Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I'd let the little girl get killed. Whoever says you can't weigh human life is wrong. 200 people vs. 1 is a simple choice regardless of age.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

The girl lives. The men dying prevents the spread of the virus.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

i would commit suicide before making such a *selfish bastard* decision

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Right, because killing hundeds of diseased people with years and years to live is the right thing to do so that one peson can live, eh? No.

Saying the word "girl" and saying the word "man" makes you think of innocence versus absence of innocence. This doesn't mean a girl has any more a right to live than a man does (although the first people to have priority in life-saving situations seem to be women and children, since men have to "be tough" and face death, stupidly). Both have dozens of years ahead of them, potentially. I would save the 200 people (they are still able to live active lives and notify people of their virus. saying "HIV positive" makes me think that what you're saying is that they've already been diagnosed with HIV and are aware of their situation.)

Secondly, think of your emotions as you see the CROWD of people against one little girl. Do you really think you're going to be like, "Oh let's stop the disease!" and destroy the lives of the 200 people?


Would a human being react by destroying the group on the right to save the measely person on the left? (only 144 of 200 people are shown here, regardless) That's nearly impossible; it looks absurd to do this.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

if 500,000 people were held hostage, asking for the president's head, what would the president do?

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

The president wouldn't give his life; he would believe it's "too important." People in high power are less likely to give their lives for sacrificial purposes, which is why they tend to send in "lesser" people to do the fighting for them.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

HIV dude #1: "Hey man, you can't let us die to save one little girl."

Me: "But you have HIV"

HIV dude #2: "You're discriminating."

Me: "How did you contract your HIV?"

Silence.

HIV dude in the back: "HEROIN"

Me: "Exactly. Besides...she's a little girl dude. I can't kill a little girl. Seriously. No one let's a little girl die...ever. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves. Now accept your fate you bitches. That little girl's going to live a full life."

HIV dude #3: "Little girl's dead, dude."

Me: "What? Oh shi-, why didn't anyone tell me?"

HIV dude #1: "You wouldn't shut up. Little girl's been dead for a while. Train came and went. Sucker."

Me: "That's f*cked up."

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Is this like that photon double slit experiment where I can kill them both?

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Um...this is in no way whatsoever any different from the original thought experiment, for which there is already a thread with a great deal of discussion of multiple varients. This didn't need to be a new thread at all. I'll sum up:

1/ People who think along purely utilitarian lines would let the 1 person die regardless of who they were, to save 200 people regardless of who they were, given that you've strictly established that all 200 would continue to have effective, useful lives.

2/ People who think along purely logistical lines would weigh the proposed existence of the 1 against the existence of the 200, and in the case you presented would let the one person die no matter who it was to save the 200

3/ People who think along purely emotional lines would be very hard-pressed to justify killing a little girl, because she's just so cute, and all those HIV positive people (Note, you never said they had AIDS, so they could actually live the entire rest of their natural lives in perfect relative health) are intrinsically associated with negative behavior like drug addiction, and unsafe sex.

Suffice it so say, all you've done is recast the typical train dilemma in a way aimed at really pulling heartstrings (For which you'd have been better picking a more objectionable characteristic for your 200 people) to try and force people to admit that they'd kill innocent people to save a cute innocent person.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

hey guys 200 families affected are the same as one right k jw

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Even though the one family affected by the little girl's death may be in more grief than each of the 200 families (and this is not necessarily true), I agree with Wilkin. I tend towards act-utilitarianism, so I would say the one girl would have to die in this situation, as it seems to maximize happiness for the greatest number.

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

The aggregate benefit from 200 men who cannot perform sexually and may only live for several years more still exceeds that of a little girl who will live a full life. Since the easiest thing here to measure is the number of years people would enjoy, let's make a really conservative assumption. Let's say every HIV positive man will only live six months.

That's an aggregate 100 years of living left. It might be spent suffering, but it might be spent in enjoyment. The little girl probably has about 75 years left. Even if the men are all going to die within the year, they still outweigh the benefit of one little girl, at least in the amount of time they have left to spend.

Nevertheless, a better question to ask would be "What would the 200 men decide?"

Q

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Even if in their own heads they were willing to say that they would sacrifice themself for the girl, 200 people all thinking "My life is less important than hers" doesn't equal "Our 200 lives are less important than her one"