Re: Maemo Morality
 

This thread is the reason I won't watch the Saw movies. :p

Re: Maemo Morality
 

It's a lose-lose situation. Therefore, as we all know, the proven answer is to flip open your communicator and tell Scotty to beam up all the people tied to the tracks. If you're in command, you don't accept lose-lose situations, unless some expendable engineering red-shirt is in the line of fire.

On a more serious note, these situations are ones that you have to react to rather than think through. Thus, logic is irrelevant. If you had time to think it through logically, any intelligent person would spend that time trying to stop it from happening, trying to save everyone. Eventually, if these efforts failed, then the decision would again be irrational, instinctive. Basically, in a situation like this, your brain is just going to scan through the people in peril and make a snap-judgment... probably based on which person you'd like to have sex with the most, or which is the closest relation...or, maybe if you have strong maternal instincts, which is the youngest. Instinct, not logical morality.

This is also what society would expect a person to do. Anyone that could logically determine the correct moral choice and then act on it, rather than wasting this time trying to save everyone, would not be considered human. Vulcan maybe, but not human.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Pleonasm!

Red shirts are always expendable, and (nearly) always in the line of fire.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I'd save the five people in every situation of course.

5 > 1

Q.E.D.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Yes. James T's take on the "Light up or leave me alone." approach...

I think he was the only cadet to ever use that at the Star Fleet Academy when he was in training. :D

Re: Maemo Morality
 

According to that radiolab show, and some Harvard dude, I can outthink 99% of the population. This is not news to me.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

So... ? You bite your lips, turn green and stop the train with your bare hands ? ;) Or are you saying this is a Kobayashi Maru test ?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Yes, exactly. In this situation, the 'right' thing to do is not stand there logically debating the correct moal action, it is to hack into the computer the night before and alter the scenario such that you can save everyone.

In other words, the correct moral answer is to use all available time trying to save everyone. Failing that, and with no time left for logical reasoning, the decision to save one over the other becomes emotional, illogical, instinctive, human...

The question is wrong.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Um... I hate to tell you this... but... you're, like, saying your logical thought processes are in line with someone that has a doctorate in philosphy... A philosophy degree and a food-safe certificate makes you qualified to work at MacDonalds.

I've got an AA in philosopy (half a degree - ya, weird, I know) and I'll admit philosophy is fun. But, if philosophy types can outhink 99% of the population, that only proves that thinking is highly overated.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

This scenario was an interesting read but I see it different. In the case of a healthy patient that the doctor kills for spare parts would be akin to you being able to stop the train by pulling the switch.. but before doing so you tied a person to the other track.

In the first scenario you didn't tie anybody anywhere.

I would consider this one to be a closer analogy:

You're a doctor and you have a dying patient. This patient is dying from something operable but totally unrelated to his organs (at least, the ones needed below). The surgery for this is extremely difficult and time consuming.

5 others come in from a bus wreck or whatever. All of them require a different organ, and by the light of god, the original dying patient is a matching donor for all other patients.

The 5 other patients surgeries are easier, higher chance of success, and you can do all 5 surgeries before they die.

The original patient's surgery is complicated, takes many hours, and by the time you were done doing that surgery all the other patients would be dead.

You are the only doctor within a time-allowable distance to perform any of the 6 different surgeries.

What do you do? Let the original patient die for the organs - after all, you didn't poison him or make him sick? Or save the original patient and let the 5 die while you're in surgery?

This one is harder to answer, but seems a better analogy to the train tracks than having a healthy sleeping patient.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

i would try to slow down the train until Pr1.2 got released which would give me more options.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

These moral dilemmas are already solved in real life; the answer is what people actually do. In this case, the doctor would, in a private hospital, call the first guy's HMO and ask a bunch of dumb questions that take a long time to answer. In a public hospital, the doctor would strike a committee to form a panel to recommend... In both cases, the original patient dies while waiting and the organs are used to save however many of the others are left alive. Through bureaucratic inertia, the doctor is saved from the moral dilemma. That's one of the reasons bureaucracies exist. They shield individuals from moral dilemmas, and a lot of other things.

The only individuals that will typically face this dilemma alone are military commanders. The classic: do I risk sending 5 guys to rescue the 1 trapped? Again, the answer is already defined. Absolutely yes (unless completely suicidal), risk the 5 guys - otherwise the next time you order your soldiers into a bad situation, they won't go. But, if rescuing the one guy risks the battle, then absolutely no. The battle comes first and every soldier knows this. Thus, the moral dilemma becomes a simple, "does this risk the battle," kind of question. This is not a moral question, it's tactical. Most everyone else, with time, can hide behind bureaucracy. Without time, it becomes instinctual rather than logical.

Philosophy can either describe what is or proscribe what should be. Society has already worked around these moral dilemmas and proscribing solutions depends on your philosophic underpinnings. Me, I'm very mechanistic and happen to think that the compromises society has already come up with are likely the best we're going to get.



Edit: "absolutely yes... unless, but...." I should probably re-word that ;)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

This post is just all kinds of awesome.

I disagree with your last summation tho.. I really don't think the correct solution is to allow people to separate themselves from the decision. That is one of the leading reasons why so many people are after scapegoats when sh** goes wrong instead of taking personal responsibility for their action.

The individual should be made to choose, and then have to deal with the consequences of that choice. A choice without consequence, or no choice at all, are bad solutions.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Big deal, so can the rest of us 60-70 million. You know what they say, if you're one in a million, you have 1000 clones in China.

It's only intent if I intend to do it, in the sense that I make preparations, this is how intent is proven. Also, I'll reiterate my argument that I didn't kill them people, the train did. Once the situation was without solutions in which 0 people die, I chose the solution where 1 people dies.

Just because I knew s/he would die means not that I killed him/her. What, if an idiot jumps in front of a bus on bridge, I am to jump off to try and save him, killing all on board?

Sometimes actions kill people. While there are alternatives where nobody dies, you are obligated to take that (that's another discussion right there). But once there is no way around it, we no longer take that into account.

This is basically how war works. And self defense. Once you know the guy in front of you is going to kill someone (you, namely), then one body is already on its way to the bag, and you have to choose between a murderer and a victim. Pre-made, pre-heated, ready-to-eat decision.

Hamilton Berger: "So, in order to save these 5 others it was your intent to kill Joe the plumber?"

You: "No"

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: "No."

Him: "Isn't he?"

You: "No. Joe was dead when I arrived there."

Him: "He was breathing and screaming for help"

You: "There's nothing anybody could have done"

Him: "You could have left the switch alone"

You: "You are suggesting more death would serve a purpose?"

<objection, yes or no!>

You: "Yes, I could have killed more people."

(Break for a word from our sponsors.)

This much harder or much easier, depending on situation. In theory, a doctor has to do no harm. As long as the damned organ hoarder keeps breathing, there's nothing TO do, as a doctor is not allowed to kill under any circumstances.

However, I'm pretty sure there are rules to obey, guidelines set by the medical community much like the military. I don't know which they are, but a doctor working the emergency in a hospital ready for such a large transplant operation would.


Then tough luck. Just because someone ELSE is dying doesn't mean you can harvest me. Now if I couldn't be saved, we discuss. If I can, then no, you can't kill me.

This would mean that you can't go to a hospital because if some dolt was riding a tandem bike and they both cracked their heads I might just be harvested. Who would go to such a hospital?

If I decide to sacrifice myself for 5 others, fine. But each patient that comes to a hospital has its own case, unrelated to others. I can't be going there for a radiography and get tackled down and harvested because, you know, you kind of needed it.

This happens all the time. You don't hack other people apart to save them.

IMO, if you are a doctor and you let someone die for organs, you should be dragged out to a garbage dump and shot. Malpraxis is for those that may redeem themselves. (Dawn of War 40k)

Not to me. In the train scenario, one of them is inoperable and WILL die. If there's a change that the train would derail, then the plot thickens. A 20% chance of derailment on the 5-people carpool suicide lane would kind of make things difficult. I'd still pull it.

Man that's a large post.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

This can go off in all kinds of directions, as philosophy is want to do, so I'll leave most it with this: when "what is" is different than what you proscribe, it's interesting go work back through your assumptions to see where things change course. That's the moral patient verses moral agent stuff, and even farther up the line.

Where I'd like to go with this is related to the: "instead of taking personal responsibility for their action" part. I think people should not be forced to take personal responsibility, they should be allowed to. Why? Because taking responsibility is an extremely powerful thing to do. It separates the winners from the losers.

Responsibility and control are two sides of the same coin. If you are in control of something, you are responsible for the outcome. If you have control without responsibility, really bad things can happen... absolute power corrupts absolutely kind of things. Conversely, having responsibility for an outcome that you have no control over is also likely to generate poor results, not least of which is letting the real controlling person off the hook. Scapegoats, by definition, are people thrust into situations where they have responsibility but no control.

Many people avoid taking responsibility. What they fail to realise is that, at the same time, they are also giving away their control. Blaming other people for your misfortune simply states that they are in control of your life rather than you. Losers do this, over and over again. Winners, on the other hand, take every situation and find places where they can seize responsibility; finding a place to be responsible give a winner a point of control. The more control, the more power people have over their lives.

Demanding a person be responsible is the same as forcing people to be in control. Some (most) people are not ready to be in control of anything - they would prefer that life be something that happens to them rather than something they choose to live. Pushing these people will not benefit society. It is far better to let the masses hide behind bureaucracy and let the leaders (the winners) rise to the top. The people willing, or even seeking, to take responsibility are the ones you want making choices, not some shmuck you force into the position. Until that person comes along, bureaucratic muddling does well enough for societies needs.

Now, to bring this slightly back on topic, I'll add this: In these lose-lose moral situations where applied control, either way, isn't going to produce good results (maybe more or less bad, but not good), what's the point of forcing people to make a rational choice and being responsible for the results? Generally speaking, society doesn't do this.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Well, under US Law, I'd walk.

"Defendants seeking to rely on this defense argue that they should not be held liable for their actions as a crime because their conduct was necessary to prevent some greater harm"

"the defendant must affirmatively show (i.e., introduce some evidence) that (a) the harm he sought to avoid outweighs the danger of the prohibited conduct he is charged with; (b) he had no reasonable alternative; (c) he ceased to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passed; and (d) he did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid"

a) 5>1
b) 2 tracks, one cu... I mean, 2 tracks, one train
c) Well, I did stop killing after that
d) Hello. The one tying the people did it.

Apparently no correspondence in English law. Figures.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Wait you confuse me. Under U.S. law you would walk, when U.S. law is the one with the necessity clauses?

Like you said:

The danger outweighed what I did.. 5>1
No reasonable alternative: No time to untie anybody, or stop the train
Ceased to engage: I didn't then go quickly untie and retie the other 5 further down the other track...
Didn't create the situation: I didn't do the tying.

Under that wiki article (and we all know wiki is law) - In US law you would be justified. In English law you would not. So if you're in the *UK* you should walk.... I still personally wouldn't because I'd feel a morale, not legal, obligation but not the point.

ETA: Well, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_in_English_law evidently there *is* a law...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

No, you confuse me. :)

I thought walking means no guillotine, not walk as in the plank. In which case, in US I'd walk free since Necessity is in US law, meaning I'd have no legal responsibility, with Necessity being my defense.

Now that UK has one, I'd walk there too.

Hmm, that there article is muddier than the English law. Well, if I'd eat Joe the plumber, I'd be in there home free.

--

"Dudley and Stevens were convicted of murder and sentenced to be hanged, however their sentence was later shortened to just six months in prison."

You can't shorten a death sentence. Wrong typecast.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Spoken like someone who never managed to achieve a complete degree, let alone a PsyD. You'll be allowed to criticise once you've gone through the full education system.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Nah, the AA was for fun. I'm trained as a technologist (electronics engineering) and have worked in education for near 20 years (where I can take philosophy courses for free). The above was just a spin-off of an old engineering school joke... An engineering graduate will ask "how can I improved this?" A computing graduate will ask "how can I make this run more efficiently?" A business grad will ask "How can I market this better?" A liberal arts grad will ask "do you want fries with that?"

It was a geek joke, no harm intended... My apologies if I stepped on any toes. But, you have to admit, career wise, a degree in philosophy by itself doesn't get you far on it's own these days. Paired with something else, on the other hand, philosophy can add a lot.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

A degree in CS won't give you that much anymore either. A lonely degree in anything won't bring you as much as a handful of them.

Degrees are a falacy, and the wrong way to judge people's abilities. In the next 50 years, more people will obtain degrees than since the beginning of popular schooling. This is due to demographics, and cultural changes. This also means that degrees are effectively worthless. You can already see this. When your grandfather came out of school, and he had a degree, he was assured to have a job for as long as he lived. Now, high-school won't even get you into McDonalds.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Yeah I totally got confused. I thought you meant "walk" as in "walk away" from the scenario instead of flipping the switch.

Not walk as in "Not Guilty" in the courts.

I'm all straightened out now :D.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Maybe he would only "walk" if it was cows or personal property tied to the tracks or we were under attack or suttin' :)

Not being a lawyer doesn't mean I haven't studied some in my lifetime. The moral difference is "killing" or "letting" someone die....

As I posted earlier, it's not like these thoughts have never been thunk.

Andreas Teuber, Proffesor of Philosophy at Brandeis proposed that the Nessesity defense could be used in such a case in a book he wrote:

It should be noted that Teuber also is not a lawyer, although he may have played one on TV. >> http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/bio.html

He is also applying hypothetical law to a hypothetical case where no one is "tied" to the tracks.

And my opinion is not based on law. Besides, didn't someone earlier post that quoting or bringing "laws" into the thread was changing the topic? :p

Back on topic: :)

My opinion is based on my moral belief that "killing" someone is wrong. Period.
Letting someone die is sometimes unavoidable and as a result, it is my belief that it is not even measured on the same moral scale that killing is.

That BTW is my belief, I won't force it on anyone or judge anyone who thinks differently.


If this discussion has sparked anyones interest in exploring this further, you might want to check out >>this<< group from the Departments of Psychology and Social Behavior at the University of California, Irvine, University of Virginia, and the University of Southern California.

Your participation in their surveys may help in developing new theories on why we do what we do and contribute to ongoing psychological research.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

And I would of course never try and change you. But take the following:

Someone breaks into my home and is holding a gun to my wifes head. I am armed. I can either: Let my wife be executed, or kill the assailant.

I will always choose the latter; and no amount of psychology, philosophy, laws or morality of killing would ever stay my hand to save my wife's life.

Using your definition above that it is always wrong, and always letting someone die is a better option - I should walk away and sacrifice my wife. Won't happen.

However, having said that and under the understanding we'll never agree - I'll still buy you a drink if you come to town ;).

Re: Maemo Morality
 

And I will drink that drink under no moral obligation to do so. :D

BTW, I would kill the dude too.
I didn't say I was a wuss. :cool:

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Ya, like, ya, like, ya, like, totally, like, overrated.

Actually, Bill (or is it Ted?), it's more like, y'know, like my thought processes are in line with someone in the upper bounds of the high IQ society. Y'know, where, like, we actually think about the deeper implications of concepts such as "good" and "value" and "rights".

Y'know, like, whatever.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Which is fine too ;); I was just laying out that I would hold no personal ill will to anyone that has taken the ideal that killing is always wrong - period.

But I am curious now: How is the letting of people die in the first scenario more preferable to killing the one - but the killing the one to save one in this last scenario is the preferable option?

Is it merely that it's now your family in the equation, and you have a separate immeasurable moral duty to your family that outweighs the moral duty you have to strangers... or is that the life you are taking now is the life of the man that is directly responsible of the situation at hand?

In which case - take the first train scenario and picture that the man on the second track is the man that tied everyone (including himself) up... is flipping the switch then the preferable choice?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Fatalsaint - the fallacy lies in asserting that by doing nothing you have somehow stamped your will upon the scenario. This is a grossly unprovable non sequitur. The scenario, as encountered, has nothing to do with you...until you choose to participate. By pulling a lever, you are making the ultimate decision to terminate one life over another.

By what authority do you make this choice? What cosmic gift of perspective grants you the vision to determine the relative value of unknown lives?

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I already addressed that in my first post: No cosmic power of any kind beyond the mathematical numbers that 5 > 1. Saving 4 > losing 1.

In my opinion, by refusing to make a choice, or by walking you are making that choice - and you still share part of the responsibility of the outcome.

I'm not here to say anyone should be prosecuted for making either decision. I don't think either decision is fundamentally wrong. I just know that I would not live with myself or be able to look my children in the eye having known that I "let", "allowed", "chose", or any other word you choose to use - 5 people die; when it was within my power to make that 5, 1.

With power comes responsibility: By the unlucky nature of you being at that spot at that time the power is granted to you to change the scenario, whether you want it or not. How you wield, or don't wield, that power is entirely up to you. But it's on you to live with that choice, as that is what it was.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

"By the unlucky nature of you being at that spot at that time the power is granted to you to change the scenario, whether you want it or not"

Religious hocus pocus.

You remain an innocent bystander.


Althought I appreciate your honesty, you are advocating the insidious reasoning of "might makes right".

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.