What is the morally best thing to do?
>>669138
>>669138
Would it be right to kill someone so you can donate their organs and save 5 lives?
Flag the trolley down.
Electric traction allows for quick acceleration/deceleration.
If you've ever watched old footage taken from a streetcar, you'll notice that people and cars get right out in front of them constantly, because they can more-or-less stop on a dime.
>>669138
Depends on who are the people.
If the one guy is Von Neumann and the 5 guys are thugs, you save Von Neumann.
>>669138
Without sounding like a complete retard, I legitimately see no reason why you wouldn't just sacrifice the one guy to spare the 4 others, if they were all neutral to you.
Tear the lever off, then in a dash sprint to the front of the railcar. Clobber the conductor over the head with the broken lever and proceed to slam on the brakes.
"Crazy asshole", you say exasperated, as you exit the vehicle. Across the street Dagny Taggart watches you with fixed attention, making you sweat a little. She crosses the street and you can see her beautiful visage grazed by the elegant wind, her wonderful body shaped by the contours of Austrian economics, a free market of potential for American beauty.
"I saw what you did back there, pretty impressive"
"Thank you very much, I pride myself on my ability to perceive the correct decision at any given time... please clap"
Dagny nervously claps for you as you put on a signature American flag bandana. You see toots, we here in America don't stand for stupid commie bullshit, we get a problem and we think outside the box. Dagny is clearly wetting herself at the sight of your red white and blue bandana, a hallmark of independence and freedom to create industries out of thin air with no government interference at all, after all would the railways have had a commercial crises if not for th.. oh I mean nevermind, don't worry about the hiccups every now and then the free market works 100% of the time. Anyway, you decide to take Dagny and screw her in front of Hank Rearden making a total cuck out of Rearden steel.
AMERRRRRICAAAA
>>669177
One could argue that the one man was never in any danger at all until you interfered.
>>669138
I don't know why people gets baited so easily by this.
In real life, most people would do the equivalent to let the five guys die (since it has the same effects). Under so much pressure, the average person just has no time to react and just goes "oh shit, oh shit, oh shit" with his hand on his head until it's too late.
After that, everyone except some cunts will go and tell him someone like "It's normal, you couldn't do anything, everyone would've reacted the same", etc.
>>669177
From the moment you do something, you're an assasin. Letting people die is better than killing people in most judicial and ethic systems as far as I know.
>>669187
>>669201
That is a good point about the legal aspect of things but from a moral standpoint, standing by and knowing you could have saved 3 more lives than you did is worse. If a building was burning down, would you run all the way to the top floor to save one person or make 4 separate trips on the ground floor to save 4 people? I think the answer is obvious, ASSUMING all of the people have the same amount of significance to you.
>>669213
It's a different situation, since you're not killing the man in the top floor. You're just letting him to die, which is different. Still evil, but I'm sure there's no moral system that considers killing to be better than letting someone die.
Of course, whatever you chose you will be considered an assasin by the family and friends of the decaesed. And you're gonna feel like shit whatever you choose.
>>669221
Why would it be considered evil to save more lives though? The lone survivor would definitely have survivor's guilt - he's got the weight of 4 lives on him.
Okay people so first of all you have 5 people on the main track, not 4.
And second of all, the act of turning the switch means you're choosing to kill someone, otherwise you would be LETTING those 5 people die. Which is very different than the burning building problem.
Someone might have had a good reason for tying those people to the track. You shouldn't interfere if you don't know the details of what's going on.
>>669228
The other four would have similar feelings if the other one dies to save them. Maybe even worst, since him being alone gives him a face making for a better martyr.
Anyways and awnsering your question, in general taking pride for your good actions is frowned upon in a society that claims to value humility like ours. It's not valid to go collecting good actions, to claim "I killed an innocent so I could make more good actions".
Also I'll argue that people is more eager to judge you for your bad actions than for the good ones, unless the actions directly benefit them.
>>669242
>And second of all, the act of turning the switch means you're choosing to kill someone, otherwise you would be LETTING those 5 people die. Which is very different than the burning building problem.
That's the first I claimed. There's no real dilemma in the burning building problem since it's either you let 4 (or whatever) people die or you let one die. With the train it's either you kill a man or you let 5 die, which is more complex.
>>669138
You pull the switch and kill the one guy.
Why should you get to keep your pristine clean conscience at the cost of four lives? That's pretty much the most selfish thing I've ever heard of.
Pull lever then cut the restraints on the top guy
>not carrying a knife for utility
>>669138
Derail the train
Everyone who said that you let 5 generic people die over one generic person simply because that's the default position is a complete fucking buffoon and is holding on to ideas of action and non-action that have no relevance to this dilemma.
Just replace 5 people with a million. A million people over 300 kilometers that the train would continuously just plow through for the better part of a day if you don't flick that switch.
do the sick loop de loop
Just dont do anything. Watch whatever happens and save the survivor(s). You didn't tie them up and set them down on the tracks so no need to worry about guilt.
>>669169
Thanks man, been looking for this
Post more edits of this pls. It's a good meme.
>>669138
crashing this train with no survivors
>>669268
Do you outrun trains on a daily basis?
objectively, switching the tracks to kill only one person.
the only subjective choice here is whether or not to interfere.
>>669201
>>669213
>Letting people die is better than killing people in most judicial and ethic systems as far as I know.
>That is a good point about the legal aspect of things
Necessity can be a defence for murder in many US states. You can argue that your actions did not constitute a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm from occurring (in this scenario killing 1 person prevents the death of 5 people).
However, this defence is not available everywhere. In England and Wales, for example, necessity is explicitly excluded as a defence for murder.
I personally agree with >>669296. You don't kill the one person out of malice. Your choice is motivated by a desire to prevent the most potential harm from occurring.
>>669138
Accept the burden of possibly being seen as a killer and pull the lever, because personal issues of how you will be perceived by yourself or others does not justify a degree of inaction that causes greater amounts of lives lost. At the very least accept you simply were unwilling to take a life through actions, but don't use inaction as some sort of cop out from all the moral issues involved.
>>669296
This.
It's like the Monty Hall problem, you don't really comprehend it until you up the numbers and make it obvious. Letting 5 people die for that reason is different from letting 5 million people die for the same reason only in terms of magnitude. The reasoning is the same in both cases, they are necessarily equivalent.
Anyone using such an excuse is a moral and philosophical coward.
>>669138
Do we even know where the trolley is going, or if it's moving at all?
People saying they would save the five people are just assuming that the odds are better that one of the five will be a qt who will want to fuck the man who saved her life.
>>669201
That's like saying killing Stalin would've been a bad idea because it would make you a murderer. Fucking dumb
>>669138
Close your eyes, pretend nothing is happening.
>Oh my God I'd totally do nothing and let 4 people die because I totally don't want people to judge me as a murderer of one person
If you value your stupid pride more than the survival of 3 more people, then you're just a selfish prick.
Think morally the best thing is to do nothing.
>>669296
If this is the case then how exactly do we judge human life? Simply because only one does doesn't make it better. What if his family can't be provided for? What if it throws those close to him into a deep depression
>>669296
Then you're a criminal since you're letting milions of people in the undeveloped world die of starvation. It doesn't matter that the famines are not the cause of your actions, since you're not actively preventing this situation you're a murderer of milions.
>>669324
How can you know that those five persons deserved to live more than the other guy? Who are you to judge that that man deserves to die and the others do not? You both are the buffoons by giving by granted that human life can be reduced to numbers.
>>669296
>he would actually kill one person instead of letting one million people die
You are a murderer
>>669369
No, because you know who Stalin is while you don't know shit about the six lifes you're playing with. One of the five guys could very well be Stalin.
>>669318
yes
>>669346
>Letting 5 people die for that reason is different from letting 5 million people die for the same reason only in terms of magnitude.
And how is magnitude not a factor to take into account if you're to take a decision?
>>669138
>What is the morally best thing to do?
Yell to the guy with his hand on the lever to not start the streetcar until he gets the people off the track.
Build a wall
>>669201
you cant be neutral on a moving train
>>669590
What now /his/
>>669630
Yes you can. Your argument is wielded by tyrants of all sort of ideologies trying to move masses and remove individuality, and that's the only context where it makes sense, in a us against them scenario.
>>669660
What the fuck that's not Stalin at all.
>>669604
Yes but can you find a mexican quick enough to pay for it?
>>669584
>How can you know that those five persons deserved to live more than the other guy?
Given that you know nothing about any of the people on the track in OP's scenario, it is reasonable to view them individually as lives of equal worth.
Under such circumstances it is reasonable for you to make the best choice available to you - to kill one anonymous individual over letting five anonymous individuals die. One could even argue that you have a duty to minimize the loss of life in such a scenario.
>Who are you to judge that that man deserves to die and the others do not?
You are the person who has the power to effect the least possible harm.
*performs not my problem dance*
In our current situation? Let the five people die.
Fewer mouths to feed.
>>669748
>it is reasonable to view them individually as lives of equal worth
This is not reasonable at all, though. It's the opposite of reasonable, it's arbitrarily giving those people atributes that you know very well that do not represent reality, since there's not such a thing as two equal persons. And there's not such a thing as a way to determine the value of human life, so the very same concept of lives of equal worth is flawed and a fantasy.
>You are the person who has the power to effect the least possible harm
You don't know that it's the least possible harm, neither have the means to try and guess.
What if the single person was begging you to pull the lever? Or what if he screamed he would find you and murder you if you didn't pull the lever?
Kill them all, God will know his own.
>>669810
He is a good man, he deserves to live. Let the others sacriface for him.
Most moral act, self sacrifice to alert the train driver
>>669845
hello cuck
depends what kind of people let's say there is a group of niggers or stormfags (same thing really) and one actual human being I would just kill the group of useless shits and saved the one guy
>>669849
>muh cuck meme xD
>mom I posted on a 4chan hacker forum :DD I'm so ebin
kill yourself already
>>669845
>alert the train driver
You have to kill yourself for that? Even without knowing if we will be able to stop with that small distance (he probably cannot). I took it for granted that there was no driver at all in this dilemma.
>>669855
>so butthurt
definitely hit a nerve
>>669845
This is the silliest act. The world will stop to exist if I die, making my sacriface useless.
the only reasonable answer is to save 5 lives. if it means having to carry the guilt of taking one life, then so be it. if it could be avoided by sacrificing oneself, then that would be the better - the heroic option...but this scenario is devised such that you have to kill 1 or 5 people.
record it and post on /r/watchpeopledie for upvotes
>>669885
Letting people die is not killing. Otherwise, you're killing millions right now and so am I.
>semantics
KILL 5 PEOPLE OR KILL ONE PERSON
WHICH ONE DO YOU DO!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>>669930
Braindead utilitarian detected.
>>669138
The obvious answer is to change the tracks, and then change them back so as to exert my power to its fullest potential.
>>669899
Not a bad choice, but unless you take your (t)rusty machete and deprive some of those corpses of their heads you'll never make it to the top.
>>669917
You're equivocating. You're not given the option of saving millions of lives by pressing a button. If you were, and chose not to, then yeah you'd be guilty of killing, or manslaughter - whatever way one would want to spin it.
![latest[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/mtJdokT.png "latest[1].png")
>>669138
Switch the tracks just in time to derail the trail between both. It will flip over and kill everyone on both sides. Sick killstreak, summon helicopter to finish off any survivors.
>>669169
plot twist
>>669930
>Killing is the same as letting people die
Retard
If there is absolutely no third option, you pull the lever unless you know the guy whose tied by himself. It goes
"Save the most people in any given circumstance, unless you love one/some of the fewer people, or it would greatly inconvenience you [note that 2 overrides 3. Great inconvenience for a loved one is often par for the course. Also note that proximity also can but does not always override 3. If saving someone would greatly inconvenience you, but you're literally standing 5 feet from someone about to die, heroism usually dictates you do something].
>"But Anon that morality is heartless and selfish!"
Maybe, but its human.
serious proposal: flip a coin and do what it says.
If you were to make a decision, you would judge the people, and you can't morally do that.
So you flip a coin, because then you dont make a decision.
one could argue though, that by flipping the coin you take responsibility for its result and are again, morally wrong
>>669794
>This is not reasonable at all, though. It's the opposite of reasonable, it's arbitrarily giving those people atributes that you know very well that do not represent reality, since there's not such a thing as two equal persons. And there's not such a thing as a way to determine the value of human life, so the very same concept of lives of equal worth is flawed and a fantasy.
It is reasonable to act on a presumption of equal value because every person has the same equal right to life. The quality of their personalities or their personal attributes do not determine the value of their lives or the value of their individual right to life.
The universal right to life is not a fantasy - it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The universality of this right demonstrates that all lives are equal in the eyes of the law. Again, this is not a fantasy. If you find that to be a flawed or unreasonable principle then your qualm is with the civilized world and not me.
There are very specific scenarios in which an individual's right to life may be lawfully violated. Self-defence or the prevention of serious harm to others are examples of this. I would argue that saving the lives of 5 other people is a sufficiently legitimate aim in this context.
>You don't know that it's the least possible harm, neither have the means to try and guess.
You determine harm by looking at the scale of the loss of life caused by the two different scenarios. You're not making a moral judgment about what the 5 people will do with their lives versus what the 1 person will do with theirs. By doing so you would be deciding who deserves to die rather than looking to objectively minimize loss of life.
>>670162
>it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights
Sounds like spooks to me.
>>669966
Underrated post
Also triple dubs
>>669138
>What is the morally best thing to do?
Punch research ethicists in the face for virtual murder (Possible Girls).
>>669138
How about this:
Five people in a hospital located in a remote area are in need of organs (lungs, kidneys and a heart).
If they do not get those organs today, they will all die; if organs are found for them today, they can be transplanted and they will live.
A young backpacker has come into the hospital for a routine checkup. It turns out he is in excellent health, and has exactly the right blood type to guarantee success if his organs are harvested.
Is it morally permissible to kill the backpacker to save the five patients?
How is this different from OP's problem?
>>669138
What if the guy tied up is the one person to find a breakthrough earlier than his generation.
Also the train shows no motion in the picture so my brain cannot simulate and feel something about it - it all seems puerile.
>>669138
Let the train squish the five people, then go over and strangle the one guy.
Gotta preserve equality.
>>670204
>How is this different from OP's problem?
In the backpacker scenario the doctor would violate his professional oath and the trust of the backpacker as a patient if he were to harvest the backpacker's organs.
There is no such violation in OP's scenario. The man at the switch does not have anything like a doctor-patient relationship with the man tied on his own. He therefore does not have the same obligations that the doctor has.
Jump in front of the train in an attempt to stop it
>>669138
DONT TOUCH THE SWITCH
>but what if it's a million bajillion people
DONT TOUCH THE SWITCH
now what?
>>670442
Just walk away.
>>670103
So it's morally right to not do what's right because it's hard? But it's wrong if it's easy? Are you just lazy?
>>670442
why would you force 5 people to watch one man die knowing the same thing will happen to them?
DONT
TOUCH
THE
SWITCH
>>670442
Kill the five people first, then they don't need to see one dude get shrekt.
>>670390
Ok, I'll bite. Why?
>>670462
Why would you force a man to watch five men die knowing the same thing will happen to him?
>>670103
>given the option of saving millions of lives by pressing a button
>chose not to, then yeah you'd be guilty of killing, or manslaughter
incorrect
I am not guilty of causing mass starvation just because I don't donate to charities dedicated to the problem of world hunger.
>>670472
You're not forcing him to watch because you didn't set up the situation in the first place.
>>670162
But you're not removing the right to life by letting them die. I can't understand how one could it interpret it that way, for you're not taking any active action whatsoever and you're just accepting fate. On the other hand, you're judging that a man has no right to live by switching the tracks. Maybe that judgment comes from the fact that you want to save five persons (and we could enter a discussion about if you really care about them or you just want to play the hero) but you're still actively condemning him to death. Playing god to some degree.
>>670103
So you're telling me Superman isn't allowed to fuck off to another galaxy or something because he wouldn't be saving people anymore and that means he's actually killing them?
l
o
l
>>670204
No difference.
>>670337
Anon never said it was the doctor who kills the boy. As far as we know, the worst the doctor is doing is accepting a shady but convenient donation that saves the life of his patients. There's no reason to not harvest those organs if you're capable of killing a man with a train, except of course the fact that it's a bit harder to kill and quarter him by yourself. You will need colder blood.
But easier or harder, they're both the same action of murder because you wanted to play the hero. They're both wrong.
>>670472
Maybe five corpses will stop the train and save him. Anyways you're not forcing him since you did nothing.
I wouldn't pull the lever then the tram wouldn't be set off, then untie those idiots on the tracks.
>>669138
One death is less awful than five deaths
>>669138
When Ethics fails, we use Economics.
Killing the five people has the lowest opportunity cost. (1/5 vs 5)
Don't switch the tracks.
>>670543
>One death is less awful than five deaths
Not if you're killing your ethnic enemy.
Morality is normative, fuck off to /pol/
>>670474
What? That's neither here nor there. For one, in this situation your action is causal. In the case of starvation, there are a multiplicity of factors at play one of them being the environment (nature), and two the government -- you could go on to list a wide variety of mediating factors. By not contributing to charities you don't necessarily cause the death of someone; that would be very hard to prove. In this case, it's demonstrably the case: it is a binary choice. You either act and save lives, or you don't act knowing for sure 100% that those people will day. This is an act of killing no matter what mental gymnastics you try to play.
>>670458
Your argument isn't clear.
>>670498
Wut
>>670553
>don't act
>This is an act
Superman not saving someone from certain death is not Superman killing someone.
>>670564
Okay let's say you're a doctor. You see someone choking, and you're the only one that knows how to save this person - everyone else is too shook. Do you walk away, or do you save this person? If you're not using your skills, even if the laws don't say so, then you're at fault and you should feel guilty.
Likewise, let's say there's a baby about to drown in a pool. You have the option of saving this baby (no one else is around). Do you save this baby, or walk away? It's morally equivalent to killing the infant.
>>670596
No actually, you are neither morally obligated to save either the choking man or the child.
>even if the laws don't say so
Why do you think that is? There are laws that guarantee protection to Good Samaritans, but there are none that prosecute inaction in situations in which you have no prior involvement.
Instead of trying to raise more examples, why don't you just address the one previously presented.
If Superman sees someone falling but decides not to save them, are you saying he killed them?
What if he took a day off from saving people to bang Lois? Is he responsible for the deaths of everyone he otherwise would have saved?
Inaction =/= Action
>>670596
It's not morally equivalent to killing the infant. It's morally wrong still, but not the same. Killing the infant is throwing it to the pool and then reject to save him.
>>669138
Which track does flipping the switch move the train onto?
>>670625
Well, I find the idea of bringing up Superman in a debate about human morality a bit childish, but okay let me address the argument.
Let's assume superman has a human psychology. Given that, then he has kinship to his fellowman, so if he notices people in danger, and he has the capacity to save lives, it is his moral obligation to do so. If he doesn't save someone that fell from a building, despite having the ability, he's definitely to blame - morally. Legality isn't at issue here; it's morality.
Extrapolating: Let's say a nuke is about to go off and superman has the ability to stop it. If he doesn't stop it, a million people die. Would he be responsible?
Real world example: let's say the united nations notices there is a genocide taking place. Do countries in the UN intervene, or do they ignore the conflict? If they ignore it, they are complicit to the genocide - why? They could have prevented it.
As someone else said, morality is normative -- but I also believe, like Kant, that it is prescriptive.
>>670653
The outcome is the same, and one could argue the intent is the same - especially if metacognitively one is well aware of what would happen to the infant if one does not intervene. What set the situation off doesn't matter.
>>670553
My apparently unclear argument is the same of the other two.
Your argument is apparently that, since pressing a button is easy but stopping famine is hard, not pressing the button is evil but not giving a fuck about those poor souls dying of hunger is ok.
You don't know if someone is gonna press the button instead of you at the last second. Or if there's more buttons. Or if you're being lied.
>>670658
I find the idea of a button that automatically saves 50000000 people even more childish you fucking faggot.
>psychology has anything to do with morality
that's retarded
>If they ignore it, they are complicit to the genocide
No, they aren't.
Kant would spit on you.
>Let's say a nuke is about to go off and superman has the ability to stop it. If he doesn't stop it, a million people die. Would he be responsible?
No, he did nothing. That's the whole goddamned point.
>>670667
Morality is not determined by outcome. Otherwise, you're entering in the realm where all means can be justified by an end. This looks very pragmatic and nice at first sight but actually just causes harm and horror in the long term, and it's the source of toxic movements and ideologies that justify egoistical desires.
>>670672
it's not about ease of action. it's about causality. i don't get why you don't understand this.
you're contriving up scenarios: nowhere in the op is it indicated that you have alternative options.
your action or inaction is directly causal to the outcome. with the case of famine, it's difficult to determine causality - you can't know for certain that you'll be saving lives.
in this case, you can.
>he did nothing
I think you must be a troll, or you've never really studied morality. Morality is deeply psychological.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaoTKurm_1k
Second of all, you're already using ad hominems because you're incapable of coming up with a coherent argument.
No he did nothing isn't an argument.
>>670678
>>670696
>Morality is deeply psychological.
>posts TED talk
lel
9/10 troll, top r8
>>670685
It isn't solely determined by outcome, hence why I mentioned intent. There also other factors that determine morality - we could list many of them. But the key thing in this case is causality - in my view.
>>670685
And some wicked papers on killing babies to support animal rights.
Utilitarianism, not even once. That includes marginalism.
>>670704
Joshua Greene is one of the top people working on morality in this day and age. He is an experimental philosopher - and that's a google talk. If you want to read his papers, be my guest and google them. What exactly have you studied?
Why aren't we using an example where superman needs to exterminate a whole town to prevent the nuke from being launched?
>utilitarians
Scum of the earth. The correct choice is to not touch the switch.
Killing =/= letting die. Any other logic will lead to the conclusion that any moment not spent lessening the suffering of others is immoral.
>>669560
I don't have a magic lever that will instantly solve world hunger.
>>670713
>appeal to authority
>experimental philosopher
top kek
>>670724
So laziness is suddenly very important in morality. Doing good actions is nice, but only when it's easy for me!
>>670715
Because we are attempting to determine whether or not.
Action = Inaction
1 = -1
etc because it gets at the crux of the issue.
>>670736
>you would allow 10,000,000 people to die through inaction rather than 1 through action
and you would murder someone.
You are not God.
>>670751
>MFW YOUD LET THE ENTIRE HUMAN RACE GO EXTINCT BEFORE KILLING ONE MAN
AHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAHHAH
>/his/
>/his/
>/his/
>>670759
Humanity is overrated.
>>670625
A bit unrelated, but Astro City has this whole Superman idea played out in an actual comic. The guy's life is basically a living hell as he spends literally every waking moment saving people.
>>670759
You simply lack true moral fiber.
>>670746
But action and inaction just words and can mean different things in different settings. Justifying your position is just a matter of forging an example so ridiculous that puts the other on a bad place if we're to assume that words in an human language can be considered absolute concepts exactly equal in every place and time.
>>670796
>just words and can mean different things in different settings
gtfo
>>670799
>no argument
Nice.
>>670802
>words don't mean nuthin
>all your arguments are ridiculous so I don't have to address them
gtfo
check em
>>669228
Maybe not, but maybe those four go and do nothing with their lives and become junkies and the one guy who feels that weight uses it to motivate himself to do something great like cure cancer or something.
I know it's absurd but once you get past the more obvious "save as many lives as possible" you get to the more interesting possibilities which is where we're going with this.
>>670783
>fiber
fibre
>>670852
I double checked, it can be spelled both ways.
Also I am not fucking British.
What is the morally best thing to do from a Christian point of view?
>>670913
In OP's situation?
Pray.
>>670337
The professional oath and principles of trust, as they exist right now, aren't sufficient as differences between the hospital scenario and train track scenario in a discussion of morality - what we ought to do. If a person morally should to flip the lever and make the train run over the one person, then morally speaking the professional oath of doctors *should* be to sacrifice the lives of a smaller number of patients to save a larger number, and patients *should* trust the doctor to sacrifice others to save them or sacrifice them to save others depending on the circumstances.
>>669138
Pull the lever. Whether you're killing or letting someone be killed isn't what matters, what matters is in the end you'll either have 1 dead body or 5 of them.
>>670917
I'm sure you can quote Jesus in a way that implies he would have or wouldn't have wanted you to pull the lever.
>>669138
Do what is best for yourself
does anyone have this picture
>>669878
Kekd
>>670442
Let it hit the one man first. That way you prolong the other five's lives.
>>671053
>>669242
But wouldn't choosing not to pull the lever be committing the 5 people to death? If you know what the situation is then inaction is a course of action.
>>671062
Prolonging an existence of sheer terror.
Would you allow a child to be birthed if it was in a constant mental state comparable to someone who was about to die but was not ready?
>>671075
[spoiler]yes[/spoiler]
Life is better than nonexistence.
>>671067
>inaction is a course of action
>>671090
It's easy to say that when you're sitting in front of a computer.
>>671094
He phrased it poorly, but choosing inaction is still a choice, the difference between it and swinging the lever are effectively nil. If you choose not to swing the lever, you're choosing for those people to die.
>>671096
>your argument is invalid because your current condition.
I think it's absurd to believe that there is anyone who will never be able to feel any enjoyment from life.
Also, all I know for certain that exists, is this life. Any moment spent perceiving things is better than nonexistence imo.
>>671111
>not choosing is a choice
I don't consider myself qualified to make life and death decisions on the behalf of other people.
>>670759
by your logic you should be off trying to solve the syrian conflict because all the blood ever is on your hands
i'll wait
>>669138
For all of these scenarios, you should pull the lever just enough so that the track doesn't change all the way. By doing that, the trolley will either get stuck or will careen off the rails but it won't hit the people tied to the track.
>>671115
>my argument is correct because it's the only thing I know
Wait, it's a trolley, you can fucking carry the person off and switch the track in time
>>671163
I think the scenario is that the trolley is rolling uncontrolled downhill, so it goes much faster than if it were under its own power.
>>669584
It usually is. In the medical field that's how it works. In a massive casualty situation you don't even bother with people who might be able to be saved if they look too far gone.
>>671123
If you choose not to act, you're making a choice. Either way, you're making a choice. So do you choose to kill five people or one?
>>671168
This. You don't have time to agonize over whether the one person might cure cancer or if those five people will become serial killers. Absent of any information about the people, you choose based on numbers.
>>671176
If you don't make a choice, you aren't making a choice.
>>671180
By choosing whether or not to make a decision, you have made a decision. By choosing to not make a decision, 5 people will die. By choosing to make a decision, either 1 or 5 people will die.
>>670724
We can't be sure about that. How much can you cum?
>>671192
>choosing whether or not to make a decision, you have made a decision.
By choosing whether or not to make a decision, you have not made a decision to make a decision whether or not to make a decision.
Alternatively, 1 =/= -1 and you are a simple bystander until you make the choice to interfere and directly cause the death of what would be an otherwise unharmed individual.
>>671208
Even if you choose not to make a decision, your inaction still has consequences because those 5 people will die. Therefore, you are just as culpable as if you had chosen to make a decision, and your decision was to not pull the lever.
>>671234
>inaction still has consequences
I disagree, in that I could consider inaction to be in itself essentially nothing. The kind of thing that simply does not have material consequences.
If I were to stipulate the presence of 100 other bystanders, would you still say it is your responsibility to pull the switch and kill the man? If not, then who's personal responsibility would it be?
>>669138
Morally nothing, actually kill the one.
To kill or not to kill isn't always a moral question.
Unless of course you aren't a retarded existentialist nihilist absurdist.
Just save the 5.
>>671307
Save the one instead.
Who's to say that more isn't less?
>>669138
Do nothing. Who the fuck cares, people die everyday.
>>669296
>>669587
>>669138
Consider the following case: 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.
>>671432
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. 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?
>>669304
>>671252
Everyone's responsibility. If no one does, they have all chosen to kill five men.
>>671484
They chose to do nothing. They did not kill anyone. They did not cause their deaths. They merely did not act to prevent them. If they did act they would be murderers, because their actions would cause the death of a man.
Please refer to all of the above posts questioning whether or not you are responsible for deaths and suffering across the world because you do nothing to stop it.
>>671493
There's a difference here. I'm not in an immediate position to save those people, and an action I could take to do so wouldn't necessarily do so, and may in fact make matters worse (see how food aid can sometimes fuck with an economy with disastrous results). This however is a situation in which their action will with absolute certainty save those lives, and their inaction with absolute certainty will result in them being dead. If they choose to not act, they choose for them to die. There's a reason we consider death through negligence a crime.
>>669138
It will depends which track has the Muslim, Jew, nigger, liberal, and/or atheist on it
>>669138
You should always choose the one guy if it isn't possible to gain consent.
If he is a moral person, he will understand that sacrificing himself is the right thing to do.
If he isn't, well he wasn't worth saving in the first place.
>>671549
>If he is a moral person, he will understand that sacrificing himself is the right thing to do.
If he is a moral person, he will understand that you are a murderer, and little else.
>>671549
circulus in demonstrando
>>671586
If he is a moral person he would agree with your decision.
>>671600
Again, you are assuming he agrees with you.
>my decision is moral because it is moral
>>671611
I'm not.
If he agrees with me, then there's no problem. But if he doesn't agree, he isn't worth saving.
>>671615
You're assuming your opinion is correct.
It is not.
Besides this, you are assuming immoral people are not worth saving.
This is also less than secure.
>>670736
They can't, that would be through action.
>>670162
This is my favorite response in this thread.
Good job.
>>670162
>it is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights
and what makes this Declaration and Convention universally binding and valid/
A shared opinion?
>>670493
That's a fucking cop out and you know it, or at least you should.
There's a reason why we have laws for things such as "negligent homicide". You are human, you are capable of choice and action. You were involved in the situation the second you became aware of it and your ability to affect it's outcome.
Muh "inaction is not the same as action" cop-out is horseshit. Why live if that's the case? For what purpose do you exist if not to make cognitive choice, you mong?
>>669245
massively underrated post
>>669316
even more massively underrated post
>>669351
good point
>>669684
fuckin mexicans, can't do anything right
>>670656
Oh shit, this nigga is on to something. We all just assume the train is going to the 5 people because that's what makes sense to us, but that's not necessarily the case. What if it's on the way to fuck up the one guy?
Furthermore, if we don't know what effect the switch will have, how does that affect us morally, and how does it change how we should respond?
>>671739
you can tell by looking at the track retard
>>671722
>we have laws for things such as "negligent homicide"
>legality = morality
I kid, but.
>The first element that a state must prove in a negligent homicide case is that the defendant was aware of an unjustifiable risk associated with the events that led to the death of another person. For example, if the victim and the defendant were playing with a gun, and the victim was shot but the defendant refused to call for medical help, the defendant could be charged with negligent homicide because most people know the risks associated with a gunshot wound. When the defendant refused to seek medical attention, he disregarded an unjustifiable risk, which was the possible death of his friend.
negligent homicide assumes prior and direct involvement, while OP's problem asks you to literally kill someone in a situation that you previously were not involved in.
>>670704
>shitposts
Yeah, man. You sure got him, alright.
>>671739
>if we don't know what effect the switch will have, how does that affect us morally, and how does it change how we should respond?
it doesn't
DONT TOUCH THE SWITCH
>>671748
>I'm 7 hours late to the thread but I can still make a significant contribution!!
>*farting noises*
>>670721
No it doesn't because they clearly aren't the same situation. Why are you incapable of factoring in context to the equation?
>>671024
I'm sure you can quote Jesus in a way that implies anything you want, really.
>>670917
Fucking Kek.
>>670940
Why must everything be black and white and/or universal? Context matters.
>>671770
>Why must everything be black and white
Where do you think grey comes from?
>Context matters.
no it doesn't.
>>671778
So context doesn't matter but circumstance does?
>>671123
That sounds like a convenient cop out so you don't have to bear the weight of any responsibility.
But I guess I agree with you, because that's the reason I don't pull out of your mom.
>>671810
>That sounds like a convenient cop out
that sounds like a convenient cop out.
maybe we can call it a red herring,
faggot.
>>671741
No you can't, retard.
>You are placed in a position where either 1 person dies or 5 people die, and you have to choose which
>This is somehow considered a difficult choice
Nietzsche was right. Philosophy is nothing more than clever word-games.
>>671513
This guy got it.
The guy saying that doing nothing is in some way not a choice you made that will have consequences is wrong because unless you go braindead you will make an internal decision if you are going to pull the lever, there's no way a sane individual would stand there without contemplating pulling the lever IF the man knew his situation which the image seem to imply by the man looking nervous.
Anyways, nice thread, but this situation is old and it's been over debated to death.
>>671954
Well if the solution is so simple then what is it?
>>669138
Jump before the train to stop it with my own body
>>671147
I think people use logical extremes too much. We can all agree that saving those 5 people is a reasonable action, while trying to single-handedly stop the Syrian Civil War isn't.
Follow your conciousness
>>670625
>There are laws that guarantee protection to Good Samaritans, but there are none that prosecute inaction in situations in which you have no prior involvement.
There are in some countries.
>>669138
I can't even see the problem.
You save 5 lives instead one.
Eveyone who don't think so is fucking retard.
>>672159
But why? What difference does it make?
>implying I have any clue what the lever does
Anyone who set this up in real life is obviously a sicko, not to mention completely off his chops, no doubt pulling the lever will result in some foul trick, or the 4 will all be death row crims
You are playing right into the perpetrator's hands by pulling the lever
this desu
>>669865
You know that image where the guy acts like a retard and people say fuck off retard and he thinks he is le ebin troll. Friend I think I just learned why someone made that image
>>672186
This
