Print

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

[wierd]

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.

Moot.

I did not make the binary choice that the madman wanted. I chose a third option, that may or may not fail. Given that the delivery system is triggered by the timer, which is in front of me, the signal to trigger the delivery system originates in the room I am standing in. I have access to the system by which that signal gets sent. I can prevent that signal from being delivered, thus the consequence of not pressing the button never happens, and the room with the 5 people in it never gets the signal to activate. The timer reaches zero, and nothing happens, because the cable leading to the control in that room is dangling in my hand.

I have sufficient internal knowledge of electronics to quickly identify if the system has a deadman's switch feature, and either hotwire the signal, (prevent an open circuit, which is what triggers the unit), or not- (the system uses a closed circuit to activate), and prevent the circuit from ever closing. I can make that determination in the time allotted, or at least, am confident that I can do so.

This will prevent the room with the one man in it from getting gassed.  If the rooms gas, it is because the mad philosopher has an ace up his sleeve, and has manual activation buttons in the room he is safely sequestered in, and wants very much to see somebody, anybody, dead-- and wants to blame me for their deaths, as part of a god complex. In this circumstance, I would spit in his face, and say that HE is the one who pushed the damn button, and be done with it. I would take pleasure testifying at his trial when and if he ever gets caught.

[Tack]

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?

I disagree. There's nothing to say it would lead to more deaths and indeed there are always unknowns on both sides of the track. Which makes it all boil down to 1<4 - a utilitarian would flip that switch.

[Neonivek]

You know... why is it whenever someone asks you these questions...

It feels like... even though it isn't said...

That they are the freeken murderers in these situations?

Like... They personally tied the people up, or cut the bus' brakes, or whatever the scenario requires?

"Ha ha ha! I set up an impossible choice! Now make a decision, you are now responsible! Not 'I' the person holding the gun"

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?

I disagree. There's nothing to say it would lead to more deaths and indeed there are always unknowns on both sides of the track. Which makes it all boil down to 1<4 - a utilitarian would flip that switch.

Sure... if this track was the universe. Yet the question doesn't suggest that, it doesn't suggest this takes place in a perfect vacuum with no outside world. If it was, then none of these choices would REALLY matter.

The Utilitarian response properly thought through would be not to change the track. Saving one life in the short run, but many more in the long run.

As opposed to saying four lives now, and dooming more in the long run.

This is assuming we aren't given omniscience. Yet when you apply that to Utilitarianism it sort of breaks down a lot of things (Utilitarianism is a philosophy that relies on human beings making choices, rather then all knowing beings)

[wierd]

The solution with maximum economy, is the one where nobody gets hurt at all. The presenter tries very hard to state, emphatically, that there is no such solution, and begs the question to do it.

That is bullshit. The proper utilitarian response is to say that 0 < 1, or 4, and is the correct option.

Fuck you for saying it is wrong.

The BEST way to make this metaphor, is to state that the system has such a safeguard-- that the madman DOES have a button in front of HIM, and that he *WILL* press it if you try something unorthodox, and that the solution is YOUR OWN death. (Neurotoxin will flood the room YOU are in, leaving the other two rooms intact.)

I would still choose to attempt to save the strangers. I can make the rational choice to sacrifice myself ethically. I cannot do that for another, as that is murder to save myself. 

[Rolan7]

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.

I don't know what to say, except that I entirely disagree.
The situation is presented for judging morality in a hypothetical case.
It's plainly unrealistic, and it's not an IQ test... it's questioning what you would do if you had to choose.  That is obviously the purpose.

Again...  In real situations, a person had many other factors to consider.  Often in a short period of time.  So it's GOOD to know where they stand on this "issue".
Frankly, it's a non-issue.  The correct answer is simply to save the many over the few.
It's an illustration that choice shouldn't mean blame (though in our brains, it does).  We should save the many for the few, and we *shouldn't* feel bad for that.  Which, hopefully, let's us gradually recover from making such a literally horrible choice.

But the person who choose inaction over distasteful action?
Totalitarian and DEADLY regimes are based on people choosing that.

[Neonivek]

The solution with maximum economy, is the one where nobody gets hurt at all. The presenter tries very hard to state, emphatically, that there is no such solution, and begs the question to do it.

That is bullshit. The proper utilitarian response is to say that 0 < 1, or 4, and is the correct option.

Fuck you for saying it is wrong.

You are sort of misrepresenting how utilitarianism functions. Sort of throwing it into the villainhole.

Utilitarianism KNOWS that no moral system can function purely in short-sighted number games. That would be psychotic and humans are too flawed, our knowledge too limited, for that ever to be functional.

To admit one could argue that saving 4 people is the better choice using utilitarianism... but then again one could argue it using deontological reasoning as well (That the person on the tracks isn't being "murdered" because he is part of the same trap)

But the person who choose inaction over distasteful action?
Totalitarian and DEADLY regimes are based on people choosing that.

AND now you hit why I said it isn't a Metaphor. Suddenly this entirely separate situation applies.

[wierd]

In the circumstance of the totalitarian regime, there is another choice.

1) Do nothing, and save yourself, while another dies.
2) Choose which of a set of people dies, and save yourself.
3) Choose to die, for the valliant attempt to let others go free (even if it has a high chance of failure)

This is NOT a binary choice. Metaphors that try to force a binary choice, as a metaphor for this circumstance, are simply bullshit, because they are not metaphors for the circumstance at all.

The 3rd option is intrinsically always there.

[Tack]

The Utilitarian response properly thought through would be not to change the track. Saving one life in the short run, but many more in the long run.

As opposed to saying four lives now, and dooming more in the long run.

Gotta ask where these extra extraneous deaths are coming from.

0< 1, or 4.. Fuck you for saying it is wrong.

The pictured  trolley problem doesn't give you the benefit of thought time.
It's either flip the switch or don't. Third option = you froze and five people died.

[Neonivek]

The Utilitarian response properly thought through would be not to change the track. Saving one life in the short run, but many more in the long run.

As opposed to saying four lives now, and dooming more in the long run.

Gotta ask where these extra extraneous deaths are coming from.

Because you established a moral standard of strict adherence to greater people.

So what happens to a society that is willing to sacrifice as many people as possible so long as the "greater people" or "better people" are safe.

Versus one that goes out of its way not to harm another, even at the risk of others?

Which is more functional?

[wierd]

The solution with maximum economy, is the one where nobody gets hurt at all. The presenter tries very hard to state, emphatically, that there is no such solution, and begs the question to do it.

That is bullshit. The proper utilitarian response is to say that 0 < 1, or 4, and is the correct option.

Fuck you for saying it is wrong.

You are sort of misrepresenting how utilitarianism functions. Sort of throwing it into the villainhole.

Utilitarianism KNOWS that no moral system can function purely in short-sighted number games. That would be psychotic and humans are too flawed, our knowledge too limited, for that ever to be functional.

But the person who choose inaction over distasteful action?
Totalitarian and DEADLY regimes are based on people choosing that.

AND now you hit why I said it isn't a Metaphor. Suddenly this entirely separate situation applies.

The point is that when given a circumstance where all expected outcomes are suboptimal, from a utilitarian point of view (maximum economy is total salvation), the path that has the least loss of economy is the correct one.

In the circumstances presented, I have provided alternative solutions that retain maximal economy. In the circumstance where the examiner directly intervenes (more in line with totalitarianism) should a 3rd option be exercised, choosing the self-sacrifice option is the least dubious, because I am able to make that choice for myself, without compromising another person.

[Tack]

The Utilitarian response properly thought through would be not to change the track. Saving one life in the short run, but many more in the long run.

As opposed to saying four lives now, and dooming more in the long run.

Gotta ask where these extra extraneous deaths are coming from.

Because you established a moral standard of strict adherence to greater people.
So what happens to a society that is willing to sacrifice as many people as possible so long as the "greater people" or "better people" are safe.
Versus one that goes out of its way not to harm another, even at the risk of others?
Which is more functional?

In utilitarian ethics, the former, hands down.
'Better people' is something you threw in as a trick question. Nobody is 'better' because all lives are priceless. Greater average/total happiness = right. Lower average/total happiness = wrong.
Also, Deontology is the one which makes the standard of 'assume everyone else adheres to this morality'.

[wierd]

No. In the case of the train, I would pull the lever. (expected.) I would ALSO yell, to attempt salvation of the 1 human on the track, in the attempt to reach optimal solution (0 fatalities).

There is no freezing there.

The examiner simply disqualifies this solution, because "reasons" surrounding confirmation bias.

[Tack]

The dude is tied down.
But there. You flipped the switch, and now we know.


I do actually know a fair few people who have decided they would not flip the switch, and their ethics adheres to that as well.

[Neonivek]

Mind you a real cheat here is just to consider them all part of the same trap... instead of being on two entirely separate situations.

It immediately deconstructs the question and renders it moot.

The dude is tied down.
But there. You flipped the switch, and now we know.

And you wonder why I say it sounds like your the actual murderer?

"No no no, my plan is flawless he can't get out. YOU KILLED HIM! Not 'I' Tack the Oil Baron"

[Tack]

Okay, you consider them all part of the same trap.
You still happened to come across it and are within arm's reach of the lever.
What do you do?