Re: Maemo Morality
 

This is easier because you are in fact dealing with probability here. The car might not kill all five, or the one. You would make your best guess. Probably the one. But if the one was your kid, probably the five.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

More mundanely, I think that surprisingly many people have made similar choices during the huge numbers of car crashes there are. They could probably be studied statistically. It would make an interesting dissertation.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Light up a joint and walk away...

It is very easy. In all 3 situations action = murder. Simple azat.

Depraved indifference isn't murder.

The classic Hitler question "If you knew in 1939 that Hitler would eventually exterminate 11 million people and you had the chance to kill him; would You?" is the same moral dilemma but the answer is also the same. If action equals murder than morally you should not act.

Inaction never equals murder.

'cus you don't know everything but, you are resposible for what you actually do.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I know who can answer this definitively...

http://www.marplescouts.co.uk/archive/files/precog.jpg

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Another way to look at it, is that your action would make Hitler a hero/martyr rather than a mass murdering bastard. In 1939, he had changed Germany's morale and economy, and inspired more people than most current politicians can only dream of. I'm not saying saying that 1930-1939 were extremely good years, but compared to what happened after those dates, it wasn't extremely bad.

Another way to look at it is this: If you had the opportunity to murder him when he was a child. In essence, you would murder an innocent child, as he hadn't done anything bad, and would never be able to.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

The point of the question is to see how you deal with your own choices. It’s easy (in a morbid way) as there are no good or bad choices, only the question is which outcome bothers the decision maker more. As crashanddie says, reality says most people will not react, but that does not imply it is the correct or moral way to do it.

A closely related dilemma that actually DOES happen (and to which people are being prepared to/talked about), is the case where the doctor(s) have to make a choice, for example with a pregnant woman who is heavily injured. The doctor can choose to save the mother, the child, or just be indifferent and do nothing, which will very likely (but not certainly!) result in the death of both. It’s a very sad decision to make and it’s very difficult to say indifference is the ’easy choice’.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

This thread only leads me to conclude two things:

1. Based on the responses, we need an ethical resolver application for the N900. Urgently!

2. Nokia doesn't care to ethics, thus PR1.2 is late.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Wow, I never made that link. Thanks!

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Eating babies is good.

Discuss (read the linked article first though).

Re: Maemo Morality
 

1) I would pull it. However I would first try to untie that one person. This act is indirect.

2) I would not push the 'fat man' as there is no guarantee he would stop the train....what is his weight? 1000pounds or something o.o....Even if I tried to push him, he would easily overpower me and I may instead be the one being thrown infront the train...

Also this act is direct, no way am I gonna willingly kill a man in such a situation. If I did, I would clearly be a cold and heartless bastard, with no regard for human life or anyone standing next to me.

3) Basically the same ans. as no. 2


Edit: I just realized that there is no true measure to the value of life, however life is to be highly valued. The one person separate person tied to the track would represent me. In this case I would have given my life to save the other five people.

In the case of the 'fat man', this fat man would also represent 'me', of course in this case I would not have liked to have been shoved unto the train tracks by some random person and of course I would have given up a fight.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Not recently, but I've seen Restoration....

<dalek>WOULD YOU CARE FOR SOME TEA?</dalek>

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I'm missing something, maybe, but on 1) I have a choice between killing 5 and killing 1? No time to untie means no time to get to know them, also, it's likely going to be a fast, pressured decision. Where's the moral dilemma in that? One would kill 5 to save 1?

Also, what is this about inaction? Inaction is tolerable when you are surrounded by 500 people and one guy smacks his gf upside the head. I'm not going to set things straight and frankly it's not like she's kidnapped. She chose him.

But really, you're the only one there, and you have the switch. Whatever happens rests on you. This is not the time for inaction. If you don't act, you've killed 5 people by yourself and your inability to make a decision. If you do, you've saved 5 and the one that died you didn't kill. They guy who tied him to the tracks did.

How is throwing the switch murder? Is the second to last piece in a domino responsible for the setup collapse?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

@ndi: your decision and action affects the situation.

What about these two situations:

1. You're standing right there and the switch is already in your grip.

2. The switch is located about 30m away and you have to run like hell to throw the switch in time to affect the crash.

Does that make the situation any different?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

[Spock]Sometimes, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many [/Spock]

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Hmm. I can see no difference other that i would have less time to think about it in the 2nd case. Can you please elaborate on why it would change something for you? Given that your opinion differs.

IMHO it's the outcome that's important.
And while I wouldn't dare to contradict Spock ... ;)
What he said is is not reason to let five people die for one if you don't know them all.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

3. What if the lever is guarded by a guy who you need to kill first, before you can flick it?

By your math, you'll still be up 3 lives for the 2 you've forsaken. One will be killed by a flick of the switch, the other you'll have to kill by gun or knife.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

stop adding "what if's" until it swings an opinion! what if it was 10 people on the other track? 100? 1million? you still want to get to know their life stories before deciding to actually make a choice?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

In terms of this, firstly the issue of morality is debated ad nauseam amongst academics who have never had to save someone.

As a serving member in a maritime combat unit, we were taught that if an accident occurs, the value of the whole outweighs the value of the few; however, we are a unit and so every effort is made to save the few without endangering the whole or yourself but if it reaches the point where the saving of the few endangers the whole, then the few have to be sacrificed. Have i experienced this for real and in combat. yes and we were lucky.

Another morality question for the philosophists...you see a guy getting mugged by 5 others, do you walk on or go to his assistance?

The issue of your morality is dependant on the circumstance and occasion. Do you freeze/run around like a screaming girl/or take action and try to save someone?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

My decision isn't murder. People already died. It is now a question of how many. It's not like I have an option with chances, so I'd get 80% for 5 people. Whatever my decision is, a person is already dead. It's up to me to save the rest. While hypothetical, the question aims for a real resolution, not a "I'd save them all" kind of American directed movie.

So a person (at the very least) is already dead, killed by an unmentioned person by means of a train. Question now is: Do you switch the train and get 0 additional victims, or not switch and get 4 more?

How is this a dilemma?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

All three questions are identical in my opinion. The underlying point of the debate is:

Is 1 life worth many?

The answer to me is No. Granted, I'm human, and thus there is a certain weighted system I apply personally: Such as, if the 1 is my wife - you can stack up hundreds and get nothing out of me.

OTOH: Talking simply about strangers, I hold no imagination that I'm god. I do, however, have a logical mind and the way I see it is this.

The idea that life is priceless is actually incomprehensible because then obviously life equals other life. That is truly what it boils down, a mathematical equation. 1 == 1. No one life, at a fundamental level, is worth any more or less than any other life. Ted Bundy is worth no more or less than Albert Einstein. The operative here is what that life is worth to you.

Save 4 strangers; or allow 4 to die - I have a higher chance of getting at least worthwhile person in the lot of 5 :D. (although the reverse is also true, higher chance of saving a murderer/rapist/thief/general a-hole/etc).

To me, flipping the switch is worth it. Police Officers are faced with this sort or thing all the time.

Does a Police Officer shoot at a suspect who is armed and firing randomly into a crowd: Knowing full well that his bullet can miss and possibly hit an innocent bystander, including a child? IMHO - Yes.

I am also a former Military man and would not have survived without this mentality.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

well said! although as for the mugging i think i'd walk on bye, it wouldn't be easy because my first instinct would be to help, but i've known of occasions when a straightforward mugging where no one would have been seriously hurt (okay having your wallet nicked kinda hurts, but not THAT much), turned into a serious stabbing because someone tried to help...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Almost. :)

There is no true measure of the difference in the value of a particular life compared to another.

All life has value. Morally the value is the same whether it is 1, 5, or 11 million lives. The act of snuffing one out has the same moral consequences as hosing a million.

I would do nothing and live with that consequence rather than any of the other choices.
You have no control over a lot of factors and therefore can not predict the outcome with any certainty. Even if you could you are asked to make a value judgment based on what? How fat someone is?

What would change would be, as you suggested, if you were any of the affected actors and had the opportunity to make such decisions. Then, I believe your moral obligation is to do what you have to do in order to survive. But that's me thinking logically. I don't know if I would actually sacrifice myself for the good of the many.


The trap here is we are thinking if this then that. When there is a third choice... do nothing. "mu"

Re: Maemo Morality
 

There's a reason I believe in the United States Second Amendment and the right for citizens to bear arms and protect themselves. I consider that to be at the very heart of this "morality" discussion.

So, I personally, would take action (because I personally would have the means to) - and then have to deal with the fallout of the people that like to hind-sight/sideline quarterback high adrenaline and dynamic situations after the fact.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

No, that complicates the situation. I wouldn't kill anybody actively other than in self defense.
The first situation is relatively simple so you can give a short answer based on math.
But most real situations aren't that simple, so you know something about what happened before and who are the people and else.

I believe most people would apply math if they are forced to give a quick answer on the street. But they are totally disconnected from the situation. This being easily exploitable by warmongers makes it a good choice as propaganda material. :rolleyes:

@ysss: A slight variation. There is a blackbox with 6 people in it. And it has a knob that let's you choose how many people it kills. It has two settings, 1 and 6 and it's set to 6. Do you change it to 1? :D

Re: Maemo Morality
 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Unknown

;)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Morality and military training are not the same. The question is about a switch and no repercussions for a reason. What if five armoire-sized people are beating on <whatever> and I'm a little girl? What if I know they are drunk and likely to kill me too? Do I still render assistance? Knowing I have no assistance to give, am not trained nor prepared and going to increase the body count to 2?

I am not trained in combat, and if I see a scrawny guy abusing another I might get in on it. If they are large I will not. Morality of the situation is the same, with different results.

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for people who risk personal harm to save others. Note the word "risk", by which I mean non-zero change of harm. When chances of harm/death reach close to 100%, it's no longer courage. I don't plan on dieing with someone for the heck of it nor do I expect anyone to jump in to keep me company.

The only reason people help is because they think they have a decent chance of making it out alive. After all, if someone is mugged and you pull out a gun and blow your brains all over them that'd likely end that robbery right there. The approach is unpopular.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States. If you played a hand at all in who died you would end up in court. Either Legal or Civil, depending on the state/county you live in, who your AG is, and whether the family members of the one choose to Sue you for everything you own for killing their precious son/daughter/husband/wife/whatever.

EDIT: Actually, I'd venture even the family of the 5 could sue you if you were even *there* and did nothing... courts here kinda suck in that regard...

To the first: If their chance of survival is pretty much 0% and your chance to change that is greater than 0% is it not worth pursuing to at least have a chance?

As to the second I disagree: Nobody, usually, intends to get themselves killed by helping another person - but the moment you make the decision to assist you accept that possible outcome.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Indeed that is a possibility. In Europe chances of actually getting hung for this is slim (figuratively). In Romania, stuff like this happened a few times (including shot burglars) and each time the defender had no penal repercussions tacked.

They tried that too here - career burglar shot at night in someone's house. Sister argued loss of income. To my knowledge, no penalty was invoked. Also, general sentiment within the populace (the ones I hang around with at least) was the family should pay him the $2 worth of spent bullet. It's a bit of a half joke, still, people started exploiting the "ouch booboo" suits and law has changed accordingly. Could be a legend, but I doubt it. There were already-hurt people jumping in front of cars on zebras. Good luck proving that. Law was adjusted accordingly (previous law said driver has to slow as to avert any danger - unattainable).

Also, we have a different court system here, you're not judged by some bleeding hearts with zero training. As a side note, in the same spirit, getting hit by a car in a marked passing place lays full blame in all respects to the driver. Getting hit in an unmarked/illegal place reverses the situation so, at least in theory, once you* get out of the hospital you start paying for the fender. Don't know if it was ever applied like this.

It depends on chance though. As worded by you, yes. I'm not sure if the hole there is intentional or not. Let me rephrase: If his chances are 0%, and OUR chances are low, then no. I'm not getting in on the action. I have a threshold, even if not directly numerical. We'll arbitrarily call it 50%. If it drops below that, I'm out. I'll keep exploring other options, though, I might start making calls, drawing attention, etc. I'll just skip the self-rationalization of the whole shebang, but trust me, I have my regrets grounds covered.

Accept, yes. When you cross the street you accept the possibility you'll never make it to the other side. The chances are acceptable when light is green and cars are stopped. Chances are not acceptable when compressed traffic on 5 lanes is zooming 200KPH and you know that if you jump in, your chances in percent of getting out alive are sub-unity and getting out with a running brain and working legs just about null.

Though, this is a theoretical issue. So if your question is, in principle, if his chances are 0 and mine non-zero then no, as a rule I'll stand aside. Fifty percent, I'll think about it.

I have a grasp of percentages. Only in movies 3% chance is an acceptable risk and Picard just barely makes it. In real life, 3% means that if you*, your family and most of your close friends and colleagues all try in a row there's a good chance they all fail.

I have no intention of playing those odds.

*) Bleed from native language. By "you" I mean "one". Not personal.

Again, this is math only. In real life there's always a way to increase that. Just route power to the shields or something. Like running away screaming like nuts hitting all the cars on the way making an incredible racket.

Also, strangers only.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I don't know where here is, but in the U.S. there is actually many examples of people shot and the shooting being declared legal, but then the shooter getting sued by the family and losing everything.

Looking outside the US, you have popular cases such as Tony Martin who were actually imprisoned for longer than the burglars or thieves for shooting and wounding/killing the robbers. Granted there is controversy over "in the back", but the point still remains.

As far as the rest of your post I can say we mostly agree, it's just we have a different threshold of when to interfere. I don't necessarily need to see a likely chance of success, just a chance of success with a likely chance of not making things worse (worse not including me, but other people.)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Ndi
Posts: 524 | Thanked: 192 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Bucharest

Tony Martin's fame has reached me when it happened (didn't know he had a wikipedia page though). Makes one want to immigrate, IMO.

Don't know if this is a coincidence, but US and UK basically have the same law system.

Then disagree it is. Not only I don't feel like playing worse-than-roulette odds for strangers, I'd likely have a regretful life if anyone lost their life to save me from my disgruntled dealer/loan shark.

Heck, don't even count the possibility that someone gained a life in a wheelchair to save me. I'd be the worse ever saved person. I wouldn't be able to face you in your chair, and I would _certainly_ not have the guts to look your family in their eyes. I do NOT want to explain to your little girl why daddy is in a wheelchair. My soul would have hole in it the size of Tunguska.

Morality shmorality.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

In most states "doing nothing" could be prosecuted as "Depraved indifference"


However, to constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.

In other words you would have to show proof that I knew for certain that someone could be saved AND it would not have required me to commit a crime.

No matter how you look at it any of the "actions" would result in the death of a human being. I am responsible for my actions and could at the very least be prosecuted for manslaughter and if I "knew" the switch or level would cause just 1 death I could be prosecuted for murder.

I didn't tie anybody to the tracks, I am not driving the train. I did not maintain the brakes. These are all things that will effect the outcome and that I have no control over. By pulling a lever, hitting a switch, or pushing a fat dude I would be directly responsible for the death of another human being.

In looking up the morality of murder I found this and I am listening to it now and it sounds real familiar... >> http://academicearth.org/lectures/mo...nd-cannibalism





...walk away and smoke 'em if ya got 'em. :)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Interesting 'RADIOLAB' podcast from earlier this month that inspired the thread.

Summary: In this hour on Morality, we’ll explore where our sense of right and wrong come from. We peer inside the brains of people contemplating moral dilemmas, watch chimps at a primate research center share blackberries, observe a playgroup of 3 year-olds fighting over toys, and tour the country’s first penitentiary, Eastern State Prison.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Yup. It ain't like this stuff has never been thunk before. :p

I did like Professor Sandel's tests on the 5 for 1 scenario though.

The same 5 for 1 as the train switch. :eek:

Here's a tip:
If your Doctor is a "man of action", never fall asleep in the examination room. :D

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Is this based on law, or just an opinion? I can't believe that any legal system in any civilized part of the world would convict a person for flipping the switch in the above scenario.

By this measure, if a truck pushes me off the road and I'm heading 100 KPH into a group of children I shouldn't swerve to avoid them because heaven forbid I hit one adult in my way. If I hit the kids, the bus driver killed them. If I swerve, *I* killed the adult.

That makes no sense to me whatsoever. As a driver, it is my responsibility to minimize the damage I do in ANY circumstance, regardless of fault.

Au contraire, if I was heading for children and there were no skid marks I'd be facing some very uncomfortable questions.

This is now officially off topic, since we moved from moral to legal.

(I'm listening to the MP3 tomorrow, it's very, very late here)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

As a driver, yes, which seems to make this analogy unsuited to the situation where one is a completely uninvolved bystander. Especially in light of YoDude's "I am not driving the train", which you just quoted...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Bystander or driver - no difference. In both cases the wheel is in your hands. Just because the steering of the train is not IN the train but outside doesn't make you anything else than responsible.

You are the only one there, so you are driving the train, regardless of whether or not you agreed to it - heck, let's just assume you came legally out of tunnel and there's no time to stop, but you do have a button on board that switches tracks. Exact same problem, you're driving the train.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Duh.. it's a train.

1. Pull the rail half way and it will derail at the junction, saving all 6 people.
2. Fat guys can't stop trains (unless they wear capes and have Xray vision).
3. Break the lever, slam it into the track slot, run. Train derails. See #1.

You people need to get out more... or learn more about trains. :)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

We are missing the point. Swerving or reacting, emotion, and state of mind come in to play when it's the law. This isn't about the law. This is about the intent to kill another human being.

In all the given choices action means that you decided to kill another human being, period. It was not a reaction, it was not an emotion, but you clearly knew that your actions would result in the death of a human being.

BTW, this is hypothetical and extreme. How many times have you seen or heard of anybody being tied to railroad tracks? As it's been stated, morality is situational...
How come the freakin' fat dude doesn't pull the switch? If you told him to do so and he did; would the same moral standard apply?

Also, if it were people just standing or working on the track I would pull the switch because then I wouldn't "know" that someone would die and the probability of possibilities would then come into play. But when you physically restrain someone you kind of take Nash and Pascal out of the picture and as one of them I think once said: "Either light up or leave me alone." :)

***

I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. I can only imagine that sometime after you decided to pull the switch things like this would be decided in a court room.

In that time that has passed we get to know the names of the 5 people you saved as well as the what? What do you call the other individual who we now know as the plumber, Joe Smith? The victim... the victim of what? :confused:

In that court room I would imagine that your defense will have all 5 of the saved souls lined up as character witnesses unless one of them is Hitler or Charlie Manson and, provided the judge allows them to testify.

I also imagine that a good prosecutor would put a face on Joe the plumber and make sure everyone knows as much about his life as he could present. He can't compel you to testify but if he did, after allowing you to explain your rational, the final question he would ask you is:

Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"
(He wouldn't humanize them by calling them people, BTW. But Joe we now know as the coach of the towns little league baseball team, etc.)

You: "No, I..."

Him: "You testified that you knew that pulling the lever would switch the train to the track that Joe was tied helplessly to, didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "You did pull the lever didn't you?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "The train switched tracks because of that didn't it?"

You: "Yes"

Him: "Joe the plumber is now dead because of what you did; Isn't he?"

You: "But..."

Him: "Isn't he?"

You: "Yes... but I..."

Him: "No further questions your Honor"

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

:p

Re: Maemo Morality
 

At which point, cross-examination would take place, and your lawyer would be able to expose how your heroic action saved 5 human beings, or nearly half the jury. If you hadn't done anything, your inaction would have cost five precious human lives.

Also, if someone ordered you to pull the switch (prevailing that that person had any kind of authority -- any form of authority, parent or legal guardian, police officer, doctor, military, etc), then that person would be to blame (see why dictators, high-ranking military and others are guilty of mass-murder, even though they didn't fire a gun once in their lifetime); not you specifically.

As I said before, this is a hypothetical situation and it doesn't provide sufficient information to make an informed decision. Most humans will take their decision based on their emotions, and there is no way to remove it from the equation. However this allegory isn't about action versus inaction. What failed to be specified was that you *have* to take action.

A slightly different version of this allegory is the one that measures action vs inaction.

A married couple (man and woman) are in danger of death (how isn't important). Both are pleading you to take action which will ensure the other one lives, as they are both equally ready to put their life down for the sake of the other person. If you act, you have to chose who lives. If you do not act, the person who dies and the one who lives will be absolutely random.

Regardless of the outcome (you acting and selecting the one who dies, or not doing anything and leaving it to be random), the person who survives will blame you. What do you do?