I just got done with watching Arrow, and it had a pretty interesting scenario that basically equated to the Trolly problem.
There's a nuke inbound toward a massive population center. It will kill millions and affect millions more. Its GPS coordinates can be changed, but (I forget the line of thought. It's irrelevant anyway) only to a small town of about 10,000.
Would you actively kill 10,000 to save millions or would you stand by and let it hit its intended target?
>>1253835
once an ICBM is launched, there's nothing that can be done, outside of firing a couple ABM's at it.
Obviusly, yes. Yes I would divert it to a small town.
Willful inaction is a choice like any other. Anyone who chooses not to save one million people isn't being moral, they are trying simply trying to stick their head in the ground and pretend they are powerless. They feel like if they don't directly affect the situation that somehow makes them innocent.
Just toss coin and do what it say.
>>1253840
Yeah I know. Suspension of disbelief, etc. It kept my autism from tingling when watching Armageddon for the first time.
It's murder to divert the nukes to the town of 10,000. I'd still do it though, since losing a town of 10,000 people is less likely to seriously fuck the nation over than losing a major city would.
>>1253879
How is that murder?
The only one doing the murder is the person who launched the nukes. You are only deciding between two targets.
>>1253915
>How is that murder?
How is it not? The nuke is bound for a certain target. You are altering it's path with the knowledge that it will kill other people instead of it's intended targets. You have decided that the residents of Irrelevanttown are going to die instead of the residents of Bigcity.
Pretend it's just two people instead. Guy A and Guy B. The missile is going to kill Guy A, but you decide that he deserves to live while Guy B doesn't. How can you claim that you DIDN'T murder Guy B?
Bear in mind that you did not launch the missile and you are not obligated to act.
>but I am obligated to act
You could be working as an EMT or firefighter right now, but chances are that you aren't.
Minimizing casualties is a basic tenet of most things that involve human lives. You would lose a lot more than just population with the mass destruction of a major population center, especially since most such places tend to shelter businesses and government headquarters and the like.
A small town of 10,000 people is very likely just a small town of 10,000 people. Their deaths will be mourned but the importance of the physical town itself is of relatively less importance.
>>1253915
It's murder because you pressed a button.
Protip: Laws don't define ethics and morality. That's why Chinese don't report crimes. They just walk past people dying in the street because if they called it in and the perpetrator was never caught then the person who called it in goes to prison in the perpetrator's place.
Laws a lot of times create this sense of moral inaction in society. People like to pretend that it's not their fault no matter what happens so long as they don't do anything, because that's the safest bet for avoiding being charged with a crime.
>>1253927
But if you do nothing you are killing the other group of people.
Whether you physically touch the controls or not, you are still making a conscious decision on who lives and who dies.
>>1253943
I thought we were speaking ethically and not legally.
>>1253945
>But if you do nothing you are killing the other group of people.
Okay. By that logic you are killing everyone who dies waiting for an ambulance, since you don't work as an EMT when you could easily get trained and hired.
The notion that you are responsible for situations that you did not help create is beyond absurd.
>>1253835
Love how movies and stuff always use the barest, most simplistic philosphical dilemmas they half-remembered from philosophy 101 whenever they want to be deep.
"Oh look, a poorly veiled expy of the social contract/prisonners dilemma/plato's cave"
>>1253956
I'm arguing that it's not murder at all though.
>>1253964
Doesn't make a difference. There's a fundamental problem with the "You are responsible for everything you don't do" argument. It falls apart as soon as you start questioning the accuser's life choices.
>>1253950
I'm not the anon you originally replied to. I just deconstructed the issue for the two of you. Laws typically create a more hands off approach to ethics than common sense would.
Morally and ethically it would be monstrous to let 990,000 people die, but you are less likely to go to prison if you let 990,000 people die and just run away instead.
>>1253997
I think as long as you weren't tried in a court near the town, there's not a single jury that would convict you.
>>1253997
>Morally and ethically it would be monstrous to let 990,000 people die,
No. You are operating on the assumption that you are obligated to act. You are not.
It doesn't matter if it's one person or 7 billion.
>>1254004
Choosing not to act is a choice itself.
>>1254002
It depends on the country. China's legal system for example is ridiculous.
>>1254004
You have been conditioned by laws to take a hands off approach to ethics and morality. Saving 990,000 people is common sense.
What if the missile were going to hit one of the two targets randomly, but you could ensure it hits the smaller target?
Does that change things for you ethically?
Seems like the people who say "Do nothing" are just trying to escape their own feeling of guilt, and this would give you plausible deniability.
>>1254079
>Many countries do have absurd laws that force passers by to act.
Which are means to contract the effect that laws generally have.
>>1253956
You are being ridiculous. There is a big difference between letting someone die in front of you when you could easily save them and a fucking career path, especially when there is no significant shortage of EMTs.
>>1254079
>>1253956
My argument is that you have NO responsibility. But you have a choice of A or B which you CAN NOT abstain from. Pressing the button is choosing the smaller group, doing nothing is choosing the larger.
You can choose the larger group if you want, or you can choose to minimize casualties.
Either way, it is not murder.
>>1254116
Not him, but murder is a legal term though, and some countries might convict you regardless of your choice. Laws aren't always perfect.
>>1254127
ethically speaking
>>1254104
> There is a big difference between letting someone die in front of you when you could easily save them and a fucking career path
The only difference is that one inconveniences you more than the other. How does that play into whether or not you are responsible for your inaction?
>>1254116
>Either way, it is not murder.
Choosing to kill people is murder no matter how you try to dress it up.
>>1254127
It has nothing to do with the law.
>>1254131
>Choosing to kill people is murder no matter how you try to dress it up.
So you are a murderer either way?
Choosing to do nothing is still choosing.
>>1254135
Inaction is not the same as action. You are not obligated to act. You did not launch the missile and you are not responsible for who is killed unless you choose to intervene.
>>1254145
Yes it is.
If you comprehended the choice, and have the physical capability to press the button, but don't. Then you chose the larger group.
>>1254165
Murder is also an ethical and moral term in case you didn't know.
>>1254131
>The only difference is that one inconveniences you more than the other.
You are arguing that there is no difference than letting someone bleed out in front of you without lifting a finger and a career choice. You are being absurd. It's not black and white, but that doesn't mean the entire spectrum of saving lives is the same. The fact that you are arguing that it is speaks to the fact that you have no solid argument.
Inaction under these extreme circumstances is a willful choice like any other.
>>1254169
Killing is an moral and ethical issue, but murder is a legal term.
>>1254155
See the previous arguments about your inaction in daily life. Why aren't you training as a nurse? Why aren't you campaigning against smoking? Why aren't you delivering food to starving African children?
You know that you could save lives by doing these things, but you don't do them.
>You are arguing that there is no difference than letting someone bleed out in front of you without lifting a finger and a career choice.
From an ethical standpoint there isn't. You are arguing that your own comfort is more valuable than human life.
>>1254204
Ethically speaking, Murder and killing are completely different.
>>1254216
I am not, and have not, made an argument about whether A or B is the correct or moral choice.
>>1254237
You are claiming that the ease of action is somehow a factor. I am saying that inaction is inaction regardless of the circumstances. It is a willful choice no matter what.
>>1254252
Ok, for clarity let me restate what I have argued:
>Choosing inaction is equivalent to choosing the larger group.
>It then follows that either you are murderer both ways, or you are not a murderer both ways.
Whether you think it is amoral to decide who lives and who dies, or you think you have a responsibility to minimized casualties is a completely separate from what I have argued.
>>1254226
Exactly. Murder is a legal term. It is an unjust killing. Just meaning pertaining to the law.
There can be "good killings" and "bad killings" irrespect to the law, but calling it murder implies a bunch of legal shit like black and white guilt versus innocence. Without law such distinctions don't exist.
>>1254285
Justice is an ethical concept which can exist outside of a specific legal system.
>>1253835
>Would you actively kill 10,000 to save millions or would you stand by and let it hit its intended target?
I would ask the villains to fire a couple more ICBMs at LA, just to be sure. Fuck urbanites.
>>1253846
This. Choosing not to divert a nuke is like choosing not to swerve away when your car is about to run over someone.
>b-but I didn't choose to run them over!
>>1253835
My answer is the exact same as with the trolley problem. Yes I would and not even think twice about it. Maybe I just take the scenario to literally (the question might not be whether or not to do it, but if it is the moral thing to do) but I don't see how anyone could not want to minimize damage even if it means diverting the trolley and technically kill someone.
>>1254381
I don't think anyone would ever hesitate if you had the choice between letting the trolley crush people or diverting the trolley to an empty store or something.
>no, destroying property is evil! I feel bad for those people, but I won't willfully commit vandalism!
>>1254395
We'll you aren't responsible for letting those people die because you didn't actually do anything, if you divert the trolley and commit vandalism you are responsible for that.
>>1253835
Yes, I would divert the nuke to the smaller town.
>>1254406
>you aren't responsible for letting those people die
Yes you are. You are morally responsible for letting those people die when you had the power to prevent it.
>>1254417
No I'm not.
I didn't do anything. How could I be responsible?
>>1254406
If you're a railway guy or air control and you don't divert a train or plane that's about to crash into a bunch of people to where it will do the least amount of damage you bet your ass you're going to be held responsible for this. Even if you do divert the vehicle you'll still get judged by people who will argue that you could have saved everyone somehow.
>>1254318
Not really, no. Justice is simply and specifically the rules or guidelines a society uses to punish people for the purpose of stopping future crimes. If there were only two people in the universe then justice would have no meaning.
>>1254444
But I'm not a railroad guy. I didn't sign shit.
I'm a random guy who happened across a train switch. There is a train that is going to derail and destroy an empty building unless I switch the track to an empty rail. I don't pull the switch.
Did I commit vandalism?
>>1254455
>Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered
>>1254471
Again, that is the encroachment of the effect that legality on has had on the popular conception of ethics and morality.
Justice has no meaning beyond society.
>>1254493
>Justice has no meaning beyond society.
And ethics has no meaning beyond society.
What is your point?
>>1254513
Some would argue that morality transcends society, though I'm not at this time claiming that.
I'm simply pointing out that the discussion risks tying itself in knots if you use black and white, guilty vs not guilty, terms like MURDER instead of discussing this as a spectrum of right and wrong, or some such.
>>1254460
The only reason you shouldn't pull the switch would be if you were not sure the empty rail is really empty or otherwise worrying that your incompetence/ignorance could fuck this up somehow.
Else expect to have angry railway workers and landowners asking you "why didn't you pull the fucking switch?"
This is like asking if you should trespass to put out a fire and/or save the kid stuck in the burning house. If you're able to do it, of course you should.
>>1254700
>Else expect to have angry railway workers and landowners asking you "why didn't you pull the fucking switch?"
Better yet, imagine you seen the train heading for the building and you have the railway workers yelling "Pull the switch! For the love of God, pull the switch!"
