Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Moral Questions

AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
edited September 2008 in Debate and/or Discourse
So, I've just finished reading the book Moral Minds by Marc D. Hauser. It's an excellent book and I would recommend it to anyone who's interested in morality and how our brains actually compute it and understand it. He heavily pushes the notion that our moral sense is actually much like our linguistic sense, and that, in the same manner, we have a framework that accepts parameters for development from our society and allows us to access complicated moral rules unconsciously the same way we can access complicated grammatical rules without actually understanding them.

Anyway, I'm somewhat interested in running an experiment. Throughout the book Hauser presents a number of moral dilemmas that have been historically used quite often by researchers on surveys to better understand our moral choices and the reasoning behind them. I'd like to post a few here (some of you may be familiar with these dilemmas already) and see how all of you judge them, and more importantly, see how each of you justify your judgments of these dilemmas.

1.)
A brother and sister are on vacation together and decide that to enrich their wonderful relationship they should make love. he has been vasectomized and she is on the pill, there is no risk of pregnancy. They make passionate lover and it is a wonderful experience for both. They keep this as their secret, something that they will always remember and cherish.

2.)
A surgeon walks into a hospital as a nurse rushes forward with the following case. "Doctor! An ambulance just pulled in with five people in critical condition. Two have a damaged kidney, one a crushed heart, one a collapsed lung, and one a completely ruptured liver. We don't have time to search for possible organ donors, but a healthy young man just walked in to donate blood and is sitting in the lobby. We can save all five patients if we take the needed organs from this young man. Of course he won't survive, but we will save all five patients.

3.)
A train is moving at a speed of 150 miles per hour. All of a sudden the conductor notices a light on the panel indicating complete brake failure. Straight ahead of him on the track are five hikers, walking with their backs turned, apparently unaware of the train. The conductor notices that the track is about to fork, and another hiker is on the side track. The conductor must make a decision: He can let the train continue on its current course, thereby killing the five hikers, or he can redirect the train onto the side track and thereby kill one hiker but save five.

4.)
Frank is on a footbridge over the trolley tracks. He knows trolleys and can see that the approaching the bridge is out of control, with its conductor passed out. On the track under the bridge there are five people; the banks are so steep that they will not be able to get off the track in time. Frank knows that the only way to stop an out-of-control trolley is to drop a very heavy weight into its path. But the only available, sufficiently heavy weight is a large person also watching the trolley from the footbridge. Frank can shove the large onto the track in the path of the trolley, resulting in death; or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five die.

For those of you already familiar with these scenarios and the results that they've received in studies and why they've received these results, please wait until at least a few people have tried to answer before giving the full analysis, I'd like to see the different responses.

AJAlkaline40 on
idiot.jpg
«1345

Posts

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm slightly confused; are you looking to deal with these hypotheticals from a chemical or biological perspective in how the brain deals with "moral questions?"

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Sorry, I don't mean to confuse, right now I'm just wondering how you guys feel about these scenarios and how you justify your feelings towards them.

    I was thinking more in depth discussion could follow.

    idiot.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    1. creeps me out, but whatever.

    2. "First, do no harm" is a really good idea. Don't make a patient worse off than when they came in. Ever.

    3. honk the horn

    4. Stay uninvolved. If he feels noble, the dude can jump on his own.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Well, I haven't worked through this before, so I spose I'll take a shot at answering, and we can pick me apart from there.

    1) Don't see a moral problem here; assuming the scenario intends to rule out negative outcomes for the siblings (stigma, emotional trauma, etc.) and for society (no wacky kids), I don't see anything immoral about it.

    2) I'm going to say that you don't get to chop a dude up to save five other dudes.

    3) The conductor should take the side path. A little bit of lost time for the passengers doesn't outweigh four lives.

    4) Similar to the surgeon example, I don't think you get to make the decision to kill a dude to save multiple dudes, when you have the option of doing nothing.
    Spoiler:

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Well, I haven't worked through this before, so I spose I'll take a shot at answering, and we can pick me apart from there.

    1) Don't see a moral problem here; assuming the scenario intends to rule out negative outcomes for the siblings (stigma, emotional trauma, etc.) and for society (no wacky kids), I don't see anything immoral about it.

    2) I'm going to say that you don't get to chop a dude up to save five other dudes.

    3) The conductor should take the side path. A little bit of lost time for the passengers doesn't outweigh four lives.

    4) Similar to the surgeon example, I don't think you get to make the decision to kill a dude to save multiple dudes, when you have the option of doing nothing.
    Spoiler:

    Wait, in number 3, realize that the side track has one other hiker on it, who will die if the train moves onto it.

    idiot.jpg
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre @PixelateJake on TwitterRegistered User regular
    edited September 2008
    1) Whatever.

    2) What the hell, don't punish some dude coming to give blood.

    3) This is retarded, trains are loud and have horns.

    4) What the hell is a trolley?

    Spec_Banner.png
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Yeah, I realize that.

    edit: don't get me wrong, I see the contradiction there. I just answered off the top of my head, so I spose I'll have to think it through for a couple minutes.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    I'm not going to get a lot of serious responses, am I? :|

    In 3 assume that there is no way that the hikers can escape the tracks. Maybe they all broke their legs or something.

    idiot.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    TehSpectre wrote: »
    4) What the hell is a trolley?

    It's like a corbit.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited September 2008
    I'm not going to get a lot of serious responses, am I? :|

    In 3 assume that there is no way that the hikers can escape the tracks. Maybe they all broke their legs or something.

    maybe they were bitten in the legs by snakes.

    try to hit them in such a way as to safely amputate their legs.

  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Yeah, I realize that.

    edit: don't get me wrong, I see the contradiction there. I just answered off the top of my head, so I spose I'll have to think it through for a couple minutes.
    This will bias your answers:
    Spoiler:

    idiot.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    These are pretty dumb and assumptive.

    In 3) I'm going to scramble to avoid gibbing five hikers dead-center. If there's a fork coming, I'm probably pulling the lever before I even look down the fork (how the fuck do I tear my eyes off the hikers or my ineffectual controls, anyway) and see that there's a guy there anyway. The panic of "fucking Christ five people are going to die, there has to be something I can do" is going to motivate me far more than any morality.

    1) doesn't seem to be an actual problem? 2) is retarded. 4) is hopelessly contrived, and incredibly strange in that the presumption is made that the hypothetical person on the bridge immediately realizes that the only way to stop the train is by throwing the other person in front of it. I'm not willing to weigh in on this because not only is the scenario contrived, but the mental state of the intervener is contrived beyond reason. Any person who's that quick-thinking, and also that strong, dextrous, and able to see so clearly into the future, is goddamn Superman and we all know Superman would just stop the trolley his-goddamn-self.

    words
  • Road BlockRoad Block Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    1. Weird but has no effect on people outside themselves. Still weird though.

    2. Idiotic. First knocking someone out is hardly usual to taking blood so he'd probally tweek that something was up. Second all medical staff involved would be fired and most likly on trail for murder. Which incidently leads to lack of medical staff leading to a higher fatality rate at said hospital. 3. There goes a good lump of pottential blood donors. Even if he volenteers its still shaky ground.

    3. Unless the hikers are all deaf or alternativly suffers of the stupid virus. Or trains are made ALOT differently over there. Then there is no reason any should die. Hit emergancy brakes (Not very fast acting I'll grant you.) Pull the horn and switch lanes. (5 beats 1.)

    4. Good luck aiming. Probally more likly to hit them then to stop it. If you really feel the need you get to be the guy that goes splat.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Here are my answers from the gut. I can't quite explain why I chose differently for 3) and 4).

    1.)
    No problem.

    2.)
    You could use organs from one of the already dying patients to save some of the others, but not from the healthy blood donor.

    3.)
    Divert to only kill the one hiker.

    4.)
    Don't push fattie; let the five on the tracks die.

  • ReaperSMSReaperSMS Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    1) Their business is their business. Don't see what else to say about this one.

    2) The guy donating blood donates blood. Someone might ask if he'd consider donating an organ or two, but he should be leaving the hospital healthy. Breakdown:

    Kidney people: description suggests they have one damaged kidney a piece. Lucky for them, nature gave them spares. At the very least, dialysis can probably help them out a bit longer, possibly long enough for a donor to be found.

    Heart/lung/liver guys: They're probably hosed. I would say make the best effort possible to keep them going, whichever one dies first (that signed up as an organ donor) saves the other two if possible.

    That said, the latter three are probably doomed, given the short notice, and the biological mechanics of transplants. Rule 0 is "Do No Harm", which forbids killing the guy to take a shot in the dark at successfully saving the accident victims.

    3) Conductor should hit the horn, and head left. None of the deaths there are guaranteed, unless all 6 hikers are deaf and walking on train tracks. Otherwise the conductor should rely on their reflexes. Not much else he can do.

    4) This one sound rather ludicrous, unless you have a different definition of trolley than I do. I hear trolley, I think cable car, and no fatass (even in this country) is fat enough to stop one of those. This also gets back to this pandemic of people walking on train tracks with no possible exits. Shout and try to alert the future Darwin Award winners sure. Throw someone else under a train to keep them from reaping the consequences of their actions? Hell no.

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.

    words
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Yeah, I realize that.

    edit: don't get me wrong, I see the contradiction there. I just answered off the top of my head, so I spose I'll have to think it through for a couple minutes.
    This will bias your answers:
    Spoiler:

    I think I essentially see less choice on the part of the conductor. In 3, either one person is going to die, or five people are, and his choice is basically the only determinant.

    In 2 and 4 their are additional choices, which I don't think you're justified in taking away from the other actors. Maybe that fat guy would've realized what was happening and thrown himself in the way, and maybe if you asked the blood donor if he'd give up a kidney to save one of the dudes he'd say yes.

    edit: also I didn't read your spoiler.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    1. I think it is wrong, because the violation of the social taboo will haunt them in some fashion. All our pleasures are tied with pain in the end.

    2. It is wrong, not necessarily on the individual level, but on the larger level that it would destroy the reputation of the doctor, the hospital and the trust of the public which would be a net negative.

    3. Kill that dude. Better one than five.

    4. Kill that dude. Isn't this the same as the last question?

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Gosh people, they're supposed to be contrived, they're not supposed to be realistic. They were made for the purpose of testing specific functions of the moral faculty. You're not supposed to believe them, you're supposed to give your gut reactions. How are they exactly dumb and assumptive? Unless you're reading more into them than I am?

    And yes, one is different than the rest in that it's not actually a dilemma, but people's reactions vary and it's interesting to see.

    EDIT:
    All of these have to be constrained, by their nature they're binary. I understand where you're coming from about 2 and 3, but they have to be that way. Bend the description in a way that would make it make more sense to you, if you must, but these are meant to be the only possible options.

    idiot.jpg
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Speaker wrote: »
    1. I think it is wrong, because the violation of the social taboo will haunt them in some fashion. All our pleasures are tied with pain in the end.
    If this is true, I think the question needs to state it. No hypothetical should have a secret door with a goat hidden behind it. The fact he so clearly delineates the fact "nothing bad happens" makes me leery of responses hinging on "something bad happens."

    words
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.

    Except that's probably the point, since in absolute terms 2-4 are the same question. They're phrased the way they are to get you to examine your reasoning.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    So, are you gonna tell us (possibly spoilered) what our combinations of answers mean?

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Gosh people, they're supposed to be contrived, they're not supposed to be realistic. They were made for the purpose of testing specific functions of the moral faculty. You're not supposed to believe them, you're supposed to give your gut reactions. How are they exactly dumb and assumptive? Unless you're reading more into them than I am.
    How do we post our gut reactions for other people's actions? You're not even clear in your OP what you're asking us. If you want to appraise our moral sensibilities, tell us how the stories end and then what our gut reaction is.

    All you're doing at present is gauging a different metric and using it to paint a stolen portrait. I don't think very highly of this book or its author, to be honest, from what you've shown us. It's shitty science.

    words
  • ReaperSMSReaperSMS Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    There's contrived, and there's completely nonsensical things. 500 pound dude isn't going to do squat to stop a speeding 3 ton passenger laden vehicle.

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.

    Except that's probably the point, since in absolute terms 2-4 are the same question. They're phrased the way they are to get you to examine your reasoning.
    Then isn't the OP and the questions it poses of us a red herring? Like I said, it seems more straightforward to end the stories unilaterally (always choose the most utilitarian option, etc.) and respond to the gut reactions of people. As it is, he's asking us to choose for a third person and respond in the first person as if, again, we weren't that third person. It's fucking moral ju-jitsu. o_O

    words
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.
    Spoiler:

    idiot.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    2.) A surgeon walks into a hospital as a nurse rushes forward with the following case. "Doctor! An ambulance just pulled in with five people in critical condition. Two have a damaged kidney, one a crushed heart, one a collapsed lung, and one a completely ruptured liver. We don't have time to search for possible organ donors, but a healthy young man just walked in to donate blood and is sitting in the lobby. We can save all five patients if we take the needed organs from this young man. Of course he won't survive, but we will save all five patients.
    My parents (who are doctors) went right for the immediate flaw when my brother brought this one up a while ago: you do this, and you damage medicine for all time. People stop seeing doctors, mistrust reigns supreme, they do anything in their power to avoid surgery etc. You will easily kill many many more people then 1.

    Then they also pointed out that if one donor is compatible with all the patients, they're all compatible with each other.

    Also, you don't need to transplant a whole liver - partial liver transplants are done frequently and work just fine. But more to the point, because of this fact the only moral choice you're actually asking is whether we have any right to kill one man to save another (the guy with the crushed heart) for which the answer is a definite no. So assuming he dies, we have enough organs to save all the other patients without needlessly risking the health of an otherwise healthy person in the first place.

    And let's face it - if you're in critical condition with heart problems from trauma, you're not getting a donor heart quickly enough to save you.

  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.
    Spoiler:
    But then shouldn't people's "reactions" follow their likely reactions, and not their moral platitudes? I said how I'd act in 3) if I was the person behind the wheel, not how if I was a scholar appraising the situation from my laptop. Which of these is the correct method?

    EDIT: Also as ELM said and as Speaker might have correctly ascertained, these feel sort of like "gotcha" scenarios in that I suspect the details are there just to trip us up so that someone can drop some evo-psych bullcrap on us or something else. Can you just, really, share the point already?

    words
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    ReaperSMS wrote: »
    There's contrived, and there's completely nonsensical things. 500 pound dude isn't going to do squat to stop a speeding 3 ton passenger laden vehicle.

    Come on.

    Seriously?

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
  • ZimmydoomZimmydoom Registered User
    edited September 2008
    Good idea, bad execution.

    There are only two questions here, and one of them should be DQ'd outright. The first isn't about morality at all. It's an "ick" test. The second, third and fourth are all the same damn question: is it right to choose to kill one to save many?

    1) Assuming all the caveats you insist upon, I guess I don't see a problem there, but I also can't possibly fathom a situation where this could happen without some kind of psychological issues cropping up. A better question would be to pose the same scenario, except make them step-siblings who were raised together.

    2-4) It is never right to choose to kill an innocent in order to save lives. By "innocent" I mean anyone who is not directly responsible for the others being at risk. It is morally acceptable to kill a man who threatens your family. It is not acceptable to kill a rapist under orders of someone who threatens to kill your family if you do not comply.

    EDIT: Upon further review, 3 is different because somebody dies no matter what. However, the fact that in some cases death is unavoidable does not absolve you of responsibility for the deaths of "the one." I don't really see a moral choice there, I see a logistical one, and you're pretty much fucked no matter what happens. I suppose I would choose to divert to the track with one person on it, but nor would I condemn someone who would choose to stay on the same track.

    Better-than-birthday-sig!
    Spoiler:
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.

    Except that's probably the point, since in absolute terms 2-4 are the same question. They're phrased the way they are to get you to examine your reasoning.
    Then isn't the OP and the questions it poses of us a red herring? Like I said, it seems more straightforward to end the stories unilaterally (always choose the most utilitarian option, etc.) and respond to the gut reactions of people. As it is, he's asking us to choose for a third person and respond in the first person as if, again, we weren't that third person. It's fucking moral ju-jitsu. o_O

    We can infer from the last paragraph of the OP that there is something else at play here; some impulse is apparently causing people to respond differently to three questions that are identical in terms of absolutes. And since actually doing the thing is more instructive that reading some study, I just went along with it.

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    We can infer from the last paragraph of the OP that there is something else at play here; some impulse is apparently causing people to respond differently to three questions that are identical in terms of absolutes. And since actually doing the thing is more instructive that reading some study, I just went along with it.
    I agree with you, I just don't like this whole "being dragged through the dark" thing on the part of the OP especially when he isn't clear about what exactly he wants us to do, or how to approach the 'situations.' My criticism is with his specific methodology, especially because at present I feel like I'm just being set up, in the sense it doesn't matter how I respond.

    words
  • AJAlkaline40AJAlkaline40 __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Oboro wrote: »
    Oboro wrote: »
    Dyscord wrote: »
    fuck people they're abstract exercises. Saying "honk the horn dumbass" is missing the point, even if the point turns out to be really shallow.

    I'm sure we could construct real-world scenarios that would account for all possible outcomes and still boil down to the same choice, but they would be long and boring and contrived so why bother.
    Or, you could pose them as absolutes -- "you need to choose between five people dying and one. What do you do?" As it is, they're framed and laced with superfluous detailing or contrivances that just shit on the methodology.
    Spoiler:
    But then shouldn't people's "reactions" follow their likely reactions, and not their moral platitudes? I said how I'd act in 3) if I was the person behind the wheel, not how if I was a scholar appraising the situation from my laptop. Which of these is the correct method?

    EDIT: Also as ELM said and as Speaker might have correctly ascertained, these feel sort of like "gotcha" scenarios in that I suspect the details are there just to trip us up so that someone can drop some evo-psych bullcrap on us or something else. Can you just, really, share the point already?

    My god, you are the most distrustful people I've ever met. There's no damn "gotcha". I'm not doing this to deliver my judgment on all of your morals. I just thought it was a cool study and I wanted to try replicating it. One second and I'll give you the analysis.

    EDIT:
    Also, the "correct" reaction is to give your gut reaction. But I don't mind a discussion between what you think is moral from a logical manner and how this may or may not differ from your gut reaction.

    idiot.jpg
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    The ones where it's save the one or save the many are only acceptable when the situation provides no choice for those who may live or die but the choice will make itself due to inaction on your part.

    Redirecting the train is damage minimization. Throwing someone else onto the tracks is immoral.

  • INeedNoSaltINeedNoSalt Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    Zimmydoom wrote: »
    2-4) It is never right to choose to kill an innocent in order to save lives. By "innocent" I mean anyone who is not directly responsible for the others being at risk. It is morally acceptable to kill a man who threatens your family. It is not acceptable to kill a rapist under orders of someone who threatens to kill your family if you do not comply.

    Man that is a better question than the ones in the OP though

    Because I would probably kill the guy to save my family even if he was a saint.

    sometimes you just gotta do a thing
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    goddamnit how do you 'analyze' this grumblegrumble

    also how is my pointing out your fantastically ambiguous and typo-rife OP that attempts to 'replicate a study' just being "distrustful?" I'm only trying to help :(

    words
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    I thought it was pretty clear that you're being asked to judge the actions as an omnipotent third person. I mean, it wasn't "would you have sex with your sister," which would make that one a pretty different question.

    And yeah, of course it's a setup. OP pretty much admits that at the beginning. It's like "here, walk into my beartrap, cause the results are sort of interesting!"

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • OboroOboro __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2008
    Dyscord wrote: »
    I thought it was pretty clear that you're being asked to judge the actions as an omnipotent third person. I mean, it wasn't "would you have sex with your sister," which would make that one a pretty different question.

    And yeah, of course it's a setup. OP pretty much admits that at the beginning. It's like "here, walk into my beartrap, cause the results are sort of interesting!"
    Shouldn't the study then be phrased as, "which of the two outcomes do you perceive as more moral?" That sidesteps all of the loaded/assumptive question issues, doesn't it? Though to be fair I seem to be the only one who perceived this as ambiguous, so whatever. I guess I'm just not used to being asked to judge things omnipotently. @_@

    words
  • SpeakerSpeaker Registered User regular
    edited September 2008
    NO TRAP CAN HOLD ME

    FREEDOM

    Being walkers with the dawn and morning,
    Walkers with the sun and morning, we are not afraid of night,
    Nor days of gloom, nor darkness -
    Being walkers with the sun and morning.
«1345
This discussion has been closed.