>>57784 The idea is that by taking action to ensure the death of someone, even if it means saving more, means that you have essentially killed a person that 'shouldnt' have died. The lives you saved don't matter because you actively took one to do so.
I think its a crock of shit. But there always people out there willing to argue about bullshit
>>57784 I don't agree with him but he is saying it's not the responsibility of that person but by involving himself the situation becomes his responsibility because of his influence. He then becomes responsible for the death of someone even if it saved others.
An exaggerated example. Let's say right now you could save some lives if you stopped everything you're doing and flew to a third world country and spent the rest of your life working for them. You had the choice to let them die or involve yourself into their life. But the point is that just because that choice exists does not mean you are responsible for them. By not taking action you are not guilty for murder.
At least morally that's how our most of our society works.
>>57911 I didnt agree with him at all. I tihnk its idiotic to assume that taking an action would be evil. Its not immoral to do notihng, its not immoral to choose 1 over many. the only true immoral choice would be choosing to save the many over the one.
>>57997 again, i did not agree with that guy. i thinkthe idea that inaction is the 'moral' choice' its shit.
>>57997 Yes, it is action. Being aware of the situation involves me. But I can't gauge the right thing to do when each option harms unknown parties. For all I know my action would cause greater unforeseen harm.
>picture [we have to assume these people voluntarily availed themselves based on the picture] Switch the initial tracks to the single person dying, as they are all equitably at fault for having stood on the tracks. Assuming all the people are equal in all other values since we have no indication otherwise, preserve the most life you can.
Fat guy version: the guy didn't avail himself to danger, so he shouldn't be sacrificed like the guy in the initial figure. Also, that would get YOU out of the mens rea and actus rea component for murder; not the main point but it's there anyway.
>first video The most ethical thing to do would be to disable use of the machine; some could see you'd hold a duty to prevent the deaths that occur; but since the point is whether a copy is worth as much as the original even when perfect, maintain both being alive. This one doesn't leave a lot of discussion to be had, regardless.
>second video Assigning personified traits to animals is inherently flawed; attributing moral obligations to something with no mental capacity to understand the situation, and in which their reproductive cycle hinges on a lot of fucking spiders dying, kill the damn thing. They are meant to be killed by a large margin as predators with large offspring counts, because it keeps their food source availability in check with their own population. It's more ethical to aid in the process of culling the population to maintain their numbers for the sake of continuation.
Aaaanyway, first experience with ethics was when I was 6. I was diagnosed with psychopathy, but I'm non-violent and had private classes on how to work with empathy oriented environments. I had to learn formal ethics around that age and for years on, so I can understand how it works with most people; I get told I'm kind of mechanical in ethics but you work with what you have.
>>58579 >the needs of the many over the needs of the few Yeah, but you could see it as population control if people are standing on a train track, which helps the many in a way. Too many factors to decide whats right. Taking a shot in the dark just seems reckless and irresponsible.
>There are literally people who believe that allowing others to die by inaction is not unethical
I will never understand this. In my view every person has the moral obligation to preserve the maximum amount of human life wherever it makes sense. So in the train example you are obligated to flip the switch or push the fat guy.
Just because you killed one person doesn't negate the fact that you saved five others. That's a net gain in human life.
Edgelord/reality answer: It doesn't matter either way, ethics is a construct, there's no metaphysical right or wrong and which is the ethical choice would depend upon the society you live in and who's judging your actions.
Utilitarian answer: Depends on how wide their social circles are and what they're contributing to society, for the top it looks like the single guy could possibly be some type of teacher or researcher so it's a bit of a toss up if his societal contributions outweighs the societal contributions of those on the other track and how much grief his death may cause in comparison to the group of 5. For the bottom one, push the fat fuck as the annoyance and disgust he causes from having to be looked at every day should have made it so he's already been killed just to minimize the long term suffering he caused.
If it was actually happening for real answer: Depends on the context around the situation obviously, I'm guessing in all likelihood it would result in inaction due to me freezing up. I wouldn't have time to contemplate it ethically.
>>58933 first off I'll say bluntly that not all human life is equal, you're gambling that those five lives are worth more than the one. It's easy to give a situation where you want to save the one life. Lets say the one person is a widow and has two toddlers under her care. If she dies they will be sent to some orphanage. And the five others are drug dealers that will continue to live as they have before. Are those five lives worth more than the one? Do those five drug dealers deserve to live more simply because it's 5vs1? What gives you the right to make that call? Why should you be the person that has to make this call, is the scenario your fault?
A human only has an obligation to himself. I do not have any obligation to save others, if I do so it's my choice. I also don't have any obligation sacrifice my well being simply because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, society does not work that way it never has.
>>57218 Without knowing any specifics and we assume all of the people in the image are blank slates who contribute an equal amount to society, then saving the five would probably be the best choice. But you never know if one of those five may turn out to be a murderer who kills ten people later on. The one may be a doctor who saves many more lives.
>>59180 >A human only has an obligation to himself. I do not have any obligation to save others, if I do so it's my choice. I also don't have any obligation sacrifice my well being simply because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time, society does not work that way it never has.
If you're in the U.S. or UK, you'd be wrong. There are plenty of situations and court cases in which someone has been harmed and other people, by either failing a duty found by the courts, or entering into a constructive conspiracy, were liable for the events that transpired. If a person could have, by reasonable means, prevented a situation, and they did not do so, they would be punished in the eyes of common law as well as various statutes concerning duty.
easy answer it is unethical that YOU as a singular person without authority decides who lives or who dies. You're not causing the train to kill those 5 people. But if you take action, you ARE causing the train to kill one.
The train is causing an accident, but you're committing murder.
You cannot knowing kill someone without the force of law.
Video 1: It pretty much depends on if you believe in something like a soul or some type of inherent uniqueness of personhood. Reality probably is the machine isn't unethical at all if you're recreating a person 1:1 to the smallest level as it's literally the same person. In something like an infinite timelines theory you could basically be the most current existence of this consciousness and you're going to die literally the next moment but another consciousness didn't meet that fate and gets to exist to read this part. Effectively it's the same shit.
Video 2: Lol this is dumb spiders don't have feelings or any concerns about mortality just squash it, it'll care just as much either dead or alive
>>59365 Human law does not equal moral law. Just because it's against the law does not mean it's immoral or vice versa.
>>59452 >the odds are stacked in the favor of the five Do you have anything to support that claim? Again you're making a call that you don't really have the authority to make.
>It comes from my opinion that allowing others to die by inaction is an immoral action But that's human nature. Hyperbole but do you do any charity? Do you offer your home to those in need? You could save the lives of others, is sacrificing a few hours a week not worth a human life? Why don't you spend every spare minute trying to help others? Is your personal life worth more than the majority?
Sadly this is the society we live in, and society says that inaction is not morally wrong.
>>59695 I wasn't conflating moral with human law in the first place, only showing that an obligation exists, placed upon you by society. You contend that society does not work in a way in which you hold an obligation, when society imposes a duty on you through law, negating your assertion.
>>59785 so you're a slave to your deterministic chemical instincts when it comes to preservation, food, sex and whatnot, but it doesn't matter when other's lives are at stake selfish hypocriticism, sounds like me and everyone else that has ever lived
As much as I enjoy Philosophy it kinda comes down to this, Philosophy is just the application of logic and if you follow the path all the way down it always just leads to that there is no inherent metaphysical qualities to anything and any randomness to the universe which would provide an answer outside of that would have to operate outside of logic and therefor operate outside the realm of human comprehension.
In the scope of ethics, philosophy can be useful applied to cases of law and medicine and business, but it's basically a case of applying an inherently flawed logical framework like Utilitarianism to the question which within the certain scope of it kinda gives us some societal moral bounds. Of course based upon your society you could answer those questions within the framework of Deontology or Objectivism or non-cognitive ethics.
Human happiness and preservation of life should be the ultimate goal of humanity as a species. In my view, consciously deciding not to act to preserve human life is almost as bad as killing them yourself. If you were walking across the bridge in the train scenario, unaware of the events unfolding then you're not at fault. But if you're aware of what's going on and you consciously decide not to help those five people then you are morally responsible for their deaths.
Just because I believe ethics work a certain way and that inaction to save others is immoral doesn't mean I have to necessarily act that way myself. People commit immoral actions every day, I don't expect everybody to be a saint. Would it be more morally responsible of me to fly to Africa and save the lives of starving children? Probably, but nobody's perfect.
That said I believe that your moral responsibility to help others is stronger the easier it would be for you to help them. Lets take the top train scenario where you flip the lever and pretend that there is nobody on the second set of tracks. So you could pull the lever and save the lives of the five people on the tracks. Is it still not immoral to pull the lever?
"The absurd … is an experience to be lived through, a point of departure, the equivalent, in existence of Descartes' methodical doubt. Absurdism, like methodical doubt, has wiped the slate clean. It leaves us in a blind alley. But, like methodical doubt, it can, by returning upon itself, open up a new field of investigation, and in the process of reasoning then pursues the same course. I proclaim that I believe in nothing and that everything is absurd, but I cannot doubt the validity of my proclamation and I must at least believe in my protest. The first and only evidence that is supplied me, within the terms of the absurdist experience, is rebellion … Rebellion is born of the spectacle of irrationality, confronted with an unjust and incomprehensible condition." Albert Camus, The Rebel (1951)
This was so fucking dumb. The music was cool, but the message was dumb.
>hurr don't kill spiders or pests because they may have families! What if a creature wanted to kill you?
Exactly! If I went into the habitat of a Lion or Shark, it wouldn't fucking hesitate to kill me. Not for food reasons, but because I'm seen as a threat. Why should I keep deadly spiders alive because "hurr families n shit"?
I live in Louisiana and we have a huge Brown Recluse problem. People die and lose limbs all the time because they put their shoes on and get bitten. I have no sympathy for spiders or bugs in general, and you shouldn't either.
I already said scenarios where the life of the one person could be more valuable than the lives of the five exist. But going purely by the odds, the lives are the fives are likely more valuable. I would make the same decision if it was two versus one.
Lets pretend there are 1000 people lined up on the train tracks about to get run over and you can save them by sacrificing one person. Are you going to tell me you wouldn't because of the off chance that that one person might be more valuable because could be the next Gandhi?
In the situation where you don't know for sure it just comes down to math.
>>59880 How do you gauge happiness? Why should preservation of life be the ultimate goal? There can always be more children to replace the people who died. They'll eventually die anyways.
Also if not preserving human life is as bad as killing them yourself, what about a case where you're the fat guy and there's no one else on the bridge? Should you be morally obligated to sacrifice yourself to preserve human life?
The trolley problem is often misunderstood I find. The answer to the first question is clearly that one should pull the switch and sacrifice the one in favour of the five. However the point is that a consequentialist would tell us that our decision to sacrifice one in favour of five is a moral *obligation*, and that if we choose not to get involved at all we have acted immorally, while others would argue that it would be morally permissible for us not to get involved at all
the fat guy off the bridge is usually only supported by consequentialist extremists and you can develop the problem in other directions until they crack and say that they would not push the fat man. Example
>fat guy on the bridge >one person on the track >somehow you are aware of the fact that the man on the track will produce a minute amount of general good more than the fat man will over the course of each of their lives >do you push the fat man? y/n
another similar example from Bernard Williams' Critique of Utilitarianism which I quite like is called "Jim and the natives"
I don't care about edgelord arguments where human life isn't important or it's population control or whatever. Every species has an inborn desire to continue the existence of their species. I believe in the sanctity of human life.
If you're the fat guy on the bridge I believe you have a moral obligation to sacrifice yourself to save the others. I probably wouldn't be able to make that decision myself but I still think it's the right thing to do.
>>60044 You are jumping way too off topic my man, we're not discussing the value of human life, we're discussing the morality of intervention in a life or death scenario. Your moral questioning can be applied to the question of whether or not it's ok to be a serial killer. The question assumes that the deaths of other human beings is seen as bad by those who answer it.
Whether or not it's your moral obligation to sacrifice yourself for 5 other people is also way off topic
>>57218 Why the hell would I assume that the people are completely unaware that they're on train tracks? I leave it alone and assume they'de get out of the way of the train in time because it's a fucking loud as shit train barrelling down the tracks and probably sounding its whistle as trains are want to do.
>>60018 I suppose in that sense the probability would be so high even I could justify making the decision.
But even so, those sheep really shouldn't be on the train track. And when I can't be sure of anything, I may as well disregard the math and assume those 1000 hiveminds aren't worth saving over the loner who broke conformity. He saw the train, got on the track he knew the train would not travel. However, he's a still a dumbass on a train track, so why save anyone at all. Just let whatever happens happen I say.
>>57725 It doesn't save the five people on the train train track, the excess food the fat man was consuming will go to five starving african children and save them instead. Thus making the score 6/11 dead.
>>60512 And another thing, wtf does pushing a fat guy off a bridge have to do with stopping a train? Srsly, WHAT?
"zomg I couldn't brake in time to save those faggots standing in a circle trying to figure out the guage of the tracks but now that I ran over this fat guy that fell in front of me I think I can just about manage it!"
Is that the gist of it? That's fucking dumb, why don't I open my fly and just piss on the fucking train? Why don't I shit in my hands and fling that fat turd as hard as I can. That'll make the stupid bastard that should have been watching the tracks DO HIS JOB.
>>60689 Although admittedly, I'd look pretty fucking dumb if I just dropped my pants and started shitting into my hands in the middle of a bridge and then didn't make it.
Train splatters five retards as a fat guy gawks at it whiles some random asshole is just squatting one out on the bridge in full view of the tragedy that just unfolded before his eyes.A twisted expression on his face as his chronic constipation killed innocents.
>>60725 The man depicted in that image is clearly not fat enough to stop a god damn train and to be entirely honest I don't know that any fat man that would be capable of walking over a bridge would also be capable of stopping a train with his sheer girth.
>>58933 Read "Can Life Prevail?" by Lenti Pinkola. There's way too many humans with high living standards, it strains the environment, and with the coming years the humans with high living standards along with the population is going to increase. The more humans there are, the less valuable human life is. Also, this is just my opinion, but cities suck. More people being alive/born isn't always a good thing though. It sure is sad to see national identities disappear by immigration/war.
>>60745 >tfw I just got done laughing and reading this made me start laughing all over again
Nihilism is a fucking depressing ideology, but it's great to be able to laugh at how fucking futile everything is sometimes.
Anyway, this train of thought has been going on for far too long. Ethics is about more than action vs. inaction and moral obligations and all that jazz. Let's shift gears.
>You find yourself at the outskirts of the post-apocalyptic carcass of a minor city >Most of the population is dead >You yourself managed to survive whatever cataclysm that has befallen the city with no ill effects suffered, hale and healthy >Some time passes, and you're managing to scavenge and hunt for enough to get by >Soon enough you find yourself caring and providing for a small girl whose parents have died >Your relationship makes your life more fulfilling, but it's difficult to find enough food for both of you, and unfortunately she's too young to be of any real assistance in this regard >The world has become a dangerous place, too dangerous for a child to wander about >On a foray into the city to try to find food and supplies, you come across a makeshift shack >You approach the shack, but when you reach out to open the door a sickening crunch sounds and pain lances up through your leg >Your eyes snap down to see a bear trap twisted around your ankle >You know immediately that it's broken, or at least badly sprained >That's not your biggest concern however, as you hear the sound of a man screaming behind you >You turn around just in time to duck a large and heavy club aimed at your head >Running on pure instinct and adrenaline, you ignore your injury and tackle the man to the ground >Without thinking anything more of it, you pull the knife you have hidden on your belt and start stabbing until you run eventually out of breath >The man is dead, and you're covered in his life blood
>>61261 >Your ankle is still broken >You swear and cry out at the pain as you painstakingly release it from the trap >Luckily it was a crush trap, you think you'll keep the foot >However, no more hunting or scrounging for you, not for a while anyway >You open the door to the shed and start to crawl inside >The smell of rancid blood hits you hard and you nearly wretch on the spot >Propping yourself up on the doorframe you see a scene that looks like it's straight out of a horror movie >The butchered remnants of what couldn't be anything but human remains decorate the walls >Smoked and salted strips of human meat hang next to the stained red flesh of corpses impaled by hooks >Glancing back outside at the remains of the man you killed, it doesn't take long to put two and two together >You've just survived an encounter with a cannibal; you are now on the threshold of what used to be his home >Or perhaps it was just his butchery >The problem is, that you're injured and still responsible for feeding yourself and your new charge >You're confident that you can get back to your home base without too much trouble, after you make a splint with the ample supplies in in the shed, but after that you will have to be a homebody for quite while >No more hunting and no more scavenging, this will be the last trip you'll probably be able to make for a few weeks
I don't think I have to give any more exposition here. You guys are smart enough. You're a soon starving man responsible for a relatively small child who happens to be surrounded by strange meat. What do you do? If you return, how do you explain what's been done and what perhaps must be done to your charge?
Life isn’t just black and white, and it’s red more often than we might want it. Issues are often complicated and your choices have implications beyond what you might be able to conceive of immediately. Think carefully and make your choices before they make you.
I also believe that ultilitarism is the only solution in a globalized and growing world. Once we are this amount of people, it's only moral with the neccessary capacity. Pulling the lever is ulilitarian because it gives a net gain in human life, assuming the lives are all of equal worth.
A bit off topic, because it's been mentioned a few times ITT, is it true that if you knew a crime would take place or a life would be taken and you did nothing to stop said crime of murder, you are not accountable under the law?
That seems weird. More like following the letter and not the spirit etc.
Now on the topic, I would do nothing if it meant no punishment under the law or if doing nothing meant the same as doing something and I had no further information on what is going on then I would kill the few to save the many. And I would not kill myself to save the many unless the many were people I care about and even then I imagine that in that moment I might fall under the whole "spirit is willing but body is not" thing of instincts taking over and not letting me do something I want to.
Not doing anything is the right choice here.. If you change the natural course of action, you are effectively increasing the dumb to smart ratio in the population by letting live stupid people who think it's a good idea to stand on the railway track where the train is about to come who might be deaf as well.
Why the fucking train. Something like 1.3 m people die a year from automobile accidents. The train is portrayed as a deadly unstoppable force, when in reality it is one of the safest and most efficient modes of transportation. I am FURIOUS. Tell the idiots standing on the track to step six feet (two euros) to either side and let the blameless holy creature pass. Meanwhile cars come screaming through neighborhoods at 120 kmh (1283 furlongs per fortnight) to take out kids and people waiting at the bus stop without any warning or indication of direction.
What is the net worth of the single person on the track? What is the net worth of the five people? What is the net worth of the fat guy?
It's a fool's errand to entertain whether saving five lives is preferable to allowing one person to live. If I know that one of the five is worth billions of dollars, it may be beneficial to save the whole pack so that I can seek an award from him. I think that would be seen as amoral, but at least we've introduced a rational decision-making criterion. Otherwise I have no reason to take action.
>>61327 The idea that a child's life is worth more is based on the idea that a child has its life ahead of it as opposed to an adult. Depends on the age group though, someone who's barely 18 is hardly recognized as an adult.
Let's say the kid is 5 and the adult is 40. By saving the child, you're basically taking a gamble. It might end up being a mass murdered but could also end up being, I don't know, the future President.
In some cases, it will won't turn out like described, if the state/country you are in has some statute that specifies against a common law ruling. So, assuming it's English common law (UK/US):
It depends ;) by that, it depends on whether you were in a position to take reasonable steps to stop a murder. And in these cases, that's why we have jury trials, so rather than a judge deciding (as a "matter of law") you'd bring the question of whether you could have reasonably prevented the crime from occurring, or if you had aided and abetted in some way to make the crime progress forward. There's also the question as to whether you were committing a crime with the murderer at the time, but that's a whole other rabbit hole.
For a shitty example: if you were sitting in the house with A, and he lays a gun on the table and says "I'm going to kill B in one hour with this gun" and you didn't take it (assuming no other confrontation occurred), a *jury could find* that you did not take reasonable steps to prevent the crime. I can't stress the jury thing enough, because it's so difficult to define how to stop crimes without including the "reasonable" duty, so it's up to the interpretation of that sample of society.
Why can't these thought-experiments use questions that are at least mildly fucking plausible? A fat person isn't going to stop a train. Why are these people standing on train tracks in the first place? If they're tied up then what the fuck happened, is this an old western movie? None of this makes any sense.
>>57218 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.
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.
>>69934 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?
[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.