maemo.org - Talk - Maemo Morality

maemo.org - Talk (https://talk.maemo.org/index.php)

- Off Topic (https://talk.maemo.org/forumdisplay.php?f=19)

- - Maemo Morality (https://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=50107)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysss (Post 612482)

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/

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by festivalnut (Post 612419)

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?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dak (Post 612490)

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dak (Post 612490)

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by festivalnut (Post 612534)

well democracy reduces to mob rule does it not?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkwatts (Post 612030)

from mylot.com

I was taking a philosophy class and our teacher asked us these three scenarios.

1: You are standing by the switch near a train track. The train is coming and the brakes are broken. The train is headed on a path where it will run over five people who are tied to the tracks, killing them. If you pull the switch, the train will switch direction and go on a track where it will kill 1 person who is tied to the tracks, but if you don't pull it he will be safe. You have no time to untie anyone. What do you do?

2: You are standing on a bridge over a train track. The train is coming, the brakes are broken, and there are 5 people tied to the tracks. There is a fat man on the bridge. This man is fat enough that if you pushed him, he would stop the train from running over the 5 people, but he would be killed. Do you push him?

3: Same situation as #2, but the fat man is standing on a trapdoor. You are standing by a lever that will open the trapdoor, he will fall onto the tracks, stop the train from running over the five people, and be killed. Do you pull it?

What would you do?

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by dkwatts (Post 612030)

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.