What if... / Moral dilemmas

[dZeus]

a (semi-)interesting survey on some dilemmas can be found here.

I'm interested what you people would vote for. I voted:
1: no
2: yes / no (either option was 'about equally ok' in my opinion)
3: no
4: yes

my reasoning behind the 'no' on the third question is that the 'fat person' is in a position to chose for himself wether to sacrifice, where in the 2nd question the people involved aren't (and 'reducing casualties' imo is a good enough reason to answer 'yes' to that one, and not wanting to be actively responsible for deciding who to die as a reason for 'no' (although I slightly lean towards 'yes' to the second question).

[az]

Stupid examples.

First: Not obligated, but it would be the nice thing to do and I'd do it. Why not obligated? He would have died if people hadn't abducted and caused me bodily harm.

Second: Yes/No. Less people would die, and I would probably be tried for murder if I'd flip the switch. I would kill somebody in order to save lives. If I didn't, I wouldn't actively kill someone, but I would let five people die whom I could have helped. Hard to say. I don't know whether I'd do it or not. Certainly not "surely yes".

Third: A stronger no. There's not really a lot of difference, though. What dZ said, that he could choose himself to sacrifice himself, didn't even occur to me. It just feels like he doesn't have anything to do with all those people on the tracks. What are they doing there anyway? Everybody knows train tracks are dangerous

4: I would kill big jack to save myself from a situation in which I see no fault of myself. I couldn't live very well with that decision, but certainly better than when I were dead Likewise, if I were big jack, I'd understand if those people killed me, it would just be nice if they didn't blow me up from below. They want to live, I want to live, nobody's life is more important than any other's, they're four, I'm one, and I am very slightly at fault for being so fat.

Let me restate: Very stupid situations.

[ZokesPro]

1: So they kidnapped me? That means I can't leave or do anything even if I wanted to seeing as I'm probably tied up? Not enough details. But I probably wouldn't let him die either way.
2: Kill one or five? I see it as let five die and live with the guilt of not having done anything or willingly murder one and feel guilty for having killed someone. I don't know, it would have to happen otherwise there is no clear answer.
3: I have a lot of fat friends so this isn't any easier to answer than the first two, but seeing as I'm not a murderer than I'd probably end up watching five people die.
4: No. There's another way.

[Admiral]

1. First reaction... no, I was kidnapped and it doesn't resemble abortion, for that you probably had intercourse with conscent. If the violonist was a kind hearted person and not an ass that thinks he deserves to live no matter what, maybe I'll stay connected for 9 months. I would certainly sue the Music Appreciation Society for compensation after that.

2. Where tf is the driver, he should make this deccision not me... If he had a heart attack or bailed out and I could enter the driver's cabin, maybe I would flip the switch.

3. No, I won't push a fat guy off a bridge to stop the trolley... Can a fat guy really block a trolley car ?

4. I wouldn't let Big Jack out first to begin with. I would leave him for last or just before me, if I really wanted to be a hero (stupid hero). The dinamite up the fat guy's ass is tempting, but can't you just risk blowing up the rock (enlarging the hole) in the first place. You should be really stupid to forget you had a stick of dynamite in your backpack.

As az said, these are very stupid situations... and I don't think you should feel bad about yourself and your decisions considering these are theoretical situations (just for the sake of moral debate)... the ones who thought about these scenarios should be ashemed if they judge people as moral or immoral based on this, you could very well say they live in a fantasy world of their own.

[Kooldino]

my reasoning behind the 'no' on the third question is that the 'fat person' is in a position to chose for himself wether to sacrifice

I had the exact same thought here when I read that article the other night. It's nice to see that not everyone is fooled by their "analogies".

[Kooldino]

As for Big Jack, I'd hate to do it, but I'd have to blast him out of there.

The way I figure it, Jack is going to die either way. He has two options:

#1-If he's first to try to get out of the hole, he would have died by the dynamite so we can save ourselves.

And even if we didn't blow him away, he's pretty much screwed anyway being as he's stuck in a hole (unless a rescuer comes by in short time).

#2-If he didn't try to get out of the hole, he would drown.

Now, I feel for Big Jack, and it would completely suck being in his shoes. But when 5 other people's lives are on the line and it comes down to the wire that it's him or them, he's gonna die. He was as good as dead anyway, with or without us, and the only difference is that we would have to kill him to save ourselves rather than mother nature killing him.

[TnT]

I believe they use absurd examples to really abstract it out from what people are used to hearing. The point isn't that you are specifically in that situation, but that it's closely akin to more normal situations which people already have biased ideas about.

They also choose words wisely in these questions. Notice 'obligation' and 'should you' versus 'would you'. There's a difference between what someone would do and what he feels he should do.

1) No obligation.
2) Yes.
3) Yes.
4) Blast him, although really we should've used the dynamite first...

[Dr Mordrid]

Yes to all but pushing the fat guy, though most semi-smart people would not have run into the blasting problem.

Dr. Mordrid

[KRSESQ]

1. In the case of the violinist, I would be under no obligation but it would have been nice to have been politely asked. And I expect to be well paid for my inconvenience. However, the comparison of this situation to abortion is specious. The violinist is a productive adult and at the end of the nine months my obligation is terminated unconditionally. In the case of pregnancy the mother's obligation lasts up to 18 years. If the mother is unwilling to make that commitment then yes, she can have an abortion or give the child up. Of the two I prefer option 2, but then I have that luxury...

2. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

3. It would never in a million years occur to me to hurl myself in front of a runaway trolly in an attempt to stop it, let alone hurl someone else.

4. What kind of moron would I have to be to let the fattest one go first? If Big Jack WASN'T the fattest one in the group, then we'd all have been screwed anyway. Blow his lard ass out of there (see #2 above).

Kevin

[dbdg]

Even though the questions are stupid, my answers are.

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. Yes

[Umfriend]

I voted No/Yes/No/Yes, pretty mainstream.

I had the exact same thought here when I read that article the other night. It's nice to see that not everyone is fooled by their "analogies".

The funny thing is, apparantly it is "good" to set a process to start where the victim is far removed (you don't know the guy, don;t see him, he is just an abstraction) but it is bad when he is close. The "need of many/one" argument seems only to hold in some cases. The question is "why"

With Fat Jack, the thing is that YOU are inside the cave as well! What would you do if FJ got stuck and you were the ONLY one locked inside?

What if you had gone first and were now save, FJ followed and got stuck and there are still four inside to die?

[lecter]

If those ridiculous situations happened, I guess I'd go for an all "Yes"...though usually there are better options available on hand

[TransformX]

It reminds me of another philosophy 101 question:
For whatever reason, you're with a guerilla/whatever leader who's about to execute 10 people.
He makes you an offer though: Choose one of those people to die, and I will spare the others.
This question has two versions, one in which you choose and another in which you also have to squeeze the trigger.
According to Immanuel Kant, you shouldn't choose nor squeeze the trigger. If and once you do, you've murdered a man. If you didn't choose/squeezed the trigger, he murdered 10 people and you're clean.
Other philosophers would tell you to murder 1 in order to save 10.
It all depends how your morals work.

[High_Jumbllama]

1. No. In the violinist case, there was no choice at all on the other person's part. With the pregnant woman yes (assuming she chose to have sex or invitro fertilization being as she took the chance herself) except for being uncertain about case of incest or rape or her own chance of death.
2. No. It is not my place to decide that any one person's life is worth more or less than five others especially with having no clue who they are. If I knew some of the people involved I might falter in this. I cannot say.
3. No. Though again knowing some of the people involved could alter my perception though I would have to really despise the larger man and know some of the others to even have such a horrible thought enter my head.
4. Yes and yes both reluctantly at the last minute. Try to find another way any way to get around it but yes.

[High_Jumbllama]

It reminds me of another philosophy 101 question:
For whatever reason, you're with a guerilla/whatever leader who's about to execute 10 people.
He makes you an offer though: Choose one of those people to die, and I will spare the others.
This question has two versions, one in which you choose and another in which you also have to squeeze the trigger.
According to Immanuel Kant, you shouldn't choose nor squeeze the trigger. If and once you do, you've murdered a man. If you didn't choose/squeezed the trigger, he murdered 10 people and you're clean.
Other philosophers would tell you to murder 1 in order to save 10.
It all depends how your morals work.

Yes, I would reluctantly. The guerilla/whatever leader is doing the killing. He/she would be the murderer.

If he/she asked again after the first was killed I would be tempted to tell him/her off in some manner.