Active Topics
-
Error after installing Leste on sdcard (18)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by Maemish - 13 hrs, 5 mins ago -
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 2 days, 8 hrs ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 2 days, 8 hrs ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 4 days, 11 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2010-04-20
, 01:10
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#112
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States....
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.
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.
|
|
2010-04-20
, 21:09
|
|
Posts: 250 |
Thanked: 300 times |
Joined on Sep 2007
|
#113
|
Originally Posted by YoDude
Interesting 'RADIOLAB' podcast from earlier this month that inspired the thread.
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.
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.
__________________
talk.maemo.org Power Search - using Google
|
|
2010-04-20
, 23:41
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#114
|
Originally Posted by dkwatts
Yup. It ain't like this stuff has never been thunk before.
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.
I did like Professor Sandel's tests on the 5 for 1 scenario though.
Suppose you're a doctor and 5 patients come in as an emergency while you are giving a healthy individual his annual physical. You move quickly to stabilize their injuries and learn that 2 need kidneys, 1 has a lacerated liver, 1 has a ruptured spleen, and 1 has a torn aorta. In fact all 5 desperately need organ transplants or they will die.
You go back to the examination room where you were conducting the physical and you find that your healthy patient has fallen fast asleep. You look at him resting peacefully with his healthy kidneys, liver, spleen, and heart intact and then look at the other 5 patients. H'mmm....
Here's a tip:
If your Doctor is a "man of action", never fall asleep in the examination room.
Last edited by YoDude; 2010-04-20 at 23:46.
 |
|
2010-04-21
, 00:36
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#115
|
Originally Posted by YoDude
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.
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.
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)
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
 |
|
2010-04-21
, 01:10
|
|
Posts: 4,930 |
Thanked: 2,272 times |
Joined on Oct 2007
|
#116
|
Originally Posted by ndi
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...
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.
__________________
World's first inductively-charged N900!
World's first inductively-charged N900!
|
|
2010-04-21
, 01:34
|
|
Posts: 2,050 |
Thanked: 1,425 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Bucharest
|
#117
|
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.
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.
__________________
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.
 |
|
2010-04-21
, 02:06
|
|
Posts: 1,455 |
Thanked: 3,309 times |
Joined on Dec 2009
@ Rochester, NY
|
#118
|
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.
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.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 02:42
|
|
Posts: 2,869 |
Thanked: 1,784 times |
Joined on Feb 2007
@ Po' Bo'. PA
|
#119
|
Originally Posted by ndi
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.
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)
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.)
Last edited by YoDude; 2010-04-21 at 02:47.
|
|
2010-04-21
, 04:05
|
|
Posts: 336 |
Thanked: 610 times |
Joined on Apr 2008
@ France
|
#120
|
Originally Posted by YoDude
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.
Him: "No further questions your Honor"
(Break for a word from our sponsors.)
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?
 |
| Tags |
| maemo, morality, philosophy |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 22:39.
Posts: 524 | Thanked: 192 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ Bucharest
Don't know if this is a coincidence, but US and UK basically have the same law system.
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.
N900 dead and Nokia no longer replaces them. Thanks for all the fish.
Keep the forums clean: use "Thanks" button instead of the thank you post.