## Morality and life

Post by zanev » Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:28 pm

Suppose your the driver of a trolley car and your car is going down the track at 60mph. At the end of the track you notice 5 workers working on the track, you try to stop but your breaks don't work. You feel desperate because you know that if you crash into these 5 workers they will all die. So you feel helpless until you notice that onto the right there is a side track with one worker, working on the track. Your steering wheel works so you can turn onto the right track killing the one and sparing the five.
What is the right thing to do?
Would you kill the one and save the five, or kill the five and save the one?
Is it right to kill one if you can spare five? Is this a solid reason?
Or...
Does this mentality justify genocide? To avoid whipeing out one race you kill the other...
Now take this example:
This time you're not the driver, you are an on looker. You are looking over the bridge seeing the trolley, you see the trolley heading towards the five people. You really feel helpless. Until you notice next to you a really fat man... and you could give him a shove he would fall over the bridge onto the track right into the trolley car. He would die but would spare the five.
Would you push the man over the bridge?
What has changed your opinion in this case? How do you explain the difference between killing one in the first example but not killing the fat man in the second example? In both instances you save 5 and kill one.
Your a doctor in an ER and six people come to you, they were in a trolley car wreck. You can spend all day working on one and by doing so the five will die. Or you can work on the five and one will die. Your choice?
What about if your a transplant surgeon and 5 of the men need organ transplants. In the next room their is a healthy man who came in for a check up and he is taking a nap...you could go in yank out the 5 organs and he would die... but you would save the five. Would you do it?
In all of these examples it involves morality of life and it is safe to assume that with out giving it much thought your answers are different in the cases.
Certain moral principles have emerged from these examples. 1) the right thing to do depends on the consequences of your actions.. its better to kill 1 to save 5. Its called consequential-est moral reasoning(Utilitarianism).
But in the second example of the fat man, or the surgeon most people will look at the intrinsic quality of the act it self, or judging based on the act. Most people in these examples will believe it is wrong to kill one person to save the five. 2) This is known as categorical moral reasoning.(Kants philosophy).
Where do you stand?
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Viper7 » Thu Apr 01, 2010 9:22 am

Interesting. I'd say in the case where you are the driver it's simply a matter of letting 4 people live as opposed to letting one person live. It just makes sense to choose the option that would allow the most people to live.
In the second example, it feels wrong to kill the fan man because you are actively taking action to kill someone rather than being forced to choose between killing one person or five. If the fat man dies, you are responsible for killing him while if the 5 die, you simply didn't do anything about it (which is also bad but not as bad as proactively killing a person. In this case the only way to save them would be to kill a person).
The ER scenarios are basically the same idea I think. Very interesting stuff to think about, Philosophy is just awesome.

### Re: Morality and life

Post by haloguy » Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:19 pm

It is logical to say that you sometimes have to sacrifice few to save the many. Morally, I am not sure I would be able to kill someone just because of logic.

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Nuclearo » Fri Apr 02, 2010 2:00 am

Basically the point is that most people feel that murder by lack of action is far inferior as crime than the active murder of a person. Even our laws reflect that. In general people would prefer to ignore genocide than to kill someone. It's all due to the fact that we tend to try and pin the responsibility for what happens on someone or some group. The innocent bystanders would at worse be considered "assholes", but that would pale in comparison to the treatment the murderer gets. And yes, I do believe that most of human morality is based on the fear of consequences.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Morality and life

Post by zanev » Fri Apr 02, 2010 6:16 am

> Viper7 wrote:Interesting. I'd say in the case where you are the driver it's simply a matter of letting 4 people live as opposed to letting one person live. It just makes sense to choose the option that would allow the most people to live.
> In the second example, it feels wrong to kill the fan man because you are actively taking action to kill someone rather than being forced to choose between killing one person or five. If the fat man dies, you are responsible for killing him while if the 5 die, you simply didn't do anything about it (which is also bad but not as bad as proactively killing a person. In this case the only way to save them would be to kill a person).
> The ER scenarios are basically the same idea I think. Very interesting stuff to think about, Philosophy is just awesome.

By doing nothing you are responsible for the death of 5 people, either way your actions result in the loss of someone.
I just find it funny ( not in a ha ha seance) that we as a society justify the killings of people in one way but call it morally wrong to kill people another way.
It is okay to sacrifice one in a trolley car example but wrong to sacrifice one in the ER example. Only thing that has changed are the circumstances not the morality of the issue at hand.
I close my eyes, Inis Mona
And reminisce of those palmy days
I moon o'er you, Inis Mona
As long as I breathe
I'll call you my home

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Viper7 » Sat Apr 03, 2010 10:54 pm

> By doing nothing you are responsible for the death of 5 people, either way your actions result in the loss of someone.
> Only thing that has changed are the circumstances not the morality of the issue at hand.

I think the change in circumstances affects how much of the moral blame falls on you though. In the first case of both the trolley and the ER, the victims are all in the same boat and their lives are in danger anyway, so its just a matter of how many lives you save. In the second of both scenarios, you're actively dragging a bystander who has nothing to do with problem at hand into the mess who otherwise would've been perfectly fine, so even though you're still saving lives you're now actively commiting 1st degree murder as well. Even though it still seems kinda iffy, I think thats the main thing that affects whether people choose to save the 5 or the 1 in both cases.

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Chris12 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 8:17 am

people should sacrifice the few to safe the many.
If they have to blow up a country to safe a continent or even the planet they should blow up the country but the best option is making sure you never have to make such a choice.

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Nuclearo » Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:10 pm

> Chris12 wrote:people should sacrifice the few to safe the many.
> If they have to blow up a country to safe a continent or even the planet they should blow up the country but the best option is making sure you never have to make such a choice.

Yes, you say that, but what if it's your country? What if the many were the worst evil scum the human world has to offer? Would your choice always remain the same?
I'm mostly referring to the first one, since 'scum' is usually in the eye of the beholder.
Join our irc channel!! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet It's fun!!

### Re: Morality and life

Post by MollyRosey » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:55 am

Well it depends if the five have no family but the one has a wife and kids than you would have to kill them. In my case I would go straight down the middle and jump out so it is anyone and maybe if i was driving I would probably die so... Im ranting (:
Apparantly I get distracted easily! As i... Ooo a butterfly!

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Soul_Rebel » Thu Apr 29, 2010 6:34 am

It has so much to do with what Chris12 said. The actions that led to such a hypothetical situation can be called into question, because then each person (if you believe people maintain long term identity) is responsible for his/her own death. You have people who put themselves, negligently or not, into a perilous situation.
However, the correct action would be to limit suffering. The trouble is, we can rarely predict how these people's deaths will really affect the world. That is what Kant is getting at with his categorical imperative. You have to try and save them all, avoid the slippery slope of killing a few to save many, because that one person might bring more happiness to the world than all the five combined. No one can know the potential of someone; so therefore, no one can have the right to compare these lives.
Whips and chains may break my bones, but ropes and gags excite me!
The image in my avatar is the work of Vonnart
"Duct tape makes you smart." - Michael Weston

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Jason Toddman » Sat May 01, 2010 6:16 am

In the case of the trolley and whether or not to push a fat guy over a bridge - if you're big enough to do that, you're big enough to stop that trolley yourself. So forget the fat guy; if you want to make a moral choice then throw your own righteous ass onto the damned tracks. You're more likely to succeed anyway becasue you won't have to struggle with an unwilling victim (who'd be hard to move in any case even if totally unaware). Then you'd be a real hero because self-sacrifice is not considered suicide or murder! Maybe you'd fail to save anyone else if you're not big enough after all but at least you'd have tried and to most people THAT would be the most important thing.
As for the doctor analogy, they have a system for that; it's called triage. And grabbing an unsuspecting person for body parts is murder straight and simple; instead, use one of the victims who is dying anyway to save the other four with HIS?HER still-healthy organs. Think outside the box!!!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Morality and life

Post by staythirstymyfriends » Sat Aug 07, 2010 1:57 am

If you cannot save all the track workers, you make the decision to save as many as possible; it is the lesser, necessary evil. There is no genocidal aspect here; you're not looking to kill a group of people based on race or some pre-determined other trait.
The fat man is in no danger in example #2. By putting him in danger, and thence killing him, you have taken a life via 1st degree murder. He has no need to die; indeed, shoving him over the bridge in hopes of stopping the trolley could fail. He might fall in the river. You may save five, a mitigating circumstance, but you still have killed someone with premeditation, intent, and malice.
The ER doctor, in that rather bizarre scenario, apparently has one gravely injured man and 5 in serious condition that will turn critical without medical attention. Seriously, the premise is rather silly: the doc, if he can, works on the five guys and patches them up ASAP- then sends them to surgery if need be, and fast, getting on the horn for more surgeons. You're not going to leave a man alone to die, either- you get a nurse practitioner to look after him and stabilize him. Then, once the other 5 are out of the ER, you work on the last, probably also by sending him to the OR. That's a triage situation. They'd likely mark all of them for immediate, aggressive care if all can be saved but only by quick intervention. Another solution, based on resources, is for the doc to stabilize the most injured man and then go help the others, coming back often to check on the former. If he can save 5, and the 6th is also savable, he can save 6 if he's a good ER surgeon.
Yanking organs from a healthy person without consent violates every provision of the Oath, as well as murder laws. That man has the same right to live as all the others. No brainer.
The actions to take in each case are really common-sensical. If you have to make a choice, and it is your moral choice to make, you cause the lesser of two evils. It is axiomatic, also, that you never take life with the intent and the malice (the wish to do serious harm) required for murder. Hitting one trainman on a siding to save 5 is not murder: you didn't plan an evil act, you didn't want or pray to kill him (intent), and you had a righteous heart. You were intending to save lives, and that's that. Killing a man for his organs is brutal murder- very easy. That's a psychotic who would do that...
Is it any different to be tied up vs being tied down? One of the great things about English, its flexibility :p

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Chris12 » Thu Sep 02, 2010 1:26 pm

Is it just me or is gods reptation of benevolend a bit doubtful if you see the kind of animals(some are REALLY creepy ) he created or the actions of the humans he created Not to mention some of his own actions.

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Jason Toddman » Thu Sep 02, 2010 8:43 pm

> Chris12 wrote:Is it just me or is gods reptation of benevolend a bit doubtful if you see the kind of animals(some are REALLY creepy ) he created or the actions of the humans he created Not to mention some of his own actions.

I asked the same questions about God when I was your age too. It's perfectly normal to qustion the reality of God at your (or any) age.
I especially had trouble undersanding why he'd create spiders!!! YUK!!! I hate those things!!!
Unfortunately I doubt anyone could give you an answer to yoru question that isn't pure BS!!!
But think of it this way: be glad God made it so that spiders aren't (nor can be) the size of elephants!
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...

### Re: Morality and life

Post by snobound » Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:10 pm

I asked the same questions about God when I was your age too. It's perfectly normal to qustion the reality of God at your (or any) age.
I especially had trouble undersanding why he'd create spiders!!! YUK!!! I hate those things!!!
Unfortunately I doubt anyone could give you an answer to yoru question that isn't pure BS!!!
But think of it this way: be glad God made it so that spiders aren't (nor can be) the size of elephants! [/quote]
I hate those god damn things too, but do some research on the carboniferous period when the oxygen content of the atmosphere was much higher. The only thing limiting the size of insects and arachnids is the atmosphere's oxygen content.... scary. No elephants, but its enough to send shivers down your spine!
Try out the TUGs chat! http://chat.mibbit.com/#tugsnet

### Re: Morality and life

Post by Jason Toddman » Fri Sep 03, 2010 1:32 pm

> snobound wrote:I asked the same questions about God when I was your age too. It's perfectly normal to qustion the reality of God at your (or any) age.
> I especially had trouble undersanding why he'd create spiders!!! YUK!!! I hate those things!!!
> Unfortunately I doubt anyone could give you an answer to yoru question that isn't pure BS!!!
> But think of it this way: be glad God made it so that spiders aren't (nor can be) the size of elephants!

I hate those god damn things too, but do some research on the carboniferous period when the oxygen content of the atmosphere was much higher. The only thing limiting the size of insects and arachnids is the atmosphere's oxygen content.... scary. No elephants, but its enough to send shivers down your spine![/quote]
No, fortunately their own anatomy also keeps them from getting too big. If a spider somehow became much larger than a normal tarantula, its own exoskelton would crush it, its legs would break off trying to move and it'd suffocate because it could not get enough airbecause it has no lungs. This us why tarantulas don't move with the scary speed a smaller spider does, and why elephants have such thick legs. No monster from sci-fi is more unrealistic (or deader) than a giant spider/insect. So much for Eight-Legged Freaks. Which suits me just fine. Some potential evils thankfully really ARE impossible.
Dare to be different... and make a difference.
To boldly go where no one in their right mind has gone before...