Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wierd]

I never said that-- The metaphor of the train is useful, but the obvious false dichotomy is bullshit.

A similar metaphor was extended once, where you could push a 500lb man in front of a bus to stop it.  I responded that if I had the necessary medical lift to move the 500lb man this way, I could just jam up the bus with said lift, and not endanger the man at all. The person giving the survey was not pleased with the answer. Screw him.

[Neonivek]

What I also love is how much perception they give you. You are all-knowing in these scenarios.

You HAVE to know that 500 pound man is EXACTLY what will stop a bus. You have to know that if you don't push the man that everyone on the bus will die. You have to know there are no alternatives... AND you have the ability to freeze time so you can calmly and collectively make this decision (instead of being in a total absolute panic... and thus NO ONE but a psychopath would ever push that 500 pound man)

[misko27]

As for the whole "Train derail ethics falderall"--  False dichotomies suck bollocks. No. They suck bollocks, in a very real way. There are always more choices. One can flip the lever, and yell (because this train is clearly not hypersonic) up at the guy standing on the tracks, and tell him to get his dumbshit ass off of them.  then nobody gets hurt at all. But no. The framer of the argument wants to beg the fucking question. Fuck him.

Let's try a different example. I'm tired of philosophical discussion so in true mad philosopher fashion I kidnap you, and lock you in a room. In this room there is a button, and a timer counting down from 60 seconds. If you press the button in time, you complete the circuit and a man will die (Neurotoxin); if you don't, the machine overrides the circuit and kills five different men instead. Intent is, thus, irrelevant: you must physically complete the circuit in time in order to save the five men before the machine overrides the circuit and kills them. If you wish, you can imagine that there are two screens in the rooms behind glass, both showing you two rooms where one man and five men sit, concerned. I have done everything in my power to convince you that I am fully serious, including bringing you into the presence of the men in question, and when this is finished I will release you and the men still alive (after having shown you the bodies of the dead).

My point is claiming that you cannot imagine a binary situation simply shows a lack of imagination. And I will force you to do something, even if it is nothing, because doing nothing is also a choice.

[overseer05-15]

What I also love is how much perception they give you. You are all-knowing in these scenarios.

You HAVE to know that 500 pound man is EXACTLY what will stop a bus. You have to know that if you don't push the man that everyone on the bus will die. You have to know there are no alternatives... AND you have the ability to freeze time so you can calmly and collectively make this decision (instead of being in a total absolute panic... and thus NO ONE but a psychopath would ever push that 500 pound man)

Alright its late and this's the only post ive seen so im just gonna push the guy idk why you wouldn't

[wierd]

As for the whole "Train derail ethics falderall"--  False dichotomies suck bollocks. No. They suck bollocks, in a very real way. There are always more choices. One can flip the lever, and yell (because this train is clearly not hypersonic) up at the guy standing on the tracks, and tell him to get his dumbshit ass off of them.  then nobody gets hurt at all. But no. The framer of the argument wants to beg the fucking question. Fuck him.

Let's try a different example. I'm tired of philosophical discussion so in true mad philosopher fashion I kidnap you, and lock you in a room. In this room there is a button, and a timer counting down from 60 seconds. If you press the button in time, you complete the circuit and a man will die (Neurotoxin); if you don't, the machine overrides the circuit and kills five different men instead. Intent is, thus, irrelevant: you must physically complete the circuit in time in order to save the five men before the machine overrides the circuit and kills them. If you wish, you can imagine that there are two screens in the rooms behind glass, both showing you two rooms where one man and five men sit, concerned. I have done everything in my power to convince you that I am fully serious, including bringing you into the presence of the men in question, and when this is finished I will release you and the men still alive (after having shown you the bodies of the dead).

My point is claiming that you cannot imagine a binary situation simply shows a lack of imagination. And I will force you to do something, even if it is nothing, because doing nothing is also a choice.

I have a whole minute in which to try. In order for this to work as you describe, your mad philosopher must spend some time doing his epic monologue explaining the scenario presented to me, and why I must choose to press or not press the button. This gives me time, before the timer starts, to assess the room, and the equipment present. 1 minute is a lot of time. In that time, I can rip off the cover of the device, and rip the power feed going to the delivery system.

Even if I *FAIL*, I will have attempted to save both sets of people, and any ethical consequence of their deaths is not mine.

There is no such thing as a truly binary decision, except in formal logic, and computing, (which is derived from formal logic.)

[Neonivek]

DANG IT hilarious Christian movie soo close SOO very close to just being hilarious.

Yet last moment it does a whole "Anti-depressants don't work, in fact they make you worse, and you can prey your depression and AD-withdraw away" message.

Which... I can't let pass. Movie you are actually hurting people in real life. You kind of stepped over the line there.

fashion I kidnap you, and lock you in a room. In this room there is a button, and a timer counting down from 60 seconds. If you press the button in time, you complete the circuit and a man will die (Neurotoxin); if you don't, the machine overrides the circuit and kills five different men instead. Intent is, thus, irrelevant: you must physically complete the circuit in time in order to save the five men before the machine overrides the circuit and kills them. If you wish, you can imagine that there are two screens in the rooms behind glass, both showing you two rooms where one man and five men sit, concerned. I have done everything in my power to convince you that I am fully serious, including bringing you into the presence of the men in question, and when this is finished I will release you and the men still alive (after having shown you the bodies of the dead).

You also teach me electrical engineering and go through the steps one by one in how you made such a device. You gave me instruments to gauge the exact strength of everything in the room... As well Jesus projected into my head the exact knowledge I need to limit this to two choices.

Ohh also I have psychic powers to see into your own mind and know you are telling the truth.

[Rolan7]

What I also love is how much perception they give you. You are all-knowing in these scenarios.

You HAVE to know that 500 pound man is EXACTLY what will stop a bus. You have to know that if you don't push the man that everyone on the bus will die. You have to know there are no alternatives... AND you have the ability to freeze time so you can calmly and collectively make this decision (instead of being in a total absolute panic... and thus NO ONE but a psychopath would ever push that 500 pound man)

METAPHOR

This is apparently and admittedly a simplified binary unrealistic scenario.  It's not real.
Finding some "out" isn't clever, it's avoiding the question.

Yet it's valid to say "in a real situation, I could find an out".  Maybe you will, always.  Are you SO sure of that, you can avoid addressing the actual question posed?  That's really up to you.

[Neonivek]

Finding some "out" isn't clever, it's avoiding the question

Yeah but you are avoiding the question too... or rather avoiding the real implications of the question for instead a pseudo-moralistic outcome divorced from reality yet imposed onto it.

Which gets into the "Batman is a bad person because he doesn't kill the Joker" mentality.

[Tack]

I can rip off the cover of the device, and rip the power feed going to the delivery system.

Even if I *FAIL*, I will have attempted to save both sets of people, and any ethical consequence of their deaths is not mine.

That's not "I have tried so I'm morally expunged". That's "I have killed everyone to spite a mad professor"

Still not binary but chances are ripping out power cords from behind the button panel will either make the button un-pressable or act as though the button had been pressed, in which case a binary outcome happens anyway.

[wierd]

When the dilemma is not realistic (Do you have any idea how hard it is to move a 500lb human body without special equipment!? FOR REAL!?), so in order for it to be realistic, and suspend my disbelief that your question is serious, you need to provide me with a realistic setup-- I have not only the 500lb human, but also the means to move them. (No, simply shoving the 500lb man will not make him move. At all.) The means to move a 500lb man are not trivial. It involves a hydraulic lift, because THAT IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY USED TO MOVE BARIATRIC PATIENTS.

While it may appear flimsy, that lift is made of heavy steel construction, and can take quite a bit of punishment. Jammed into the wheelwell of a bus, it most certainly will stop it. At the very least, tip it over.

It is MUCH easier to push an empty lift than a loaded one. In the time it would take me to load the patient into the lift, and move him in front of the bus, I could just as easily move the empty lift, and aim it for the wheel well.

If you are going to propose a metaphorical situation, propose one that has obvious problems resolved.

[itisnotlogical]

What I also love is how much perception they give you. You are all-knowing in these scenarios.

You HAVE to know that 500 pound man is EXACTLY what will stop a bus. You have to know that if you don't push the man that everyone on the bus will die. You have to know there are no alternatives... AND you have the ability to freeze time so you can calmly and collectively make this decision (instead of being in a total absolute panic... and thus NO ONE but a psychopath would ever push that 500 pound man)

METAPHOR

This is apparently and admittedly a simplified binary unrealistic scenario.  It's not real.
Finding some "out" isn't clever, it's avoiding the question.

Yet it's valid to say "in a real situation, I could find an out".  Maybe you will, always.  Are you SO sure of that, you can avoid addressing the actual question posed?  That's really up to you.

Well what's the utility of the question then? "How would you react in this made-up scenario that has nothing to do with the question we really want to answer? No, don't solve the scenario how you actually would in real life, we're not trying to figure that out even though that is the question we asked. We're trying to prove some hidden ethical point by means of a forced scenario." It's navel-gazing about nothing, and if anything encourages people to make bad decisions by slapping their hand and saying "NO!" when they try something that, you know, might work in real life and make the entire scenario moot.

It's like when people criticize any Internet-based thing by saying "Well, what if we didn't have Internet/computers/electricity?" I don't know, what if a meteor hits the building and kills us all right now? What if I hit my head and die tomorrow morning? What if there's a nuclear bomb in the Earth's core that destroys the entire planet? What-if scenarios and questions are useless aside from things that you can immediately test, because you can just keep adding limitations and restrictions until you get exactly the answer you want anyway.

[Rolan7]

MET A PHOR
(hehe, marathon pun.  But really, I feel like I've answered this)

When the dilemma is not realistic (Do you have any idea how hard it is to move a 500lb human body without special equipment!? FOR REAL!?), so in order for it to be realistic, and suspend my disbelief that your question is serious, you need to provide me with a realistic setup-- I have not only the 500lb human, but also the means to move them. (No, simply shoving the 500lb man will not make him move. At all.) The means to move a 500lb man are not trivial. It involves a hydraulic lift, because THAT IS WHAT IS ACTUALLY USED TO MOVE BARIATRIC PATIENTS.

While it may appear flimsy, that lift is made of heavy steel construction, and can take quite a bit of punishment. Jammed into the wheelwell of a bus, it most certainly will stop it. At the very least, tip it over.

It is MUCH easier to push an empty lift than a loaded one. In the time it would take me to load the patient into the lift, and move him in front of the bus, I could just as easily move the empty lift, and aim it for the wheel well.

If you are going to propose a metaphorical situation, propose one that has obvious problems resolved.

No.  The question is already incredibly arbitrary- why would someone tie people up this way, 5 on one track and 1 on the other?  Within sight of a switch?

It's
a
metaphor

I pray to gods you'll never have to face a choice between 1 person and many people, but you probably will, and that's the point.  There will be more factors, but everyone over a certain age should be able to face this question and have an answer ready.  No technicalities, no "This is just a dream" - that's cowardice, plain and simple.

[Neonivek]

Ok here is a WTF for you!

Remember the whole "If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a sound?"

If you thought this was simply an outdated question from a time where we didn't know what sound was... NOPE!

We knew about sound in the 1500s and this question? 1800s.

Mind you it is because people take it out of context, but it is surprising how long it lasted for something that sounds silly outside its prescribed philosophy.

It's
a
metaphor

No, it is clearly not a metaphor because the person you ask it to isn't expected to take it as a metaphor. They are meant to take it quite literally.

[Tack]

The utility of the question is to gauge deontological vs utilitarian ethics.
It takes something with apparently infinite value (human life), and then asks whether you would intervene and be part of an action which killed someone, thus accepting that your intervention was necessary to save four infinities, or if you would refuse to intervene because the act is tantamount to murder.

I'll kind of agree that saying "I'd find an option C" really to me is just saying "I'd freeze up"
Which, I'll be honest, most of us would anyway, regardless of if as Rolan says we'd already pre-justified our specific actions.

[Neonivek]

The utility of the question is to gauge deontological vs utilitarian ethics.

Which it doesn't do. Utilitarianism wouldn't side with murdering someone to save four people.

Mostly because it would lead to a lot more deaths and that there are always unknowns. Once you suggest that killing someone for a perceived benefit to multiple people and put it into action... What happens?