This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Trolley dilemma
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Laihendi
You were asleep. If you could prove you were asleep you have no problem and it wasn't your fault.
But what if you
intentionally
steered a trolley into someone and killed him while you were asleep and dreaming of doing what you did?
If you are asleep how do you do that? Your brain is shut down.
Edit: And I believe Ciabli is correct. Doing likewise.
Your brain is still very active when you're asleep.
Post by
twitch77
I think there are only two "moral" options here. In both cases, you either throw yourself infront of the trolley - or do nothing.
and honestly, of these two "moral" options, doing nothing is clearly the only one that makes sense.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think there are only two "moral" options here. In both cases, you either throw yourself infront of the trolley - or do nothing.
How is doing nothing
moral
?
Post by
374287
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think there are only two "moral" options here. In both cases, you either throw yourself infront of the trolley - or do nothing.
I agree with you here victory.
The least wrong choice (since there is no right choice) is to do nothing. I'm not god, so who am I to choose 1 life over another.
You don't have to choose a person's death in order to flip the switch.
Post by
351418
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
By flipping the switch I just sentenced the one person tied to the tracks to death.
No you didn't. That would only be true if flipping train switches had a direct correlation to people dying.
Him dying is a
consequent
of the action, not an
end
.
Yes 1<5 but who know that one person might have contributed more to the world the other 5 combined.
Don't argue against something I never brought up. I never mentioned numbers.
I did not deny it. It's intellectually lazy to appeal to something without giving a reason.What the heck are you talking about? If you have two consequents, of course you can call on DDE. Instead of actually arguing against the point, you're entire argument is that "I'm intellectually lazy" for using it. Get over yourself.
Post by
mixter
I think there are only two "moral" options here. In both cases, you either throw yourself infront of the trolley - or do nothing.
I agree with you here victory.
The least wrong choice (since there is no right choice) is to do nothing. I'm not god, so who am I to choose 1 life over another.
You don't have to choose a person's death in order to flip the switch.
By flipping the switch I just sentenced the one person tied to the tracks to death.
Yes 1<5 but who know that one person might have contributed more to the world the other 5 combined. We just don't know and that’s why its not our place to make that choice.
I think the only right choice (which wasn't an option) is to sacrifice your self to save every one else.
You're just making it more complicated
So if i choose the 5 how do i know if they won't die the next day from something else?
and if i choose the 1 what if he becomes insane and kills me and thousands of other people?
what if he takes my cookie? =*(
it's a simple question: save 1 person or 5 people
you are arguing that that 1 person could contribute more , well in that case , those 5 COULD contribute more but you DON'T know that so i think the right choice is saving the 5 people
EDIT: this is assouming you can't sacrifice yourself for all 6 of them , in which case that would be the moral choice
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You have three options:
a) kill 30 people
b) kill 25 people
c) do nothing
Your choice. I think that would be moral to do nothing.
That's called
a
moral.
In this scenario it chooses just as much as pushing a person to the rail-tracks.
No, it doesn't. If the person wasn't there on the other track would you still flip the switch? Yes.
If there was no one to throw, would you still throw someone? Obviously not.
Means and consequences are two different things.
Would it be ok to open the tiger-cage?
Would it be ok to leave my gun to the table?
Seeing as there are no other circumstance that you found worth mentioning, then both of those are completely amoral.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, it doesn't. If the person wasn't there on the other track would you still flip the switch? Yes.
If there was no one to throw, would you still throw
some
one
? Obviously not.
Means and consequences are two different things.I would throw a rock.
Post by
TMSama
Or, alternatively, you could crash a car into the trolley before it reaches the track switch, potentially injuring yourself, but saving everyone.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, it doesn't. If the person wasn't there on the other track would you still flip the switch? Yes.
If there was no one to throw, would you still throw someone? Obviously not.
Means and consequences are two different things.Seriously I don't get your point. If there was no switch to flip, would you still flip it? Obviously not.
Exactly. A means is different than a consequence.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Exactly. A means is different than a consequence.No, flipping the switch causes the death of one people who wasn't involved on the scheme (
the trolley was heading for the 4 people
). Also pushing a person causes the death of one people who wasn't involved on the scheme. If you consciously make these decisions, you have committed a murder, and here the law says that there's no excuse for murder.
Law has absolutely nothing to do with this. Stop dodging around the issue.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
It does if his morals are based on the law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_law
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.