Re: Maemo Morality
 

the point at which you decide to ignore the problem makes you a participant, infact as soon as you observe the situation and realise you could make a difference you are a participant. being an "inactive" participant just means you lack the stones to do anything. and in this example yes saving five people is better than saving one, knowing more about them doesn't help, its one thing to do the maths with 5 equal lifes, another to start judging which lives are worth more than others

Re: Maemo Morality
 

And btw I would ask Jack Bauer as he's always dealing with these kind of situation daily for the last 8 days at least.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

On a serious note, I would choose to save the 5 people all the times.
Sorry man...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

lol!!!

that last bit made me laugh!!!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

The point at which you become aware of the situation you become a part of it. If you are aware of your ability to save 5 people then it becomes a question of costs. Doing nothing to save those 5 people when you are aware of a way to avert their fate puts some responsibility on you. Certainly not as much as the person who knowingly put the whole charade in motion, but you still have some.

The question then becomes, does the cost involved with in killing one person outweigh the profits of saving 5 people?

Simple moral economics.

But make no mistake, if you are aware of something, you are a part of it and thus share responsibility in its outcome.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Maemo MorTality

Re: Maemo Morality
 

If the brakes are out, how is the train going to stop when it reaches the terminus? The people on the train are alll doomed anyway!

Anyway, what if I carry a knife to cut the ropes with? (Not to mention dialling 999 on my n900 as I do so)

It's easy: I'd scoff so much chocolate that I'd become as fat as the fat man, and then interpose my podgy self between the train and the people on the tracks. That way, the only life lost is mine, and cadbury's shares rise through the roof.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Even this is a simplification.

I am quite aware that if I go to medical school and become a doctor I have a good chance to save lives. Am I now responsible for these theoretical lives because I chose to be a programmer?
More specifically, lets say I am a doctor. Should I wait by an unsafe intersection in the rain because there is a good likelihood there will be an accident there and I will be able to save people?
What about giving all my money to charity to help starving people somewhere? I choose not to do that. Am I responsible for them?

I am not saying I am not responsible at all in these cases, and I am not saying I am. I am saying responsibility is cultural. There is no universal right or wrong, even within specific morality.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Frankly, I find "not being a murderer" a far more reasonable and desirable goal than "being a savior".

In some way yes. But not as much as if you actively tried to affect the outcome of the situation. I know that the thought "I actively killed a man" would haunt me for life. "I refused to kill a man to save other 5 that would have died anyway if I wasn't there", not so much.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

There are a few million "reasonable" people behind every dictator...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

@festivalnut & mmurfin87 - you are both articulating the classic justification for "good samaritan" laws (there's an episode of Seinfeld about that).

The idea that inaction confers responsibility just as action does.

This flies in the face of one of the most important underpinnings of our concept of justice - mens rea.

This is why such laws are routinely struck down as being immoral, among other reasons.

The "good samaritan" concept is typically championed by those of a 'collectivist' persuasion, under the banner of 'social justice' - where the essential dignity of individual humanity is degraded into a statistical function, and people are no more than a herd to be administered with a view to balancing such a function so that an elitist societal ideal can be achieved.

Choose your bedfellows wisely ;)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

yes i definately find your reasoning behind it more valid (not that anyones reasons are not valid but you know what i mean!) and more what the original question is trying to evoke on a moral level. yet in this instance you are sacrificing the 4 extra lives based on semantics and how you will personally feel about it later. is that the morally right thing to do?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Funny you say that, beacuse dictators tend to be more of the "savior" than the "not murderer" type...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Godwin by allusion! Quite an achievement, sir!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

i'm sure i already called godwin earlier in this thread! 2 counts by page 5? perhaps the maemo community should just abandon philosophy!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

sorry i didn't know i wanted to bring about an elitist societal ideal! wouldn't valuing one life over five be more of a elitist thing to do?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Merely mentioning the name "Hitler" doesn't count. It is the comparison of Hitler/Nazism to some aspect of a debate in order to fallaciously drag down anothers' argument, that is at the heart of Godwin's Law.

I needn't have mentioned Hitler, but it seemed expedient to emphasize the actual point that the people you save may not be very good people, and ultimately cause more harm.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

That would imply I have some measure for evaluating their lives. I don't, and never claimed to. Therefore I cannot consciously choose to end any life over any other life. My rational participation in this scenario is not possible.

However, as I mentioned originally, if my child/wife was among the 5, then I do have a rational basis for evaluating lives - namely that the life of my child/wife is infinitely more valuable to me than any of the other lives, and I will act to preserve it.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

These tests are quite silly. If something like this ever happens in my life I would just flip a coin...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Will it Blend? That is the question.

I don't believe in no-win scenarios. /bites apple

http://lee.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/33.jpg

Re: Maemo Morality
 

and if you did have means and measure to evaluate they lives, you believe you have the ability or right to choose which is more valuable? and you could then conciously participate?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Awesome :D

Re: Maemo Morality
 

As a thinking individual, I have the ability to choose, and as a free individual, I have the right. I do not grant anyone else the right to dictate my choices, they belong to me.

My evaluation of life is subject to my morals, values and intellect. Nobody thinks for me, and I think for nobody else.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I've reconsidered my earlier decision to scream, and now think i would hold a poll amongst the potential victims, and let them decide, thus absolving myself of responsibility.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I agree with the "do nothing" answer. The number of people saved is not a criterion to base a choice on. The fat man could be about to cure cancer. You have no way of knowing or calculating the consequences of any response to the scenario. Cultivate your own garden.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

of course you can think and choose, as well as rationally debate, my point is that given the circumstances is it right for you to decide what makes one life better than another? i would not assume to think for you, but the statistical valuation of life seems to me weighed towards the elitist society you mentioned before a lot more than assuming every life is sacred and 5 should be worth more than 1.

oh and i know it takes more than just mentioning hitler, but saying one of the five might turn out to be him as a justification for inaction seemed close enough to me!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

lol there's no time to untie anyone, but theres always time for democracy! would you employ a "hands up" count? :P

still i see a 5-1 count in favour of taking action every time!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

How about if we look for women and children among the five?
And then we do a bit of socio-economic profiling based on their clothing and looks?

Oh, this is good too:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/i-w...an-into,17246/

Re: Maemo Morality
 

2 & 3: I would drop a piece of cake onto the tracks, so the fat guy would jump down by himself to get it.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Spontaneously i would have pulled the switch in the first scenario. But i guess i would be passive in the second two out of confusion.

I read the whole thread and i didn't like your first post. But your following posts convinced me to respect your opinion and were interesting to read.

What if we change the scenario for a little experiment. Say you are driving on the street and get rammed by a car. The impact was so heavy that you are now on the sidewalk and you are steering right into 5 people. You can't stop in time, but you could steer further onto the sidewalk and kill only one.

Would you still be passive and run over the 5 people? I don't know .. probably not. But what is the difference really?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

festivalnut, the point is that I am not deciding that one life is better than another, nor am I deciding that five is better than one. The information needed for any meaningful calculus is simply not there in the original pop-psychology conundrum.

The mention of Hitler was part of highlighting that you simply do not truthfully know that saving the five is 'better' than saving the one. Ultimately, the only remaining argument (save the five because there's more of them) reduces to an example of mob rule - that simple weight of numbers denotes righteousness. A horrible fallacy, and one that has enabled much historical evil.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

well yeah if theres a hot chick in there morality can go to hell!

yeah it was good, but i must be missing the relevence...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Well, it's all about semantics after all. For you, not taking action means actually killing these people, for me it just means not saving them, which is entirely different.
What's the morally right thing to do? Morality is a largely subjective matter, and while in some very clear scenarios there seems to be universal agreement (eg, killing a man, in a vacuum, is almost universally perceived as a bad thing), in most cases (especially in extreme cases like the ones presented) there is room for interpretation, semantics, and case by case analyses.
I don't think there is a right or bad thing to do, but I do know what would work for me. I don't claim to have the answers, in fact I don't think there's a right answer (actually those that claim to have all the right answers tend to scare the hell out of me :D)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

well democracy reduces to mob rule does it not? what does the alternative reduce to? i get what you are saying, i just dont agree with it. if i was the 1 on the track i wouldn't thank you for your inaction (although if i was the 1 i'm sure you'd be a lot quicker to sacrifice me! :P )

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Take the time to read some really tough moral thinking disquised as first-encounter scifi (some good geek jokes in it too):

http://lesswrong.com/lw/y4/three_worlds_collide_08/

Really: do it if you're actually interested in ethics/metaethics.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

So, what you are saying is that, say, the concept of quarantines should be abandoned ? There is no way of knowing if the cancer cure dude gets killed because of it or that the disease would not kill Hitler if left to spread. You're awfully close to fatalism :)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

It does indeed. I despise democracy. So did certain Founders of the USA.

Even though we do not agree, I've enjoyed our little debate. I'm going to go drink some beer in your honor ;)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

My friend brought up a good point when I asked him only #2... This man that is so fat that he will stop a train, how can you PUSH him?!?!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Except that you don't have enough information to make that decision. Based on the very limited information, one would have to assume that 5 people is worth more than 1 person, every single time. This is not necessarily the case.

What should also be taken into account, is who will have the greatest potential after survival.

Scenario 1, if the lone victim has a couple of doctorates, and is about to cure cancer, and the 5 people are babies/elderly people, it is logical to kill the 5 people and save the important person. These kind of games are fun, but they really aren't contextual enough to make a good decision.

Regardless, it has been proven time and time again, that most people would not do anything. When faced with a difficult situation, most people would not react, and stay frozen. They may have their hand on the lever, or just about to push the subject, but in reality, very few (less than than 1% of the population) would have the courage to make a decision. Even so, no matter what decision they make, they would feel guilt, as their action, or inaction, regardless of the outcome, killed at least a person. Not many can cope with that, and if anyone stands up and say "I could do it, and not feel any remorse", then I'm afraid you quite underestimate the power of your subconscious mind.

The obvious solution, in any case, is to make other people aware of the situation, as many as you can, and as competent as you can get them. In many cases, this involves calling emergency services. Who knows, they could stop the train through other means?

Source: Anyone who took a psychology class for a month knows this.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I would be very interested to ask this question to war vets who have actually killed people before. I think their answers would be statistically different.