Immiment Death Question

[Lamoc]

1 word says it all.

....Popcorn....


Honestly probably pull it partial way, see what happens. If it like stops half way.

[jamuko]

Originally Posted by Lamoc

1 word says it all.

....Popcorn....

Thanks for contributing.

Anyway, out of curiosity, to the people on Kilroy's side: do you believe in fate or karma?

I can imagine that a belief in something like that could make that choice much easier to come to. We have no idea why those people are on a platform facing death. For all we know, there could be a good reason for it, and they're getting their just desserts for one reason or another. In that instance, we would have no right to alter fate by putting an innocent person in their place.

[Hepcat06]

Good question. But whether it's their fate to die there or not, i'm not pulling that lever.

This forum really gets you thinking.

[Cyanite]

The more I think about this, the simpler it really seems to be.

You've got 5 people about to die, whom you don't know at all. You don't know their history, who they are, or why they're there. You don't know if they deserve to die or not. All you know is that they WILL die, unless you sacrifice one person, whom again, you don't know at all.

Really it seems like the only logical explaination is to sacrifice the one person. There's no justification for letting 5 people die when you can easily save them at the expense of 1/5th of what the casualties would have been.

It just seems like this is turning a bit too complicated now, what with the arguments that "I don't have an obligation to do anything" or "By interferring, I'm directly responsible for a death, while neglect means I'm not responsible for 5 deaths".

It's all just starting to sound overcomplicated. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

[jamuko]

It's because you (and many others) are seeing it in the simple, logical way as a computer would... when the fact is, in reality we are humans who don't necessarily make our decisions based on straight computer-esque logic, whether we want to admit it or not.

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by jamuko

in reality we are humans who don't necessarily make our decisions based on straight computer-esque logic, whether we want to admit it or not.

I really don't see it as computer-esque logic, just common sense. You're faced with either letting 5 people die, or killing 1 person to save those 5. I really can't imagine a scenerio where you can presume that letting that one person live at the expense of 5 others is logical in any way, especially since we don't know who they are or why they're there.

I'm just seeing it in the "simple, logical" way because I can't find any influences strong enough to allow the one person to live at the expense of 5 others.

[jamuko]

People don't always behave rationally. =) There are a lot of complex reasonings that could go on deep down, which is what Kilroy and the others are seeking to describe.

You're right about not knowing who they are or why they're there, but that can also be used in the opposite argument. As was touched on with my question about fate/karma, what if the people on the death platform are there for a good reason? As far as we know no malicious person has put them there; they're could be there because they had it coming, "God's will", it's just their time to go, etc. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Would you save five elderly people and sacrifice a child?

Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning toward the "logical" side as well, but I do sympathize with the other argument.

[Chrissi]

jamuko, if you are there, isn't it also very possible that their fate is to be saved by you?

How does fate explain anything? You are there, so your fate is, obviously, to be there, since you are there. If it wasn't fate you wouldn't be there (if you believe in fate, that is.)

So if your fate is to be there, your fate is to make a choice.

So just make the "best" choice - save 5 people for the expense of 1. Maybe you are supposed to.

[jamuko]

Heh... good point. I hadn't really thought of that. XD

In any case, I'm not really arguing for that side so much as trying to help show that it has at least enough validity to give it some consideration.

[Kilroy_x]

I assume for my arguments the categorical imperative

I will represent the argument over this subject in logic, to the best of my ability.

(5xL & 1xD) iff yp v iff ~yp (1xL & 5xD)

x=people, l=live, d=die, y=you and p=pull lever


Now, the categorical imperative assumes that to treat a person as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves is immoral.

From this I assume that: (yp => ~yg) v (~yp => ~~yg)

g=act in accordance with categorical imperative

However, the categorical imperative also states that you should act by any maxim which you would desire to become universal law. If you accept the mathematical truth about the subject, that 5>1, then perhaps you could will pulling the switch to become universal law. However this would also will a violation of the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

So either: (YbF & ~YbS) v iff (YbS => ~YbF) => (YbS & ~YbF)

F=First categorical, S=second, b= behave in accordance with.

Basically, if treating every person as an end in themselves implies that something you would will to become a universal maxim cannot (maximization of life), then the two imperatives are in conflict if you don't pull the lever (and also if you do), but as I don't believe you can coherently will this act to become a universal maxim I believe they are not in conflict if you do not pull the lever and are in conflict when you do, meaning the more logical action is to not pull the lever.

[meiloyn]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

This question phrased in a more reasonable manner:

There are 5 random people tied to a railroad track. You don't know them. You can't even tell who they are. A train is heading straight for them. But there's good news! You are at the station and you can pull the switch to divert the train from its present track. The bad news? One person is tied to that track.

Do you pull the lever?

For almost everyone, the answer is yes, we pull the lever. Why? You're saving more lives that way. It's pretty obvious. There are some people who wouldn't pull the lever, but they are the anomoly.

Now consider this similar situation: There are five very sick people in a small town with a doctor. These people will die if they do not get organ transplants. Each of them needs a different, vital organ, but there are none available. A wanderer comes into town and visits the doctor. The doctor finds out that this person's organs are compatible with all five of the dying people. So the doctor questions the wanderer, and it turns out the wanderer has no family, no friends, nobody knows where he's going and nobody cares that he left. He's truly a nomad.

Should the doctor steal the wanderer's organs (which would kill him in the process) and save the five dying people?

For most, the answer is no.

Think about why that is. It's the same situation, when it comes down to it: Five lives saved for the sacrifice of one. But why is it that most people would say yes to the first situation, and no to the second?

From my perspective, it has to do with being proactive or reactive. In the first situation, you need to REACT and flip the switch. In the second situation, you actually have to kill a person, thus being PROACTIVE.

For the title question, I would push the lever part way, so neither person gets hit.

For the train question, yeah, I'd flip the switch. Of it the control was there, I'd stop the train altogether.

For the organ question, yeah, I'd use that guy's organs. Nobody cares about him, so who cares?

[Sera13]

I am not to hot on the whole playing god thing.. I would not do anything in either situation. It is not place to tinker around in other peoples lives. Some how these people have gotten themselves into this situation with no doing on my part. I will simply leave it up to fate to let things work themselves out. Even if that means standing aside and wathcing people die, While i watch another walk away unharmed. For reasons beyond my knowledge This is what was ment to happen to these people. I think getting what is coming to me for not helping the ones about to die, and letting the lucky one walk away is much better than having to deal with possible repercussions of changing the entire course of all those peoples lives.

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by Sera13

Some how these people have gotten themselves into this situation with no doing on my part

In accordinance with the question, somehow you've come to be in front of the lever, as well, with or without any doing on your part.

Chrissi brought up a good point that I'm surprised nobody thought of before. Though fate brought those people in front of the train headed to them, fate also brought you in front of that lever to make a choice. If it didn't, you obviously wouldn't have any part in it.

And Jamuko, I'm not saying this is a completely logical situation, I know there are other driving factors and they're definitely open for debate. I, however, personally don't see any of those factors being strong enough to kill 5 people for the sake of one person.

Originally Posted by Jamuko

Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Would you save five elderly people and sacrifice a child?

1. The way I see it, we have been faced with a choice, so we might as well make one.

2. That argument, again, is bringing up the argument of some lives being more "valuable" than others, based off of life left to live, previous accomplishments and capacity for future accomplishments. I'd really rather not get into that argument, as it really doesn't apply to this debate unless you start filling random values into the variables (the variables being who the people about to be killed/saved are).

[Kilroy_x]

You're missing the point. You aren't "killing five people to save one person" in any of these situations. Ever. You are, however, killing one person to save five in many of these situations. You're only guilty of killing when you take an action, and killing an unwilling person is always more wrong than letting an unwilling person die. Even five people.

The act itself carries a weight in these considerations, not just the type of people we're saving or not saving.

[Hepcat06]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You're missing the point. You aren't "killing five people to save one person" in any of these situations. Ever. You are, however, killing one person to save five in many of these situations. You're only guilty of killing when you take an action, and killing an unwilling person is always more wrong than letting an unwilling person die. Even five people.

The act itself carries a weight in these considerations, not just the type of people we're saving or not saving.

That's as simple as it needs to be. You are killing someone. Simple. Done.

[Cyanite]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

You're only guilty of killing when you take an action

The way I see it, neglecting to take any action when you have the option to right in front of you is an action in itself.

I'm not missing any point, I'm just not agreeing with your interpretations. You say that you're innocent only if you let those 5 people die. By altering the course, you're directly guilty because you interfered with the original state to cause harm to someone that otherwise wouldn't be harmed.

I understand that completely. I just don't agree with it.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by meiloyn

For the title question, I would push the lever part way, so neither person gets hit.

For the train question, yeah, I'd flip the switch. Of it the control was there, I'd stop the train altogether.

You realize that you're just dodging the actual question? There's no "nobody days yay" option in any of these because it's an ethics question.

Chrissi basically said this already, but as to the "Fate brought them there, so you can't interfere" standpoint, the definition trumps the argument. The main idea behind fate is that all events that occur are destined to do so. Therefore, it is impossible "interfere with fate" because fate controls everything we do... including the events that you consider "interfering".

The "why" argument is bugging me a lot. "How do you know they aren't being punished for something?" The problem itself is defined as spontaneous - saying that a speeding train or a falling metal comet is "punishment" for anything is completely moronic. Even if you believe in karma, if those five deserve to die over the one, then karma will make the one at the lever stand there and gape, or else not present them with the choice at all.

As for my choice, without knowledge of the identities, I would definitely involve myself to save the five. Yeah, it sucks a lot to be the one, and I'd definitely feel extraordinarily guilty doing so, but it seems much more righteous to victimize one random life in place of five. If people are leaving it just because it would make them involved, I would consider them pussies.

If it comes right down to it, if I was the single person on said platform, I would insist that they pull the lever. It would be arrogant and selfish for me to consider my life more valuable than five others.

[Ice wolf]

EDIT:Now that I've read through the thread, I change my mind. I would leave the decision up to destiny. Like it's been said before, there could be five senior citizens and a baby. Who isn't to say that if that baby lives, then he/she will be very succesful in life and change the world in a good way?

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by ledwix

Situation:
A gigantic metal ball is in freefall in the sky, headed straight toward a party of 5 people who stand unprotected on a platform. When it lands on them in a few seconds, they will surely be crushed. On another platform, one person stands alone safely. You stand 100 feet away from each platform with no equipment. A lever is at your side. If you pull it, the two platforms will instantaneously switch positions, putting the previously safe person in grave danger and freeing the five people from any danger. You do not know the identities of the people. They could be strangers, friends, celebrities, family, enemies, etc, but you do not know.

Question:
Would you pull this lever?

Why/why not?

I would not pull the level. I would either search for another way or just pray that God picked the right Platform to crush. If I saw the ball in time, I might kick the lever as I ran by, switching the platforms, and push the one man off.

I will now go back and read the other post.

[sammo123]

i would pull it ones death is five others lifes