The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Moral Questions
AJAlkaline40
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
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.
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
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
I was thinking more in depth discussion could follow.
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
Wait, in number 3, realize that the side track has one other hiker on it, who will die if the train moves onto it.
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?
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
In 3 assume that there is no way that the hikers can escape the tracks. Maybe they all broke their legs or something.
It's like a corbit.
maybe they were bitten in the legs by snakes.
try to hit them in such a way as to safely amputate their legs.
It's actually a significant point that the author makes that I can expand upon if you'd like.
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.
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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?
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
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?
Come on.
Seriously?
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.
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.
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
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.
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.
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
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!"
that's why we call it the struggle, you're supposed to sweat
FREEDOM