More philosophical/moral discussion

[Siwenna]

I heard some interesting moral questions on the radio a few weeks back, and, having been inspired by the other philosophy thread, decided to post them here. Try to answer honestly, not what you would like to do or consider logical.

1. THere is a train track, with five workers on it. A train is coming, but the worker's backs are to it and they are going to be hit. You're too far away to shout or warn them. There's another track running parallel to the first, with one worker on it. You can pull a lever that would make the train switch to the second track, thus killing only one person. Do you pull the lever?

EDIT: If it makes it easier for you, there are five people tied to the first track, one to second. THe train is near enough that you won't have time to even get to the tracks, just to pull the lever.

2. Again, you have a train track with five workers (or people tied to the train track) and a train coming. This time you are on a bridge above the track. There is a really big guy standing near you. If you push him, he will fall onto the track and stop the train, being killing in the process. Do you push him?

3. Your village has been invaded by enemy soldiers, who have been instructed to kill everyone they meet. You, some of your friends and neighbors, and your infant son/daughter (your first child,) are hiding. You are very well hiden, but if anyone makes any noise the soldiers the soldiers will find you and kill everyone. Your child has a cold and is sniffling/coughing/sneezing, which will soon attract the enemy soldiers. The only way to stop the noise is to cover the childs mouth, killing it. Do you kill your first child? (Assume the child's other parent is dead.)

For the first question, I would pull the lever. Kill one person or kill five, I choose killing one. By pulling the lever, I would actively kill one person, but through action or inaction, the result is the same.

As for the second, I would push the guy, as long as I knew it would definately stop the train. In this case I have to get my hands dirty, so to speak, but the results are identical to first question.

To be honest, the last question was easier for me then the other two. I would kill the baby. Now, to be fair, I don't have kids, I'm determined not to have kids, and I really dislike babies. But if I don't kill the child, it will be killed, along with me and friends and neighbors. No matter what, the baby is dead. I can choose to let myself and my friends live or die. I choose to let them live, even if it means doing the actual killing.

According to radio program, about 90% of people said that they would pull the lever in the first question. Interestingly, about 90% of people would not push the guy in the second question. I don't remember the exact percentages, but they were about equal in the final question.

If anyone cares, here (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28) is the link to the show.

[Syka]

Yes, yes, and yes.

The first two are a question of 'for the greater good'. If I didn't, I'm just as guilty of killing those 5 people.

The third is more a matter of self preservation than anything else.

Selfish? Sure. But I think that's what I would do.

Cheers,
Syka

[ZombieRockStar]

More general question:

I know that when I say "no one can ever fail to hear a train coming behind them," you're going to say "that isn't the point." Yet in all these hypothetical situations, there are always these kinds alternatives.

Are "philosophical" questions like these even valid if they don't reflect a far more complicated reality? Of course the ethical answer is needs...many...one...etc. It's clear cut analysis of costs. So how can you even answer a philosophical question where there's obviously a "right" answer?

[LCR]

Always those situations of life and death ...

Okay, of course reason shouts at you to pull the lever/push the fat guy, since you're doing it, as Syka pointed out, for the greater good. And she's indeed found one of the "right" solutions. (as right as you can be on such questions).
But if you take this limited scenario merely as an example and not as a "real" situation, who are you to condemn the single worker/fat guy to death?
Is it generally right or acceptable to kill in order to save the life of others?

I think it's not.


More general question:

I know that when I say "no one can ever fail to hear a train coming behind them," you're going to say "that isn't the point." Yet in all these hypothetical situations, there are always these kinds alternatives.

Are "philosophical" questions like these even valid if they don't reflect a far more complicated reality? Of course the ethical answer is needs...many...one...etc. It's clear cut analysis of costs. So how can you even answer a philosophical question where there's obviously a "right" answer?

I don't see a "right" answer, at least not just one.
As I have pointed out in the other thread about the boat and the two men, there at least two possibilities, all of which can be morally justified.

1. Push him/pull the lever. The ends justify the means.
2. Don't do it. The ends can never be justified by the means, and thus you remain passive.

[Sir_Norbert]

Are "philosophical" questions like these even valid if they don't reflect a far more complicated reality? Of course the ethical answer is needs...many...one...etc. It's clear cut analysis of costs. So how can you even answer a philosophical question where there's obviously a "right" answer?
Unfortunately, these "right" answers aren't obvious to many people (as LCR's response proves). A lot of people have a deep-seated intuition that it's just flat-out wrong to kill whatever good it brings about, and indeed, examples like this were often concocted as "intuition pumps" to try to disprove utilitarianism (the theory that the greater good is all that ultimately matters in questions of right and wrong).

One way to undercut LCR's intuition is tho observe that it depends on pretending that killing and letting die are radically different types of act, so that you can say "I didn't kill the five men, I only allowed them to die, which isn't so serious." But it's not clear that you can make that distinction. You are killing the five men by making a deliberate choice according to which they die, when you could have made a different choice that would save them; the train is only a passive instrument.

[Cyrano]

This is basically one meta question.
First of all, one must ask whether you are the sort of person who cares about the negative space defined by your actions. If you hold a gun, and a man comes in through your door trying to kill your family, and you're hidden so he doesn't see him, do you CARE that inaction would leave you with a dead family? Does the guilt of having let these people die rather than actively killing one less person matter to you? Does letting 5 people die make you sick, or is it just the graphic deaths that would sicken you?
Of course, to me, just sitting back and watching something happen is ridiculously disgusting. So, I kill the dude, kill the other dude, kill my kid. I feel especially justified in that last one, having saved me and others for the cost of none, plus stopping a likely more brutal death at the hands of soldiers.

[LCR]

You are totally right.
I let them die. And I wouldn't call that intuition, I actually thought about these things for a long time. And sure, in a scenario like this, I'd be very tempted to kill the sole guy.
But in general (and these scenarios are made to illustrate patterns of thought), it is my firm believe that you can't bend your personal moral code (Don't kill), in order to justify some vague greater good.


This is basically one meta question.
First of all, one must ask whether you are the sort of person who cares about the negative space defined by your actions. If you hold a gun, and a man comes in through your door trying to kill your family, and you're hidden so he doesn't see him, do you CARE that inaction would leave you with a dead family? Does the guilt of having let these people die rather than actively killing one less person matter to you? Does letting 5 people die make you sick, or is it just the graphic deaths that would sicken you?
Of course, to me, just sitting back and watching something happen is ridiculously disgusting. So, I kill the dude, kill the other dude, kill my kid. I feel especially justified in that last one, having saved me and others for the cost of none, plus stopping a likely more brutal death at the hands of soldiers.

Hell, I'd safe my family and still believe it was morally wrong of me to kill the offender.

[Zephra]

1. THere is a train track, with 5 workers on it. A train is coming, but the worker's backs are to it and they are going to be hit. You're too far away to shout or warn them. There's another track running parallel to the first, with one worker on it. You can pull a lever that would make the train switch to the second track, thus killing only one person. Do you pull the lever?

absolutly not. it's wrong to kill anyone, no matter how many people are going to die.

2. Again, you have a train track with 5 workers and a train coming. This time you are on a bridge above the track. There is a really big guy standing near you. If you push him, he will fall onto the track and stop the train, being killing in the process. Do you push him?

again, of course not!

3. Your village has been invaded by enemy soldiers, who have been instructed to kill everyone they meet. You, some of your friends and neighbors, and your infant son/daughter (your first child,) are hiding. You are very well hiden, but if anyone makes any noise the soldiers the soldiers will find you and kill everyone. Your child has a cold and is sniffling/coughing/sneezing, which will soon attract the enemy soldiers. The only way to stop the noise is to cover the childs mouth, killing it. Do you kill your first child? (Assume the child's other parent is dead.)

nope. this actually came up during the holocaust, you know.


REASONS:
while it's wrong to kill someone, it's not wrong to let someone get killed. the ends don't justify the means.



For the first question, I would pull the lever. Kill one person or kill five, I choose killing one. By pulling the lever, I would actively kill one person, but through action or inaction, the result is the same.

(bold mine)
you say kill one person/kill five. Interesting. By not doing anything, you are killing 5 people? the result is the same, but not to you. one way, you murdered a person, the other way, you didn't.

[Syka]

I think this is where the differences lie. For me, sitting back when I know I could save them is just as bad. Therefore it is weighing which situation I could live with.

I would be more able to live with myself having killed one person to save many as opposed to remaining inactive and allowing five people to die. Yes, it is violating my moral code...But BOTH situations violate said moral code, so it's lesser of the two evils for me.

I see passive actions still as being actions, so either way I would be responsible for deaths.

Cheers,
Syka

[LCR]

Okay, I know this is not the scenario, but would you still be fine with killing ten people to save a hundred? Hundred to save thousands?

[Yiel]

Regarding questions 1 & 2:

To be honest, I would probably not notice these things. If given the choice to knowingly kill someone, or witness an accident though... I would let things run their course. Why? Actively being involved in this situation would make me a murderer. I would not see my sacrificing someone else's life for the other five as a good deed. I could not pull that lever, or push that man. I could however run stupidly screaming towards the workers in the vain hope it would do something. Also from a legal standpoint: if the train hits the workers, it is the companies fault and negligence. If I become involved? I am a murderer. Since I have people I support financially, it is my responsibility to put my family first.

Regarding question 3:

There are ways to silence a sniffling child which will NOT kill them. Many parents have been put in this situation in the past and have made their own decisions. I would not kill it, but would attempt to employ other methods to ensure our safety. I would take this risk for a child, even if it was not my own. If told to kill the child by my other hidden companions (and I had no other children), I would leave that hiding place and attempt to find another with my child.

[averagejoe]

Okay, I know this is not the scenario, but would you still be fine with killing ten people to save a hundred? Hundred to save thousands?

A thousand to save a thousand and one?

[Amotis]

A thousand to save a thousand and one?

Can I choose the thousand. :smallamused:

[LCR]

A thousand to save a thousand and one?

I don't really get your point ...

[averagejoe]

I don't really get your point ...

Ah, sorry, I was extending yours, not really responding to it.

[LCR]

That's what made me wonder ...

[Syka]

For me, yes. I know LEGALLY I would not be responsible, but MORALLY I'd feel responsible.

And yes, I'd kill 10 to save 100, and 100 to save 1,000.

And of course I would try other methods, but if you KNOW those other methods have a 100% failure rate, I would go with what has a 100% chance of working.

*shrug* Maybe I'm just evil.

Cheers,
Syka

[LCR]

No, not evil, you're just being consequential :smallwink:
I think both approaches are flawed and you'll have to choose independently for each situation wether the ends justify the means or not.

[averagejoe]

For me, yes. I know LEGALLY I would not be responsible, but MORALLY I'd feel responsible.

And yes, I'd kill 10 to save 100, and 100 to save 1,000.

And of course I would try other methods, but if you KNOW those other methods have a 100% failure rate, I would go with what has a 100% chance of working.

*shrug* Maybe I'm just evil.

Cheers,
Syka

Just saying, I wouldn't want to be one of the ten (hundred).

I'll restate my question, though; would you kill 1000 to save 1001?

Would you kill 1000 women and children to save 1001 men?

[Sisqui]

For me, yes. I know LEGALLY I would not be responsible, but MORALLY I'd feel responsible.

And yes, I'd kill 10 to save 100, and 100 to save 1,000.



Me too. Either way, 10 or 100 are dead. If I can keep 90 or 900 from joining them in their graves, I'll do it. And to anyone who asks me to justify why the lives of those 10/100 were less important, I'd say - they weren't. What a dumb question. A better question would be why the lives of the other 90/900 weren't worth as much as those 10/100.

That's my choice and I'm sticking to it. The only exception might be if the 10/100 were kids and the others are adults. But, hey, if I'm in the position to assume the duties of god, well, I'm doing it MY way.


Just saying, I wouldn't want to be one of the ten (hundred).

I'll restate my question, though; would you kill 1000 to save 1001?

Would you kill 1000 women and children to save 1001 men?

Nope. I think the kids are more important. And we can play the numbers in any infinite number of variations. I'll consider each one and make a decision on each scenario individually.


And also, why not just yell at the 5 workers and let them try to save themselves? Seems like they could come up with a better scenario than this one to illustrate the point....

[Syka]

Yes, I'd kill 1000 to save 1001. It's still 1 less person whose dying.

And while I might not like being in that 1000, I would not complain if other lives are saved.

Children would be a different story...Maybe. If only because the adults have had a chance to live and contribute to society, where as the children are still viable. And women vs. men is a moot point for me.

Cheers,
Syka

[averagejoe]

Ah, alright. So how many adult lives is a child worth? Two? Ten? How many adults do you need before you kill a child to save them?

[AslanCross]

I would always seek the best way possible and I do feel that the scenarios presented above are abstractions that may reflect the morality of say, a D&D game, but not real life. I believe there are always better ways to deal with these situations.

That said, if an armed guy with hostile intent did come into my house with a deadly weapon and obviously has no compunction against using deadly force, I would use deadly force as well. In fact I would do my best to kill him as fast as I can, because if I fail to kill him there's no telling what he would do to me and my family. This is something I've settled already in the past. Consider my way of seeing it strange and savage, but I feel that if he's willing to kill me in order to survive, then he's behaving like a wild animal and I would have no problems killing a wild animal to save my family. I would rather survive the encounter and defend myself rather than act all noble and let my family die.

[SDF]

No, no, no, and here is why. I don't know the future. I would be assuming someone is actively looking out for a train, they should know they are on an active track. Now the chances of one of the five noticing it and causing all of them to move is far greater than switching the train on some unsuspecting chump working on a dead line and him noticing, he wouldn't be looking out for a train. Now in the second instance, the thought of pushing my large friend over and stopping a train would never cross my mind. Again, I don't know the future, if I push this man will he die and will the train just go over him through the other people? It takes a long while for the train to stop. Again, will they see it? They should be looking. Finally, will my rather large friend derail the train, potentially killing hundreds? As for the baby question, this is hard because I can't imagine myself in the situation at all. I can't imagine myself passively hiding during the whole ordeal, and if the baby was a danger to the others I wouldn't hide with them. I would try to put a mitten or blanket over it's mouth muffling the sound but not killing it. Being found isn't a certainty, and killing the baby isn't a guarantee of safety. I'm certainly not going to kill my child to save my ass.

[Sisqui]

Ah, alright. So how many adult lives is a child worth? Two? Ten? How many adults do you need before you kill a child to save them?

Like I said, it'd have to be considered one scenario at a time. And I think anyone with kids is going to have a much tougher time killing the kid than someone without. Quite frankly, that really is one of those things you have to be a parent to understand.



That said, if an armed guy with hostile intent did come into my house with a deadly weapon and obviously has no compunction against using deadly force, I would use deadly force as well. In fact I would do my best to kill him as fast as I can, because if I fail to kill him there's no telling what he would do to me and my family. This is something I've settled already in the past. Consider my way of seeing it strange and savage, but I feel that if he's willing to kill me in order to survive, then he's behaving like a wild animal and I would have no problems killing a wild animal to save my family. I would rather survive the encounter and defend myself rather than act all noble and let my family die.

I'd put it this way: he came, of his own free will, to do harm and gamble my life and my family's lives on his actions. I have no compunction whatsoever about gambling with his.


I would try to put a mitten or blanket over it's mouth muffling the sound but not killing it. Being found isn't a certainty, and killing the baby isn't a guarantee of safety. I'm certainly not going to kill my child to save my ass.

True. I'd rather take my chances alone (me & the kid- leaving the others in relative safety) than murder my own child. But, I think the point of these scenarios is to artificially box you in so you have no alternative but to make the choice on the facts presented.

[averagejoe]

Like I said, it'd have to be considered one scenario at a time. And I think anyone with kids is going to have a much tougher time killing the kid than someone without. Quite frankly, that really is one of those things you have to be a parent to understand.

What does the scenario have to do with it? You're killing people either way, what does it matter if you're leaving them stranded on an island or pushing them in front of a train?

[Sisqui]

What does the scenario have to do with it? You're killing people either way, what does it matter if you're leaving them stranded on an island or pushing them in front of a train?

I meant that if it were a train, the workers would hear it. Or you shouting to them, or something like that. These are supposed to be scenarios in which you are locked into one specific choice. It just seems like this particular choice could have been couched in terms less likely to have viable alternative solutions.

[Syka]

SDF, the assumption here is that you know for certain if you don't kill the one than the five will die. If I didn't know for certain, than of course I wouldn't.

Cheers,
Syka

[SDF]

It is the reason I hate these scenarios, life is never this black and white, so I often refuse to answer based on the parameters. I know there are assumptions, but given an impossible situation I like to cheat.

[Sisqui]

SDF, the assumption here is that you know for certain if you don't kill the one than the five will die. If I didn't know for certain, than of course I wouldn't.

Cheers,
Syka

Yes, that is my point. This scenario is just not well constructed. But, I don't think anyone is going to just take this at face value. If you were in this situation in real life, I doubt it would even occur to you to kill the other guy at all. Your mind would probably not even process that as an option.


I know there are assumptions, but given an impossible situation I like to cheat.

I'm all for that. If you aren't willing to cheat, how badly can you really want to win? And in life or death decisions, I really, REALLY want to win. For everybody's sake :smallsmile:

[averagejoe]

I meant that if it were a train, the workers would hear it. Or you shouting to them, or something like that. These are supposed to be scenarios in which you are locked into one specific choice. It just seems like this particular choice could have been couched in terms less likely to have viable alternative solutions.

But that was beside my point. You said that, given the choice, you would kill ten to save one hundred. So, by that same token, how many adults would you have to be saving in order to kill a child.

[Sisqui]

But that was beside my point. You said that, given the choice, you would kill ten to save one hundred. So, by that same token, how many adults would you have to be saving in order to kill a child.

An honest answer? I don't know and I hope I never find out. That is the kind of decision you might like to think you could make rationally, considering all the variables beforehand. But you can't. And no one should underestimate the power of their emotions in such a situation. Calmly analyzing them while in front of the computer and eating cheetos is one thing. Walking off and letting a kid die- even to save more adults- is a scenario in which your emotions absolutely would have a significant say. If you want the completely rational, triage based answer, it's to kill the kid. I have no pretensions of being that devoid of feeling. As I've said before, apathy is not my thing.

[averagejoe]

An honest answer? I don't know and I hope I never find out. That is the kind of decision you might like to think you could make rationally, considering all the variables beforehand. But you can't. And no one should underestimate the power of their emotions in such a situation. Calmly analyzing them while in front of the computer and eating cheetos is one thing. Walking off and letting a kid die- even to save more adults- is a scenario in which your emotions absolutely would have a significant say. If you want the completely rational, triage based answer, it's to kill the kid. I have no pretensions of being that devoid of feeling. As I've said before, apathy is not my thing.

But it's okay to do so when only adults are involved? Are adult lives not worth saving?

[Sisqui]

But it's okay to do so when only adults are involved? Are adult lives not worth saving?

Pfft. You know very well that I did not say that. Try again :smallannoyed:

[averagejoe]

Pfft. You know very well that I did not say that. Try again :smallannoyed:

Alright, perhaps I expressed myself badly. Why is it so easy to become so detatched and, from where I'm sitting, mathematical when it comes to adult lives.

[Sisqui]

Alright, perhaps I expressed myself badly. Why is it so easy to become so detatched and, from where I'm sitting, mathematical when it comes to adult lives.

It isn't. Where did you get that idea? No one would be detached about making the decision. That would be why everyone keeps posting "Well, I'd do such and such instead" or "I refuse to believe in the Kobayashi Maru".

[ForzaFiori]

yes, yes, and yes.

and as for the kill 10 to save 100, yes.
even if they're kids.

call me cold, call me heartless, its for the greater good.

i would always chose to save the group by killing a single person, even if that person was myself or my kin.

[averagejoe]

It isn't. Where did you get that idea? No one would be detached about making the decision. That would be why everyone keeps posting "Well, I'd do such and such instead" or "I refuse to believe in the Kobayashi Maru".

But at the same time there have been people saying, "I would kill ten to save one hundred, and this is morally correct since it would result in less death all around." That seems to be a purely mathematical argument to me; the premise is that lives are worth saving, and the more lives you have at the end the more desirable the outcome is.

Edit: ^ is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

[Sisqui]

But at the same time there have been people saying, "I would kill ten to save one hundred, and this is morally correct since it would result in less death all around." That seems to be a purely mathematical argument to me; the premise is that lives are worth saving, and the more lives you have at the end the more desirable the outcome is.

Edit: ^ is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

Maybe because most people believe that, at the end of the day, the less bodies you have the better? If a life has value, isn't it better to have as many as possible saved? No one is saying kill the ten because it'd be fun. They are saying that this 10 and that 10 are equal in value. But there is no reason to add these 90 lives here to the total. That's killing 90 people for no good reason.

But, to get to the difference between children and adults, their lives may be of equal value but their effect on your emotions is not. Humans just put more emphasis on the lives of children because they are innocent/helpless etc... To deny that that emotional impact is there is going to leave you open to one nasty shock if you ever have to make such a decision yourself. I am just acknowledging that reality. Attempting to say what I'd do in that situation without considering such an important variable is mocking the point of the exercise. Fair enough? :smallsmile:

[Siwenna]

If you were in this situation in real life, I doubt it would even occur to you to kill the other guy at all. Your mind would probably not even process that as an option.

Yes, the situation would be totally different in real life. In real life, I wouldn't push the guy because I wouldn't trust him/her to land on the tracks. I wouldn't think that he/she would stop the train. But, it's a thought experiment. It's supposed to illustrate real life principles, not real life situations. The train workers can be civilians tied to the track. They know the train is coming but they can't move, and you're too far away to untie them.

[Sisqui]

Yes, the situation would be totally different in real life. In real life, I wouldn't push the guy because I wouldn't trust him/her to land on the tracks. I wouldn't think that he/she would stop the train. But, it's a thought experiment. It's supposed to illustrate real life principles, not real life situations. The train workers can be civilians tied to the track. They know the train is coming but they can't move, and you're too far away to untie them.

I know. That's what I've been saying :smallwink:

[SDF]

But at the same time there have been people saying, "I would kill ten to save one hundred, and this is morally correct since it would result in less death all around." That seems to be a purely mathematical argument to me; the premise is that lives are worth saving, and the more lives you have at the end the more desirable the outcome is.

Edit: ^ is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

I think the problem here is that morals, much like opinions can not be more or less correct than someone else's. The goal of the question is not the correct answer, but rather what you consider the correct answer and how you arrive at that conclusion. To me if a hundred people live and ten die that is still an unacceptable outcome. I would rather chance all 110 dieing if there was even a tiny chance of saving them all. Everyone is 'correct' if they make choices they think are the best.

[averagejoe]

Maybe because most people believe that, at the end of the day, the less bodies you have the better? If a life has value, isn't it better to have as many as possible saved? No one is saying kill the ten because it'd be fun. They are saying that this 10 and that 10 are equal in value. But there is no reason to add these 90 lives here to the total. That's killing 90 people for no good reason.

But, to get to the difference between children and adults, their lives may be of equal value but their effect on your emotions is not. Humans just put more emphasis on the lives of children because they are innocent/helpless etc... To deny that that emotional impact is there is going to leave you open to one nasty shock if you ever have to make such a decision yourself. I am just acknowledging that reality. Attempting to say what I'd do in that situation without considering such an important variable is mocking the point of the exercise. Fair enough? :smallsmile:

Fair enough. I've just never been comfortable with the concept of mathematics determining moral decisions. I mean, I like math as much as the next guy, but to make such mathematical absolutes as "10<100" into a basis for moral decision disreguards, well, morals. Doesn't matter who it is.


I think the problem here is that morals, much like opinions can not be more or less correct than someone else's.

Let's not open up that can of worms again. Curse you relativism thread! :smallannoyed:

[Sisqui]

Fair enough. I've just never been comfortable with the concept of mathematics determining moral decisions. I mean, I like math as much as the next guy, but to make such mathematical absolutes as "10<100" into a basis for moral decision disreguards, well, morals. Doesn't matter who it is.

Of course not. If I have the decision between 10 kids and 100 raping, murdering convicts, well, numbers don't even come into it at all.

But, to say that you value those 90 does not say that you value the sacrificed 10 any less, only that, as a person who values life at all, you will not add any more than necessary to it, all other things being equal. You are choosing the 100 because you value life, not because you don't.


Let's not open up that can of worms again. Curse you relativism thread! :smallannoyed:


Ninja'd!

[Siwenna]

But at the same time there have been people saying, "I would kill ten to save one hundred, and this is morally correct since it would result in less death all around." That seems to be a purely mathematical argument to me; the premise is that lives are worth saving, and the more lives you have at the end the more desirable the outcome is.

Yes, it is. And I think a lot of it depends on whether you are reacting more logically or emotionally (for lack of a better word.) Neither is necessarily better- it depends on your moral code. I'm generally very logical and the mathematical argument works. If, by killing 1000 people I could save 1001, then yes, I would do it. If it was killing 1000 women to save 1001 men, then I'd still do it. Gender shouldn't matter (at least not as long as we've got plenty of people.) Age does, to an extent, but you really can't draw a concrete line.

[averagejoe]

Of course not. If I have the decision between 10 kids and 100 raping, murdering convicts, well, numbers don't even come into it at all. But, to say that you value those 90 does not say that you value the sacrificed 10 any less, only that, as a person who values life at all, you will not add any more than necessary to it, all other things being equal. You are choosing the 100 because you value life, not because you don't.

But you obviously do value those ten less. You are saying that ten people are less valuable than one hundred people. Which isn't to say that you don't value life, but you are choosing the ten to die (or the 100 convicts) because you find them to be less valuable than the one hundred (or the ten kids.) I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong; my issue is more with this whole approach than the conclusion.


Age does, to an extent, but you really can't draw a concrete line.

We have a word for that; irrational.

[Tom_Violence]

I heard some interesting moral questions on the radio a few weeks back, and, having been inspired by the other philosophy thread, decided to post them here. Try to answer honestly, not what you would like to do or consider logical.

1. THere is a train track, with 5 workers on it. A train is coming, but the worker's backs are to it and they are going to be hit. You're too far away to shout or warn them. There's another track running parallel to the first, with one worker on it. You can pull a lever that would make the train switch to the second track, thus killing only one person. Do you pull the lever?


2. Again, you have a train track with 5 workers and a train coming. This time you are on a bridge above the track. There is a really big guy standing near you. If you push him, he will fall onto the track and stop the train, being killing in the process. Do you push him?


3. Your village has been invaded by enemy soldiers, who have been instructed to kill everyone they meet. You, some of your friends and neighbors, and your infant son/daughter (your first child,) are hiding. You are very well hiden, but if anyone makes any noise the soldiers the soldiers will find you and kill everyone. Your child has a cold and is sniffling/coughing/sneezing, which will soon attract the enemy soldiers. The only way to stop the noise is to cover the childs mouth, killing it. Do you kill your first child? (Assume the child's other parent is dead.)

For the first question, I would pull the lever. Kill one person or kill five, I choose killing one. By pulling the lever, I would actively kill one person, but through action or inaction, the result is the same.

As for the second, I would push the guy, as long as I knew it would definately stop the train. In this case I have to get my hands dirty, so to speak, but the results are identical to first question.

To be honest, the last question was easier for me then the other two. I would kill the baby. Now, to be fair, I don't have kids, I'm determined not to have kids, and I really dislike babies. But if I don't kill the child, it will be killed, along with me and friends and neighbors. No matter what, the baby is dead. I can choose to let myself and my friends live or die. I choose to let them live, even if it means doing the actual killing.

According to radio program, about 90% of people said that they would pull the lever in the first question. Interestingly, about 90% of people would not push the guy in the second question. I don't remember the exact percentages, but they were about equal in the final question.

If anyone cares, here (http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/28) is the link to the show.

Initial thoughts:

#1: To act is actually kill someone. To not act is to let them take their chances. But frankly they take their chances either way, so I say act. At least then its only one guy that has a chance of dying. And it is only a chance.

#2: To act is clear-cut murder. The workers still have a chance to react, and as much I think Utilitarianism has its plus points, they don't go that far. Big fat people have a right to life as well.

#3: Restrain the child, putting silence above reasonable force. Horrible situation, necessary sacrifice?

[Sisqui]

But you obviously do value those ten less. You are saying that ten people are less valuable than one hundred people. Which isn't to say that you don't value life, but you are choosing the ten to die (or the 100 convicts) because you find them to be less valuable than the one hundred (or the ten kids.) I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong; my issue is more with this whole approach than the conclusion.


I am saying that each life is valuable. Each and every one. Individually. If saving them all is not an option, then I will save as many individuals as I can. No matter which choice I make, 10 people will die. Why would I add 90 to it so that I can say, "whew, at least I valued all ten lives as being equal to all 100"? What you are asking me to do is value those ten lives more than the 90. What did any of those ten do to make them worth the lives of nine other people? THAT is the better way of looking at your question. No one is doubting that the ten lives have a value of their own.


We have a word for that; irrational.
But, alas, it is also called realistic. It includes a significant variable. To behave in life as if every person in it is completely rational and motivated by pure logic is in and of itself illogical because it is so patently untrue.

[averagejoe]

I am saying that each life is valuable. Each and every one. Individually. If saving them all is not an option, then I will save as many individuals as I can. No matter which choice I make, 10 people will die. Why would I add 90 to it so that I can say, "whew, at least I valued all ten lives as being equal to all 100"? What you are asking me to do is value those ten lives more than the 90. What did any of those ten do to make them worth the lives of nine other people? THAT is the better way of looking at your question. No one is doubting that the ten lives have a value of their own.

I never said that you didn't find those ten lives valuable, only that you found them less valuable than the hundred. You're saying each life is equally valuable; the ten, therefore, cancel each other out, and ninety are more valuable then nothing; therefore one hundred are more valuable then ten.


But, alas, it is also called realistic. It includes a significant variable. To behave in life as if every person in it is completely rational and motivated by pure logic is in and of itself illogical because it is patently untrue.

This is true. All I was saying is that this is not a rational way to consider the problem; I wasn't saying that such a thing is good or bad, simply that it is.

[Sisqui]

I never said that you didn't find those ten lives valuable, only that you found them less valuable than the hundred. You're saying each life is equally valuable; the ten, therefore, cancel each other out, and ninety are more valuable then nothing; therefore one hundred are more valuable then ten.

Yes. I am not exactly sure (well, Hell, I am not at all sure) what the problem is with that. :smallconfused: To say anything else is to say that life is worth less than nothing. Quite literally, in fact.




This is true. All I was saying is that this is not a rational way to consider the problem; I wasn't saying that such a thing is good or bad, simply that it is.

It is human. Res ipsa loquitur - The thing speaks for itself

[averagejoe]

Yes. I am not exactly sure (well, Hell, I am not at all sure) what the problem is with that. :smallconfused: To say anything else is to say that life is worth less than nothing. Quite literally, in fact.

Again, it isn't the conclusion but the process that bugs me. It's this idea that this fictional future should determine your decision that bugs me. To put it another way, you are saying, "Well, if I do this, then in the near future these people will be alive and these people will be dead, and that is the more desirable outcome."

To illustrate, I'll respond to the original poster's question. In this hypothetical situation, where I somehow know that no matter how I act, the outcome is purely binary, where either one person will die or five people will die, and the only possible actions I can take will result in one of these occurances (except maybe suicide, which would result in either six or two dead), I would choose to try to save everyone anyways. What's the outcome? I don't know, it depends, and ultimately isn't important as far as the choices I make. In the OP's question, for example, I would probably switch it over to the one-person track, because one person is usually easier to save than five. (But maybe this isn't the case in this situation, in which case I wouldn't pull the lever.) In either case, either that one person I try to save or those five people I try to save will die, but that fact is irrelevant to my decision.

Er... if that makes sense. :smallconfused:

[Tom_Violence]

Again, it isn't the conclusion but the process that bugs me. It's this idea that this fictional future should determine your decision that bugs me. To put it another way, you are saying, "Well, if I do this, then in the near future these people will be alive and these people will be dead, and that is the more desirable outcome."

To illustrate, I'll respond to the original poster's question. In this hypothetical situation, where I somehow know that no matter how I act, the outcome is purely binary, where either one person will die or five people will die, and the only possible actions I can take will result in one of these occurances (except maybe suicide, which would result in either six or two dead), I would choose to try to save everyone anyways. What's the outcome? I don't know, it depends, and ultimately isn't important as far as the choices I make. In the OP's question, for example, I would probably switch it over to the one-person track, because one person is usually easier to save than five. (But maybe this isn't the case in this situation, in which case I wouldn't pull the lever.) In either case, either that one person I try to save or those five people I try to save will die, but that fact is irrelevant to my decision.

Er... if that makes sense. :smallconfused:

This post quite nicely demonstrates the problems with this kinda of question.

If your actions fundamentally change the situation then the whole thing opens up to a big debate about the details of the issue in question.

[Lemur]

Gah! Yet another discussion about killing people! Philosophers are starting to sound awfully vicious :smalleek:
I'm kidding. Sort of.
Anyway, I suppose it takes one to know one.

1. No. I shrug and say it's none of my business, then continue to watch in morbid curiosity. Will no one out of 5 people manage notice a train coming before it's too late? Either way, I would probably post the experience in Random Banter, as I'm prone to do about strange things I notice during my life.
I'm not kidding about the Random Banter thing.
2. No. Hell no. Why would you even ask that? I start up a conversation with the guy about the situation, so we can both watch in morbid curiosity.

3. Yes, without hesitation. If my life is danger, I'll remove any threats no matter what form they take, to the best of my abilities. I don't even need to consider "the kid will probably die if we all die anyway," or anything like that. I might risk my life for a friend, but if it's a stranger or me, I'm picking me.

[Sisqui]

Er... if that makes sense. :smallconfused:

I think you are saying you don't believe in the Kobayashi Maru. But, neither do I- well, I don't want to (see sig). :smallwink:


Again, it isn't the conclusion but the process that bugs me. It's this idea that this fictional future should determine your decision that bugs me. To put it another way, you are saying, "Well, if I do this, then in the near future these people will be alive and these people will be dead, and that is the more desirable outcome."

But yes, I agree with you, you would still try to save the one guy, and maybe you both buy it, but what the hell, it's your life to gamble. No one likes the binary nature of the question or the inevitability of the outcomes, but the whole purpose of that is to force you to consider the merit and numbers of the lives involved and not get sidetracked by other issues.

But, if what you are saying is that you don't like the awareness of the two outcomes determining your decision........well, what should determine your decision? :smallconfused: Isn't knowing the consequences of your actions the most essential part of making the choice? Or any choice? A choice with no differential consequences is by definition no choice at all. Or (and I think this is the gist of it) are you saying that knowledge of the outcome's certainty is irrelevant because your choice would be the same regardless? You would: a) remove the greatest threat (to the five) and then b) proceed to remove the much reduced threat (to the one) and that this would be your course of action whether you knew the outcome or not. ???:smallconfused:

EDIT: That last should read even if you knew you would fail. Even if failure is certain you are still going to try just because it is the right thing to do.

[averagejoe]

I think you are saying you don't believe in the Kobayashi Maru. But, neither do I- well, I don't want to (see sig). :smallwink:
But yes, I agree with you, you would still try to save the one guy, and maybe you both buy it, but what the hell, it's your life to gamble. No one likes the binary nature of the question or the inevitability of the outcomes, but the whole purpose of that is to force you to consider the merit and numbers of the lives involved and not get sidetracked by other issues.

Oh, I just got that; you are referring to that Star Trek scenario, yes?

Well, I wasn't really trying to question the binary nature; I'm saying beforehand that I've already accepted it. What I'm trying to do is illustrate how this numbers analysis isn't really relevant. To me it isn't so much a matter of, "Do you save one person or five?" but "How do you save everyone, and what's the best way to do it." It may be, as in the presented scenario, that you can't, but that doesn't matter. Either I try to save everyone and one person dies, or I try to save everyone and five people dies; this is unavoidable. However, even so, I don't try to plan for the scenario where the least people have to die, I plan for the one where no one does. Maybe if I do then five people die instead of one, but that's unimportant (as far as the decision, of course.)

Wow, I said that a lot better this time.


EDIT: That last should read even if you knew you would fail. Even if failure is certain you are still going to try just because it is the right thing to do.

Essentially, yes.

[Tom_Violence]

I think you are saying you don't believe in the Kobayashi Maru. But, neither do I- well, I don't want to (see sig). :smallwink:



But yes, I agree with you, you would still try to save the one guy, and maybe you both buy it, but what the hell, it's your life to gamble. No one likes the binary nature of the question or the inevitability of the outcomes, but the whole purpose of that is to force you to consider the merit and numbers of the lives involved and not get sidetracked by other issues.

But, if what you are saying is that you don't like the awareness of the two outcomes determining your decision........well, what should determine your decision? :smallconfused: Isn't knowing the consequences of your actions the most essential part of making the choice? Or any choice? A choice with no differential consequences is by definition no choice at all. Or (and I think this is the gist of it) are you saying that knowledge of the outcome's certainty is irrelevant because your choice would be the same regardless? You would: a) remove the greatest threat (to the five) and then b) proceed to remove the much reduced threat (to the one) and that this would be your course of action whether you knew the outcome or not. ???:smallconfused:

EDIT: That last should read even if you knew you would fail. Even if failure is certain you are still going to try just because it is the right thing to do.

What ethical principle advocates an action with a 100% chance of failure?

[Indon]

For the first question, I would pull the lever. I would rather one die for my choice than five.

For the second question, I would not push the man, but instead tell him he could stop the train by jumping in the way; When possible, an individual's choice to die, even for the good of others, should be their own.

For the third question, I would die fighting the soldiers. I wouldn't sacrifice the kid if he was mine because he was mine and it is my obligation to die protecting him, and I wouldn't sacrifice the kid if he wasn't mine because it would be better to ask my life of myself than to ask it of another. Plus, I'd at least go down fighting.

I don't feel these are 'philosophy' questions so much as they are social contract questions. When does a man have the right to take the life of another?



I'll throw in another scenario, one more game-theory-esque:

You are a spaceship technician and there is a critical accident with one of the systems. You have two solutions availible for the problem; one provides a 100% chance to save 60% of the crew. The other provides a 20% chance to save 100% of the crew.

Which do you choose?

[Sisqui]

OK. Yes, I agree with what you are saying. Amazing how two relatively intelligent people need so many words to communicate such simple concepts. :smalltongue:
And yes, the Kobayashi Maru is the no win scenario from Star Trek which, of course, all of the command crew managed to beat. :smallannoyed:


What ethical principle advocates an action with a 100% chance of failure?

The principle that the outcome of no one dying is better than one dying and that is better than 5. He WILL save the five. He will ATTEMPT to save the one. Even if he fails, he has still done all that could be morally and ethically asked of him by his own conscience.

[averagejoe]

I'll throw in another scenario, one more game-theory-esque:

You are a spaceship technician and there is a critical accident with one of the systems. You have two solutions availible for the problem; one provides a 100% chance to save 60% of the crew. The other provides a 20% chance to save 100% of the crew.

Which do you choose?

What would Picard do? The second one. Then I'd save 100% of the crew for sure, because I'd have the dramatic narrative on my side. :smallbiggrin:

[Indon]

And yes, the Kobayashi Maru is the no win scenario from Star Trek which, of course, all of the command crew managed to beat. :smallannoyed:

I thought only Kirk beat it, and by hacking at that.

[averagejoe]

OK. Yes, I agree with what you are saying. Amazing how two relatively intelligent people need so many words to communicate such simple concepts. :smalltongue:

Well, I've never exactly been accused of brevity, myself. :smallbiggrin: Although, I think part of it is just the writing process, as it helps to sift your thoughts and find the right words. This almost warrents a discussion in itself.

[Sisqui]

I thought only Kirk beat it, and by hacking at that.

In the show he did. There was a book by that title where some of the other crew members managed to pull it off, IIRC

[Hell Puppi]

As usual, I have 2 opinions on the matter:

My rather Anubis-ish side says it's wrong to interfere with someone's destiny. Whatever happens will happen, and I don't have the right to decide. Would I kill 10 to save a thousand? No. I don't know any of them. That may be heartless, but I don't have the authority to decide someone else's fate unless someone I know or love is in immediate danger.

My Fenris (Fenrir) side says....on a long enough time line, everyone's life expectancy rate drops to zero. Killing or not killing in inconsequential.

[Tom_Violence]

The principle that the outcome of no one dying is better than one dying and that is better than 5. He WILL save the five. He will ATTEMPT to save the one. Even if he fails, he has still done all that could be morally and ethically asked of him by his own conscience.

Sorry, the way you worded it before made it sound like even before acting one would expect no chance of success. I cannot imagine anyone's conscience compelling actions that result in large sacrifice for probably no payoff.

@\/ I have a theory which I call 'Bananas', and I can apply it to absolutely anything. What's your point?

[SDF]

Moral relativism may be a can of worms, but it is wholly applicable to both motivation and answers.


And yes, the Kobayashi Maru is the no win scenario from Star Trek

Yeah, that is what I meant when I said cheat :P I remember Kirk being the only one in the movie to accomplish this, so thats what I go by... never actually watched the series, or read any EU.

[averagejoe]

Sorry, the way you worded it before made it sound like even before acting one would expect no chance of success. I cannot imagine anyone's conscience compelling actions that result in large sacrifice for probably no payoff.

People do such things every day. To use a cleche, it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. It isn't about being successful, it's about doing the right thing.

[Tom_Violence]

People do such things every day. To use a cleche, it isn't whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game. It isn't about being successful, it's about doing the right thing.

I disagree, hugely. People lay down their lives for hopeless situations? Often? Can you actually give me a principle here? Some chain of thought?

[okpokalypse]

1. THere is a train track, with five workers on it. A train is coming, but the worker's backs are to it and they are going to be hit. You're too far away to shout or warn them. There's another track running parallel to the first, with one worker on it. You can pull a lever that would make the train switch to the second track, thus killing only one person. Do you pull the lever?

Not enough info. Are these strangers? Are these all just common workers? Are all of the 5 Workers older and the lone single worker younger? How far away is the split in the tracks? Is the train a passenger train, or a freight train?

The one issue with this one is that you're not killing anyone by doing nothing. You can't really kill someone through a non-deed. Surely, you can let them die, but you're not killing them. By flipping that switch, you're choosing to kill one to save 5, as opposed to allowing 5 to die through not intervening.

In the case of being forced to determine who lives and who dies one must garner merit between the choices. I would personally, all things being equal and/or inconsequential outside those people, choose to save the 5 and kill the one rather than being a bystander and having my hands clean.


2. Again, you have a train track with five workers (or people tied to the train track) and a train coming. This time you are on a bridge above the track. There is a really big guy standing near you. If you push him, he will fall onto the track and stop the train, being killing in the process. Do you push him?

I throw myself over. If all it takes is a body to save 5 people, I'll give mine up. If I know my body cannot stop the train, but another, larger one can - I push him.

This is actually the exact same choice as in the first, but rather than flipping a switch, you're pushing a body. Your actions cause the death of one, and saving of 5. Your inactions cause the death of 5.

It always surprises me that when it comes to actually pushing the one physically, like 50% or more of the people who would sacrifice one to save X will no longer do so.


3. Your village has been invaded by enemy soldiers, who have been instructed to kill everyone they meet. You, some of your friends and neighbors, and your infant son/daughter (your first child,) are hiding. You are very well hiden, but if anyone makes any noise the soldiers the soldiers will find you and kill everyone. Your child has a cold and is sniffling/coughing/sneezing, which will soon attract the enemy soldiers. The only way to stop the noise is to cover the childs mouth, killing it. Do you kill your first child? (Assume the child's other parent is dead.)

This is again the same question. However, it's one helpless infant to (potentially) save many.

But I've got a ethical scenario for you...

You are diagnosed with lymphoma (cancer). The doctors observe you and realize that your body is producing something that is allowing your blood cells to fight off the cancer. As far as them can tell, you may have had cancer for a decade or more and are surviving it just fine.

You are asked to allow a team of doctors to do exploratory surgery to examine what your body is doing, and try to see how it can be applie to combatting cancer. The surgery has a high risk for casuing strokes, heart attacks and brain damage. Do you go through with it?

My Own Answer:
Hell No - but not for selfish reasons. I believe the world is far too overpopulated, and scientific data is drawing connections to global warming and many other global natural concerns to decreased mortality rates, longer life spans and population in general. Imagine if the worlds biggest killer was cured. The population would hit 8 Billion in 2 generations. I wouldn't want to be responsible for that.

[averagejoe]

I disagree, hugely. People lay down their lives for hopeless situations? Often? Can you actually give me a principle here? Some chain of thought?

I don't know about laying down their lives. You said,


even before acting one would expect no chance of success.

Acting, that is, not dying, is what I was talking about. But, yes, people die for hopeless causes, I just can't claim it's as common. Partially because hopeless situations are rarely as hopeless as they seem. Partially it's just to be able to look oneself in the mirror; to have a tragedy happen and to not have done everything within my power to prevent it is inexcusable. It's the same principle that prevents me from cheating, even when no one's looking and no one would find out.

[okpokalypse]

Acting, that is, not dying, is what I was talking about. But, yes, people die for hopeless causes, I just can't claim it's as common. Partially because hopeless situations are rarely as hopeless as they seem.

It's more common than you think.

Look to the two fronts of WW-II alone.

How many Poles resisted the German advance, charging tanks while mounted on light calvary? Surely, a hopeless situation - yet they would not yield until they were literally crushed by the Blitz.

How many deaths occurred in the Pacific after it was a foregone conclusion? Japan was broken and fighting suicide missions out of a sense of honor and the emperor. They had already lost over 30 cities by the time the war in Eurpoe was over, and knew the US would be able to increase their presence in the Pacific. Had they surrendered, as requested to do on July 30th 1945, the atomic bombs wouldn't have been dropped on August 6th. Everyone knew the US had the Atomic bombs. They had tested it successfully, and Japanese spies (and Russian spies as well) were well aware of their destructive capabilities. Yet, they fought on, and hundreds of thousands of lives were lost to save millions of Western and Japanese lives alike*.

* Many contened that it was the display of Atomic Force that forced Russia to stop it's advance at Berlin. They outnumbered all European armies when Berlin fell, and with Western Germany and France in ruines, they could have controlled the continent in a matter of months. As it stood, the "Eastern Bloc" they refused to relinquish took 44 years to fall.

Then go back in history some...

The Native Americans never had a chance against the far superior European forces assayed against them. Yet they fought to the point of many tribes extinctions. Certainly the cause was hopeless, but they were not willing to go easy.

But, when is hopelessness understood? At what point is something possible, but unlikey, and worth doing? When the Slavs rose against the Teutonic Knights in the 1400s after 600 years of slavery, many thought the rebellion hopeless. They had, after all, been enslaved for (get ready for this) 30 generations. Dozens of wide uprising were crushed previously. At what point did hopelessness turn to possibility?

[Vuzzmop]

Pull the switch, dooming one person. I would personally feel terrible for not saving five. When you are given the chance to act, and don't take it, you doom six people. I'm asuming that the people were all the same, eg all have wives and children.

[Siwenna]

You are diagnosed with lymphoma (cancer). The doctors observe you and realize that your body is producing something that is allowing your blood cells to fight off the cancer. As far as them can tell, you may have had cancer for a decade or more and are surviving it just fine.

You are asked to allow a team of doctors to do exploratory surgery to examine what your body is doing, and try to see how it can be applie to combatting cancer. The surgery has a high risk for casuing strokes, heart attacks and brain damage. Do you go through with it?

No, I wouldn't. Partially because that would increase the population quite a bit, which would, ultimately, be more harmful for humanity. But also because of the brain damage/stroke bit. If I'm dead, fine, I'm gone. But with brain damage I cease to be myself. My mind, my thoughts, my memories, everything that makes me who I am is changed, and that scares me a whole lot more than death.

[Sisqui]

No, I wouldn't. Partially because that would increase the population quite a bit, which would, ultimately, be more harmful for humanity. But also because of the brain damage/stroke bit. If I'm dead, fine, I'm gone. But with brain damage I cease to be myself. My mind, my thoughts, my memories, everything that makes me who I am is changed, and that scares me a whole lot more than death.

*ponders how having more humans is harmful to humanity* :smallconfused:

[averagejoe]

No, I wouldn't. Partially because that would increase the population quite a bit, which would, ultimately, be more harmful for humanity. But also because of the brain damage/stroke bit. If I'm dead, fine, I'm gone. But with brain damage I cease to be myself. My mind, my thoughts, my memories, everything that makes me who I am is changed, and that scares me a whole lot more than death.

By that logic, wouldn't it be better to let the five people die, in your original examples, than to try and save anyone at all? Or is it just that it's wrong to kill humans, unless you're killing enough of them?

[Siwenna]

Because of the way population growth works. If you look an, overly simplified graph of a population with unlimited resources, you get exponential growth. It's called a J-shaped curve, which describes it pretty accurately. But no population has unlimited resources, so the population peaks. But people don't stop reproducing, so you get starvation, war, etc., which decrease the population enough that the resources can sustain it. But then, with enough resources, the population grows again, then dies off again in a continuous cycle. As long as we don't have too many people, were okay, but, since most people like having babies, we need things like wars and diseases to stop bigger die-offs from occuring. If we were to colonize other planets then it would be different. But, unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening very quickly.


By that logic, wouldn't it be better to let the five people die, in your original examples, than to try and save anyone at all? Or is it just that it's wrong to kill humans, unless you're killing enough of them?

In the long run, more people are saved by not allowing the population to grow enourmously. However saving the five will not have a very large impact on the overall population growth.

[Aramil Liadon]

Grr!

What if the train is heading at the one, and the lever redirects toward the five? It's the same situation, in my mind. You choose one, or you choose five. I choose one, no matter how the lever is initially pointing. Inaction is a choice, therefore a choice to kill five people instead of one.

[averagejoe]

In the long run, more people are saved by not allowing the population to grow enourmously. However saving the five will not have a very large impact on the overall population growth.

But it would have an impact, and you say that this is a good thing. Five people dead are five more people who won't contribute to population growth; and it's like you said, the growth is exponential. It won't be long before five become twenty five become one hundred. So, really, by killing these people, you're preventing hundreds of deaths lager on. So it must be a good thing.

[Sisqui]

Because of the way population growth works. If you look an, overly simplified graph of a population with unlimited resources, you get exponential growth. It's called a J-shaped curve, which describes it pretty accurately. But no population has unlimited resources, so the population peaks. But people don't stop reproducing, so you get starvation, war, etc., which decrease the population enough that the resources can sustain it. But then, with enough resources, the population grows again, then dies off again in a continuous cycle.

That only holds true for populations without birth control. Most developed countries have birth rates that are declining to the point that the population is either no longer replacing itself or well on its way to that state. Also, humanity is a far cry from depleting the Earth's natural resources to the extent that we will die off as you predict.

[Siwenna]

That only holds true for populations without birth control. Most developed countries have birth rates that are declining to the point that the population is either no longer replacing itself or well on its way to that state. Also, humanity is a far cry from depleting the Earth's natural resources to the extent that we will die off as you predict.

Birth control helps slow population growth, but if there is any population growth (even if it's 1% or less) then then eventually you have so many people that the 1% is huge. I know Japan's population is declining, but what other major developed countries have shrinking populations? THe US certainly doesn't (even without immigration.) And we are using up natural resources. There's still plenty food/water (or would be, if it was better distributed) but we're well on our way to using up gas and other fossil fuels. No, they're not necessary, but they are sure useful. I didn't say we were going to run out of resources tomorrow or next year, but eventually, whether in 10 generations or 1000 we will.

[Sisqui]

Birth control helps slow population growth, but if there is any population growth (even if it's 1% or less) then then eventually you have so many people that the 1% is huge. I know Japan's population is declining, but what other major developed countries have shrinking populations? THe US certainly doesn't (even without immigration.) And we are using up natural resources. There's still plenty food/water (or would be, if it was better distributed) but we're well on our way to using up gas and other fossil fuels. No, they're not necessary, but they are sure useful. I didn't say we were going to run out of resources tomorrow or next year, but eventually, whether in 10 generations or 1000 we will.

By your logic we should shut down every hospital and health program, reintroduce the plague and smallpox, and drop all regulations that ensure the safety of the workplace and the food supply. And does your assessment of the situation make no room for human innovation and invention? Your argument seems rather Malthusian to me.......

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

[Tom_Violence]

By your logic we should shut down every hospital and health program, reintroduce the plague and smallpox, and drop all regulations that ensure the safety of the workplace and the food supply. And does your assessment of the situation make no room for human innovation and invention? Your argument seems rather Malthusian to me.......

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility

That's a bit of a straw man,isn't it? There's a significant difference between dropping grow just enough so it disappears, and taking steps that are actually likely to kill off people that are currently around.

[Sisqui]

That's a bit of a straw man,isn't it? There's a significant difference between dropping grow just enough so it disappears, and taking steps that are actually likely to kill off people that are currently around.

No, these are all preventative measures that we take every day to save lives- lives that would inevitably result in more babies being born (gasp!!:smalleek: ). If finding a cure for this disease is not something she wants to do because it would save lives (thus, by her own account, potentially increasing the population) then the logic of my argument holds true.

[0wca]

1. THere is a train track, with five workers on it. A train is coming, but the worker's backs are to it and they are going to be hit. You're too far away to shout or warn them. There's another track running parallel to the first, with one worker on it. You can pull a lever that would make the train switch to the second track, thus killing only one person. Do you pull the lever?

EDIT: If it makes it easier for you, there are five people tied to the first track, one to second. THe train is near enough that you won't have time to even get to the tracks, just to pull the lever.

2. Again, you have a train track with five workers (or people tied to the train track) and a train coming. This time you are on a bridge above the track. There is a really big guy standing near you. If you push him, he will fall onto the track and stop the train, being killing in the process. Do you push him?

3. Your village has been invaded by enemy soldiers, who have been instructed to kill everyone they meet. You, some of your friends and neighbors, and your infant son/daughter (your first child,) are hiding. You are very well hiden, but if anyone makes any noise the soldiers the soldiers will find you and kill everyone. Your child has a cold and is sniffling/coughing/sneezing, which will soon attract the enemy soldiers. The only way to stop the noise is to cover the childs mouth, killing it. Do you kill your first child? (Assume the child's other parent is dead.)


1. Yes. I rather pick the lesser evil and save 5 lives than one.

2. No. Even considering the first answer, I wouldn't because he's there just minding his own business, and the guy in the first question was probably there for a reason. And so are the workers.

3. I don't kill him, hell no! Even if he screams, they may find us and kill me, but he may still live if I hide him somewhere. Losing a child is worse than losing your parents.

[Siwenna]

By your logic we should shut down every hospital and health program, reintroduce the plague and smallpox, and drop all regulations that ensure the safety of the workplace and the food supply. And does your assessment of the situation make no room for human innovation and invention? Your argument seems rather Malthusian to me.......

No. That would be appalling. However, if you remove absolutely everything aside from age that keeps the population down, it would be horrible for humanity. And like I said, if we were to colonize other planets or do something that gave us more space and resources, my response would be totally different. However we do not currently seem to be doing that.

[averagejoe]

No. That would be appalling. However, if you remove absolutely everything aside from age that keeps the population down, it would be horrible for humanity. And like I said, if we were to colonize other planets or do something that gave us more space and resources, my response would be totally different. However we do not currently seem to be doing that.

Sooo, then it's only okay to allow certain diseases to keep the population down? It's correct to save as many lives as you can, unless you can not save a very large amount of lives, and then it's population control? Forgive me, but this seems like a rather paradoxical point of view.

[Sisqui]

No. That would be appalling. However, if you remove absolutely everything aside from age that keeps the population down, it would be horrible for humanity. And like I said, if we were to colonize other planets or do something that gave us more space and resources, my response would be totally different. However we do not currently seem to be doing that.

We are not yet at a point that we need to. And like I said, there is human innovation and ingenuity to consider. We have already invented birth control, you know. And it seems to me to be a weak argument. You won't save these people but you will save people who have diseases for which a treatment is already available? So what should we do, immediately suspend all medical research? Anybody with a currently curable disease, congrats! Anyone with a currently incurable one, well, it sucks to be you? That seems to be the essence of the argument you are making.

[Koga]

It would depend on if I knew anything about these people.

If the one had anything that was in my best interests. Wether politicaly or sexualy (a girl for instance) I'd save the one.

If not (or a man and I had to assume) I'd save the five. Maybe out of gratitude I could get a date.

[landadmiral]

1- no lever pull = 5 dead people (i don't want to get sued by the relatives of the guy i killed, you can't prove that i chose to kill the other 5)

2- no pushing the fat man = 5 dead people (i don't want to get sued by the relatives of the guy i killed, you can't prove that i chose to kill the other 5)

3- no killing my own child (there is a way to muffle air out and let them breathe in)

[landadmiral]

Oh, and Siwenna, several of your arguements on over-population and loss of natural resources is based on junk science and is simply diatribe within politics. I'm not flaming you, just the sources are poor.

America - illegal immigration aside - is stagnant in population growth. the sad part is everyone in mid-income levels and above are on a population decrease while those in poverty are the ones reproducing.

ALL of europe is in a population decrease - immigration aside - and the ones that are reproducing in europe are the said immigrants.

Natural resources - geologists have said that the 2 largest oil wells, still untapped, are in the Alaska/artic region and Utah/rocky mountain region. we simply don't have the political will to tap them.

[Triggerhappy938]

1. No pull lever, especially if they aren't tied to the tracks. I feel little remorse for death by stupidity.

2. Not pushing guy off bridge. Same reasoning. The guy didn't get himself in front of a train.

3. Kill the baby. If we are found, we are dead regardless.

[jazz1m]

I would rather be the one to take the action, not doing anything, as many people say, is just as bad. Or rather, making the conscious decision not to do anything, I think is even worse. This happens more often than one would like to think.

Would you rather be passive, and know, at least in these very narrow scenarios, that you had killed those five men by your inaction? Do people deal with these exact situations, no, but think of this scenario. If a general had a similar situation - he had the choice to either let five of his men die by doing nothing or save the five by letting one of his men die, he would obviously choose the one. And he would probably be commended for his decision.

[Indon]

America - illegal immigration aside - is stagnant in population growth. the sad part is everyone in mid-income levels and above are on a population decrease while those in poverty are the ones reproducing.


That's not sad, that's simply cold, hard demographic truth.

The poorer you are, the more children you're likely to have. The exact causes haven't been identified, but I'd say less use of contraceptive measures (due to lack of education regarding them) is a likely culprit.

If there were no significant health or food supply problems in the world, and there was no poverty, population problems would not be likely (though an extreme demographic unbalance in the direction of the very old would no doubt occur, and that might bring problems of its' own).

[landadmiral]

i agree indon. you did a better job of explaining it than i.

[SurlySeraph]

1) Yes, absolutely

2. Oh, I remember hearing about this problem... yes, but I'm less comfortable with it because it's more directly my fault that he dies and it just seems less certain to work.

3. If it were just me, I wouldn't kill him. He's my child, he matters more than I do. However, I have a responsibility to the rest of the people there. I guess it depends how many people were there, and who those people were. If I thought they could do a lot more good in their remaining lifespan than my child could in his entire life, I mightkill him. But it's a very hard choice. The other parent being dead makes it much worse, because it means that you could very well be throwing away all chance of having any genetic legacy.

[0wca]

The other parent being dead makes it much worse, because it means that you could very well be throwing away all chance of having any genetic legacy.

Or achieving the exact opposite..