[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraphpng.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466209 No.1466209 [Reply] [Original]

The old good moral problem.

There are 5 people on one railroad track and 1 guy on some other. A train is approaching and if you do nothing it will kill the 5 and if you use railroad switch the train will change its track and kill the one guy. What do you do?

For me there's no problem at all and the choice is easy. Do nothing. If I do nothing I'm responsible for nothing and if I use the switch I'm responsible for the guy's death.

Pic. maybe unrelated. Tho it's me.

>> No.1466220

I'd switch it, the needs of the many and all that jazz.

>> No.1466224
File: 74 KB, 1073x806, 1276429245273.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466224

objectivism: whoever promises to pay me most.

>> No.1466231

whats that website called again

>> No.1466229

This is exactly why I never go anywhere without at least $500 in cash.

Pull out wad of cash, turn to janitor and say "500 bucks to pull that lever"

Go home, sleep like baby. fuck yea

>> No.1466232

>>1466209

I'm more right and more libertarian than you and I'd pull the switch...if I couldn't get sued for that(which I might).

>> No.1466235

OP, if you do nothing, because you are the only one in a position to do anything.

You are in effect, killing five people by not choosing to y kill one. You were placed in the situation, the one left alive will be there to say you stood idly by.

>> No.1466239

The problem with this example is that its ridiculously artificial. Why not say, "Hey guys, train coming. Get off the tracks".

But if I DID find myself in such a scenario I'd pull the switch.

>> No.1466242

>>1466235

Nope. Lack of action and action ale utterly different things even if i'm the only one able to take any action.

>> No.1466247

how much time do I have? I know a lawyer, I'd call him if possible.

I'd rather save the 4 people but there would likely be manslaughter trial especially if that 1 person is white, attractive and important and my fate would be up to a jury of my "peers."

>> No.1466248

>>1466209

And op, you are involved if you like it or not. Would you say you aren't responsible for the death of the five guys when noone was on the other track?

They look up and shout "Save us!"... and you'll look down and whisper "No."

>> No.1466250

>>1466247

best annswer, I like you.

>> No.1466253

>>1466242
Not really, it's just the action you're choosing to take is that of standing and watching.

You are still sending five people to a grisly death.

>> No.1466256

I'd make sure the 5 people got hit, cuz saving the 5 people is what everyone else would do.

>> No.1466262
File: 27 KB, 512x384, clever ruse.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466262

You are actively choosing not to save the 5 men. That is as real an action as choosing to flip the switch. If you never even decided what to do that would count as lack of action.

>> No.1466268

OP, you're an idiot. Go back to whatever board you came from, and take your pseudo backwards ass law with you.

Also, NOT SCIENCE

>> No.1466270

>>1466209
I'm sure these has already been said, but it bears repeating.

Knowing about the event makes you involved. Therefore, doing nothing is taking an action, and action which dooms 5 men, but spares one. Your hands will have their blood on them.

>> No.1466271

>>1466268
Philosophy is a cognitive science

>> No.1466277

any lawyers in there?

I would set up a box around the switch that is controlled by the decay of a radioactive isotope, then leave.

Outcome of the crash wouldn't be determined until someone observes the scene, shifting the blame from me to the first person on the scene of the crash. Fuck yea.jpg

>> No.1466284
File: 8 KB, 253x222, 20061129morbo.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466284

>>1466277
QUANTUM OBSERVATION DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

>> No.1466286

>>1466248

Yes I would not be responsible. According to my set of rules only action implies moral responsibility. And it's quite simple actually. It would be impossible to say when certain lack of action is considered morally wrong. I.e. I could say you are responsible for deaths of dozens of people since you could go to Africa for a month and help with building water sources.

>> No.1466287

>>1466284
What if I put a cat in the box?

>> No.1466289

I would obviously use the switch to derail the train.

>> No.1466293

>>1466286
Your whats wrong with the human race.

>> No.1466294

>>1466270
>>1466262

This definition of action is to my opinion simply ridiculous. It leads to what I said earlier.

Well you are all murderers then or at least highly responsible for deaths of hundreds.

>> No.1466297

>>1466286
This situation is different than the one in africa in that you are the ONLY person who can save the 5 men. The blame for the deaths of those africans is divided up between you and every other person who could have saved them.

>> No.1466296

>>1466286

>Implying we are not responsible for the third world

>> No.1466298

>>1466294

It's time to stop posting, no matter how hard you try, you can't hurr durr your way out of this one.

The law's the law, and that's just how it is. Bitching and whining isn't going to change that.

>> No.1466299

This fool is the very definition of the banality of evil. Good men need only do nothing.

>> No.1466301

>>1466294
>Changing definitions of words and concepts when they conflict with your moral code
that's cute.

>> No.1466306

Hey op, lets say there is a button. If you press this button it'll prevent 5 million people from dying a horrible death. If you DON'T press the button you get a chocolate sunday. What do you do?

>> No.1466308

>>1466277

+1

>> No.1466309

Why don't you just yell "Hey everybody stay on the tracks!"

>> No.1466310

>>1466297

Then if there were 2 people at the scene of train incident who could use the switch, it would be their moral obligation not to use the switch and if there was only one, it would be his moral obligation to use the switch?

>> No.1466317

I would shove the one guy onto the same track as the other 5

LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR

>> No.1466320

>>1466310

If there were two people, one would flip the switch while the other attempts to rescue the single person. If their efforts are in vain, at least they saved 5 people.

Seriously now, stop posting, you aren't helping your case.

>> No.1466321

>>1466310
Look buddy, if these are really the morals you live by I feel bad for you and you are pathetic. I'm not going to bother arguing with you any more though HAHA I GOT THE LAST WORD FAGGOT

>> No.1466326

>>1466301

My friend. We are dealing with abstract terms here and the given definition of an action is something I don't consider valid since in fact there would be no such thing as 'choice not to take any action'. Any choice implies awarness of the situation and according to that definition it also would imply taking an action. Nonsense.

>> No.1466328

>>1466289
Dude, what? There might be 200 people on that train. The ones standing on the track don't belong there. If between those 2 choices the original 5 are in the wrong.

on another note -

Maybe the train is a metaphor for a penis and the 5 people are suppose to be a hand...

>> No.1466327

There are variations of this moral thought experiment:

Variation: The lone guy is of prominent value to society, the 5 people are of average contributions (read: replaceable at what they do)

what do?

>> No.1466331

>>1466306

Assuming I don't know who are these people who would die I press since it could be someone close to me. If I know these people are not close to me I don't press I guess.

>> No.1466334

>>1466320

The guy implied simple thing. Only you know about a situation - you take moral responsibility for every action or lack of it. There are more who know - you take responsibility for actions only. And that's exactly what it would mean if it's considered true.

>> No.1466338

>>1466242
Neutrality is a choice to help the losing side. Don't fool yourself into thinking that you'd be innocent for doing nothing.

>> No.1466342
File: 2 KB, 240x240, 2x20.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466342

Pull the lever and save the many for the loss of the few.

Attaching my political compass too for what it's worth.

>> No.1466343

I wouldn't use the switch
There's a higher chance that one of the 5 people notices the train and nobody dies.

>> No.1466344

>>1466334
>>1466331

What are you, twelve?

>> No.1466350

>>1466328
>Maybe the train is a metaphor for a penis and the 5 people are suppose to be a hand...
I subscribe to this viewpoint.

>> No.1466351

>>1466344

With a little typo of 12 you could get my age.

>> No.1466361
File: 3 KB, 480x400, pcgraph.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1466361

Use the switch. The greater good is always the answer.

>> No.1466362

I'm bassicly given the choice to save 1 or to save 5. To me it's obvious I would flip the switch. Responsibility or whatever seems irrelevant to me.

>> No.1466366

Which one has the female that will fall in love with me after I save her life?

She will attract at least 4 other girls and I'll have my own harem, complete with falling over into panties and accidental bathroom scenes.

Feels good man.

>> No.1466382

The answer is simple: kill the Batman.

>> No.1466414

>>1466209
Morality isn't always deciding between good or evil. It's pretty obvious that the world isn't "black and white" like that. The morally sound choice would be picking the lesser off two evils, in this case flipping the switch and saving 5 lives instead of one.

Also, "doing nothing, responsible for nothing" is a very naive way off looking at it. Maybe the outside world wouldn't hold you responsible if you claimed that you didn't know, but you did. I think doing nothing would only create a greater inner turmoil.

>> No.1466430

>>1466414
Also, asking what would be "the greatest moral decision" is quite subjective. What if that one guy was a loved one?

>> No.1466889

I would flick the switch constantly in a frenzy until the train had passed. So it was not my choice but a consequence of random fate (Or claim the will of God could then decide or some shit)

If i chose to do nothing i would have made a choice

If anyone asked i would pretend i thought fucking with the switch might derial the train as it moved over the bit in the track

>> No.1466898

sounds like something out of a Saw movie...

>> No.1466908

If five guys don't move out of the way, that's their fault. If I flip the switch, the person who the train's not originally heading for may not have time to react and will be killed. He shouldn't be killed just so some idiots can live.

>> No.1466935

The very act of considering the conundrum of how to act presumes that the persons on the track have meaning. They are persons; not animals or vegetables or mineral but human beings. Were you truly a non-actor you might replace those persons with a more or less relevant object. Perhaps your spouse, or a rubber duckie. Why not even your self?

Else there need be no question as not acting would presume they were not in a level of existence as you. You've allowed them to share in your thoughts and personified them with at least 1 trait similar to you so you give them meaning. A second trait even that both parties would exist in such a situation with no innate desire to act. They are you, and you might be suicidal.

>> No.1466957

>>1466889
>implying that wouldn't derail the train and kill a lot more

>> No.1466995

Stand in line with the other five guys.

>> No.1467070

Okay, suppose your mother has a stroke. You can drive her to the hospital to save her, but to do so would mean taking a small but nonzero risk of running over a pedestrian. By your reasoning, !1Z.c8wZLWc, she should be left to die since you wouldn't be responsible for her death, but would be responsible for the death of the pedestrian.

>> No.1467159

>>1466209
Utilitarianism for me. The greatest good for the greatest number. You need to take into account the five people's loved ones etc.

On a sidenote, do you, OP watch the "Justice" lecture series from Harvard? Sounds a lot like their first episode.

>> No.1467177

I'm smack dab in the middle of Authoritarian and Libertarian


and I'm also a yay bit to the left, but still close to the middle
this good?

>> No.1467211

check out this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjNovbdxZtc
its about switchman and his dilemma, whether to save a train full of people (needs of the many etc) or sacrifice his son (parental love etc)
extremely related.

>> No.1467217

>>1466239
>The problem with this example is that its ridiculously artificial.
This: >>1467211

>> No.1467221

>>1466209
>If I do nothing I'm responsible for nothing
your logic is shitty.

>> No.1467229

>>1467070
I dont think you can draw a parallel between accidentally hitting someone with a car and consciously ending someones life

Kantian ethics for me

>> No.1467233

>>1467211
>dont you realize that many person wants to save your soul from hell through this kind of videos???accept JESUS CHRIST in your life and you will see His goodness..God sacrifices his only begotten son for us to save us from our sins.
>you are so good man/woman so you should always ask God to know what are your thoughts in your mind about him and everything belong to him such as the bible.beu i want to tell you a thing it is true that it is a hand made but everyone wrote in it he carried God's soul
>even me im anti christ when i see this video and read it im changing now now i realized god is a real

Why do these people have access to the internet?

>> No.1467241

>>1466248
put yourself in the position of someone on the tracks who know the whole situation. If every one adopted Kantian ethics, the doomed 5 would have no reason to shout "save me" because they would know that in doing so they would be killing someone else

>> No.1467244

>>1466209
pull the switch and run, kick the 1 dude off the tracks, and get off my damn self, duh

>> No.1467246

>>1467233
why not?
its not hard to ignore them if you have at least some brains.

>> No.1467254

I'd let the train run over the 5 people and I'd kill the other guy. Their fault being on the damn tracks. We need to eradicate these people. It's evolution.

>> No.1467253

>>1467241
i believe most people wouldn't care less about ethics if they knew that they'll probably die in a couple of seconds
"kill 5, 50, 500 whatever, just let me keep my life", basic instincts

>> No.1467259

>>1467254
this

>> No.1467263

example should be changed a bit.
what if.. train goes to certain death of all people in it, broken track, off the bridge, w/e. But you can switch tracks, and train will be saved (second track is ok). However there is a person stuck there, which you will essentially kill and be responsible for it's death. You've got time only to use the switch (or don't), you can't help the person to get out.
This way it's a bit more realistic and leaves less space for maneuvering for all the "I'd save all of them"-fags

>> No.1467265

I'd put the lever in a shrodinger's cat style box.

3 people would die but they would be chosen randomly, better than 1 on purpose.

>> No.1467289

>>1467211
Fuck that. I'd save my own flesh and blood over a train full of anons. I know it's probably the wrong thing to do in most cases, but I think saving my own son would benefit me the most in my life in the long run. Sad but true in my case.

>> No.1467290

>>1467229
>I dont think you can draw a parallel between accidentally hitting someone with a car and consciously ending someones life
You cannot draw a sharp distinction between the two. All that differs is the probability that an action will kill someone. If an action will cause death with 99% probability, does it count as consciously killing someone? If so, then why not at 0.001%, if you are aware of the risk?

>> No.1467295

>>1467263
This is a better question, use the switch and save more people.

>> No.1467302

>>1466209
Reported for being offtopic for /sci/.

Also, SAGE.

Also, OP is a faggot. GTFO 4chan.

>> No.1467309

>>1466209
>>1466209

this is retarded logic its the same as saying if ur driving a car and someone falls over in the road you dont have to stop, just keep the same action going and its not ur fault. fucking shitty logic is shitty

>> No.1467324

I remember seeing one like:

It's wartime, and your country has been occupied. You're hiding out in a basement of your home with a dozen other civilians when enemy troops march in the house. Your new-born baby starts crying and screaming, and if you don't smother it to death, the soldiers will inevitably find you and kill you all. What's your choice?

>> No.1467366

>>1466935
Actually they are animals.

>> No.1467383

>>1467289
I'd do the same.. Sorry train.

>> No.1467389

You guys realize that these people are hypothetically unconscious / tied down to the tracks, right? They're not sitting there staring at the train going 'DERP DERPA DERP'.

God, some people.

>> No.1467567
File: 16 KB, 235x308, 59280[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1467567

>>1467324

>> No.1467580

It would depend on the value of the people involved.

If the single man was worth more to society than the rest, then save him.

Take my Kohlberg post conventional morality.

>> No.1467597

>>1467324
If I had to kill the baby, rather than being able to silence it through various physiological measures...

Kill the baby because my achievements (being a father) for example are greater than that of the babies.

The occupants will kill me and the baby if they find us.

I'd probably snap its neck though since itll be less painful

>> No.1467599

>>1467567
I'll take that as a "kill the baby", answer.

>> No.1467613

>>1467597
Good point. If I were to exploit this question, though, I'd simply place the baby in the far corner of the room, lay my body over it (enough to let it breathe) and tell the other dozen to do the same to me as to muffle the cries. If that would work at all..

>> No.1467650

I'd call the Batman.
Also, looks like Kant has paid a visit to /sci/

>> No.1467659

>>1466209
Pull the lever and then pull it back so the train falls over and kills everyone

>> No.1467933

>>1467302
>the question is too hard for me, i cant find answer in book, wat do, imma aggro

>> No.1467961

Pull the switch, sleep like a baby.

That is after I watch cadaver dissections during dinner and chuckle over the aftermath on my police scanner.

You guys do remember this is 4chan, right?

>> No.1467982

>>1467961
Although if I could get background information on all six people, and it turned out the five in the train car were convicted rapists or serial burglars, I'd gladly stand by and chuckle.