Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I fail to see any way in which this is not a black and white "200 lives to 1 life" situation, unless the person describing the situation has infallible knowledge of future events.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

You have all heard the classic "If there are two train tracks, one with one person on it and two with the other, and you can divert the train to hit one rather than two, would you?" moral ethics greater good question, but I have a spin on it.

There is a train, and it is about to hit a healthy little girl. You can pull a lever, but if you do so the train will go to a different track where 200 HIV positive men are standing. These men are not going to imminently die and could lead several years of normal life after the event. Would you pull the lever and save the girl but kill the 200 HIV positive men? Or would you let the little girl get killed?

I'll wait a bit before stating my opinion.

This is why, they would live a normal live after the event. They will not die instantly and are destined to die soon regardless. Shortening some peoples life by a couple years and completely extinguishing a life comes out to being very unbalanced.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Where in there did you get any impression that they would die "soon" regardless? "They are not going to imminently die" means they could live anywhere from 1 day to decades more.

-EVERYONE- is destined to die regardless, in that respect are all lives equal.

You are "shortening" their life not by "A few years" but by "However many years they happen to live" a number which is not knowable by us. By the same token that you condemn them for "dying soon" the girl could get hit by an entirely non-philosophical train -tomorrow- and then where is your weighing of lives?

At some point people are going to realise that since we have no way of telling the future, we CANNOT weigh any decision on "what people -might- do" if we want to claim our decision was at all legitimate.

We do not imprison people for crimes they haven't yet committed, and yet you could comdemn 200 men to death because you -think- they -might- not contribute as much to the world as one girl? Hogwash.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Regardless, because they are adults they have less years to live on this earth than the girl (assuming they all die at the average life expectancy). Also, the fact that it doesnt kill them instantly shows that the "pro-girl death" side of this argument isnt as bad as it is made out to be. Dying instantly is much different than dying eventually such as 1 day is greater than 0 days of life left. If you send it to the group of people, you satisfy the instant notion to save everyone (as many as you can). Because in reality, you only have a split moment to decide and naturally you want to save as many as you can.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Regardless, because they are adults they have less years to live on this earth than the girl (assuming they all die at the average life expectancy).

You can't just make that assumption, but even if you are, the combined "less years" of 200 people adds up to "more years" than the girl.

Also, the fact that it doesnt kill them instantly shows that the "pro-girl death" side of this argument isnt as bad as it is made out to be. Dying instantly is much different than dying eventually such as 1 day is greater than 0 days of life left. If you send it to the group of people, you satisfy the instant notion to save everyone (as many as you can). Because in reality, you only have a split moment to decide and naturally you want to save as many as you can.

So you can justify killing 200 people because "They are going to die eventually anyway, so it is better than they die quickly"?? I imagine if you asked them "Would you rather die of a random selection of causes in 20 years, some painless some excrutiating, or die instantly right now" you would have a 100% instance of "I'll take my chances"

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I cant believe you still dont get it. You wouldnt be killing them on the spot. THEY WOULDNT DIE WHEN THE TRAIN HITS THEM. If anything all it would do is take like a year off of each of their lives.

Also, i wasnt comparing the total number of years together for justification. I was simply saying that one way you are extinguishing a life that could live a FULL and COMPLETE life as opposed to some men who are already half done with their life.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

THEY WOULDNT DIE WHEN THE TRAIN HITS THEM.

I'm pretty sure that the purpose of the exercise is that they will in fact die.
I wasn't aware that dying after you've lived a few years wasn't dying.

Oh, or are you somehow trying to think along the lines of "surely a train hitting a pile of people would knock a bunch around without their actually dying" or something. As I said, the tacit assumption in the problem is that you have -death- on one side and -death- on the other side.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

While i would agree with you that the point of the exercise would be to weigh 200 lives of HIV positive men to 1 life of innocence, that is not what was specified in the original post. I am purely going off of the fact that the original post stated that the men wouldnt die instantly from being hit by the train and most would probably go on living life as normal beings.

Oh, or are you somehow trying to think along the lines of "surely a train hitting a pile of people would knock a bunch around without their actually dying" or something.

If you want to argue the logistics of this situation, then why in the h*** are 200 HIV positive men standing in a line along a train track and dont make any indication of moving when they see the train down the line?

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Well, we'll need Archbishopjabber to clarify, but since there was a full stop in there, I think that "These men are not going to imminently die and could lead several years of normal life after the event." refers to "If you -save- the men, they are going to live several years of normal life" as a means of pointing out that they aren't on death's door from AIDS etc, though I can see how you might read that and get "EVen if hit by the train they won't die" but I really don't think that was what jabber meant.

[slipstrike0159]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Well, we'll need Archbishopjabber to clarify, but since there was a full stop in there, I think that "These men are not going to imminently die and could lead several years of normal life after the event." refers to "If you -save- the men, they are going to live several years of normal life" as a means of pointing out that they aren't on death's door from AIDS etc, though I can see how you might read that and get "EVen if hit by the train they won't die" but I really don't think that was what jabber meant.

Hmmm... hadnt thought about that. Let me go back and reread....

Yep, i do think i interpreted it wrong. My bad...

In light of new information i think i would let the men live because while you cant weight the amount of a life to another one, you can definitely sacrifice one for the good of many.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Sacrificing one for the good of many is weighing life. Letting nature take its course also isn't equivalent to making a sacrifice.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Let's just assume we had our big hooplah over how I think choosing inaction is an action, and how you disagree because you feel that your choosing inaction has no result outside yourself, and carry on as though we'd done our inevitable agreement to disagree.

-IF- someone decides to weigh lives, I assume at this stage we should all agree that the girl loses out, no matter how cute she is, even if she has one of those big lollipops and is crying, to 200 people who will, if nothing else, have "several years" of perfectly healthy life.

I'd say "Which brings us to the question, ought we to weigh life" but for this thread, we are going in with a tacit demand that we must accept that we can and should, so that's outside the scope.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

Let's just assume we had our big hooplah over how I think choosing inaction is an action, and how you disagree because you feel that your choosing inaction has no result outside yourself, and carry on as though we'd done our inevitable agreement to disagree.

I don't know why you would want to refuse to address the issue central to the discussion. I can only assume it's because you continue to be wrong.

-IF- someone decides to weigh lives, I assume at this stage we should all agree that the girl loses out, no matter how cute she is, even if she has one of those big lollipops and is crying, to 200 people who will, if nothing else, have "several years" of perfectly healthy life.

Not at all. All valuations are inherently arbitrary. If the person doing the valuations happens to weigh "has a vagina and a lolipop" significantly higher than whatever value they infer in the existence of the 200 men, they'll do so. That's precisely what makes weighing the value of human life wrong, it reduces the value seen in life to something arbitrary by necessity.

I'd say "Which brings us to the question, ought we to weigh life" but for this thread, we are going in with a tacit demand that we must accept that we can and should, so that's outside the scope.

Then the scope needs to be widened.

[devonin]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

I don't know why you would want to refuse to address the issue central to the discussion. I can only assume it's because you continue to be wrong.

You haven't proven me wrong to my satisfaction, and you have proven me wrong to your satisfaction. And vice versa. We are clearly coming up against deeply entrenched beliefs on the philosophy of mind, and the relation of the mind to the world. Fair enough. I continue to read, study and appreciate all kinds of philosophers that I think are full of ****, and still glean useful insights from them. Just because we both think the other one is wrong doesn't render 'agreeing to disagree' an invalid course just to keep discussions moving, interesting, and not constantly devolving into you and I posting page after page on a subject that is only lightly connected to the situation at hand.

Not at all. All valuations are inherently arbitrary. If the person doing the valuations happens to weigh "has a vagina and a lolipop" significantly higher than whatever value they infer in the existence of the 200 men, they'll do so. That's precisely what makes weighing the value of human life wrong, it reduces the value seen in life to something arbitrary by necessity.

I was supposing that, as the entire thought experiment is deisgned to illustrate, that most people's valuations would centre around opportunity to contribute to the world, rather than cuteness. I apologise if your'e a sucker for a lollipop.

Then the scope needs to be widened.

Go for it. I just think it is a topic that could warrant its own thread instead of being appended to this one.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

You haven't proven me wrong to my satisfaction, and you have proven me wrong to your satisfaction. And vice versa.

So seems the issue.

Just because we both think the other one is wrong doesn't render 'agreeing to disagree' an invalid course just to keep discussions moving, interesting, and not constantly devolving into you and I posting page after page on a subject that is only lightly connected to the situation at hand.

The subject is central. It's the question of whether or not it's ever moral to take action which will hurt others based on any valuation made of others. I'm less concerned about whether the discussion is moving or interesting as I am about whether the discussion perpetuates faulty thought or evolves, not devolves, into something more meaningful.

I was supposing that, as the entire thought experiment is deisgned to illustrate, that most people's valuations would centre around opportunity to contribute to the world, rather than cuteness. I apologise if your'e a sucker for a lollipop.

Yes, but that's precisely the issue. "opportunity to contribute to the world" is a concept based in the mind of each individual on their own arbitrary valuation of what constitutes "contribution". Some people would undoubtedly think cuteness contributes more to the world than 200 men with HIV, and while that might strike people with other more somberly types of valuations as something which is absurd, their values are ultimately no less arbitrary.

Go for it. I just think it is a topic that could warrant its own thread instead of being appended to this one.

I'd be fine with creating a separate thread for the discussion, but the discussion is still contextually appropriate to this thread.