What if... / Moral dilemmas

[KRSESQ]

Of course, the noble, altruistic action would be to offer yourself up as a sacrifice to save all the rest. Ol' Che would be so impressed he'd spare you all. Or not. This is why I always did so poorly on those moral questions in college, where you have to decide who will leave the bomb shelter. I always selected myself first. A good captain leads from the front, not the rear.

Kevin

[High_Jumbllama]

From further down the page,

It's your birthday. Four of your friends together buy you one lottery ticket as a present. You win £5 million. Do you share the money with these friends, who only spent £0.25 each on your birthday present?

My answer would be yes. It is a lot of money but not actually split the main jackpot. Would I have to no but I would feel obligated to do something. I would even consider it for other people who did not buy the ticket. Again it is a lot of money.

[KvHagedorn]

I know you guys were just waiting for me to chime in on this, and you probably know what I'll say. Firstly, Az is right, these are really stupid questions, and to answer a simple yes or no to any of them gives them credence they don't deserve.

1) This is obviously something dreamed up by an immature feminist who wants to rationalize abortion. But it's not the same situation. Is the violinist a child who will carry on your name, love you and be someone you can pass on your hopes to when you die, or is he a 70yo man who thinks of no one but himself and you are just like one of the humans in The Matrix who are nothing to him? Big difference there. It also depends upon how you define the LOADED word "obligation."

2) Who are the people? If the five people are innocent children and the one is a hardened criminal, easy choice. If the five are hardened criminals and the one was a child, would you really let the child die so 5 murderers could live? I don't consider all lives equal, and neither does anyone else, whatever they might claim. If the 5 were old cancer patients, I would let them die to save a child too.

3) Philippa Foot would say that everyone ("without hesitation") would choose to flip the switch in the first trolley case, but that most of us would be appalled at the idea of pushing the fat man.

That's because Phillipa Foot is shallow and arrogant. If the Fat man was really large enough to stop the trolley (say 600lbs) and I could budge him, and the five people to be saved (again) were worth saving, yeah I would push him in front of the trolley if that was REALLY the only alternative. Why? Because his life will be short and tortured anyhow. I mean, he weighs 600lbs! Even if he lost the weight, his body would be ruined. But if they were 5 thuggish looking bad guys, fatty can live as far as I'm concerned.

4) Not remotely realistic. I wouldn't let big Jack out first, period. If he ran up there and plugged the hole himself though, and the four others would absolutely inevitably die unless I blew him up, and I was one of those people, yeah, his ass is toast.

[Umfriend]

<SNIP>Firstly, Az is right, these are really stupid questions, and to answer a simple yes or no to any of them gives them credence they don't deserve.<SNIP>

2) Who are the people? If the five people are innocent children and the one is a hardened criminal, easy choice. If the five are hardened criminals and the one was a child, would you really let the child die so 5 murderers could live? I don't consider all lives equal, and neither does anyone else, whatever they might claim. If the 5 were old cancer patients, I would let them die to save a child too.

I do not understand why so many object to the claimed irrealism of the cases. Take the trolley examples. How realistic is it that you would know anything the people involved? The case is as it is: you do not know. You know: 1 or 5 die, that's it. Realistic? Hell, I don't think I have ever come across such a situation (twas 7 or 33 methinks ). It don't matter. Situation where you need to make a choice and are fully informed, that's unrealistic.

[Whirl-Secret]

Since it's a moral debate, go to the trusted WWJD


What Would Jack (Bauer) Do?

[TnT]

Agree with Umfriend. Ifs and buts have no bearing on your answers. In most decisions that are similar but more realistic, how much info do you have?

[KvHagedorn]

You have your brain, if you have one. All I'm saying is if five obvious thugs are about to be run over by a trolley unless I switch it over to a track where an innocent 3yo girl is playing, there's no way in hell I will pull that switch. And if you tried, I would prevent you.

[TnT]

Well if you are going to say stuff like that I'll go further. What if you knew that in the future one of those 5 thugs would learn his lesson, get a medical degree and cure cancer?

[KvHagedorn]

I would figure that to be highly unlikely. It's more likely that thug would kill someone, and you saved that person's life.

If you had to bet that you would win the lottery or not, what would you put your money on?

[Umfriend]

The point of these types of dilemmum is not, KVH, to set it up for yourself and enable yourself to give easy answers. It's about finding that thin line where you just don't know anymore. The best question is where the options get a 50%/50% vote. It's there where you can actually start to discuss and research morality.

[KvHagedorn]

My point is that life is not a mathematical formula, as the current of that question seems to want to take it. Would I rather kill Claudia Schiffer or 5 rough looking guys? DUH! Would I kill 5 Claudia Schiffers or one rough looking guy? Better choice, but still not judged by quantity. The reality of things in this case is that you can actually see the people for whom you would choose death. You are inevitably going to make a value judgement.

Tell me honestly now, who would you choose for death.. five angry-looking Arabic guys waving automatic weapons and bombs yelling "Death to Umfriend!" or Claudia Schiffer looking all sweet and pretty wearing just the bottom half of her bikini?

[Umfriend]

Ah yes, those are so much likelier examples. I've never met Ms. Schiffer like that.

edit:

My point is that life is not a mathematical formula, as the current of that question seems to want to take it.

You don't get it, do you? If you look at the results, most people agree with you. The question is why? Barring any other knowledge on the people involved, why is it still not simply a rule of numbers?

It gets even harder when you have a probability of 70% of saving 1 at the expense of a probability of 14% of losing 5 others?

Surely, if numbers are not enough to judge in any instance then it is interesting what else plays a role, no? To isolate that you look for the cases where numbers do not matter at all (i.e. where there is a 50/50 vote). There, at that edge, is where you can try and find out what it is that convinces people for one or the other aside from numbers/

[TnT]

I've never met Ms. Schiffer like that.

Wait a minute, you've met Ms. Schiffer otherwise...

[Umfriend]

Let's not get into that or I'll have to tell you about the time I faced "five angry-looking Arabic guys waving automatic weapons and bombs yelling "Death to Umfriend!"" as well/

[IM_Riktar]

Question 1 is the most stupid analogy I have EVER heard. I would expect that kind of reasoning from a 6 year old. "One day you wake up with a growing bulge in your mid-section. To your horror you realize that someone docked their tugboat in your weedy harbor without getting the thumbs up from the harbor master,,,,," If this is the best analogy that Pro-choice can give, THEY LOSE!

Question 2: WTF is with the guy/gal on the "life saving" track? Is he superglued to the ground? Ever here of yelling LOOKOUT as you throw the switch?

Question 3: Who in hell would be fat enough to stop a several thousand pound trolley? And if he was who would be strong enough to push him off?

Question 4: If I see a 36 inch hole the guy wearing 36 (Or larger) inch pants aint gonna be the first one to go.

Sorry if this offends anyone but for crying out loud, come up with some realistic analogies.