Re: Maemo Morality
 

5 is not necessarily greater than 1.

To think otherwise is a brutal affront to humanity - to suggest that an individual life is only worthy until the mob decides differently.

Those that toy with meting death to others may find it inspiring to consider their ideological bedfellows.....

Re: Maemo Morality
 

1.
If the area where the train track switches is a open field(if I can see the group of 5 and the1 person I should be able to see this as well) I'd pull the switch halfway to derail the train. after all the train isn't said to be a passenger train and the conductor and crew would half a higher chance of living then the people tied to the tracks.

2.
I'd go untie the people
3.
I'd go untie the people

:)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

i would unplug the box then let everyone out

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I would check his id first to see if he's a donor, if so I'd tell him the situation and ask him if he wanted me to save him or the people. If he's not a donor then I'd operate on him.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

a) i see zero religion. Power being granted onto one is realistic and legal. Looking at and issue from one angle only and dismissing it as bogus is the best and fastest way to ignore an issue.

b) By your measure of an innocent bystander, if I work at a hole in the street and you see a preoccupied driver flooring it towards me you will say nothing, since you are an innocent bystander. You are legally and morallly obligated to yell or push in any way you can, short of endangering yourself.

Innocent bystanding is for people who were there and could do nothing, like in a drive-by. If you could do something and you didn't just because, you might and should be responslible.

Standard N900 post appoligies.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

If he agrees there's no moral dilemma. You might be legally responsible for assisted suicide.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

i had written an extremely long, drawn out and detailed reply, (which was perfect, infallible, and it would work...) but pressed previous thread with my fat thumbs, (... but the earth was destroyed before she could get to a telephone and tell anyone.) i cant be bothered typing it all again so heres the bullet points-

1. why is everyone suddenly debating the legality? in this situation the legal consequences wouldn't even come to my mind, save the five, any procurator with common sense wouldn't even take it o court anyway.

2. the opinion of my peers however would bother me (no i'm not tagging my torrents with "i let 5 people die to save 1") i couldn't tell my family i walked away and let the 5 die for the sake of killing 1. i couldn't expect my friends to respect me if i told them i'd done that.

3. walking away and absolving yourself of any moral responsibility on the grounds that "well i didn't do anything" to me shows an inhuman detachment bordering on psychotic :P

4. the doctor and military commander analogies aren't as relevant. their professional ethics will have been conditioned. a doctor takes a vow to do no harm and should stick to it. a military commander can kill 600 people from 100 miles away who were completely uinaware before breakfast, and sit down to his cornflakes thinking its a good start to the day.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I actually would claim the opposite.

To say that 1 life is worth 5 is a brutal affront to humanity. Life should be equal.

As I said previously, no one life is any more or less than any one other life - even if you compare a sociopath to a scientist or great historical figure. They are both still equal.

The instant you have more than 1 life at risk for 1 life; the logical solution is to save as many as possible greater than 1.

Logic of course plays no part if you happen know any of the people; because there is no getting around the human factor that your family or friends are going to hold a higher value to you than random strangers. However, that still doesn't make the decision to save your wife and letting hundreds die (as an example) - the right decision. It does, though, make it an understandable one.

It would not be understandable to me if you were somehow in the position to save a hundred lives from a bomb or something else at great risk to a single someone else; and you just walked away deciding "not your business" because you didn't know anybody.. why should you care?

However, I wouldn't agree with anyone trying to say that you had a legal requirement to do anything.. I just personally think you should have a moral obligation too. *shrug*

Re: Maemo Morality
 

It's easy to indulge options in a forum discussion, but odds are in real life a person faced with these immediate choices would suffer analysis paralysis.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

This is possible. Especially someone that has never faced life or death situations before.

ETA: Also, one thing you learn about situations like this is the more you talk about it and think about possibilities of situations you are to be and decide before-hand your stance.. the easier it is to make a decision in those situations. So these kinds of debates *are* actually useful.