Immiment Death Question

[jamuko]

Kilroy has made this discussion really interesting.

I have to bring up, though - while you're right that we can't quantify the value of each life, you can't deny that the group of five people is more likely to have more arbitrary "value" than the one. It's not 100% of course, but still likely that there would be more loved ones affected by the death of those five, more potential accomplishments lost, etc. than there would be for the one. No matter how you define the "value" of a life, the chance is good that in a higher quantity there will be more "value".

You could be killing Gandhi over five men who were about to die the next day anyway, but the chances of that are slim.

I think to be perfectly honest my instincts would lead me to keep my hands off, subconsciously for the reasons you said, but I'm pretty sure I would still feel horrible for watching five people die and not doing anything about it when it was easy to do so. I don't think the guilt of forcing a man to die in place of the others would outweigh the guilt of allowing the five people to die before my eyes.


Edit: Of course in the scenario where it's more difficult to kill the one over the five, such as pushing a man onto the train tracks, I wouldn't be able to do it. But that's because I'm a pansy.

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by Hepcat06

I really don't believe your murdering 5 people. You're just choosing not to save them.

By taking no action when you're blatantly given the opportunity to do so, I think it'd still qualify as neglect, which would put blame on you.

I think people are getting confused over the fact that, by not doing anything, you're killing 5 people who could have potentially been saved. However, in order to save them, you need to go out of your way to alter the course and kill another lone person. Since that's something you individually interfered with, that would cause the death of that one person to be your fault, yet by doing nothing and letting the 5 people die, you're free from blame since you actually didn't do something.

I really don't agree with that logic at all. In my perspective, taking no action is, in itself still an action, and would therefore put at least some blame on yourself for neglecting the lever and letting the 5 people die.

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by ledwix

instantaneously

Now, see, there's the problem with the situation. Why can't I use my totally badass FFR skills to help save the day? What a waste of my life FFR is. I'm leaving. Bye.

Secondly, those people are idiots for standing on the platforms, seriously.

How is there actually an argument on this? Ugh.

PS: Skimmed over the thread now. My opinion has not changed.

PPS: Might as well seriously respond before I get a ban.

Not taking action is an action in itself. Once you know, you're held liable. Then it just comes down to 5 vs. 1. The only person who'd say you did the wrong thing by not saving the single guy is the idiot who got crushed.

[Kilroy_x]

How can I neglect a duty I never had? Taking no action is not an action unless by taking no action you are violating a set of duties you are obligated towards. It is not my duty to maximize human life, for any reason that I am aware of, and it is certainly not my duty to do so even at the cost of other human life.

[jamuko]

Would it not be a moral obligation of some kind if you were in such a position? Sure, it's not a pre-established duty, but doesn't your humanity drive you to be considerate of such things?

If you see a turtle in the road, in such a place that it would be crushed if you continued naturally, would you not feel a need to swerve?

What if you walked by a simple room in which a person was about to be killed, but you could avert the crisis by pressing a button?

These scenarios are simplified of course by removing the element of sacrifice, but I'm bringing them up to prove a point about your natural "duty" to humanity.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

How can I neglect a duty I never had? Taking no action is not an action unless by taking no action you are violating a set of duties you are obligated towards. It is not my duty to maximize human life, for any reason that I am aware of, and it is certainly not my duty to do so even at the cost of other human life.

Are you not religious? I know I wouldn't want to answer to God when he asks me why, when I had every means to do so, I didn't save those people.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

How can I neglect a duty I never had? Taking no action is not an action unless by taking no action you are violating a set of duties you are obligated towards. It is not my duty to maximize human life, for any reason that I am aware of, and it is certainly not my duty to do so even at the cost of other human life.

So what you're really trying to say is that you would refuse to do something just because you're not technically obligated to beyond basic morale values?

omg ur such a rebel

hardcoer dude

You don't have a duty, you have a choice. Nice job misinterpreting what I said. I don't get how you can derive that no action is only an action unless you have a duty, but for the sake of going with what you said, I guess you could say you're forced into a situation where you need to make a choice: move the lever or keep it. It's your duty to decide, and you have no choice but to because whatever you end up doing is your course of action, whether you're forced into it because you didn't have enough time to think or because you made that choice and you never looked back. You can either pull that lever or not pull it. Let 5 people die or let 1 person die. And it is a choice determined by what course of action you take.

If the lever was in a neutral position and you had no choice but to set it in a position, are you not taking action by moving it so 5 people die?

Oh and the sacrifices you'll make to pull that lever (est. 1 calorie if that thing is just too darn rusty and refuses to budge) is diminutive to the point where it's null, too. I don't see the justification behind keeping it there, unless you're a psychopath.

[jamuko]

Hey now, no need to be condescending about it, Carbo. He may disagree from our natural response, but I think he's bringing up some really interesting arguments for it that aren't as immediately dismissible as you seem to think they are.

[Izzi]

Hes not bringing up anything interesting. Hes just bull****ing the answer of the question for the fun of it. Everything he said is easily immediatley dismissible because it goes against the question.

[jamuko]

He really isn't... :/

Honestly Izzi, I think you've contributed little to nothing of interest to this thread, acting like you know it all without giving the others' arguments proper consideration.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by jamuko

Would it not be a moral obligation of some kind if you were in such a position? Sure, it's not a pre-established duty, but doesn't your humanity drive you to be considerate of such things?

I'm not sure what you mean.

If you see a turtle in the road, in such a place that it would be crushed if you continued naturally, would you not feel a need to swerve?

Usually, although I have to admit there have been cases where I've swerved to avoid an animal and actually hit it as a result. If I have passengers in my car though by swerving I might jeapordize their lives. A lot of avoidable car accidents happen because people do exactly what you are describing.

What if you walked by a simple room in which a person was about to be killed, but you could avert the crisis by pressing a button?

In this case I would press the button.

These scenarios are simplified of course by removing the element of sacrifice, but I'm bringing them up to prove a point about your natural "duty" to humanity.

I have to clarify; just because I would do these things does not mean I would do them out of a sense of duty. I would do them because I feel they have a benefit, to me if no one else, and because the cost is negligable. When the cost of the action becomes the life of a human being, it becomes to high for me to take even when by taking the action I would be saving other human lives.

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

Are you not religious? I know I wouldn't want to answer to God when he asks me why, when I had every means to do so, I didn't save those people.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I am not religious, but if I ever had to answer to God when God asked me such a question I would do so. Similarly if God asked me why I sacrificed the life of one man to save the life of five in an act of arrogance, if I had done so I would have to answer to that as well. Regardless, I don't see how my action could violate God's will either way, nor how I could know God's will if God can be said to exist.

Originally Posted by lord_carbo

So what you're really trying to say is that you would refuse to do something just because you're not technically obligated to beyond basic morale values?

Not at all. I'm saying that even if there wasn't something I considered morally unconscionable about choosing to kill one person for the benefit of five others, which would be a decision in a supremely arrogant fashion as if my judgement in such matters has any meaning, it is not technically my obligation to act to save those people. I would do it immediately in any situation where it didn't require killing another human being.

You don't have a duty, you have a choice. Nice job misinterpreting what I said.

I didn't particularly do any interpretation of what you said, I provided an argument based on what you said. The choice between saving five people and killing one and letting five people die and letting one person live is weighted naturally towards inaction when you consider that any action makes you responsible on some level for outcome. You suggested that inaction is a form of action, which makes you responsible regardless of the outcome. In turn I argued that the only way inaction could be a form of action is when by your inaction you break some covenant; some duty. When you have no obligation to an action your inaction has no interplay with the state of reality that persists unaltered, it's only when you formed part of that reality and withdrew from it that your inaction is a form of action.

I don't get how you can derive that no action is only an action unless you have a duty

As far as I can tell this is simply my own interpretation of deontological ethics.

but for the sake of going with what you said, I guess you could say you're forced into a situation where you need to make a choice: move the lever or keep it. It's your duty to decide, and you have no choice but to because whatever you end up doing is your course of action, whether you're forced into it because you didn't have enough time to think or because you made that choice and you never looked back. You can either pull that lever or not pull it. Let 5 people die or let 1 person die. And it is a choice determined by what course of action you take.

You're arguing that a choice is a course of action? It may be, but a choice doesn't extend beyond a persons means and obligations. You still need to explain three things:

Why it's your duty to decide in such a situation.

Why a decision that results in inaction is equivalent to a decision that results in action.

Why, even though decisions we make might have no effect whatsoever on our intended outcome, it is the decision by itself that makes the course of action right or wrong rather than the actions taken as a result of the decision.

If the lever was in a neutral position and you had no choice but to set it in a position, are you not taking action by moving it so 5 people die?

I don't understand this modified scenario. Please elaborate.

Oh and the sacrifices you'll make to pull that lever (est. 1 calorie if that thing is just too darn rusty and refuses to budge) is diminutive to the point where it's null, too. I don't see the justification behind keeping it there, unless you're a psychopath.

Of course the calorie is, but the human life isn't. Also I may have psychotic tendencies, but that's neither here nor there.

Originally Posted by Izzi

Hes not bringing up anything interesting. Hes just bull****ing the answer of the question for the fun of it. Everything he said is easily immediatley dismissible because it goes against the question.

I'm sorry I can't entertain you, but I assure you I am quite serious in my responses. Also, here's a question for you:


Is it true that you no longer beat your wife?


Just answer true or false please, anything else goes against the question

[iggymatrixcounter]

Sorry I haven't read most of the thread but one point I did notice:

If someone could come up with a more relistic situation this question might be more relavent.

You're a government agency that has $100,000 to spend for medical purposes. Do you spend it saving the lives of 2 people who need liver transplants or do you spend it on a program that helps alcoholics deal with their problems so they don't destroy their livers in the first place?
(side point:We learned this scenario in economics and the most popular answer was saving the 2 lives.)

As humans, I think we plan and decide based off the most immediate dangers. But a person isn't a dollar, you can't add them together with uniformity, even though that's what is being discussed for the most part. (I.E. you would kill 1 person before killing 5)

But something I always think about is that maybe it is possible to quantify lives and compare them. Since religion has been brought up, something to consider is that the Christian religion teaches that "one man died for all." A PERFECT (whatever your definition of perfection is) person was killed for a lot of other people inferior to himself.

My point is that I would probably pull the lever because I would quantify the people with an "all men are equal" viewpoint. But if I knew anything about the lives I was affecting, then it would affect my choice very greatly.

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by iggymatrixcounter

"all men are equal"

You mean "all people are equal" (at least, I hope you do).

I am not a man.

[sherbtail]

Originally Posted by iggymatrixcounter

Sorry I haven't read most of the thread but one point I did notice:



You're a government agency that has $100,000 to spend for medical purposes. Do you spend it saving the lives of 2 people who need liver transplants or do you spend it on a program that helps alcoholics deal with their problems so they don't destroy their livers in the first place?
(side point:We learned this scenario in economics and the most popular answer was saving the 2 lives.)
.

Hehe as I was reading it I was thinking, 'well this is stupid, obviously you would invest in the alcoholic helping program, and then I read that most people go with saving the two people... meh, maybe my mind works in crazy ways.


I still agree with Kilroy overall. A scenario was set up before where you HAD to drop a nuclear bomb on either a small village or a big city and there was no choice to be neutral. Obviously in that situation I would destroy the small village, although as Kilroy said this is far too far from reality to really be of any use.
However this situation is different, by pulling the lever you are murdering a person, how can you assume that he would want to be sacrificed for the lives of five others, I'm not sure if I would like to be run over by a train to save five other people, and I certainly wouldn't want to make that choice for other people. Thus by doing nothing I believe I would be doing the most moral thing in that situation.

And if I had to explain it to God, I would say, 'why the hell did you put me on a platform with a lever and make me choose between the lives of one and five in a split second decision!??!!'

Chrissi, I'm pretty sure he meant 'all people are equal', 'all men are equal' just flows of the tongue better, your not an ultra-feminist are you, or I'll have to rant at you, and rant hard, Dr. Cox style

[baddexample]

well damn what if i only pull the lever halfway and the switch is incomplete so then they are all in the middle n the thing just plumets down past them?

[VampyressKyttie]

I would probably pull the lever and switch it so only one person died instead of five or I would stare and be like OMG OMG OMG.

[Lamoc]

Eh, I would probably grab a bag of chips and watch. Its not everyday you see a giant metal ball fall from the sky?

[chuckey]

while the platforms pass that one dude would jump on to the one that will be safe

[DarkbearX]

Originally Posted by baddexample

well damn what if i only pull the lever halfway and the switch is incomplete so then they are all in the middle n the thing just plumets down past them?

Originally Posted by ledwix

the two platforms will instantaneously switch positions

No, you can't.

Also, I agree with Kilroy; it's not one's obligation to save them, though it'd be the moral thing to do.

Just like the bystander effect; hundreds of people could do the right thing, but they choose not to. =/

[Hepcat06]

Kilroy is right. And i will stand by his argument. Somehow he magically puts my exact thoughts into his typing. Great argument Kilroy.

Are you not religious? I know I wouldn't want to answer to God when he asks me why, when I had every means to do so, I didn't save those people.

--Guido

I am religious and I personally believe that God would agree with Kilroy, me, and the various other people who agree with our argument to not pull the lever. God knows the nasty person who tied those six (in total) people to the tracks, and if no one tied them there, then he knows the full story.

God would also know that I really had nothing to do with the situation. I was just put there. It's not my duty to save those five people and in turn kill that other man. I do however believe that whatever my choice was, God would acknowledge the situation I was put into, and how difficult a choice I had to make. I think either way he would let it slide.

After saying all that, I really don't think you needed to bring religion into this.

I really don't agree with that logic at all. In my perspective, taking no action is, in itself still an action, and would therefore put at least some blame on yourself for neglecting the lever and letting the 5 people die.

You helped me argue with you here by saying letting five people die. That's exactly it. I'm letting them die, because before I came along to that lever... they were already facing death. However, if I do pull the lever I am not only letting the one person die, but as many of us have already said... I'm killing that person.