Thread: Maemo Morality
View Single Post
YoDude's Avatar
Posts: 2,869 | Thanked: 1,784 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Po' Bo'. PA
#119
Originally Posted by ndi View Post
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)
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?

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.)

__________________

SLN member # 009

Last edited by YoDude; 2010-04-21 at 02:47.