed, landing you in this position to begin with. If you could find an alternative to this choice, you would not be here.
• You have no knowledge of the second rail operator, and cannot discern if he will be a rational decision maker.
• All lever mechanisms are assumed to be fully functional.

So, now: Will you pull your lever?

 

Image source: "Trolley problem memes" on Facebook. There's an entire Facebook group devoted to analyzing, creating variations, and just poking fun at the whole trolley dilemma.

Lol funk those guys I'm valuing my life as a dozen of theirs.

 

If I knew some or all of them... well I might be noble about it, but dying sucks so

[mitchermitcher]

sheet's gotten really convoluted. But I can't deny this is starting to get fun.

 

At the very least, 3 people will survive, including me. Pretty happy to leave the lever untouched.

[♪ ♪Aria ♪ ♪]

I would leave the lever as is, since you can't judge the opposing trolley........to save at least 6 lives.....

[Fluffyfish]

Yeah, I don't quite get how "the 1 person being able to cure cancer" or "the 5 having a terminal disease or something" is supposed to be a variable to be taken when doing the choice. Either a person being good or bad, it shouldn't mean his/her life is more or less worth than the life of others in any way. And I also think this could be used as a reason to do really awful things (I mean, literally every war is about "We deserve to live more than them", or just a king letting his people starve because he was "chosen by god").

So I'd say the most morally consistent choices are to either go through the 1 person, independent of who he might be, or not doing anything at all, because the 5 would have died either way (as an accident per say) and stepping in means you are essentially choosing to end the life of someone who wouldn't have died instead.