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.
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. @_@
I'm not sure what assumptions you think are being made. He introduced them as dilemmas, which I've generally understood to be abstract A/B questions.
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
ZimmydoomAccept no substitutesRegistered Userregular
edited September 2008
Really the first question just pisses me off. It has nothing to do with morality at all.
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!
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.
that's what I thought when I read it.
I didn't see any difference. Either way that one dude is going to die when he otherwise wouldn't have, or else five people are going to die.
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.
People are mistrustful anytime they're lead down a path to two crappy choices, because reality is always that people look for and usually find a third option. Because that is what you would do in any remotely realistic situation - the people involved are not actors to make a point, they're sentient human beings capable reacting to stimuli and making their own decisions - so 5 people stuck on a railway track with steep sides seem unlikely to just stand their waiting for a crisis. Why can't they work together to climb out? How do I know a fat guy would stop a train (in fact I'd think the opposite - he wouldn't). Which is, again, a crucial point - the "one or many" only ever makes sense when the problem is being solved in absolutes which is never how reality works - you have no way of knowing the fat guy would stop a train, in fact it would seem pretty damn unlikely at the time.
You also have no way of knowing that say, the train driver isn't going to slam on the breaks and have it work, yet we have to assume we'll probably kill the fat guy from the fall since clearly we can't get down by the tracks to help pull the people out.
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. @_@
I'm not sure what assumptions you think are being made. He introduced them as dilemmas, which I've generally understood to be abstract A/B questions.
Yeah, I guess it's just a cognitive disconnect for me. When someone asks me to judge a dilemma, I try and judge the dilemma itself. For some reason, I find this irreconcilably removed from the concept of "judging each outcome of each dilemma against the other."
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.
that's what I thought when I read it.
I didn't see any difference. Either way that one dude is going to die when he otherwise wouldn't have, or else five people are going to die.
I realize that, I don't know taht I could explain it all that well.
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.
People are mistrustful anytime they're lead down a path to two crappy choices, because reality is always that people look for and usually find a third option. Because that is what you would do in any remotely realistic situation - the people involved are not actors to make a point, they're sentient human beings capable reacting to stimuli and making their own decisions - so 5 people stuck on a railway track with steep sides seem unlikely to just stand their waiting for a crisis. Why can't they work together to climb out? How do I know a fat guy would stop a train (in fact I'd think the opposite - he wouldn't). Which is, again, a crucial point - the "one or many" only ever makes sense when the problem is being solved in absolutes which is never how reality works - you have no way of knowing the fat guy would stop a train, in fact it would seem pretty damn unlikely at the time.
You also have no way of knowing that say, the train driver isn't going to slam on the breaks and have it work, yet we have to assume we'll probably kill the fat guy from the fall since clearly we can't get down by the tracks to help pull the people out.
holy fuck this is an obvious, contrived, abstract exercise. just. play. along. You people are worse than the kids in the ethical reasoning 102 section I made the mistake of taking in undergrad.
Eat it You Nasty Pig. on
it was the smallest on the list but
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
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?
Seriously. They're usually the size of busses.
You're like the kid who objects to the word problems in algebra books.
No one cares if you don't care how tall the tree is and if you did you wouldn't measure it by its shadow. Reduce it down to x and y and get on with it.
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.
that's what I thought when I read it.
I didn't see any difference. Either way that one dude is going to die when he otherwise wouldn't have, or else five people are going to die.
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
I'd have no fucking complaints if the OP had phrased it right instead of telling me to "judge" and then matter-of-factly stating four things. You could remove all of the ambiguity by saying "the situations are inflexible and there are only two outcomes. Which of the two do you perceive as more moral?" instead of this fucking "JUDGE THESE DILEMMAS, MY COMRADES" hogwash.
EDIT: Well, then again, all it does is open it up to the predations of Podly and others who will pounce on the words 'perceive' and 'more.'
Oboro on
words
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
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.
that's what I thought when I read it.
I didn't see any difference. Either way that one dude is going to die when he otherwise wouldn't have, or else five people are going to die.
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
yeah but you're clearly meant to be deciding between killing 1 and killing 5, so survival possibility doesn't really matter.
Really the first question just pisses me off. It has nothing to do with morality at all.
Nothing to do with your morality.
But say, a religious person who believes in an inherent moral order to the universe that precludes sex with your sibling would disagree.
Then ask that question. Don't try to hide it behind some kind of contrived, shocking scenario designed to elicit visceral unease. My "gut" as someone who was raised Catholic doesn't like the idea, but my sense of right and wrong doesn't even register it.
The question isn't "is this right or wrong," it's "do you think this is icky?"
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!
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
Fat dude's opinion of his own worth isn't my concern.
He can get his own morality quiz if he wants to make his views known.
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.
People are mistrustful anytime they're lead down a path to two crappy choices, because reality is always that people look for and usually find a third option. Because that is what you would do in any remotely realistic situation - the people involved are not actors to make a point, they're sentient human beings capable reacting to stimuli and making their own decisions - so 5 people stuck on a railway track with steep sides seem unlikely to just stand their waiting for a crisis. Why can't they work together to climb out? How do I know a fat guy would stop a train (in fact I'd think the opposite - he wouldn't). Which is, again, a crucial point - the "one or many" only ever makes sense when the problem is being solved in absolutes which is never how reality works - you have no way of knowing the fat guy would stop a train, in fact it would seem pretty damn unlikely at the time.
You also have no way of knowing that say, the train driver isn't going to slam on the breaks and have it work, yet we have to assume we'll probably kill the fat guy from the fall since clearly we can't get down by the tracks to help pull the people out.
holy fuck this is an obvious, contrived, abstract exercise. just. play. along. You people are worse than the kids in the ethical reasoning 102 section I made the mistake of taking in undergrad.
You know what you're right - it's really simple empathy which guides my answers here. I don't want to be robbed of choice personally, so I wouldn't do it to others. In situations where I couldn't have made a choice, I'll respect others choosing for me.
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
Fat dude's opinion of his own worth isn't my concern.
He can get his own morality quiz if he wants to make his views known.
Really the first question just pisses me off. It has nothing to do with morality at all.
Nothing to do with your morality.
But say, a religious person who believes in an inherent moral order to the universe that precludes sex with your sibling would disagree.
Then ask that question. Don't try to hide it behind some kind of contrived, shocking scenario designed to elicit visceral unease. My "gut" as someone who was raised Catholic doesn't like the idea, but my sense of right and wrong doesn't even register it.
The question isn't "is this right or wrong," it's "do you think this is icky?"
No, actually I think that way of putting the question gets more quickly to what people really think.
"Do you believe there is an inherent moral order to the universe" is a question to which many people will answer yes or no when in reality they believe the opposite, because it calls in other associations.
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
Fat dude's opinion of his own worth isn't my concern.
He can get his own morality quiz if he wants to make his views known.
See my answer to Dyscord. It's wrong to rob others of choice by my morality when they have it. I believe this is a problem of some concern in the abortion war.
Also, it's hard not to think of you as distrustful when you're suggesting that I'm probably going to pull evo-psych bullshit and that the book sounds like it's full of bad science. Obviously I'm a bad psychologist, but I just wanted to try. Anyway, sorry about the typos.
The first question was separate from the rest, I just threw it in there. The majority of people (American college students) questioned felt that it was morally reprehensible but they could not create a logical argument as to why. This exemplifies the fact that moral judgments do not have to be tied to logical reasoning.
In the studies mentioned in the book, the second question and the fourth question were both generally held as amoral to go through with, taking action in the third one was generally considered morally acceptable, even though all three of them are the same in that they test the utilitarian concept of "trade one life for five".
From further studies it ends up that the deciding factor in whether these cases are amoral or not depends on whether the death of the single person is a means to an end or a foreseen consequence of an action taken. It gives you a little bit of insight into how we make moral judgments.
And that's it. No trap, honestly. I just thought it was kind of cool.
The fat guy can choose for himself whether the sacrifice is worth it. The single tourist on the railroad tracks could not choose whether he wanted to save those people, but he is still capable of getting out of harms way whereas the 5 tourists are apparently not.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
Fat dude's opinion of his own worth isn't my concern.
He can get his own morality quiz if he wants to make his views known.
See my answer to Dyscord. It's wrong to rob others of choice by my morality when they have it. I believe this is a problem of some concern in the abortion war.
I see where you are coming from, but I am less hesitant about forcing my own priorities on others.
"Do you believe there is an inherent moral order to the universe" is a question to which many people will answer yes or no when in reality they believe the opposite, because it calls in other associations.
But this comes back to where I'm confused, because there can be a difference between our axioms and our gut reactions. Most people here are either axiomatically-informed in their gut responses by their abstract axioms, or they're just spouting their intellectual beliefs instead of their visceral reaction.
I mean, honestly, from this approach, the most honest responses were probably the "these are bullshit questions" ones.
Oboro on
words
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
I think the real reason people don't push the fat guy is because they can conceive of a situation in which they're the fat guy.
I think pushing a fat guy in front of a train under any circumstance is very contrary to the basic guiding principle of not being a dick.
To be fair, if I thought it would work I might try and convince the fat guy to jump. In fact if I feel strongly that it's the right thing to do, I would offer to jump with him.
Fortunately this problem won't arise because a fat guy is never going to stop a hurtling locomotive.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Posts
that's what I thought when I read it.
I'm not sure what assumptions you think are being made. He introduced them as dilemmas, which I've generally understood to be abstract A/B questions.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I didn't see any difference. Either way that one dude is going to die when he otherwise wouldn't have, or else five people are going to die.
You also have no way of knowing that say, the train driver isn't going to slam on the breaks and have it work, yet we have to assume we'll probably kill the fat guy from the fall since clearly we can't get down by the tracks to help pull the people out.
I think it deals with social norms as opposed to ethics.
Seriously. They're usually the size of busses.
That said, I agree with the other fellow. If Frank wants to stop the trolley, he can jump in himself if he feels that strongly about it.
#2 is somewhat different, as the conductor can't exactly walk away.
Nothing to do with your morality.
But say, a religious person who believes in an inherent moral order to the universe that precludes sex with your sibling would disagree.
I realize that, I don't know taht I could explain it all that well.
One feels more like murder.
holy fuck this is an obvious, contrived, abstract exercise. just. play. along. You people are worse than the kids in the ethical reasoning 102 section I made the mistake of taking in undergrad.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Spit it out. I want to go to bed.
You're like the kid who objects to the word problems in algebra books.
No one cares if you don't care how tall the tree is and if you did you wouldn't measure it by its shadow. Reduce it down to x and y and get on with it.
A football team made up of ex-managers would all complain about the tactics they were assigned for the game.
Of course there's also the fact that it's much easier for 1 person to jump out of the way at the last minute then a group of 5 who will be blocking each other.
What if the train is actually the titanic.
EDIT: Well, then again, all it does is open it up to the predations of Podly and others who will pounce on the words 'perceive' and 'more.'
yeah but you're clearly meant to be deciding between killing 1 and killing 5, so survival possibility doesn't really matter.
Then ask that question. Don't try to hide it behind some kind of contrived, shocking scenario designed to elicit visceral unease. My "gut" as someone who was raised Catholic doesn't like the idea, but my sense of right and wrong doesn't even register it.
The question isn't "is this right or wrong," it's "do you think this is icky?"
Fat dude's opinion of his own worth isn't my concern.
He can get his own morality quiz if he wants to make his views known.
EDIT: Alternative "just for laughs" addendum:
No, actually I think that way of putting the question gets more quickly to what people really think.
"Do you believe there is an inherent moral order to the universe" is a question to which many people will answer yes or no when in reality they believe the opposite, because it calls in other associations.
Also, it's hard not to think of you as distrustful when you're suggesting that I'm probably going to pull evo-psych bullshit and that the book sounds like it's full of bad science. Obviously I'm a bad psychologist, but I just wanted to try. Anyway, sorry about the typos.
In the studies mentioned in the book, the second question and the fourth question were both generally held as amoral to go through with, taking action in the third one was generally considered morally acceptable, even though all three of them are the same in that they test the utilitarian concept of "trade one life for five".
From further studies it ends up that the deciding factor in whether these cases are amoral or not depends on whether the death of the single person is a means to an end or a foreseen consequence of an action taken. It gives you a little bit of insight into how we make moral judgments.
And that's it. No trap, honestly. I just thought it was kind of cool.
I see where you are coming from, but I am less hesitant about forcing my own priorities on others.
MIND. BLOWN.
I mean, honestly, from this approach, the most honest responses were probably the "these are bullshit questions" ones.
I think pushing a fat guy in front of a train under any circumstance is very contrary to the basic guiding principle of not being a dick.
I'd push him, but only if no-one was watching.
rating thread 1 star D
would not buy again
(jk)
From the lone victim's standpoint in both two and three, someone else just decided that you are going to die without consulting you.
Fortunately this problem won't arise because a fat guy is never going to stop a hurtling locomotive.
Nuking Japan saved one million american lives