Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

[Master_of_the_Faster]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Well if you think about it, I don't believe that HIV is incurable. From that thought, if we get farther in technology, we may be able to get rid of HIV. I would save the 200 HIV people if that was the case. If HIV will never be curable, then I would save the girl.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

What is your justificaition for saving the one girl who will live on average, another 65-80 years, versus saving 200 people who need to live on average a mere 2.5 years each more to have had more time to "contribute" than the girl could possibly have?

People can and do live perfectly normal, full long lives while being HIV positive, never contracting AIDS or any other serious condition as a direct result of being HIV positive, so whether it is curable or not (which requires unknowable info about the future anyway) should have no effect on your deliberations.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I find this to be a very tough decision, but I pick the little girl, and I will explain why. First of all, economically, it is going to cost a lot to keep those HIV positive men alive. In order to give them proper medicine it would require a lot of resources. Secondly, their families have already probably accepted the fact that they are going to die knowing about the virus they have. Third, they do not have any fitness in society because any reproduction that occurs is almost a guarantee of death. Fourth, you need relatively few males in a species to populate compared to the number of females (it takes a man 5-6 minutes to make a child, it takes a woman 9 months to do their part). Fifth, there is a high possibility that the illness will be spread to others by at least some of the members of that group. Sixth, chivalry. At one point in time that did exist, and the king would said 200 of his bravest knights to almost certain doom to rescue one village girl. I support the principal of the matter.

This would be a very tough decision to make though and any change could alter my decision...

[ledwix]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I find this to be a very tough decision, but I pick the little girl, and I will explain why. First of all, economically, it is going to cost a lot to keep those HIV positive men alive. In order to give them proper medicine it would require a lot of resources. Secondly, their families have already probably accepted the fact that they are going to die knowing about the virus they have. Third, they do not have any fitness in society because any reproduction that occurs is almost a guarantee of death. Fourth, you need relatively few males in a species to populate compared to the number of females (it takes a man 5-6 minutes to make a child, it takes a woman 9 months to do their part). Fifth, there is a high possibility that the illness will be spread to others by at least some of the members of that group. Sixth, chivalry. At one point in time that did exist, and the king would said 200 of his bravest knights to almost certain doom to rescue one village girl. I support the principal of the matter.

This would be a very tough decision to make though and any change could alter my decision...

1. ...So you're saying that one girl doesn't cost much money to keep alive, despite the fact that little girls do NO work worthy of compensation by today's standards? Meanwhile, are these 200 men just ill and sitting in bed going, "WAHHHH WAHHH help me, I'm helpless I have HIV?!" Actually, the 200 men WORK much harder than the little girl does and they sustain themselves, so economically, it DOES balance out for the men. They aren't even hospitaled or anything; just live normal lives and work, etc. HIV is not very treatable; some medication can be given to slow the disease's progres, but it is inevitable that the person will get AIDS in around 10 years. Basically, HIV-positive men GIVE and TAKE, which keeps the economy in equilibrium, while little girls just TAKE. Case closed, here.
2. HIV doesn't kill people; nor does AIDS. Minor or major illnesses which cannot be effectively resisted by the immune system kill people with AIDS, right? Besides this, the illness wouldn't be a substantial hit to their lives socially, economically, etc.
3. ? As for HIV, it is only hereditary on a mother-to-child basis. The MOTHER would have to have HIV in order for her child to have it... which is extremely possible but not guaranteed given that the father has it. Secondly, a mother with HIV has only a 15-30% chance of passing it to her child. Overall, chances are that less than 15% of the children of these men have HIV at birth...Third, death in this universe is inevitable under every known and observed circumstance.
4. Are you saying that men are not needed, because all they do is go around having sex for 5 minutes and then getting mad at women for taking too long to make babies? Then, why are 50 (+ or - 1%) of the people men in this world?
5. Yeah, it could be spread, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean they should be killed. They can contribute so much more (think of the visual representation I've shown above....200 is more people than that) than the average little girl will ever contribute alone. Of course, there are exceptions, but you can't assume this one way or the other, so they cannot be justified.
6. This is an attempt to revert back to primitive values. Unless this is the LAST FEMALE on the Earth, I don't see why this should justify this behavior under ANY circumstances. (which you seem to support blindly)

Good job on the explanation, but I don't understand much of your reasoning. devonin is basically correct.

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

1. ...So you're saying that one girl doesn't cost much money to keep alive, despite the fact that little girls do NO work worthy of compensation by today's standards? Meanwhile, are these 200 men just ill and sitting in bed going, "WAHHHH WAHHH help me, I'm helpless I have HIV?!" Actually, the 200 men WORK much harder than the little girl does and they sustain themselves, so economically, it DOES balance out for the men. They aren't even hospitaled or anything; just live normal lives and work, etc. HIV is not very treatable; some medication can be given to slow the disease's progres, but it is inevitable that the person will get AIDS in around 10 years. Basically, HIV-positive men GIVE and TAKE, which keeps the economy in equilibrium, while little girls just TAKE. Case closed, here.

[quote]
The little girl will give when she grows up. Also, I never said how far the HIV had progressed. They could lead several years of healthy life, that does not necessarily mean they will. They just aren't going to die 24 hours after you pulling the lever. While with the information it is impossible to truly gauge which is going to be more economically beneficial, we can say the girl will put less strain on the health care system.

2. HIV doesn't kill people; nor does AIDS. Minor or major illnesses which cannot be effectively resisted by the immune system kill people with AIDS, right? Besides this, the illness wouldn't be a substantial hit to their lives socially, economically, etc.

It is common knowledge that AIDS lowers your life expectancy considerably.

3. ? As for HIV, it is only hereditary on a mother-to-child basis. The MOTHER would have to have HIV in order for her child to have it... which is extremely possible but not guaranteed given that the father has it. Secondly, a mother with HIV has only a 15-30% chance of passing it to her child. Overall, chances are that less than 15% of the children of these men have HIV at birth...Third, death in this universe is inevitable under every known and observed circumstance.

I think your numbers are a bit low there, but even if that is not true, it does not change the fact that there is a net loss in fitness if you don't pull the lever. I mean fitness in the biological/ecological sense.

[quote]4. Are you saying that men are not needed, because all they do is go around having sex for 5 minutes and then getting mad at women for taking too long to make babies? Then, why are 50 (+ or - 1%) of the people men in this world?/[quote]

What you said here doesn't even make sense. What I was saying was in any population, the males part in creating a child is much shorter than the females requirement. I'm not sure if you are on crack, because I never said anything about them getting "mad at woman for taking so long to make a baby". What I am saying is a woman's life is more important than a mans because a mans reproductive role can be easily replaced or overlapped by another mans responsibility while a woman's cannot.

5. Yeah, it could be spread, but in my opinion, that doesn't mean they should be killed. They can contribute so much more (think of the visual representation I've shown above....200 is more people than that) than the average little girl will ever contribute alone. Of course, there are exceptions, but you can't assume this one way or the other, so they cannot be justified.

They could contribute much more than they would take away, but they could also do the opposite. It is impossible to know for sure, so that would just need to be an instinctive judgment call. Either way, society won't fall no matter which group you picked.

6. This is an attempt to revert back to primitive values. Unless this is the LAST FEMALE on the Earth, I don't see why this should justify this behavior under ANY circumstances. (which you seem to support blindly)

The 20% muscle mass advantage men have over woman was given to them in nature so that they could play the role of protector. An altruistic society of men would lay their lives down to protect a vulnerable female, extending their protective role to a society rather than just a family. While in this case it may cost more than it yields, it doesn't alter the principal.

Also, basically, being a male I instinctively feel that the lives of females are more valuable than the lives of males.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

1 The little girl will give when she grows up. 2 Also, I never said how far the HIV had progressed. 3 They could lead several years of healthy life, that does not necessarily mean they will. They just aren't going to die 24 hours after you pulling the lever. While with the information it is impossible to truly gauge which is going to be more economically beneficial, 4 we can say the girl will put less strain on the health care system.

1/ You don't know that
2/ If you give us incorrect or insufficient information you cannot expect us to make an informed decision.
3/ It doesn't necessarily mean they won't either
4/ No you can't, she could go into a coma tomorrow and spend the rest of her days in the hospital.

It is common knowledge that AIDS lowers your life expectancy considerably.

Then its a good thing that you specified that the men were all HIV positive, not that they all had AIDS.

I think your numbers are a bit low there, but even if that is not true, it does not change the fact that there is a net loss in fitness if you don't pull the lever. I mean fitness in the biological/ecological sense.

Do you mean economical or actually ecological? I'm not sure the effect those men living or dying will have on the environment. Also...The girl could grow up and decide to not have kids. If she works a random unskilled labour job in a department store, never marries or procreates, her contributions aren't exactly -guarenteed- to be substantial. 200 men, even if they have low levels of education and not many skills, can still between the 200 of them generate more man-hours of labour than the girl could in her entire life.

What I am saying is a woman's life is more important than a mans because a mans reproductive role can be easily replaced or overlapped by another mans responsibility while a woman's cannot.

You cannot seriously be trying to contend that a man's life is WORTH LESS than a woman's just because it is what...easier to find a replacement man than a replacement woman for the purposes of procreation? I don't even buy that as a statement, let alone as reasoning for your conclusion. With no men, the species dies out, with no women the species dies out. And yes, while you -can- propogate a species with fewer men provided there are enough women than you can with lots of men but few women, the entirety of existence does not in fact boil down to procreation -only- and so the "superior importance" of women in that one thing does not make them intrinsically more valuable than "some number" of men.

They could contribute much more than they would take away, but they could also do the opposite.

The exact same can be said of the girl, so either it is totally irellevant to the situation, or you have to acknowledge that even with a 1% chance that any of the men could contribute as much as the girl, that's still 2 of the men compared to the one gorl.

It is impossible to know for sure, so that would just need to be an instinctive judgment call. Either way, society won't fall no matter which group you picked.

If you always picked 200 men over 1 girl, and did this several hundred thousand times, I bet it would stop being the "correct" decision sooner rather than later.

Also, basically, being a male I instinctively feel that the lives of females are more valuable than the lives of males.

While that statement might impress the ladies into swooning, you cannot possibly state that any man's life is universally, automatically worth less than the life of any woman. I'm quite sure you can think of no shortage at all of cases where one specific man is more valuable than one specific woman, so...universal statements don't avail you here.

[Maid]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

While that statement might impress the ladies into swooning, you cannot possibly state that any man's life is universally, automatically worth less than the life of any woman. I'm quite sure you can think of no shortage at all of cases where one specific man is more valuable than one specific woman, so...universal statements don't avail you here.

Actually historically men are superior to women. This view still widely propagates, even more so in less economically developed countries, although a lot less in more developed parts. So I don't where the archbishopjabber got the idea about this. Venus?

Whether this is true or not, is another debate of course.

I myself believe that both have similar resources and can do things similarly yet there are things men suited to do better, simply because of biological make up and vice versa.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Nono, he clearly has the (surprisingly common) view that you must somehow credit as a contribution by a woman, both her ability to have children and also -every single contribution those children go on to make-

In this case, the girl cannot possibly have 200 children, so even if "A man's decade of hard work and labour contributing to society" is the equal of "A woman's ability to bring a new future-contributing life into the world" the 200 men -still- outweigh the contributions of the girl.

It is only if you further grant to the woman credit for every contribution that the child goes on to make, can you say with any kind of accuracy that her life is more valuable than a man's

[talisman]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

If you want to make it really interesting, make the girl your daughter or something, and then think about it. Not like most of us are of the age where we'd have daughters, but one can imagine. It becomes much harder to go purely utilitarian.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Which was, in case anyone cares, the exact point that you are supposed to come to by this experiment. Mill's utilitarianism says that you should always pick the same thing every time: many > one and so on. This thought experiment was proposed at all as a way of saying "That doesn't actually work in reality"

[Wilkin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

To add on to my 200 families point, you're also affecting 200 sets of friends as well. As heartless as it may sound, the little girl hasn't lived out much of her life at all, much less made a real group of friends. When you sacrifice 200 people, you're also affecting friends and family, which could easily push past 10,000 people affected by your choice of "get rid of the AIDS" or "the little girl will live longer."

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

The world is also kind of overpopulated....

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

So now you're justifying killing 200 people because what...there are too many people? Would you therefore feel okay with decimating the population (In the actual sense of the word, not the absurdly inaccurate common defintion) as a means of population control?

If someone gets murdered, and the family is told "well...I mean there are an awful lot of people in the world, does it really matter?" how do you think they would feel?

[archbishopjabber]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I wasn't being serious about the overpopulation thing. But I dunno, I'm rethinking my answer to this question. It is quite a tough one. I guess there is just that difficult to break association of innocence with a little girl.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

In this case, the girl cannot possibly have 200 children, so even if "A man's decade of hard work and labour contributing to society" is the equal of "A woman's ability to bring a new future-contributing life into the world" the 200 men -still- outweigh the contributions of the girl.

Ahh.. but you see, even if she cannot have 200 children she can still have a child or two who each can have a child or two (you see where im going?) Whereas the HIV positive men provide a threat to the future generations.

Regardless, the moral decision rests on the idea that not all 200 men will die and a lot will continue living their lives just fine. All of the people who justify killing the girl bank on the idea that all 200 men will die.
Because of this idea i would feel more justified sending the train to the men, not because they are HIV positive necessarily but rather that its not black and white "200 lives to 1 life".