Just to clarify, no one is getting away in these dilemmas. The decisions decide who will live and who will die.
Do you guys think I should edit the OP?
Honestly? I think you should find better questions.
Figure out what it is you want to test for, ask us for some reasonable hypotheticals, and try those instead.
Understand, these hypotheticals are actually decently famous in the field of psychology, they've been around for a long time and are featured in a number of different studies by different scientists. I didn't make them up. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, these are great dilemmas", perhaps I've presented them poorly, though?
Just to clarify, no one is getting away in these dilemmas. The decisions decide who will live and who will die.
Do you guys think I should edit the OP?
Honestly? I think you should find better questions.
Figure out what it is you want to test for, ask us for some reasonable hypotheticals, and try those instead.
Understand, these hypotheticals are actually decently famous in the field of psychology, they've been around for a long time and are featured in a number of different studies by different scientists. I didn't make them up. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, these are great dilemmas", perhaps I've presented them poorly, though?
Possible. But then most psychologists are shitty scientists, and Holy Hey Seuss are they dogmatic about this shit. If you see a better way to look for the data you want, don't feel restricted by tradition.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
Just in case it wasn't clear earlier, I did answer #4. Making the choice to kill the fat guy to save the others is wrong. If the fat guy chooses to swandive in, more power to him, but you don't get to make the choice for him.
To be really direct, in #2 and #4 your choices are directly kill someone who would have lived anyways. In #3, your choice is which way to push a lever.
if you don't touch the lever you kill the 5. so your choice is more than that.
Actually explaining why I take the position I do is being elusive. I suppose one way to say it would be that the moral approach is to reduce the number of unavoidable casualties, when it is ethical to do so. In 3, you directly control the object that is going to kill someone. In 2 and 4, you do not. In both 2 and 4, you are overriding someone else's choice to do nothing. Both the blood donor and the fat man could make the choice on their own. In 3, the single hiker doesn't have any control over the situation.
Just to clarify, no one is getting away in these dilemmas. The decisions decide who will live and who will die.
Do you guys think I should edit the OP?
Honestly? I think you should find better questions.
Figure out what it is you want to test for, ask us for some reasonable hypotheticals, and try those instead.
Understand, these hypotheticals are actually decently famous in the field of psychology, they've been around for a long time and are featured in a number of different studies by different scientists. I didn't make them up. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, these are great dilemmas", perhaps I've presented them poorly, though?
Possible. But then most psychologists are shitty scientists, and Holy Hey Seuss are they dogmatic about this shit. If you see a better way to look for the data you want, don't feel restricted by tradition.
I'm sorry, most psychologists are shitty scientists? Freud was a shitty scientist. Most of them, though?
The five fucked up people who arrived at the hospital were the ones the conductor hit with the train, and the dude who showed up to donate blood and got his organs harvested was feeling really happy and generous because he'd just finished banging the hell out of his sister.
Just in case it wasn't clear earlier, I did answer #4. Making the choice to kill the fat guy to save the others is wrong. If the fat guy chooses to swandive in, more power to him, but you don't get to make the choice for him.
To be really direct, in #2 and #4 your choices are directly kill someone who would have lived anyways. In #3, your choice is which way to push a lever.
if you don't touch the lever you kill the 5. so your choice is more than that.
Actually explaining why I take the position I do is being elusive. I suppose one way to say it would be that the moral approach is to reduce the number of unavoidable casualties, when it is ethical to do so. In 3, you directly control the object that is going to kill someone. In 2 and 4, you do not. In both 2 and 4, you are overriding someone else's choice to do nothing. Both the blood donor and the fat man could make the choice on their own. In 3, the single hiker doesn't have any control over the situation.
Actually, there's more dilemmas that illustrate these concepts in even finer points. You kind of have to draw them, though. Actually, let me scan them.
Just to clarify, no one is getting away in these dilemmas. The decisions decide who will live and who will die.
Do you guys think I should edit the OP?
Honestly? I think you should find better questions.
Figure out what it is you want to test for, ask us for some reasonable hypotheticals, and try those instead.
Understand, these hypotheticals are actually decently famous in the field of psychology, they've been around for a long time and are featured in a number of different studies by different scientists. I didn't make them up. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, these are great dilemmas", perhaps I've presented them poorly, though?
You've presented them poorly. You presented them as a starting point for a debate on the nature of morality.
The point of the questions isn't to make you think about weighting 4 lives more than 1. The point of the questions was to see if presenting something in two different lights: 4 lives for 1 without being in direct human contact with that 1, or 4 lives for 1 being in direct human contact with that one. Most people can be a hell of a lot more coldly rational when they don't see themselves as the primary actor in the situation.
The point of the questions isn't to explore morality, it's to explore psychology. The dilemmas are secondary.
The claim that the difference in answers results from psychology or neurochemistry or evo-psych or whatever other bullshit you want to bring up is rather disingenious because there are simple philospophical reasons to draw distinctions between the various cases.
The claim that "in absolute terms" they are all identical is ludicrious, unless by that you mean ignoring ever single thing about them. There is a difference between actively and directly killing someone such as in exp 4 and taking actions that while resulting in fatalities minimalize casualties, like exp 3. Triage and murder are two very different things. Exp 2 adds another dimension on top of that in that performing the proposed action fails on a utiliterian basis because it would destroy all doctors ability to help anyone. There is a reason why "first of all, do no harm" is such a fundamental rule.
EDIT: Also, in 3, if you are walking on a train track and not paying attention then you have no right to complain if you get run over by a train.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
Oscar is in the same situation. However here, the man on the side track is standing in front of a weight that will stop the trolley. If he pulls the switch that man will certainly die, but the weight will stop the trolley. Should Oscar pull the switch?
And guys, I already understand that a fat man will not stop a trolley in real life, get over it.
To argue for people to get over the idea that the fat man will not stop the trolley IRL is to ignore why people answer the way they do when you ask the question that way.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
To argue for people to get over the idea that the fat man will not stop the trolley IRL is to ignore why people answer the way they do when you ask the question that way.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
Do you really want to do this?
Anyway, it's like in Frank's story, there's steep banks on all sides and they couldn't possibly climb up in time.
To argue for people to get over the idea that the fat man will not stop the trolley IRL is to ignore why people answer the way they do when you ask the question that way.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
Do you really want to do this?
Anyway, it's like in Frank's story, there's steep banks on all sides and they couldn't possibly climb up in time.
ELM's point is that he's responding in precisely the way he's supposed to. Like durandal said, you're often missing the point of these.
Oboro on
words
0
Options
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
To argue for people to get over the idea that the fat man will not stop the trolley IRL is to ignore why people answer the way they do when you ask the question that way.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
Do you really want to do this?
Anyway, it's like in Frank's story, there's steep banks on all sides and they couldn't possibly climb up in time.
You wanted to know what psychologists are terrible scientists? ELM just told you. You cannot possibly get accurate data from people when your hypotheticals require such massive suspension of disbelief.
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
To argue for people to get over the idea that the fat man will not stop the trolley IRL is to ignore why people answer the way they do when you ask the question that way.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
Do you really want to do this?
Anyway, it's like in Frank's story, there's steep banks on all sides and they couldn't possibly climb up in time.
I pull the switch in both cases but still find the questions tiring to answer because they involve doing terrible things under unrealistic scenarios which are uninformative.
I like real moral dilemmas or great fuck ups which we can dissect and find that oh hey there's a whole fuckload going on and no-one has perfect information which is the crucial point about any life or death situation in the first place.
In the actual experiments you had a 'yes' and 'no' check-box and then you had some space to justify your answer underneath.
EDIT:
Man, when I answered these questions I didn't have the same problems as all of you. I mean, I don't know what fraction of experimental subjects threw down the paper and walked out of the exam because the questions were too unrealistic, but I doubt it was too high.
It seems that you all just have a hard time answering a question when both answers are wrong. I should've expected that from people who post here. :P
These are not complex and not realistic for a reason, they're formulated to be understood by a wide range of test subjects, and they're made to test specific variables in these dilemmas.
Given the rules stated, you pull the switch in both of those situations. As Bill would put it, there are consequences for standing on actively used train tracks. The fat dude and the guy admiring the large weight are about to experience some of them.
In the actual experiments you had a 'yes' and 'no' check-box and then you had some space to justify your answer underneath.
And the actual interesting thing revealed isn't the response but how the population responds en-masse, and to each question in relation to the others. The hypotheticals don't mean anything. An individual response doesn't really say anything worth noting here. There's no "deep meaning."
Zimmydoom, Zimmydoom
Flew away in a balloon
Had sex with polar bears
While sitting in a reclining chair
Now there are Zim-Bear hybrids
Running around and clawing eyelids
Watch out, a Zim-Bear is about to have sex with yooooooou!
In the actual experiments you had a 'yes' and 'no' check-box and then you had some space to justify your answer underneath.
And the actual interesting thing revealed isn't the response but how the population responds en-masse, and to each question in relation to the others. The hypotheticals don't mean anything. An individual response doesn't really say anything worth noting here. There's no "deep meaning."
Eh? The point is to figure out the underlying criteria behind how people judge the morality of certain actions or events, and see if they understand those criteria consciously or if they are things they access unconsciously.
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.
Wait how did I know about this and why didn't they invite me.
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.
Ask the nurse if she wants to go out for dinner after work. :winky:
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.
I don't think the conductor's decision will slow down the train either way so it's okay with me.
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.
1.)
It seems that the only consequences from this situation could be emotional ones to the siblings, and it'd be by their own choice. I don't see a problem with them doing this, if they can deal with the possible emotional aftermath. Sure, incest is creepy, but this situation seems kind of odd.
2.)
The volunteer should be allowed to donate the blood, and be sent happily on his way. The kidney patients would survive with dialysis/one kidney long enough to get a transplant if needed. The man with the crushed heart would die, and if he's a donor, maybe his lungs and liver could be used for the remaining patients. Otherwise the 5 would die instead of the guy who came to donate blood.
3.)
Minimize damage and kill the one guy.
4.)
Let the five die, as the fat fellow isn't on the tracks. People who walk on tracks are more justified in getting killed than a guy who uses a bridge.
What's with the tracks anyhow? They're meant for trains and the like. If you're walking on them, you're taking the risk of getting run over.
Rhan9 on
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
In the actual experiments you had a 'yes' and 'no' check-box and then you had some space to justify your answer underneath.
EDIT:
Man, when I answered these questions I didn't have the same problems as all of you. I mean, I don't know what fraction of experimental subjects threw down the paper and walked out of the exam because the questions were too unrealistic, but I doubt it was too high.
It seems that you all just have a hard time answering a question when both answers are wrong. I should've expected that from people who post here. :P
These are not complex and not realistic for a reason, they're formulated to be understood by a wide range of test subjects, and they're made to test specific variables in these dilemmas.
That's why they're silly and don't really test any moral values at all.
They don't match real life situations where the real moral questions happen.
Morality, like Buddha, is in the details.
(this kind of thing was the first debate that made me post in D&D a couple of years ago)
poshniallo on
I figure I could take a bear.
0
Options
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
edited September 2008
This thread is amazing. The OP asks a few questions and we end up with 6 pages of people dissecting the questions like it's some sort of fucking trick or as if the whole 'experiment' is somehow beneath them so they don't need to answer the questions. How does pretentiousness work into everyone's morality?
darklite_x on
Steam ID: darklite_x Xbox Gamertag: Darklite 37 PSN:Rage_Kage_37 Battle.Net:darklite#2197
It doesn't have to be a real life situation to involve a moral question.
Would you feel better if I invented a moral question that accounted for every real-life factor, and still presented you with the same choice? It will be longer, and it will be dull, but it will account for real life externalities.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
0
Options
darklite_xI'm not an r-tard...Registered Userregular
It doesn't have to be a real life situation to involve a moral question.
Would you feel better if I invented a moral question that accounted for every real-life factor, and still presented you with the same choice? It will be longer, and it will be dull, but it will account for real life externalities.
Was this directed at me? Because I was trying to say that too many people were taking these questions too seriously and should have just answered them without acting like douchebags.
darklite_x on
Steam ID: darklite_x Xbox Gamertag: Darklite 37 PSN:Rage_Kage_37 Battle.Net:darklite#2197
Okay, Ned is in a similar situation to Frank. A trolley is barreling down the track and is going to kill five hikers who cannot escape. He knows that the trolley will stop if a heavy weight is placed in front of it. He can pull a switch that will make the trolley go onto a side track with a fat man on it that Ned knows will stop the trolley. Should Ned pull the switch?
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
2. Not my problem, but if you look at it from a medical standpoint the heart victim is a corpse, his liver could save the other guy. Everyone else has a spare.
3. Sounds like the conductor needs to make a decision. Not my problem.
4. Not my problem.
The answer apparently in all of these situations the only moral thing to do is go on with my life and stop worrying about what every other person is doing with theirs. Their choices are their choices. Why the hell should I care, unless some guy tries to shove me in front of a trolley. In which case some asshole gets shoved in front of a trolley for trying to kill me. Or possibly shot. Really, none of these people are me. I am not the conductor, don't have a sister, am not a retarded surgeon, or named Frank. Why should i sit around telling them how to live their lives in a correct manner.
The only "moral" solution to all of these problems is to tell the person asking them to get a life, and stop caring about what everyone is doing with theirs. Live your life as you see fit, make decisions you are either proud to have made, or baring that can live with the consequences of.
1. No problem, no harm. The possibility exists that one of them will blab or whatever and society will come down, hard, but the possibility is also that they could get hit by a car. They would have to be actively stupid for this to be a harm.
2. Problem. People need to trust the medical establishment for it to be worth anything at all.
3. Kill the one.
4. Same.
In all honesty, I don't feel sympathy for anyone who walks on train tracks and gets mowed down by a train. You can hear/feel trains coming from a long distance, which gives the hikers a chance to get off the tracks.
Here's what I would do: shout at the five stupid hikers, "THERE'S A TRAIN COMING! GET OFF THE TRACKS!" Or if they're on a trestle and can't step off: "THERE'S A TRAIN COMING! LIE DOWN!" Sometimes if you lie down the train will go over you without killing you. If they die anyway, well, that's what you get for hiking on train tracks.
1. Nothing really wrong with it.
2. No, it is unethical, immoral and unnecessary due to everyone apparently being biologically compatible and heart guy being fucked anyway. It would also cause more harm by discouraging people from donating blood and the hospital being shutdown, unable to care for others in the future.
3. In reality, kill the 5, trains derail when they change take diversion tracks at 150 mph. In magic world I put the 1 at risk because, I don't see a difference between action and inaction, and 1 person at risk is more likely to have a positive outcome than 5 people in similar risk.
4. I wouldn't. Which is slightly hypocritical, but I value my life more than the lives of 5 random people too stupid not to avoid obvious hazards. I don't expect others to give up their lives to save random people.
Posts
Understand, these hypotheticals are actually decently famous in the field of psychology, they've been around for a long time and are featured in a number of different studies by different scientists. I didn't make them up. I'm not going to say "you're wrong, these are great dilemmas", perhaps I've presented them poorly, though?
Pffft.
Swing voters are obnoxious jerks. Sex offenders should roam our streets at will and be armed by the government.
I expect you to be awed by my demostration of raw courage in light of my potential run at a state rep seat and my current town committee chairmanship.
@Zimmy - I answered the question in a way that revealed my world view, which I thought at the time was essentially the point of it.
Possible. But then most psychologists are shitty scientists, and Holy Hey Seuss are they dogmatic about this shit. If you see a better way to look for the data you want, don't feel restricted by tradition.
Hey, somebody elected Ron Paul.
Actually explaining why I take the position I do is being elusive. I suppose one way to say it would be that the moral approach is to reduce the number of unavoidable casualties, when it is ethical to do so. In 3, you directly control the object that is going to kill someone. In 2 and 4, you do not. In both 2 and 4, you are overriding someone else's choice to do nothing. Both the blood donor and the fat man could make the choice on their own. In 3, the single hiker doesn't have any control over the situation.
I'm sorry, most psychologists are shitty scientists? Freud was a shitty scientist. Most of them, though?
Actually, there's more dilemmas that illustrate these concepts in even finer points. You kind of have to draw them, though. Actually, let me scan them.
You've presented them poorly. You presented them as a starting point for a debate on the nature of morality.
The point of the questions isn't to make you think about weighting 4 lives more than 1. The point of the questions was to see if presenting something in two different lights: 4 lives for 1 without being in direct human contact with that 1, or 4 lives for 1 being in direct human contact with that one. Most people can be a hell of a lot more coldly rational when they don't see themselves as the primary actor in the situation.
The point of the questions isn't to explore morality, it's to explore psychology. The dilemmas are secondary.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
so you've got something to look at while you're talking to 'em!
The claim that "in absolute terms" they are all identical is ludicrious, unless by that you mean ignoring ever single thing about them. There is a difference between actively and directly killing someone such as in exp 4 and taking actions that while resulting in fatalities minimalize casualties, like exp 3. Triage and murder are two very different things. Exp 2 adds another dimension on top of that in that performing the proposed action fails on a utiliterian basis because it would destroy all doctors ability to help anyone. There is a reason why "first of all, do no harm" is such a fundamental rule.
EDIT: Also, in 3, if you are walking on a train track and not paying attention then you have no right to complain if you get run over by a train.
Oscar is in the same situation. However here, the man on the side track is standing in front of a weight that will stop the trolley. If he pulls the switch that man will certainly die, but the weight will stop the trolley. Should Oscar pull the switch?
And guys, I already understand that a fat man will not stop a trolley in real life, get over it.
I'm going to be annoying instead, why not just yell for the hikers to get off the track?
Do you really want to do this?
Anyway, it's like in Frank's story, there's steep banks on all sides and they couldn't possibly climb up in time.
You wanted to know what psychologists are terrible scientists? ELM just told you. You cannot possibly get accurate data from people when your hypotheticals require such massive suspension of disbelief.
EDIT: Yeah, what she said.
I like real moral dilemmas or great fuck ups which we can dissect and find that oh hey there's a whole fuckload going on and no-one has perfect information which is the crucial point about any life or death situation in the first place.
Why is the Conductor operating the train? Did the Engineer die?
EDIT:
Man, when I answered these questions I didn't have the same problems as all of you. I mean, I don't know what fraction of experimental subjects threw down the paper and walked out of the exam because the questions were too unrealistic, but I doubt it was too high.
It seems that you all just have a hard time answering a question when both answers are wrong. I should've expected that from people who post here. :P
These are not complex and not realistic for a reason, they're formulated to be understood by a wide range of test subjects, and they're made to test specific variables in these dilemmas.
They offer you an adjunct professorship and ask you to teach the class.
Eh? The point is to figure out the underlying criteria behind how people judge the morality of certain actions or events, and see if they understand those criteria consciously or if they are things they access unconsciously.
I don't get what you mean.
Wait how did I know about this and why didn't they invite me.
Ask the nurse if she wants to go out for dinner after work. :winky:
I don't think the conductor's decision will slow down the train either way so it's okay with me.
Get the hell away from Frank.
This will be here until I receive an apology or Weedlordvegeta get any consequences for being a bully
1.)
It seems that the only consequences from this situation could be emotional ones to the siblings, and it'd be by their own choice. I don't see a problem with them doing this, if they can deal with the possible emotional aftermath. Sure, incest is creepy, but this situation seems kind of odd.
2.)
The volunteer should be allowed to donate the blood, and be sent happily on his way. The kidney patients would survive with dialysis/one kidney long enough to get a transplant if needed. The man with the crushed heart would die, and if he's a donor, maybe his lungs and liver could be used for the remaining patients. Otherwise the 5 would die instead of the guy who came to donate blood.
3.)
Minimize damage and kill the one guy.
4.)
Let the five die, as the fat fellow isn't on the tracks. People who walk on tracks are more justified in getting killed than a guy who uses a bridge.
What's with the tracks anyhow? They're meant for trains and the like. If you're walking on them, you're taking the risk of getting run over.
If Ned flips the switch, won't the trolley just run over the fat guy and then continue onwards, running over the five hikers aswell? So, by flipping the switch you're now committing a murder in addition to the five hikers dying, whereas if you do nothing the five hikers die but you're not in trouble for having the fat guy die.
edit: And there's no way the fat guy on the tracks is fat enough to stop the trolley. If the guy was fat enough to do that, he'd be too fat for his feet to carry him, and he'd be stuck at home rather than wandering about on some rain tracks like a retard.
That's why they're silly and don't really test any moral values at all.
They don't match real life situations where the real moral questions happen.
Morality, like Buddha, is in the details.
(this kind of thing was the first debate that made me post in D&D a couple of years ago)
Would you feel better if I invented a moral question that accounted for every real-life factor, and still presented you with the same choice? It will be longer, and it will be dull, but it will account for real life externalities.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
This is a stupid drawing. Instead of painting up a really impossible scenario of a fat guy stopping a tram they could've just made the side track not connect to the main track again and it would suddenly be logical. Retarded.
2. Not my problem, but if you look at it from a medical standpoint the heart victim is a corpse, his liver could save the other guy. Everyone else has a spare.
3. Sounds like the conductor needs to make a decision. Not my problem.
4. Not my problem.
The answer apparently in all of these situations the only moral thing to do is go on with my life and stop worrying about what every other person is doing with theirs. Their choices are their choices. Why the hell should I care, unless some guy tries to shove me in front of a trolley. In which case some asshole gets shoved in front of a trolley for trying to kill me. Or possibly shot. Really, none of these people are me. I am not the conductor, don't have a sister, am not a retarded surgeon, or named Frank. Why should i sit around telling them how to live their lives in a correct manner.
The only "moral" solution to all of these problems is to tell the person asking them to get a life, and stop caring about what everyone is doing with theirs. Live your life as you see fit, make decisions you are either proud to have made, or baring that can live with the consequences of.
2. Problem. People need to trust the medical establishment for it to be worth anything at all.
3. Kill the one.
4. Same.
Here's what I would do: shout at the five stupid hikers, "THERE'S A TRAIN COMING! GET OFF THE TRACKS!" Or if they're on a trestle and can't step off: "THERE'S A TRAIN COMING! LIE DOWN!" Sometimes if you lie down the train will go over you without killing you. If they die anyway, well, that's what you get for hiking on train tracks.
2. No, it is unethical, immoral and unnecessary due to everyone apparently being biologically compatible and heart guy being fucked anyway. It would also cause more harm by discouraging people from donating blood and the hospital being shutdown, unable to care for others in the future.
3. In reality, kill the 5, trains derail when they change take diversion tracks at 150 mph. In magic world I put the 1 at risk because, I don't see a difference between action and inaction, and 1 person at risk is more likely to have a positive outcome than 5 people in similar risk.
4. I wouldn't. Which is slightly hypocritical, but I value my life more than the lives of 5 random people too stupid not to avoid obvious hazards. I don't expect others to give up their lives to save random people.