Weekly Moral Dilemma Debate!

You're rolling down the side of a mountain in a trolley car at unbelievable speeds. You obviously lost control sometime before hand, but now you're on a roll . . . to the bottom of the cliff. You reach the bottom of it safely, but your momentum is still very high from the fall downwards, and you notice that just a few yards ahead are five construction workers right in your path. You know that, if you collide with them, they will die. However, you spot with your eyes the railroad splitting, and, upon the other tracks, you see that there is only one construction worker there, and you have the capacity to switch over to those other tracks. Now, what would you do, if you were the person on the trolley car? Would you die along with those five, or would you intentionally switch tracks and hit the one person?

I'm not sure if we can make oddball "what if's" in the parameter's but I'll stick with what you gave me [image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/tongue.gif] so the choices are knowingly killing 5 or 1, including yourself on both? is there a chance to hit the breaks here? or trying to yell and scream at them to move? lol man, what a decision huh? what about jumping off the trolley and letting fate do its thing with the path the trolley takes? at least you wouldn't be on it as it killed them, but i guess you would know where it was headed anyway if you didn't move it to the other side of the path? who the hell was driving the damn trolley in the first place? *sigh* what an F'd up situation lol If I was on that trolley I'd be scared sh**less, and probably do nothing. But I guess if I had the choice I'd probably kill the 1 construction worker, and on the way to where ever you go when you die, I guess I'd have to explain to him why I made the decision I did, and then again to whoever I have to atone to in the end. My god has to throw me a freakin bone on this one, and level with me. Sure I knowingly and inadvertently killed someone and myself but at least its better than knowingly and inadvertantly killing 5 people and myself right? Maybe i'm just not thinking outside of the box on this one...

Now thats a philosophical question if i ever saw one. As i take it,the options are 5 deaths against one.Either way you are still gonna hit somebody.Most i say would choose to jump to the other track.But what most would fail to notice is that by doing so,you have more intent to kill.If you choose the five its all accident because that the natural course.In that particular circumstance,you would have hit the 5 guys "naturally" but if you switch tracks,you have commited yourself to intend to murder that one to save the five. Food for thought huh?Well in the end i would choose the one myself..because of its just more "better" that way.5 lives for one.I am no matyr or anything but its just the choice i would make in that split second i have to decide if i was in said situation.

Is this a trick question?[image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/heheelq7.png] Well if i was caught in that particular situation and there was no other way to avoid it then i would choose to switch tracks to the one with one person on it.Both are not ideal situations since there is a possibility that either way may lead to death but i take my chances with one death rather than 5 deaths on my conscience.

Ah I rmb a similar situation in a lecture about the origin morality and a book by Richard Dawkins. Rationally one would do the math and take one life instead of five. Yet emotionally one would feel that it is wrong to intentionally take a life away. I rmb a more demanding situation. You are a doctor. There are five dying patient that need organs urgently. There is a homeless man sleeping in the hospital corridor who has the organs needed to save these five patients. What would you do in this somewhat similar scenairo? Let the five patients die? Or kill the homeless man to save the five?

Quote: Originally Posted by Izumi168 View Post (http://animeforum.org.uk/showthread.php?p=390235#post390235) Ah I rmb a similar situation in a lecture about the origin morality and a book by Richard Dawkins. Rationally one would do the math and take one life instead of five. Yet emotionally one would feel that it is wrong to intentionally take a life away. I rmb a more demanding situation. You are a doctor. There are five dying patient that need organs urgently. There is a homeless man sleeping in the hospital corridor who has the organs needed to save these five patients. What would you do in this somewhat similar scenairo? Let the five patients die? Or kill the homeless man to save the five? That's also a valid question. The main point to this is to have you start to question morality, and what it is comprised. Is morality determined by the outcome or the action itself? If you side with the outcome, then you would be a utilitarian. You would believe that you should turn towards the one person rather than endangering the five, because you would kill less people. The ancient world was basically built upon utilitarianism. However, one of the questions a utilitarian might have to answer is whether it was right or not for the Romans, for example, to throw the Christians to the lions in the stadiums. The Roman justification for that was indeed because the audience enjoyed it, and their interests far outnumbered that of the fighting Christian that was being tormented. If you believe that morality is determined by the action itself, then you are a categorical believer. You would not turn the car to kill the one person, because your turning the car is an action on your part to kill somebody. That would be categorically wrong, no matter how many you would kill. One of the questions that a categorical believer would have to answer, however, is what they would do in this hypothetical situation. Let's say that an atomic bomb was implanted in a city of a million people, and only one person knew of how to disable it as the person who planted it in the first place. The bomb will go off in thirty minutes. Would it be right to torture the person in that situation, in order to save the lives of a million, or can torture never be allowed, because it is categorically wrong?

So every week (or whenever the discussion dies) I'm going to try to post up a new "moral dilemma". Some situations might not even seem like a dilemma, but anyway, the question you will be debating is why they are dilemmas and what would you choose if you were put into the situation, and why. Okay? Good! I'll make the first one simple. The Situation The Overcrowded Lifeboat In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

Great idea.[image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/smile.gif]for a thread. I think he should have waited until he really had no choice as things can change at any moment. Also maybe some people would have decided to die to let others live. Why should it be his decision. Although he thought they needed to row a lot , it may have been possible that they came to an island or a rescue boat earlier than expected. In the end up it may have seemed to be the only action to make people survivie but he obviously wasnt gonna pick himself. Yeah a difficult argument but I think technically what he did would be classed as attempted murder. But it was good they got to help and people were rescued.

It is essentially the same dilemma as that of that stranded island-cannibalism story. Is necessary action a right? Quite frankly, that is only justifiable through the theory of randomness. The captain would have only been allowed morally to do this, if the results of whom was to be sacrificed was randomized, and the people have to enter into that willingly. Otherwise, as we can see, the captain chose whom to throw overboard in a discriminatory fashion. He made value judgments of them. He was only there for essentially himself, because he didn't even consider the chance that he himself may have to be thrown overboard. His intentions were faulty, and his methods were selfish. I would vote guilty.

Oh well, the captain is in a huge dillema. No matter what he do, he will always be held responsible. The fact that the ship happen to sunk had already rest on his shoulder. He is already held responsible for the death of the people who could not manage to reach the lifeboat. He is just trying his best to ensure that there will be survivor. It is better to save some than to save none. We can't save everyone, we aint superman. I'll still vote guilty as it is his duty to bring all his passenger safely to their destinated port and he fails to do so, resulting the death of so many people.

I won't do it. Everyone in the camp have extremely low chance to survive anyway. Let him kill all he want, he is going to do it anyway. He just need to find an excuse to kill everyone. The problem is how can you trust the sadistic guard who might hold empty talk with you. There is no way to trust the sadist that might back his word. Hell no, he might just lie to you to torture you. He might just kill another prisoner after you killed your son. He can just lie! He have no obligation to hold his words.

Knowing that this was a power crazy guard and that my son was going to die either way, I would tell the guard that I volunteer to be the other innocent prisoner because there is no way that I could pull the chair out from under my son's feet, causing his death. I'd rather die by his side.

Quote: Originally Posted by Dragonlady View Post (http://animeforum.org.uk/showthread.php?p=459964#post459964) Knowing that this was a power crazy guard and that my son was going to die either way, I would tell the guard that I volunteer to be the other innocent prisoner because there is no way that I could pull the chair out from under my son's feet, causing his death. I'd rather die by his side. There's an angle I didn't consider, Dragonlady, but then I'm a pro-active S.O.B. Still, effectively speaking, even the small variation in our answers does not make them dissimilar- we'd both end up dying by our children's side.

I wouldn't trust the sadistic bastard. Either way, the guard would kill many more people than just your son. I would never willingly take my child's life. The guard would most likely kill all the others, including yourself, even if you pulled the chair. I would give the guy a piece of my fist across the jaw and give him the fight of his life if he made such a cruel game. Either way, I aint killin' me son. Oh, and I was assuming that you are not bound in any way, so I would give the guy a fight. I'd rather die by my son's side than take his life.

Ok, I'll pose one, as the sadistic Guard scenario has had enough coverage. To my way of thinking a moral dilemma has to have elements of both moral content, and likely outcome. To wit: While ice skating, both your child and a neighbor's child fall through the ice. The neighbor's child is slightly closer to you, and the ice isn't quite as thin as it is further out where your child is. While neither attempt at rescue would be a sure thing, the chances of saving the neighbor's child are slightly greater than trying to save your own. And you have to hurry in your choice, as both grow weaker due to hypothermia, and won't be able to hang on to the edge of the ice much longer. What do you do?

Quote: Originally Posted by stahlie View Post (http://animeforum.org.uk/showthread.php?p=466140#post466140) Ok, I'll pose one, as the sadistic Guard scenario has had enough coverage. To my way of thinking a moral dilemma has to have elements of both moral content, and likely outcome. To wit: While ice skating, both your child and a neighbor's child fall through the ice. The neighbor's child is slightly closer to you, and the ice isn't quite as thin as it is further out where your child is. While neither attempt at rescue would be a sure thing, the chances of saving the neighbor's child are slightly greater than trying to save your own. And you have to hurry in your choice, as both grow weaker due to hypothermia, and won't be able to hang on to the edge of the ice much longer. What do you do? Ohh this one is dicey Sir.[image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/tongue.gif] But if you ask me,i try to save the one closest to me first.Even though its my child futher out,there is a higher chance of me saving the closer one first and in the process make it easier to dive in a second time for my child.If i went for my child first,on my return trip,i would be distracted mentally and the neighbour child might prove an "obsticle" on the way back. Even though,fundamentally my child is more important,the chances of survival for both is higher if i went for the closer one first.

I completely agree with the Captain's decision. It was the logical thing to do, not the moral thing. If the more in question is "allowing others to die is unethical," then the moral decision would have been to attempt and save all 30 passengers as he had no evidence that they would have died should he have kept them all on board. If this is the case his decision was immoral. However, it was the decision that produced the greatest odds of survival and if the more was "it is unethical not to preserve life" paired with the value of one's own individual life, then his decision was moral. In either case I believe he made the correct decision.

Wow! There are some pretty morbid people on this site...I love it. [image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/happythmb0034.gif] In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 -- the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty?

Quote: Originally Posted by OrdinaryBrokenHeart View Post (http://animeforum.org.uk/showthread.php?p=468769#post468769) Wow! There are some pretty morbid people on this site...I love it. [image: http://animeforum.org.uk/images/smilies/happythmb0034.gif] In the novel Sophie's Choice, by William Styron (Vintage Books, 1976 -- the 1982 movie starred Meryl Streep & Kevin Kline), a Polish woman, Sophie Zawistowska, is arrested by the Nazis and sent to the Auschwitz death camp. On arrival, she is "honored" for not being a Jew by being allowed a choice: One of her children will be spared the gas chamber if she chooses which one. In an agony of indecision, as both children are being taken away, she suddenly does choose. They can take her daughter, who is younger and smaller. Sophie hopes that her older and stronger son will be better able to survive, but she loses track of him and never does learn of his fate. Did she do the right thing? Years later, haunted by the guilt of having chosen between her children, Sophie commits suicide. Should she have felt guilty? Hmm now thats another tough one.I did think she made the right decision however,she is correct when she believe that an older and stronger person has a better chance.She had to chose either way,so its was safer to assume an older person has more chance in survival. She shouldnt have felt guilty,those things were beyond her control,what else could she have done?Well its easy for me to say but we are talking about her daughter,she technicaaly chose between her children who would live and who would die.It would take a person of incredible fortitude to live with themselves after such a choice.

The dilemma is if she chooses one, she denies the life of her other child which should be equally valuable. If she doesn't choose both children will die. I personally have no idea how I would act in that situation. Maybe I would try to find anther way like killing the guard to get out of making that decision. It depends on what ethic you are following. If I use the categorical imperative I am not allowed to make a decision because human life must always be the reason and never only an instrument. So you cannot make a decision. If you use utilitarism, you would take the son, because he has a higher chance of surviving and therefore it is the greater good if he survives and his sister dies. You could also argue that she should choose the younger child because she is younger and has more to see (this doesn't really make sense in this case because they're both children but it is the same principle as old man dies, young girl lives) If I would have been her I would probably feel guilty for making the decision, although as a third person I would say it is not her fault that her daughter died. It is the fault of the soldiers. Yes she could have prevented it but then she would have left her son to be killed.