Another "Divert the Train" Moral Philosophy Question

[archbishopjabber]

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.

[Schrammbledeggs]

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.

[doob10163]

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

[A2_Sauce]

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

[ledwix]

Originally Posted by doob10163

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

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.

[A2_Sauce]

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

[ledwix]

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.

[Squeek]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism

[jewpinthethird]

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."

[aperson]

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

[devonin]

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.

[Wilkin]

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

[MeaCulpa]

Originally Posted by devonin

People who think along purely emotional lines would be very hard-pressed to justify killing a little girl

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.

[The_Q]

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

[devonin]

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"

[Master_of_the_Faster]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

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]

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.