/lit/ - Literature

>>3514492
It would be logical. Moral has nothing to do with it.

>>3514495
So it's ok to kill the few to save the many? Tell me, would it be logical to kill a single person in order to donate their organs in order to save multiple lives?

Wouldn't it be something if you flipped the switch, then found out you'd made it go on the track with 5 guys?

>>3514495
>implying normative statements are inherently logical

>>3514495

>OP asked if it would be moral
>You say it would be logical and that morals are irrelevant

I'm not entirely sure what your point is.

OP: It depends on how you look at it. Most people look at it from the perspective of saving five people, but, in my opinion, killing one person is much worse than, through inaction, allowing five people to die, especially if the alternative to the inaction involves murder.

>>3514492
>see some people tied up on and laying on train tracks
>go stand next to the switch
Guy's an idiot.

morality is arbitrary.
There is no purely logical value system that isn't ad hoc.
Have fun rationalizing why your systems, when 'consistent', have 'flaws' that make you feel uncomfortable.

>>3514492
You flick the switch.
*PLOT TWIST!*
Turns out the guy you killed was a scientist working on cures for cancer and aids and he was just a super cool guy in general, with kids and a hot wife and all kids of other good shit. The five people you saved were all pedophiles and rapists and murderers.

Good job, ASSHOLE!

Obviously it would be moral.

Read some Rand, you uncultured swine.

>>3514500
Is that supposed to be an anology?

I don't think it's necessarily more logical to save five lives than to save one, considering that lives are worth nothing. Maybe if you asked each of them how much money they'd be willing to give you before you flicked the switch then you could turn it into a logical decision.

>>3514520
*PLOT TWIST!*
The scientist cured a guy that became the new adolf hitler and started world war 4, which lead to the killing of fifty percent of the worlds population and he also got rid of all the jews.

>>3514500
Look at:>>3514505

You don't know if killing the single person would save lives, maybe the operation goes awry, maybe the five people aren't really going to die, maybe who you kill is a genius that would cure cancer, maybe killing this guy will result in a riot that kills many more people.

The obvious answer though is that people have rights and they must be taken into consideration when making ethical decisions. Going strictly off of 'saving more is better' leads to problematic conclusions.

>>3514536
*PLOT TWIST!*
Getting rid of all of the Jews actually turns the world into a paradise. Also, the 50% that died were all poor, non-white people, so racial inequality no longer exists.

>>3514531
>considering that lives are worth nothing

lolsoedgy

>>3514548
The only value you can place on them is a human value, which has no place if you're going to bring logic into this.

It is incumbent to derail the tram. As trams suck.

>>3514492
>trolley
they'll be fine.

>>3514554
Considering how sharp that turn is and how fast the tram appears to be going it would probably derail itself.

>>3514508
But inaction when you have capacity is still murder. If you are five feet from the switch and are able bodied, you inaction still results in murder.

>>3514537
No. You have to judge the situation from what you know in OP's picture. Not make up all kinds of different excuses of not acting.

>>3514560
In that case you are a murderer either way. No worries.

>>3514560

How so? I don't have an exact definition of murder or anything, but doesn't it at least require you to have put them in that situation for it to be murder? In OP's scenario, they were already in that situation, so you don't have any moral obligation to stop it, especially since your other option is to actively take a life.

alright, bitches. Here is what you do.
You flip the switch, then you run over to the guy and try your best to untie him. You are probably going to fail, but hey, at least you tried. Obviously your chances of untieing all five of the other guys has zero chance of happening so your only chance to save EVERYONE is to flick the switch. Probably going to fail, but at least there was a chance. Feel me?

>>3514570
The post dealt with the circumstances that may prevent the murder surgery from being equivalent to the trolley example.

>>3514542
Imagine if true morality was merely the sum of individual welfare, and this represented the best ethical situation. The only reason it seems wrong is because we're not coldly logical enough to grasp it. What an edgy world that would be.

Anyway,
>Implying there isn't a scenario where you could avoid killing the jews and yet obtain paradise, making the genocide still awful by comparison
Inb4:
>Implying that getting rid of jews isn't obviously the best option in all cases

>>3514604
I was joking, Jews are pretty cool, the world would be shittier without them.

Put the lever halfway to derail the train, hopefully sparing everyone.

>>3514617
Possibly having it role over on its side somehow, crushing everyone.

>>3514576
There can be more than one murderer, and just because you didn't put them in that position doesn't mean you aren't one of the said murderers.

If you have capacity to stop the murder, but do not, you are complicit in the murder. You are a murderer.

>murder

Murder is defined by law. There are no "natural" murders.

So we can't use that word in this discussion.

>>3514636
Just because something is defined by law doesn't mean it doesn't occur naturally. What is 'law' doesn't shape reality. If you kill someone who is innocent, it is murder.

You can make that kind of argument for theft, where the prospect of 'ownership' may be brought into question, but realities such as life and innocence cannot be argued in the same way.

>>3514627
Then no witnesses to what was arguably murder.

>>3514636
>>3514645
(cont.)
Besides, the use of the word is irrelevant when we understand the context, which is that you may either be responsible for the death of one person or five. Call it what you want, but the question is still valid.

>>3514646
The driver survives what turns out to be a horrible wreck (17 dead), and pins the blame on you because really, how would you explain your way out of that one.

>>3514631
>Being complicit in the murder is the same as being a murderer

I don't even.

>>3514645
>killing someone who is innocent
>innocent

It happens all the time in nature that animals kill each other. We don't call it murder, we call it killing.

>>3514650
But it is. Its not as harsh or direct as being the one who 'pulled the trigger' but like I said, having the capacity to save someone and choosing not to isn't all that different. The only difference is the emotional state, where one act involves anger or desperation and the other involves apathy and indifference.

>>3514652
My word against his and a good lawyer.

On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.

On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.

If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation.

>cont

>>3514660

A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.

Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.

QUESTION: What should the brain do?

[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]

who am i to save the world

>>3514653
It doesn't happen that often in social species however. Were not talking about hunters and prey here, were talking about saving members of the same species from an avoidable fate. And like I said, the word you use isn't really relevant -- you're focusing too much on it. The point is that there is are two end results to a specific action and both involve death.

>>3514662
>QUESTION: What should the brain do?
What a shitty brain that it can't even make a decision on its own.

>>3514657
The problem is in the trolley someone must die. You are a murderer if you choose to save the 5, save the 1, or take no action and thus save the one.

Imagine if a criminal forced you to kill one of two people. If you don't choose he aims at one randomly, places your hand on the trigger, and forces your hand down on it. Does it make sense for you to be called a murderer here?

OMFG this shit makes me crazy... Everyone is trying to put there own little fucking twist of fucking Context on the situation. The fact is everything comes down to context. The brain doesn't exist in isolation. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE CONTEXT TO A SITUATION. all this does is say something about who you are and what you value by way of making you spout little shit fairy tales of WAHT IF DIS and WHAT IF DAT HUH? all it does is let people know the types of things you value or are currently relevant to your world view.

If I was really put in a situation like this where there were really people lying in front of me on train tracks and I knew nothing else about them I would ofcourse save the most amount of lives... I don't understand how there is any other choice given complete objectivity... OF FUCKING COURSE if I observe other shit about the people then I will change my decision. but given the matter of 5 over 1. I choose 5.

>>3514670
The question was never about being a murderer. Again, you are focusing too much on this. The question is if it is morally just to make a choice between one life or five.

I simply argued that inaction didn't spare you from guilt.

Let's extrapolate.

There are an infinite number of tracks.

On track 1, One person is tied down.

On track 2, Two persons are tied down.

On track 3, Three persons etc..

Up til infinity.

What track do you pick?

>>3514689
TRACK ONE. ALWAYS TRACK ONE.
BUT FIRST I ANALYZE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. INCLUDING ASKING WHY THE FUCK IM IN THIS SITUATION TO BEGIN WITH. BECAUSE, WELL, THATS ONLY FUCKING NATURAL

I would never say someone was "morally unjust" in choosing inaction. I would just call that person a fucking pussy.

>>3514492
Answer is: You make the decision that lets you sleep at night.

>>3514691
Track infinity

>>3514695
5>1 unless you observe something that changes your decision.OR youre being observed by certain people who sway your judgment somehow...

>>3514698
>Would that the Roman people had one throat, that I might slit it!

>>3514689
>State that being complicit in murder makes you a murderer
>Complain about murder being the focus

I see what you're saying though, but the same thing applies. If someone has to die, and inaction is the same as action, you are guilty for someones death whatever the case may be.

Most people say it would be morally right (not necessarily good) to save the 5. This runs into problems when you look at >>3514500 . Whether it's right or not depends on how you define morality, and that's up for grabs.

>>3514707
My statements about complicity towards murder were brought about solely because of this post: >>3514508

While my argument was not as direct as it should've been, all I was saying was that inaction still mean you were responsible for the death of five people. I don't really care if you call it murder, because you're still responsible.

And the semantics of right and wrong don't help either case here. It shouldn't be valued as such -- if we reduce the question to its base form, its asking you whether you would rather be responsible for the death of one person or five. Theres nothing right or wrong here, just what you feel guilty and/or accountable for.

>>3514707
EXACTLY, there is always fucking context. you can take it and compare it to another situation where there IS C O N T E X T and try to base the decision off that. The simple fact is your put in front of a lever (who the fuck knows why) and asked to pull or push (but even then there is context). SO the fact remains. you save the 5 or the 1 or I guess you just puss out and don't act (fine). but it just comes down to numbers in my brain. given the most factors are removed as possible.

>>3514713
you are complicit with a random train moving down some tracks?

>>3514719
What?

>>3514508 made the argument that inaction isn't as bad as action because it results in murder. My argument is that inaction when you have capacity isn't any different from murder, more directly, -you're still responsible.-

In my opinion, if you have absolute capacity to save someone (not even supposed capacity) and choose not too, you are responsible for their death.

I would kill them all, so that everyone could be treated equally. :)

>>3514730
and I would say "responsibility" just depends on context (yeah I said it again). I think the meaning of the question is to see how much you internalize societies rules and norms. Given that you are completely alone and not going to be judged in any way I don't think morals even factor in...

why hasn't someone come up with some occupational stereotype joke from this problem

If youre in a society that kills people for inaction (or really just looks down on it more so) then youre probably more likely to take action and feel less guilty for it.

Not if it's your train. That shit's got deliveries to make.

>>3514743
so the fact that I realize that my personal morality is just a collection of experiences and perceived consequences "says a lot" about it?

>>3514742
If its my train and I live in a capitalist society I would passive aggressively build a fence around the switch. The fence we get wider and wider until nobody could even see the switch. Everyone would feel less and less responsible for their inaction as my train ran over the five ppl but made good delivery time.

They don't look tied down to a track why don't they just roll the fuck away? Also with the angle of the road wouldn't flipping the lever make it hit and kill you instead? Also unless we all personally know these people and their life which i highly doubt in this situation would even occur. I probably would take the logical choice and kill the one.

>>3514754
see the point of the thought experiment (when you put a bunch of people in a room and ask them) is to flesh out the possible outcomes and to make sure everyone is seeing the same types of things. That's all it is. So when shit does hit the fan people can be on the same page. It all comes down to surviving better as a group

you see how he thought it through.. hey look at this detail. hey what about that or this possible outcome if this was done... That's all this amounts to, is just a way for people to understand eachothers points of view.
For example if I know someone says "hey I wouldn't want to touch the switch" well then ive learned something about that person. I know they are a person of inaction. Likewise if someone says. "Who cares kill them all etc.." then you know something about where that person will stand if shit goes down.

>>3514757
Or its just simply asking would you rather kill one or five people in a silly rhetorical way

>>3514764
no, because some people clearly chose not to act at all or respond some other way.

>Would it be moral to flick the switch?
Well, as long as you're not pushing a fat man off a bridge.

>>3514768
By not reacting your still killing the group i fail to see how not making a choice is itself a choice in this situation.

>>3514774
so if shit hit the fan. I could maybe believe youre the type of person that would take action.

any good group needs people that act and people that sit back and observe

>>3514779
Lol i hope they introduce this in the workplace as a "thought experiment"

I think im god

do you guys ever get feeling so mentally sick you feel like throwing up?

>>3514531
say what you will about the Ferengi they've got a clear cut way to deal with these moral conundrums

I just realized how fucking stupid it is that im paying money I may not be able to pay back for education with one of those classes being a philosophie class taught by some liberal red head middle aged chick with a daddy complex.

>>3514537
k, Kant.

>>3514796
>Ferengi
youd probably be in favor of some sort of nationalistic pride based take over wouldn't you?

Whatever hurts the poor little train the least! :(

>>3514537
problematic conclusions in that they cant be solved by sitting around dicking about over all the possible consequences and instead somebody has to take action...

>>3514801
see here we can see the proverbial autistic psychopathic thought process that is 4chan at work..even if it is just in jest.

Kant was a product of hundreds of years of wars. so ofcourse hes gonna be a bit of a pussy

>>3514495
Logic and morality are one in the same. Human abstractions, human concepts, human constructs, social constructs.

They are still more real than physical things.

>>3514552
Logic is a human creation.

you're fucking retarded

also you don't know what logic truly is and you are a pseudo-intellectual blowhard.

>>3514804
It's a little bit beautiful, do admit.

>>3514653
So you want humans to be above god but not above nature?

Silly darwinist hippie.

>>3514828
>so you want the extant to be distinguished from the abstract but to still be divisible into categories
Why the fuck not? Still, yes; fuck nature.

>>3514832
> ;

how do you use that properly?

>>3514835
just combining two sentences; I love combining sentences

>>3514837
I'll combine your mom; because I have no mercy.

>>3514841
ill combine your intellect with your inner desire to be loathed

you could leave out the semi colon

>>3514846
I stuff your colon with lots of things, of course they are nasty things; very nasty things.

Has nobody thought about the train? Perhaps the train does not want tobe moved to another trail.

>>3514748
lel

My solution

>>3514860
hehehe

>>3514856
brain or colon. I see no difference

>>3514859
>>3514863
>>3514864
lol

>>3514860

>>3514492
Too little info. I would choose the option that benefited me the most - which seems to be choosing an option that would satisfy the majority/the most powerful and minimize the risk to my person.

>2013
>morality
suckers gonna suck

>>3514870
I bet you aren't this edgy http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1361925835

>>3514874
being a moralfag is the edgiest thing you can do

try again

>>3514774
by not reacting i'm not killing anyone. i'm just not saving anyone either.

>>3514878
youre nobody. congrats

>>3514878
Hurr durr what is chaos theory and butterfly effect.
You are killing thousands throughout your life, the justice system and other power systems simply don't give a fuck in a sufficient detail. All that is stopping you is your conscience. Where is your god now?

>>3514882
>what is popscience and misunderstanding of real science

>>3514875
pull a adam lanza and get shot in the dick you faggot

>>3514880
you're a hero :)

>>3514882
im not

>>3514885
> :)

obnoxious condensing fuck

either german or scandinavian

>>3514887
I bet hes a penguin

>>3514889
so randum lel xd

faget

>>3514887
calm down bb :)

>>3514884
>>3514886
No, babbys, causality is not 'popscience', whatever that is supposed to be. You need to find better excuses for being murderers. You building narratives and avoiding obvious logical conclusions are signs of cowardice.

>>3514893
stop building narratives

>>3514894
coward

>>3514895
stop calling me coward noooooo :(

>>3514893
>>3514894
>>3514895
:P

>>3514896
>>3514897
lol

summer /lit/ is finally here

>>3514899
hey guys look an oldfag :O

>>3514899
>>3514901
Shalom!

can i be part of your guy's club? i have read le rules of the internet~!

baka! so kawaii! i am anon-sama! lel

>>3514903
go away newfag :P

>>3514903
newfag

>>3514904
>>3514905

bakas! >:)

The morally right thing to do is to leave it be because you are not God and you don't decide who deserves to live.

The logical thing to do is doing what benefits you the most. This is contextually dependent though.

>>3514916
>The logical thing to do
subjective

how the fuck does logical lead to what benefits you the most?

>>3514917
There's no other logical criterion

>>3514919
do nothing but videotape

>>3514918
There's no "logical" criterion in the first place.

>>3514922
It is. Take the more beneficial path

>>3514925
buzzword*

>>3514925
It does. You're just stupid

>>3514923
That doesn't make it "logical".

You're just throwing around the word like a buzzard because you are a pseudo-intellectual blowhard.

>>3514927
So much for being "logical".

I think you forgot another word, What was it? Uh... r-ra-RATIONAL?

blowhard

>>3514928
this isn't funny, sorry mate

>>3514930
You're pretty much going on the 'there's no logic' way. Which is stupid and so are you

>>3514932
Ad hominem. And I'm not saying there is no such a thing as logic. I'm just saying you are misusing the word so you can sound smart (which you aren't).

are you that pseudo-sociopath kiddy >>3514870

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

>>3514934
No, but that's a logical post. Cry more

>>3514936
Saying something is logical doesn't mean it is.

And logic isn't an inherently superior thing to whatever you are biased against.

such an edgy machiavelli

>>3514938
Saying something is logical doesn't mean it isn't

The answer is yes faggots. Whether you're a deonotologist or a utilitarian the answer is yes

>>3514939
where did your father touch you? we all know that sociopaths were abused as children.

I would pretend to be panicked and not understand the situation and not know how to use a lever and shit

>>3514940
>The experiment found that those who had stronger utilitarian leaning had stronger tendency to psychopathy, Machiavellianism or tended to view life as meaningless.[quantify] The Economist magazine who reported this finding stated that "utilitarians, ... may add to the sum of human happiness, but they are not very happy people themselves."[15]

>>3514942
>muh feels

>>3514944
>The Economist magazine
HAHA time for popsci

>>3514945
Let me guess, you're that "fascist" kid who deafened neocons (how fucking dumb can you get)

>>3514940

But what would a virtuous man do?

>>3514940
Wouldn't utilitarians find it more practical for there to be less people in such an overpopulated world?

>>3514921

>>3514952
defended*

>>3514952
That's like the 3rd silly assumption you made in a row. Is this how you always argue?

>>3514950
You're thinking of Malthusians. Utilitarians have the caveat of "all other things being equal" or similar, which means things like killing all the hungry people to cure hunger is not allowed.

>>3514950
That's a hypothetical situation.

OP didn't specify who these people were, and I assume he meant if it were to happen right now what would be moral/ethical.

>>3514954
You never gave an argument in the first place.

kill the switch operator and anyone else watching. that way all six are simultaneously alive until someone observes it again.

>>3514960
You forgot your assumption

>>3514957
THEY GOTZ DEM MALTEZERS N SHIT HIT THE FUCKING SWITCH MAYNE

>>3514963
>muh logic

>>3514965
>muh feels

>>3514940
a deontologist would do nothing regardless of consequences

>>3514966
>i'm such a hardcore sociopath emotions are for pussies
>look at me guys! i'm so edgy!
>GIVE ME MUH ATTENTION

This has already been solved, you guys did it by de-railing the thread

>>3514969
>i'll call him edgy and get this over with

>>3514970

>>3514970
This thread is off the rails!

>>3514971
>ted bundy and richard dawkins are my heros
>i'm such a manly man i don't need no wimmins!

>>3514970
We've become very good at it here through dedicated training

Shit we lost the train of thought

>>3514978
>haha time for more assumptions

>>3514981
>muh buzzwords

>>3514970
>>3514975
>>3514979
>>3514980
no need to keep railing on about it

>>3514968
What the fuck are you talking about?

A deontologist could very well live by the rule that causing the least amount of harm is ethical. Do you think deontologists have nothing to say if there are 51 miners trappedf in a mineshaft and they have the option of killiing one to save the 50 or letting them all die?

>>3514984
buzzword is a buzzword in ur post

>>3514989
>muh logic

/thread, this guy is a retard

>>3514993
>i sure showed him :D

>>3514996
>le :D face

>>3514500

That's a terrible analogy.

>>3514998
:)

>>3514999
go on...

>>3514999
It's a pretty standard though experiment in ethics. It isn't entirely analogous to the train experiment, but you'd need to look at why and how.

>>3514560
>But inaction when you have capacity is still murder.

Murder implies intention and premeditated thought.

Whether the person presses the switch or not does not make them a murderer. Just a witness if they did naught and why would they be considered implicit in the 'murder' if they played no part in setting up that scenario in the first place?

That's like saying a person who comes across a murder scenario/shoot out is just as culpable as the people doing the shooting but that simply is neither fair nor true.

>>3514576
>In OP's scenario, they were already in that situation, so you don't have any moral obligation to stop it

Isn't there a 'law' in France which states if you are a doctor and come across a person in medical distress you are obliged to help them?

In this scenario you have an obligation, a duty to give aid and lend your services to the situation.

It's not the same as OPs pic though because the decision is implicitly requiring a sacrifice either way.

>>3514631
>If you have capacity to stop the murder

It's murder in either scenario in OPs pic though.

The question is 'is it right to intervene' - what value does human life have? Is it right to kill one to save the many or leave the scenario as it is?

>>3514666

That's right Shinji.

>>3515017
What's the reference?

>>3514983
>A deontologist could very well live by the rule that causing the least amount of harm is ethical.
that would make him a negative utilitarian.
>Do you think deontologists have nothing to say if there are 51 miners trappedf in a mineshaft and they have the option of killiing one to save the 50 or letting them all die
if the deontologist followed the imperative that prohibits murder, as most deontologists do, he would certainly let them all die.

>>3515019
Pokemons

>>3515020
Assuming no conflict of duties.

>>3515001
>>3515002

In the train scenario the situation is circumstantial - you have someone who HAPPENS to come across the event. It's passive before that instant.

In the case where 'kill one for organs' this is ACTIVE. It requires premeditation on the part of those involved. And then you actively go to kill someone and distribute their organs.

The two situations are completely different from the 'outsiders' perspective.

what if you are too weak to pull the switch

>>3514492
You kill the five so there's more resources left for you, smaller population has some perks ya know.

>>3514763
>I know they are a person of inaction.

Is it worse to let the situation carry out than to intervene? Why?

>>3515028
>implying you'll get any benefit whatsoever

>>3515019

Do you know who this character is?

This picture isn't racial enough for modern studies. Also the person above is a transgendered lesbian

>>3515037
Sailor Moons?

It's relative to your relation to those on the tracks.

Do you know any of them? If the lone person is a loved one then you would naturally let the 5 die instead; conversely if the 5 were friends and you didn't know who the 1 was you would pull the switch.

In either scenario I don't think any court of law would charge you as a murderer.

>>3515039

>>3515042
>If the lone person is a loved one then you would naturally let the 5 die instead; conversely if the 5 were friends and you didn't know who the 1 was you would pull the switch.

>naturally
bullshit

bunch of assumptions

i look down on you now faggot

>>3515038
save blacks, their loyalty will come in handy

>>3515042
i'd charge you as a murder, faggot

if you could live with it then yeah it would be moral because that is all that matters.

Trying to untie at least one of the poor motherfuckers and failing is more moral than touching the switch at all.

If I didn't flip the switch people would think I was an asshole / coward
If I did people would think I was awesome and did the right thing

My decision's made

Typical anthropocentric white man "I-have-a-penis-so-therefore-x" reasoning. Has noone considered the trolley? It has always played the marginalized 'other' in these scenarios, acting according to the very whim of the all powerful white Dicktator, who rules absolutely with his rounded phallus-lever.

Systematically subjugated and oppressed over the centuries, the trolley has become set, nay, locked, in its ways, tragically unaware of its iron shackles. It's true nature is unknown, as it has from its very conception been assigned a role to which it has been enslaved ever since. The trolley does not know itself. It's action are not its own. The trolley is nothing more than...A MACHINE

I'd leave it and walk away.
Whoever tied the men down is entirely culpable. Not me. As soon as I intervene, I take the blame for the one guy's death. No thanks.

yes

given the necessity of the outcomes, yes.

depends on the situation. If you just stumble upon a train yard like that, with no background on the situation, I'd probably not flick the switch. For all you know some crazy act of escape art is going on and those people are volunteers. By flicking the switch you could be fucking the whole thing up and making it more dangerous.

>>3515091
lel

>>3514495

its moral, not logical. logic could't give less of a fuck by human lives, which have no value to it

>>3514492
You are not using the word moral right.

My morality is not the same as yours.

>>3515196
so? He's not asking you to tell him if it would be moral by his reckoning. He already knows his reckoning, he's asking you for yours.

this is a shitty hypothetical case of mental circle jerk that has shitty chances and probability of happening in real life

outside the insipid intellectualization we're forced to engage in, it wouldn't matter if it's moral or not.

utilitarianism is sucks :)

>>3515171
If it is your own personal morality to save as many people as you can then it would be moral.
Logical you would think killing one person to save others would be the right thing to do.

My personal morality would dictate to not flip the switch unless I had the right information to do so. I would need to know if the switch would really change the direction. I would need to know if the one person would willingly give up their life for the others. Or in the unlikely event the 5 would willingly give up theirs.
So if I knew the switch would save the five people and they wanted to be saved I would flip it even if the one guy did not want to die.

Morality is not set in stone, it can differ from person to person. Logic is set in stone.

>>3515211
>outside the insipid intellectualization we're forced to engage in, it wouldn't matter if it's moral or not.
The point is about a general principle that the option which minimizes the number dead vs the fact that you're directly killing someone who would otherwise live. Not specifically what to do if the situation occurs. While I would sympathize with the idea that morals are not inherently rational or generalizable, I don't think its right to fully dismiss the question, because the discussion is part of the social activity from whence morality is shaped.

Personally I'm of the opinion that human lives are not something which can weighed in a balance. Four men vs. one man is justifiable only if men are like beans or grain and can be equated in bulk. To actively kill a man, which is exactly what you'd be doing if you through the switch is inexcusable.

>>3515206
So the question was asked in a poor manner.
The real question is: "Would if be within your morals to flick the switch?"

>>3515216
That is my answer.

jesus i fucking hate ethics


retarded piece of fuck shit lame ass not related to anything this masturbatory piece of entertianment KANT WAS A PAEDOPHILE AND FUCKED CHILDREN deal w/ it nerds

>>3515220
>The real question is: "Would if be within your morals to flick the switch?"
I'd argue that its you who misunderstood the question. Morality is not objective, ever. (nor in truth is it fully subjective, but that's not relevant now).

To say that "X is moral/good" is to say "I approve of X, and I think you should too". Moral statements are active impositions on our fellow man by dint of the inherent social/herd behavior of man. You cannot read a statement about morality as a statement about objective truth, because that makes no sense, that's not the function that moral statements play in human society.

>>3515225
>Morality is not objective, ever
YES IT IS!!
I do not have the all the exact same morals as you.

>>3515232
You say it is. And then you agree that it isn't. You are a confusing fellow.

>>3515244
objective in his individual monad, perhaps

>>3515066
>blacks
>loyal
>21st century

>>3515219
>To actively kill a man, which is exactly what you'd be doing if you through the switch is inexcusable.

You're looking at it this way:
>Would you kill one man to save four
When it can also be seen as:
>Would you kill four men to save one

If the situation was reversed and it was heading towards the one man, and pulling the lever would send it to the four men would you pull the lever?

Inaction and action are equal morally in this situation. If you had two buttons rather than a lever and had to push one, which would you push?

It's the same thing, inaction is a choice equal to pulling the lever.

Also, if you save the four men, there's four times as much chance that you saved somebody who could cure cancer etc

literature

>open /lit/
>oldest moral question
>220 replies

Phew, I'm glad I caught that by the "end". I can only imagine what kind of stupidities were said here.

I'll just put everyone in a basket:
>implying
>implying

>not this
>2013
i shiggy

dyer?

>>3515270
Inaction may be a choice. But it is not morally the same. I let millions of people die through my inaction every day. I could go right now and fly to Africa with a bag of rice and save a couple lives.

Inaction may not be morally praiseworthy, but it is seldom morally blameworthy (the cases where it is blameworthy are in general when you've already accepted a burden onto yourself and then fail to carry it out).

You do not have two buttons. Either 4 men die or one man dies, and your choice will impact that, its true. But it doesn't make it moral to actively kill a man. Those 4 men die if you hadn't stumbled upon the scene. That one man dies BECAUSE of you. That's immoral.

>>3515281
So you don't care about the men dying at all, just if the blame for their death is directly on you or not? Hmm

>>3515278
>oldest moral question
the oldest moral question involves trains? Are you saying moral questions have only been around since the late 18th century?

>>3515068

Why would a court of law charge it as murder?

Whatever you do will result in at least someone dying - but YOU played no role in setting up or instigating the scenario.

>>3515287
no, i'm saying everyone heard of this in midschool

that's all, you dick

>>3515065

Yes - it would be natural to favour a loved and known individual over strangers - just because it's natural does not make it logical or right though and no where was that implied.

>>3515090
>If I did people would think I was awesome and did the right thing

Not the people who were related or knew the person/people who die.

>>3515130

How do you measure human life?

How would the situation change if it were several dogs instead of several people vs one person?

>>3515293
what's a midschool?

>>3515283
you mistake my use of "blameworthy" and "praiseworthy". I'm talking about the abstract morality of the action. An action can be "good" but not compulsory. There are some good things, which failing to do is bad, and there are some which failing to do is just neutral whatever. Which is why I use "praiseworthy" and "blameworthy". Saving starving children in Africa is praiseworthy, but its not something we expect everyone to do. Its good, but not compulsory.

It has nothing to do with actual praise and blame being given to the action.

>>3515270
>somebody who could cure cancer

>implying cancer is 'just a disease that can conveniently be cured like syphilis or TB'

Cancer is far more complex than people realise

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162

>>3515304
so? cancer may have different causes but its still fundamentally the same symptom, lest we wouldn't call it cancer, its an uncontrolled cell growth, and the body naturally has a myriad of ways already of countering it. There's no reason to think its impossible to have a silver bullet for malignant tumors other than, we haven't thought of one yet.

Certainly, more targeted treatments are probably better investments of time and money, but that doesn't mean one man might not come up with something game changing.

>>3515299
The whole praiseworthy/blameworhy thing you've got going just serves to prove that people follow morals only when they connect with their self-interest. Nobody's expected to go to Africa because going to Africa is expensive and not in line with what they want in life. Pulling the level is the same thing, you don't want to pull the lever and save life's because you want to avoid the feeling of being responsible for their death or breaching your outdated moral system, because as we all know slave morality is where it's at and outcomes are unimportant

>>3515315
>outcomes are unimportant
When you can see the future then you can use outcomes to judge a moral issue.

>>3515315
*lever
*lives

sorry, walking somewhere and arguing on /lit/ at the same time

This scenario is what makes utilitarians most smug about themselves isn't it?

>>3515317
The immediate outcome is less dying, and unless the reason you don't want to pull the lever is because you think dying is a positive thing I'd say that outcome is better.

it depends how you pull the lever. If you pull it virtuously it's good, but if you pull it with cowardice or hesitation it's bad. The same goes for not pulling the lever.

>>3515327
How does on quantify dying, exactly?

>>3515332
death count
age might be a factor

>>3515335
well what if they're an amputee? I mean their hand already died, you can't count them equally to a person with a living hand.

>>3515330
>If you pull it virtuously it's good

How would you do that?

Are you implying 'intentions' deflect any moral or ethical judgement?

>>3515339
Prosthetics are pretty advanced these days, I don't think that's a factor...

>>3515348
>Are you implying 'intentions' deflect any moral or ethical judgement?

no

>How would you do that?

Nice, fluent movements. Clear consciousness of what it is you're doing. Self-confidence in your decision. etc.

>>3515352
but prosthetics aren't alive. hands are alive. So if its just a matter of most death.

Step away from the switch and call the police.
It is the right course of action for any responsible citizen.

>>3515356
Hands can reproduce? Do you know what it means for something to be considered 'living'?

>>3515361
yes, but apparently you don't.

>>3515361
>thinking 'living' is a synonymous to 'reproducing'

oh boy

>>3515361
wat is a mule?

>>3515367
for something to be living it has to be cellular,
carbon-and-water-based with complex organization, have a metabolism, have a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and adapt.

>>3515287
The question does not involve trains. Do not confuse the imaginary with the symbolic. It doesn't matter if it is 4 or 5 or 6 people, if it is a train or a car, if it is this or that far, etc.

>Some people are facing death and you can stop it if you act, but as your action saves them, you'll inevitably end up condemning another person. Is it right to act in this situation? To abstain yourself? Would your responsibility change depending on who dies? etc, etc
That's the question. And I won't even bother.

The question is so commonplace a variation of it was the climax of Spiderman. And of course, the job of the hero is to break the boundaries between the symbolic and the imaginary, so he saves both MJ and the people, he picks a third option and abtstain himself from choosing either of the propostions made by the villain. His inhumane physical strenght compensates for the difficult choices in life.

But to us, this is not the point and although I didn't read the thread, if anyone started to argument by talking about trains, you already know the person is full of shit.

It depends on why you flip it.

lrn2 virtue ethics

>>3515392
>if anyone started to argument by talking about trains, you already know the person is full of shit.
This. It's clearly a tram.

>>3514492
I would let the train run over the five guys, ask the conductor to rev the train back and then pull the switch and kill the sixth guy. Because none of them deserve to live if they all thought tying themselves up and laying on train tracks was ever a good idea.

>>3515380

drop the tripcode, fuck off to /sci/, and end your life in the appropriate rookery of reductionist autism, you silly twat

>>3515380
single-celled organisms can't be described as cellular, for that cell encompass the totality of their being. Than anything which has physical extent could be equally defined as cellular, for we could just take the totality of it and call it a cell. Yet single celled organisms are live.

carbon-and-water-based seems overly specific, why not allow for another chemistry? Certainly if we went to Putnam's twin earth we'd think the people there are humans... then again I suppose you could be arguing that twin earth's water is actually water. But if we get rid of the linguistic aspect the thought experiment still holds for this purpose.

have a metabolism, well that's just saying they have to chemically do shit. So that's not a thing.

have a capacity to grow? Why? we might imagine a being that is born full-grown. We would still call it living if it met the other criteria, not to mention plenty of inorganic structures grow with time. This seems certainly neither necessary nor sufficient, nor helpful with a determination either way and I can't see why you included it at all.

reproduce? see : >>3515379

>>3515380
Wasn't a silicon-based microorganism discovered in some lake?

>Would it be moral to flick the switch?
What a stupid question.

>Should it be legal to flick the switch?
Yes.

>>3515361
>infertile people are undead

>>3515412
But vampires can reproduce, and they're undead.

>>3515413
Yeah, but anon didn't say everything that can reproduce is alive. Just that everything which is alive can reproduce.

Kind of like how all lizards are reptiles but not all reptiles are lizards.

>>3515430
Yes, but some lizards are pathogenic.

>>3515413
Vampires are generally infertile. Infection isn't reproduction.

>>3515446
Infection is a perfectly legit form of reproduction. Its a method of increasing the number of vampires. therefore its reproduction.

i wouldn't do it
we kill people every day through inaction, why stop now? to maintain the coherence of my worldview i will always do nothing