Active Topics

 


Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#81
Originally Posted by gobuki View Post
Spontaneously i would have pulled the switch in the first scenario. But i guess i would be passive in the second two out of confusion.

I read the whole thread and i didn't like your first post. But your following posts convinced me to respect your opinion and were interesting to read.

What if we change the scenario for a little experiment. Say you are driving on the street and get rammed by a car. The impact was so heavy that you are now on the sidewalk and you are steering right into 5 people. You can't stop in time, but you could steer further onto the sidewalk and kill only one.

Would you still be passive and run over the 5 people? I don't know .. probably not. But what is the difference really?
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.
 
Posts: 5,795 | Thanked: 3,151 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Agoura Hills Calif
#82
Originally Posted by Flynx View Post
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.
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.
 
YoDude's Avatar
Posts: 2,869 | Thanked: 1,784 times | Joined on Feb 2007 @ Po' Bo'. PA
#83
Originally Posted by dkwatts View Post
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?
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.
__________________

SLN member # 009

Last edited by YoDude; 2010-04-16 at 03:58.
 
ysss's Avatar
Posts: 4,384 | Thanked: 5,524 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ ˙ǝɹǝɥʍou
#84
I know who can answer this definitively...

__________________
Class .. : Power User
Humor .. : [#####-----] | Alignment: Pragmatist
Patience : [###-------] | Weapon(s): Galaxy Note + BB Bold Touch 9900
Agro ... : [###-------] | Relic(s) : iPhone 4S, Atrix, Milestone, N900, N800, N95, HTC G1, Treos, Zauri, BB 9000, BB 9700, etc

Follow the MeeGo Coding Competition!
 
Posts: 336 | Thanked: 610 times | Joined on Apr 2008 @ France
#85
Originally Posted by YoDude View Post
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.
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.
 
RevdKathy's Avatar
Posts: 2,173 | Thanked: 2,678 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Cornwall, UK
#86
Originally Posted by CrashandDie View Post
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.
I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)
__________________
Hi! I'm Kathy and I'm a Maemo Greeter! Welcome.
Useful links for newcomers: New members say hello , New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Did you know Meego.com has forums too?
 
Posts: 3,319 | Thanked: 5,610 times | Joined on Aug 2008 @ Finland
#87
Originally Posted by YoDude View Post
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 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’.
__________________
Blogging about mobile linux - The Penguin Moves!
Maintainer of PyQt (see introduction and docs), AppWatch, QuickBrownFox, etc
 
Posts: 267 | Thanked: 183 times | Joined on Jan 2010 @ Campinas, SP, Brazil
#88
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.
__________________
My nickname on freenode is ptl, that is, the consonants of my nickname here. Kind of a long story.
 
Posts: 336 | Thanked: 610 times | Joined on Apr 2008 @ France
#89
Originally Posted by RevdKathy View Post
I take it you've seen "Genesis of the Daleks"! ;-)
Wow, I never made that link. Thanks!
 
Posts: 540 | Thanked: 288 times | Joined on Sep 2009
#90
Eating babies is good.

Discuss (read the linked article first though).
 
Reply

Tags
maemo, morality, philosophy


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 22:34.