Oldie but Goodie ! What is your response ?
A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
My response is a big , fat No!
Reasoning : Murder is wrong! Even self sacrifice is immoral. Shit happens everyday. I do not have to have blood on my hands at the end of the day , even a shitty one.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
I agree, and despite the setup saying that pushing the fat guy on the track is the only way its not right. There is always more than one option if you thought hard enough
nope there isn't.
In real life sometimes you have to make the hard choices because there are no other options.
What Outren said.
Given a hypothetical option between killing 1 man to save 100, or save 1 man and let 100 die? which would you chose between the two?
Morality is always a choice and it is subjective to the person and situation.
Also the answer might not have a moral answer like:
Saving 5 people from country A or choosing to saving 5 people from country B.
equally moral so none is more moral then the other.
So the idea that morality could possibly be objective is not only absurd but impossible.
@ chimp3 and anybody who accepts the challenge:
Just wanted to test how subjective morality is:
"My response is a big , fat No!
Reasoning : Murder is wrong! Even self sacrifice is immoral. Shit happens everyday. I do not have to have blood on my hands at the end of the day , even a shitty one."
I wonder if you would change your mind if:
1)The fat man was the one who planned the killing of those 5 people and was enjoying the show.
or
2) Those 5 people are your family.
or
3)The fat man has a disease and will die in a few days anyway.
or
4)All 3 above put together.
Since morality is subjective to the person and not just the situation, there could be different moral answers here.
i don't think this metaphor is important unless u are put in a position where you actually choose the life and death of people. Military command specifically
I detest these "forced choice" questions. That said, I would probably do nothing and be guilty of the sin of omission rather than the sin of comission. After all, the trolly could derail before the fatal moment.
He did not say the trolley "could" kill 5 people, but that the only way to save them is to throw the fat man.
I don't make a distinction between letting people die on purpose and actually killing them, both are actions of getting them killed, with the only difference of one requiring more effort for it to work.
Does the effort really matter for moral choices?
Your inaction is action of getting 5 people killed as a result of your choice.
Letting people die on purpose and helping for it to happen are usually equally immoral, even if they are not legally equal.
This is one such situation.
There are also situations where killing 5 people is more moral then letting them die on purpose too.
So the real issue here is not about the killing or letting 5 people die, but about the killing of the fat man.
Is killing a man moral under any situation even when saving lives?
Basically is murder OBJECTIVELY immoral?
Usually this is a theist apologetic bait for objective morality.
Hope my first reply was enough to answer this.
Nice try though :)
Jeff, sorry to rehash, but we've debated objective morality before, and I soundly lost :P. hoping for an addendum.
definitions of objective:
1. (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
2. based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings
3. philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world
I think if someone were to argue for a morality based on three, it would be incorrect. As for one, i think you can state one can develop a morality about divorcing personal feelings from attempting to achieve a list of goals, whatever that may be.
Objective and objective morality are not the same thing.
check:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Objective_morality
Objective morality is the claim that morality is not subjective to the person but that it is valid for all situations and yes"existing outside of the mind".
It is a solution to the problem of a 2000 year old book that dictates a moral code.
If morality was subjective to knowledge & persons then the moral code in the book would be outdated.
If morality is objective then the moral code does not change since it does not depend on the person's knowledge(subjective).
=God can only give a good moral code if and only if morality is objective.
That is why this huge hype and need for morality to be objective, which is BS squared.
well that is silly. also the name is silly. what u described is basically platonism
Yep it is, but that is the sad story of why theists want morality to be objective to the point of insanity.
They don't know they are insane and they expect us to agree with their insane claims.
So I'm having an ice cream on a nice afternoon, enjoying the view in this pretty valley. The trolley comes out of nowhere and heads towards people who are dumb enough to be hanging out on the tracks.
I am not going to commit murder to save these people and wind up in court on felony charges because I toss the fat man off the bridge to save them
So I'm legally in the right and morally in the wrong. It is not as though I am going to end up in hell for eternity for my inaction, but I could spend serious time in the slammer for my action.
It was a hypothetical with very limited options.
In real life you have multiple options and you don't know the outcome like in this particular hypothetical.
Morality deals with choices in reality not with the hypothetical.
"I am not going to commit murder to save these people"
Technically speaking you do not know if you actually throw the fat man on the tracks would actually save the 5 people, so it would be immoral even if you do save the 5 people because you killed a person in hope that it might save more lives risking the death toll to be 6 instead of 5.
Gambling with peoples lives is usually immoral.
"but I could spend serious time in the slammer for my action."
Yea you are right, thinking for yourself after the well being of others is what makes you a selfish person.
We all are a bit selfish and we all think of ourselves first, at least a little bit.
This is by no means an insult or something, it is how the human mind thinks.
Only religion tries to confuse this fact and use it to make us feel guilty of it.
So if you choose to end up in prison for the chance to save lives, you are doing the moral thing, not the selfish thing to do for sure.
Another thing to note, is that no one is judging here and what should be done, but we are discussing what is the most moral choice between 2 or more options.
Morality is only one of the factors that influences your choices in reality.
Discussing these forced choice questions is fine on a forum like this. Unfortunately, such forced choice questions are now being used to evaluate prospective candidates for professional job openings.
Now, if you want to discuss the validity and morality of such screening methods...
I originally did not care about all these technicalities until the theists came up with the claim and made me curious to find the truth behind this.
It is not an easy subject and is a bit confusing, i cannot imagine being asked such a question in a job interview though.
Even on this forum I had to edit and re-edit my post several times to make sure I delivered what I wanted to convey without much risk of misinterpretation and confusion.
If you are interested you can start by checking Sam Harris on the subject:
CFI-NYC | Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g
Also this is a famous moral question called the Trolley problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
The dilemma posed in the OP is so very similar to those faced by LE officers and the military every day...a decision that may result in the death of one to save another (or others), based on very limited data and options, and made in a split second.
@ CyberLN,
I agree that the moral position is similar. However, both law enforcement and the military are legally authorized (under appropriate circumstances) to use deadly force to save the lives of some at the expense of another.
I never denied that, alembe. I said the dilemmas were similar. LE officers are faced with the notion that they may have to use lethal force in the protection of others. My point is that they must reconcile that dilemma. Just because lethal force is sanctioned in some circumstances, the profundity of using it is not diminished.
cyberln, i thought those people had to follow a specific set of rules, and their personal morality did not play a role in making those decisions. am i wrong?
Of course their personal morality plays a role! How can it not? One's views on the use of lethal force, their moral stance on it, is there and cannot be driven away. Every work day, that person must face the notion that it may be the day they must decide if they will have to use lethal force. One has to be convinced of their own capacity to push the fat man or they have no business in the job.
There are certainly rules of engagement. However, any decision and actions belong to the person facing the situation.
Couldn't we just yell at the idiots to move off the tracks?
It is assumed they are blind and deaf..... or they are Christians which is basically the same thing.
I can hear them now, "Oh my! A trolley is hurdling towards us! We don't have to move, let us pray about it, and God will save us!"
Actually if they were real Christians they would say something like:
"Finally!! this suffering is ending, god is calling us and we will be happy to meet him with open arms in heaven."
moral decision:
Save the fat man, he surly understands and appreciates life more.
Edit:
reminds me of this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMaK6k4oZ20