| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What would you do? |
| I would do nothing in both situations. |
|
46% |
[ 12 ] |
| I would pull the switch but not push the man. |
|
34% |
[ 9 ] |
| I would push the man but not pull the switch. |
|
3% |
[ 1 ] |
| I would pull the switch and also push the man. |
|
15% |
[ 4 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
gigijones
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
assumption of common sense...most folks can hear a train coming, if they are deaf, they can feel it. if they are standing, they can move. otherwise, they're standing there for a reason...
i don't think this was a good inquiry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gigijones wrote: |
assumption of common sense...most folks can hear a train coming, if they are deaf, they can feel it. if they are standing, they can move. otherwise, they're standing there for a reason...
i don't think this was a good inquiry. |
Yeah it would probably been better if they had set up the situation for real to get a truer answer. I wonder how many people would have had to die before they felt they had a representative sample.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
In that case read the article again and you'll see he didn't say that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
In that case read the article again and you'll see he didn't say that. |
He strongly suggests intuitions are unreliable and that we should accept conclusions that seem morally repugnant to most of us, or all of us - if they produce what seems like a "better" outcome. In this case, the outcome is fewer dead people. The morally repugnant act is pushing someone in front of a train.
| Quote: |
Greene's work helps us understand where our moral intuitions come from. But the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right. On the contrary, these findings should make us more skeptical about relying on our intuitions.
There is, after all, no ethical significance in the fact that one method of harming others has existed for most of our evolutionary history, and the other is relatively new. Blowing up people with bombs is no better than clubbing them to death. And surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about. So we should think for ourselves, not just listen to our intuitions.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
In that case read the article again and you'll see he didn't say that. |
He strongly suggests intuitions are unreliable and that we should accept conclusions that seem morally repugnant to most of us, or all of us - if they produce what seems like a "better" outcome. In this case, the outcome is fewer dead people. The morally repugnant act is pushing someone in front of a train.
| Quote: |
Greene's work helps us understand where our moral intuitions come from. But the fact that our moral intuitions are universal and part of our human nature does not mean that they are right. On the contrary, these findings should make us more skeptical about relying on our intuitions.
There is, after all, no ethical significance in the fact that one method of harming others has existed for most of our evolutionary history, and the other is relatively new. Blowing up people with bombs is no better than clubbing them to death. And surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about. So we should think for ourselves, not just listen to our intuitions.
|
|
He is saying moral intuitions are unreliable. He is not saying they have no role to play in moral decisions. He is saying that they should not be the sole arbiter.
I changed the part you emboldened to put a different slant on it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
He clearly advocates disregarding intuitions when deciding whether to push someone off a bridge. It's been a long time since I've read the full text of Tom Regan's argument (he's in favor of considering intuitions in moral decisions), but I strongly prefer his views to those of Singer:
http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~sencerz/Regan_Eth_Theory.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| He clearly advocates disregarding intuitions when deciding whether to push someone off a bridge. |
Eh?
Okay now you're reading waaaaay too much into what he is saying
He really is not trying to give us specific instances of when we should and should not disregard moral intuitions! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 1:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| He clearly advocates disregarding intuitions when deciding whether to push someone off a bridge. |
Eh?
Okay now you're reading waaaaay too much into what he is saying
He really is not trying to give us specific instances of when we should and should not disregard moral intuitions! |
I don't think I'm "reading in" at all; when Singer writes, "surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about," he's clearly expressing agreement with the people in the survey who decided it would be right to push the heavy person off the bridge. Most people following Tom Regan's method of making moral decisions would probably reach a different conclusion (at least according to my understanding of Regan). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| He clearly advocates disregarding intuitions when deciding whether to push someone off a bridge. |
Eh?
Okay now you're reading waaaaay too much into what he is saying
He really is not trying to give us specific instances of when we should and should not disregard moral intuitions! |
I don't think I'm "reading in" at all; when Singer writes, "surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about," he's clearly expressing agreement with the people in the survey who decided it would be right to push the heavy person off the bridge. Most people following Tom Regan's method of making moral decisions would probably reach a different conclusion (at least according to my understanding of Regan). |
He appears to be saying that pushing the switch and pushing the person are morally equivalent since the intention and the result are the same.
He is not saying to disregard intuitions when killing someone 'up close and personal' as opposed to remote killing. In fact he says it's easier for us to carry out remote killings (and he explains why) than it is to carry out 'up close' killings, but that does not mean that remote killings are more moral.
Last edited by Grimalkin on Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:19 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 2:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| Bramble wrote: |
| He clearly advocates disregarding intuitions when deciding whether to push someone off a bridge. |
Eh?
Okay now you're reading waaaaay too much into what he is saying
He really is not trying to give us specific instances of when we should and should not disregard moral intuitions! |
I don't think I'm "reading in" at all; when Singer writes, "surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about," he's clearly expressing agreement with the people in the survey who decided it would be right to push the heavy person off the bridge. Most people following Tom Regan's method of making moral decisions would probably reach a different conclusion (at least according to my understanding of Regan). |
1. He appears to be saying that pushing the switch and pushing the person are morally equivalent since the intention and the result are the same.
2. He is not saying to disregard intuitions when killing someone 'up close and personal' as opposed to remote killing. In fact he says it's easier for us to carry out remote killings (and he explains why) than it is to carry out remote killings, but that does not mean that remote killings are more moral. |
1. Yes, and I think VanIslander made a good counterargument.
2. I think you've misread the author's intent. He clearly states, "surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about." He's definitely condoning both actions - pulling the switch and pushing the heavy person in front of the train. He may not be in favor of "remote killings" in real-life situations, but he doesn't really explore those scenarios in depth. If he had, I think the article would have been a lot more relevant and helpful. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bramble
| Quote: |
| 2. I think you've misread the author's intent. He clearly states, "surely the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five, no matter how that death is brought about." He's definitely condoning both actions - pulling the switch and pushing the heavy person in front of the train. He may not be in favor of "remote killings" in real-life situations, but he doesn't really explore those scenarios in depth. If he had, I think the article would have been a lot more relevant and helpful. |
Taken out of context like that it would appear so.
However when it's read in context it is clear to see that he is directly quoting the people who chose to pull the switch ( based on the principle "the death of one person is a lesser tragedy than the death of five") but would not push the man and asking does that principle not equally apply to both cases.
Then what he later says about 'remote' versus 'up close' killings clinches this.
Last edited by Grimalkin on Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:32 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Bramble
| Quote: |
| 1. Yes, and I think VanIslander made a good counterargument. |
.
Where? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
OiGirl
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Location: Hoke-y-gun
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Who am I to be pulling train switches?
People stupid enough to be standing on train tracks will hopefully be killed before they can breed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: Re: Moral Dilemma! |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
We are not omniscient.
Situation 1: Switch tracks, then hell or pray that the one person gets out of the way in time. Sorry, the hypothetical situation doesn't take into account hope and decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty, as it should.
Situation 2: If you push the guy off the bridge, you will never know if the people would have gotten out of the way in time, and nonetheless, you will have decided yourself someone's fate, choosing to kill someone. Regardless of the utilitarian value of the decision, it's not your decision to make. You'd likely be charged with murder and factual issues won't change the fact that you killed someone who didn't deserve to die and whom you had no authority to do so.
If you want to make it a true moral dilemma then have a friend or family member among those on the tracks.
I took a dozen ethics course in university as a philosophy major, and quickly got tired of phoney examples of a moral dilemma. There are enough real-life conflicts of obligation and issues of conscience that one needn't construct artificial ones, except for the pedogogical value of exemplifying a principle. |
Good points. I already said so, but this is the post I was referring to in case it wasn't clear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
manlyboy
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Location: Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He seems to be saying we all need to listen more closely to ethics professors - and lucky for us he just happens to be one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
