| 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 |
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:56 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| manlyboy wrote: |
| 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. |
And I'm advocating the opposite: ethics profs need to listen more closely to the values and morals of people than to dead ancient Greeks. Elucidating concepts already operative in a society is a skill not enough philosophers practice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:44 pm Post subject: Re: Moral Dilemma! |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
| 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. |
None of the points that VanIslander makes are relevant.
Why?
The writer wants to show that instinctive/intuitive morality is unreliable. He chooses to demonstrate this by showing that people will make inconsistent decisions in similar moral dilemmas where the only difference between the situations is whether the killing of a stranger is 'up close' or 'remote'.
If he factored in elements like hope, the effectiveness of the killing methods, the fear of punishment, a personal relation with any other of the people involved etc, then it could be argued that the decisions the people reached were influenced by these factors and not just by whether the killing were 'up close' or 'remote'.
The situation does not need to be realistic in order to determine how people would feel about it. It has all the elements he requires for his test without having any that might make the result unclear.
(For example, if he had told the people to consider a case where they would be saving beloved family members or friends they might have been more willing to push the stranger off the bridge.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VanIslander (and I think someone else as well) explained how the two situations were different: The person standing on the tracks has a chance of getting out of the way. He (she?) also showed how pushing someone in front of a train is different from taking a chance on someone possibly getting run over, when you didn't put them there in the first place. In a real-life situation, as VanIslander pointed out, there's no way of knowing what would happen if you pulled the switch. I found VanIslander's argument very convincing.
The question is full of absurd presumptions, really - you're too light to stop the train, but killing the stranger will definitely stop the train and save the people on the tracks. And the respondent can deduce all this in a split second. Ridiculous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2007 11:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
| 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.  |
Gigijones also brought up a good question: Why don't these people try to get out of the way? It shows how little relevance the question has to real life, and why people don't think about diverting a train in the same way as pushing someone in front of a train. Because common sense suggests that people in front of a train would have some way of saving themselves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh sure. The only real way to know is if you actually carry out the experiment.
Some people might have moral/ethical issues with that though!
Come on what do you want...a 'Perils of Pauline' situation. Okay they've all been tied to the tracks by a mad scientist who wants to see what decision you would make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kwangjuchicken
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Location: I was abducted by aliens on my way to Korea and forced to be an EFL teacher on this crazy planet.
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I am glad one of the choices is not I jump in front of the train. With my luck, I would die one second before the rapture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gigijones
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
i have a moral/ethical issue with the fact you have been arguing over whether or not to kill an innocent bystander in order to save 5 folks down the line who have the time, opportunity, and ability to get the eff out the way of a 10^7 kg train just beginning to pick up speed after coming around a bend.
roll your emoticon eyes at me... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grimalkin
Joined: 22 May 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gigijones wrote: |
i have a moral/ethical issue with the fact you have been arguing over whether or not to kill an innocent bystander in order to save 5 folks down the line who have the time, opportunity, and ability to get the eff out the way of a 10^7 kg train just beginning to pick up speed after coming around a bend.
roll your emoticon eyes at me... |
Do you also have problems distinguishing between what's real and what's not real?
Do you know the meaning of 'hypothetical'?
If so....THERE ARE NO FIVE FOLKS...THERE IS NO INNOCENT BYSTANDER!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gigijones wrote: |
i have a moral/ethical issue with the fact you have been arguing over whether or not to kill an innocent bystander in order to save 5 folks down the line who have the time, opportunity, and ability to get the eff out the way of a 10^7 kg train just beginning to pick up speed after coming around a bend.
roll your emoticon eyes at me... |
There's nothing wrong with discussing it. I agree that the rolling eyes are uncalled for, though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Grimalkin wrote: |
Okay they've all been tied to the tracks by a mad scientist who wants to
see what decision you would make. |
I still wouldn't push the stranger in front of the train. This quote from VanIslander seems equally applicable:
| Quote: |
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. |
Pulling the switch would be a more difficult decision if the people were tied to the tracks ... but in that case I'd view the mad scientist as the killer, not the person who pulled the switch.
Actually, I just re-read that Regan article last night and I have a hard time defending my position even according to his criteria. Maybe this is one of those issues that don't easily lend themselves to "cool" reasoning.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gigijones
Joined: 14 Sep 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2007 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
sorry, my bad...there is nothing wrong with the discussion. and thanks bramble for trying to see my point. since everyone else has talked about their angle, here's mine: this scenario as originally put forth is an examination of one's character way, way before it beomes an ethical one.
are you likely to panic over common everyday experiences?
and grimmy, i've posted a new "hypothetical" situation up for poll...will you confirm for me if i have understood this difficult concept? cause i'm not sure i get it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
