it's your choice... so what do you choose?

White Rook... I think your missing the point of what Repliku, Erks, and I are all trying to make.

If you pull the lever, you are activly commiting an act of murder. But if you dont pull the lever, the four people get killed by an accident, not you.

Pulling the lever is saying, "I am going to kill you, to avoid an accident befalling someone else."

Also, think. If an accident happens, it happens. But if you kill the guy to save the four, then you are responsible for an act of murder, and therefore would probably be tried with murder.

In regards to the second scenario... Why would you push the guy? Its a random shot that it could stop the trolly. Odds are the guys going to die, and the people are going to get hit anyway. Your just compounding the tragedy at that point.

I know, its a difficult decision. But lets spruce it up a bit as Repliku already did. Lets just say that the person on the other track is a family member of yours, or a best friend. Would you still pull the lever?

 

But in the unusual situation, in which you are exercising some control, does what we morally and normally define as murder apply? Normal morality cannot readily apply to abnormal situations. The point is that you have some control in the situation. If you have the ability to stop those four from dying it is no longer an accident. You're inaction has resulted in four people dying. Similarly if you choose to pull the lever your action has caused the death of one person. Fate, circumstance, and how things came to be are factors in normal situations, and since these scenarios aren't usually normal to begin with-- we're simply placed in them and are asked to make a decision-- they readily don't apply.

Altering the situation always changes the outcome. If I didn't know any of the people I'd still pull the lever or blow the fat man up (not push him off a bridge to stop the trolley). If it was a family member I wouldn't pull the lever. And it is here where Utility fails; to what degree do we attribute the best possible outcome when we are no longer attached. But the point is that it's not a family member, and I can't relate to either of the two outcomes on a more personal level other than the fact that I have a choice as to whether one person dies or four people die. The design of the situation is to force a choice. We can imagine how the situation would turn out if there were more variables, and personal feelings involved, but then it wouldn't be about arriving to the best possible good a situation has to offer. What is considered an objective "best possible outcome" becomes more subjective. Of course I'm not going to pull the lever and kill a family member because my relation to them has skewed my action, and that action at it's barest form is for selfish reasons.

Again I'll state that the original "Second Scenario" posted by the creator of this thread is inaccurate. I outlined that in my first post. I wouldn't push the fat man into the trolley, but I'd blow him up in the cave.

 

1. I'd yell to the one guy to move, and change the direction quickly. No one dies.

2. Throw a rock at the guys and get their attention, and quickly tell them to move. No one dies.

I win.

 

I am not really dissing your choice. It is after all, a choice and so was mine. I'm not proclaiming my choice is better or superior in any way. The point I was outlining is that you were pretty well declaring that the other choice of taking inaction was less regarded and that it is a moral obligation to choose to switch the lever and you were not acknowledging the issue that people who chose to not switch the lever were not making a moral choice. Inaction in this matter is still an action and I agreed when you said that. I was just highlighting it to show you why the choice would be made and that some people would consider the act out right murder, regardless of the fact you would be saving 4 people.

Since you responded that you'd save a family member, it shows you regard -specific- people as more important. Some people happen to regard others outside of their family and social circle as more valuable than you seem to. It would be natural for us to in either choice (if the 4 or the 1 are family or friends) to select saving who we know. You would not want to be responsible for killing a family member should you choose to push that lever. It cuts deeper. Some of us though value that the man's life was in perfectly fine condition prior to deciding to off him because he's nowhere as important as 4 others. He became a number; a statistic.

As for your scene of blowing up the fat man or not because you are stuck in a cave. That changes things a bit. One reason is because YOU personally are stuck there as well. Also, in the end, NO ONE is going to live if the fat man stuck in the cave entrance isn't moved. It becomes a factor where you decide if one person dies or all people die, including yourself and the fat man. So to me, the scenario is altered by condition that either 1 person dies or all people die and there are -no- survivors. In that case, I would have to say that yes, one person's life becomes forfeit. However, I would still consider the act murder. I would not colorize it to say that it's happenstance because I am choosing to blow the man up. So, in the end, yes, I would make the choice to kill him to save all others, because he was going to die any way as was everyone else. However, I'm not going to play down the fact and lighten it by saying that I did not -kill- this man.

So, I hope you see why both scenes are actually not the same. In the first case, someone is going to live. In the second, everyone will die. The actions then would be something of a different response because of it.

 

Hmmm... How about pulling the lever stopping the trolley all together? Or tell the construction worker to run? In any other case I'd probably pull the lever if I can't use any of the above choices I stated and floor it to try and save the construction worker.

Secnerio #2: We went through evolution and are paying for his blood. I'd yell for the construction workers to run, if not I'd run to go get the workers. Why? Its harder to replace four lives over one. I'd give my life for that. The fat dude probably isn't suicidal as me.​

 

As I've stated, the second scenario that was first introduced was not portrayed accurately, and in most cases it's used to justify the action-non action argument. I'm aware it's completely different, and introducing it has more or less confused each point I'm trying to make.

As I've said I perfectly understand the point that you're arguing from. By not acting it is simply an accident and the deaths of the four people are just that. In any normal situation I'd vie for any number of the obvious choices. The only thing however is that the design of the situation itself is unnatural, and given the constraints we are placed in control of an outcome that is either tragic or four times as tragic. As I've said, the situation is unfortunately designed for you to take the bare course of action, which is realistically inaccurate. I simply see action and inaction as being equally weighted in all situations, with this one resulting in non-action as yielding the worst possible scenario. As I've said normal morality applies to normal situations. In any normal circumstance the one man's death would be considered murder but in the constraints of the situation, which are unnatural to begin with, either situation results in death that you have control over. Just because the lesser of two evils involves conscious action in the death of one man doesn't mean that his life wasn't of value, that there's no guilt, and no consequence. It's simply that you are in charge of bringing about the best possible good that can come from the mediation of two bad outcomes. Whether or not you consider it murder simply depends on your your application of morality-- and that in itself is another debate altogether.

 

Yesterday I was watching a show on the human brain and its decision making abilities, and this psychological test problem came up, which I found to be very interesting.... along w/ what people actually replied w/..........

SCENARIO 1:
Imagine a situation where there is a runaway trolley. Just a few feet ahead, there are 4 construction workers working on the tracks. The trolley comes, and *splat*.... all 4 are dead. But you can save them, by pulling a lever to change the trolley's direction, but on the other side, there is 1 construction worker. If you pull the lever, the trolley changes its direction and saves the 4 workers, but it kills the worker on the other side.

Response: I would definately pull the lever. I feel that it would be better to save 4 lives and lose 1 then to save 1 life and lose 4. I'd still feel horrible about the guy dying, though and I'd wish I could save him.


SCENARIO 2:
Same situation from above.... Runaway trolley.... few feet away, 4 construction workers. Trolley comes and they WILL die... but you have a choice.... this time... the track is under a bridge, and there is a man on the bridge... and he's FAT (I donno why that was important but it's a fat guy). You can save the 4 workers by pushing the guy off the bridge so he can stop the trolley from advancing, thus saving the 4 workers.

Response: I'd push the fat guy off and save them because, as I stated before, It's better to save as many lives as you possibly can.

 

O_O wow... good responses u guys... ^_^
intrueging......... well i will not dignify this w/ a response... lol

this is what the people in the show answered....


1) Pull the lever.... better to save 4 lives over 1.


2) let the 4 die... wouldn't be right to kill some random guy to save 4...


this is indeed a very disturbing world.

ehhh....

 

1. Let the 4 people die, if they were smart, they would notice and move out of the way, but if not than thats their fault not anyone else.

2. I would most probably push the guy to save the 4 guys, only this time because of the man I push is a fat guy, if this guy is fat he must not be having a fun life, as far as the people I know, no obesse person is happy, so to make his own suffering stop I would kill him, to save, most probably the happier people woh might get killed.
Yeah, I know... I'm not your average hero >.>

 

I agree with Repliku on both scenarios. There's no way I could kill one person even if it was to save others.

 

1. It would depend on what the surroundings are. If it's low, then kill one guys and save 4.

2. How can I push a fat guy? He'll be too heavy and by the time I try to push him off, he'll be scolding me and then the 4 workers are dead.

By the way, I love that show. :3