Hypothetical moral Dilemma

squiffy · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:16

loopstah said:
Obviously if it was 5 strangers and the other was my wife then I would let the strangers die.

The only value people have to me personally, is based on their importance to me.

What if 100 strangers were on the track? Would you allow 100 people to die just to save your wife? 1000?

Shmo · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:17

loopstah said:
But what if the five people were jobless scroungers and the other person was a world famous cancer specialist only days away from finding a cure?

Hah. I was going to post something like that, except in my version the one was a fit lass and the five were a bunch of chavs.

loopstah · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:18

squiffy said:
What if 100 strangers were on the track? Would you allow 100 people to die just to save your wife? 1000?

It depends if she had ironed my shirts that day or not.

Fireskull · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:20

Hehe all these replies, has anyone read the original post correctly

not a dig but the same questions keep coming up lol

SGCWill · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:25

loopstah said:
But surely your own life is of greater value to yourself than the potential achievments of someone else?

My life is worth nothing to me if I let self preservation stop me from trying to help others, while a slim chance of succesfully saving more than one life is still there.

Besides nothing is predetermined, in a situation like that, I may be able to save all six of them and live afterwards. Girls like hero's (At least I think they do!)

Lysander · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:29

aardvark said:
i think i would still be thinking about it when the trolley plows through the 5 people *splat*

Makes me think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWqqc6SsPvc

Jotun · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:37

I'd probabaly still try and stop the trolley, even though you say there is no way.

Zom · 17 Jan 2007 at 11:54

Yes, I'd rather one person died than five.

banja · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:00

You wouldn't be responsible for the one death if you did change the direction of the trolley, morally or otherwise. Not diverting the trolley would be the same as diverting, on moral grounds.

So simple maths, five over one. Sad for the one, but we all gotta go . . . .

ElRazur · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:24

Another "What If" themed thread....we must lack imagination lately.

I will do whatever comes to mind first in that kind of instance. If i tell you anything now, i might NOT do that if it happens.

locutus12 · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:29

Lysander said:
Here is an interesting moral dilemma that is a puzzle for Moral Philosophers. Some of you may have heard this before but others won't have done. Apparently there is remarkable agreement among people on what the preferred course of action is, and factors such as age, sex, religion, education, nationality etc have no influence at all on what people answer. It appears to be innate. What do you think the best course of action is in the following scenario, and why?

A runaway trolley is hurtling down the tracks toward five people who will be killed if it proceeds on its present course. You can save these five people by diverting the trolley onto a different set of tracks, one that has only one person on it, but if you do this that person will be killed. There is no other way to stop the trolley and save the five people. Is it morally permissible to turn the trolley and thus prevent five deaths at the cost of one?

you save the 5. Simple numbers, it isnt morally permissible, but it is logical.

A.N.Other · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:33

ruffneck said:
I don't think I could choose tbh, fate is fate and all that..

That doesn't make sense. If fate is fate, then how do you know it wasn't fate that made you switch the tracks to save the five and kill the one?

I would change the tracks and I would imagine that most people would do the same.

SGCWill · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:35

A.N.Other said:
That doesn't make sense. If fate is fate, then how do you know it wasn't fate that made you switch the tracks to save the five and kill the one?

I would change the tracks and I would imagine that most people would do the same.

Fate is the morons way of justifying a choice. at least thats my opinion.

A.N.Other · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:38

SGCWill said:
Fate is the morons way of justifying a choice. at least thats my opinion.

Well yes, I completely agree.

locutus12 · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:39

SGCWill said:
Fate is the morons way of justifying a choice. at least thats my opinion.

erm, no. fate is the justification for not making a choice.

D.P. · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:41

This problem is best state when the 5 people have a 1 in 5 chance of dieing thus probabilisticly either action over multiple trials will course the equal loss in life. However, on a single trial there is 4 in 5 chance of survival of the group of 5 if inaction is chosen.

In the simple form you have stated there is only one utilitarian answer ignoring extraneous factors.

DanTheMan · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:41

I'd do nothing and see what happens. Someone is going to die either way and there isn't much of a difference between 5 or 1 in the big scheme of things.

Reeve · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:43

i would save the 5. loopster you should consider this:
since there is 5 people on one track without knowing anything about them its 5 times more likely one of them could be the cancer specialist than on the other track with the one person. you cant really make any assumptions about the individuals on the track because you arent given any information

Docaroo · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:44

obviously no one has seen final destination - don't mess with destiny!!!!! arhrhghghaghoH!H!H!$"2221

It depends who the people are, 5 neds and I would get my camera out...

If the 1 person was someone I knew/family/friend/girlfriend/etc then the 5 would die... simple.

robmiller · 17 Jan 2007 at 12:46

Utilitarianism sucks, and I would rather kill five people through inaction than deliberately consciously and actively kill one person.

This isn't a "dilemma" for moral philosophers at all, BTW.

Hypothetical moral Dilemma

Capodecina