Sapphira1212

I recently came across this moral delima and thought it would be an interesting thing to debate upon.

Alright here are the the questions:

1. Suppose you were operating a trolly car and you were riding down the tracks. Ahead of you are 5 workmen working on the tracks. The brakes of the car do not work and you know for a fact that if you hit them they would die. But you happen to glance over and see another track you could turn onto that only has 1 man working on it. What would you do?

2. Now suppose you were working on a track on the bridge above the other track. You see the train coming and you know it's going to hit the other workers below. Let's say you can't yell out to them to warn them. Now, there is a fat man next to you that you could push over the bridge and onto the track below to save the others, but it would kill him in the process. Would you do it?

3. Is there any difference in choosing to turn the train to the other track and take out that one worker and in pushing the fat man?


I just heard this question from one of my teachers and wanted to know your opinions on it, so enjoy

Og

Is this a utilitarianism thing? What's good is what benefits people the most? So having less dead is better?

Either way it's going to tear you up inside if you feel responsible for killing people.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

The An-Jel

I guess you better toss yourself cause it should have the same desired effect as tossing the fat guy. I don't know who your teacher is but I think if he needed this kind of shock value treatment you people aren't asking a lot of questions.

My prof liked to use devils advocate but nothing so aggressive.

__________________
"And let there be Light!" said the Blind man.

Life is simple, people make it complicated - Basilisk

Nulli Expugnabilis Hosti - Royal Gibraltar Regiment

Journeyman

Dawkins uses that illustration in his book, The God Delusion, to prove universal morality and disprove a theory that states people get morals from the Bible.

Og

I couldn't stand that book. I put it down after he started talking about the "probability" that there's a God. I just couldn't stand that kind of sillyness.

__________________
Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. (By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe)
The self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships
You & I, no distinction. - Tat Tvam Asi
Become Who You Are

Journeyman

I thought there were sections that were a stretch, but the totality of the book was impressive and an interesting read.

JerryAgent

It seems the real question here is: is the value of life considered to be qualitative or quantitative?

__________________
I would rather believe in God and find out He doesn't exist than not believe in God and find out He does.

jaej

That's the whole idea of utilitarianism. The best course is that which provides the most good. Now, granted, good is relative, which really makes it so there is no answer. How can you make a truly just decision without knowing any of the potential casualties? You can't. Maybe an-jel's right. Toss yourself, that way you can't be wrong.

I don't know I guess. Being the person I am, I wouldn't sacrifice myself so they didn't die. I would probably go with the one on the track, because there is five times as much potential on the other track. Like I said, it's difficult to make a just decision if you don't know the people.

__________________
Μολὼν Λαβέ

Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate

Vinterland

I found a better version of the moral question:
In this version we know the 5 children will suffer the consequences of their bad choices and the one has also chosen his/her fate by being responsible. As Jerry stated, it is a question of quanity or quality. I really can't answer that question because we can't measure what is for the greater good, but I would not alter their fates. By inaction I would not be responsible for their death...or would I?

__________________
And on we walked. Suddenly we heard a voice crying, "This is the sea. This is the deep sea. This is the vast and mighty sea." And when we reached the voice it was a man whose back was turned to the sea, and at his ear he held a shell, listening to its murmur.
And my soul said, "Let us pass on. He is the realist, who turns his back on the whole he cannot grasp, and busies himself with a fragment."
—Gibran Khalil Gibran, “The Greater Sea.”

kjk437

I like this answer. I'd throw myself. Yes, I'll die, but as I believe it's my job in this world to help others, that would be the best solution as I am directly saving lives in the process.

And yes, I am fat, so I could stop the trolley.