16 replies to this topic

[kid-kun]

PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

[1] You drive a car 60mph, your breaks are dead and you see 5 workers working on the track just in front of you. You are sure to kill all of them if you crash into them. Meanwhile, on the sidetrack there is only one worker. Your steering wheel works - what would you do?

[2] You are a doctor in an emergency room, six patients come to you. One severely injured, 5 moderately injured. You could spend your whole shift operating on the severely injured guy. but meanwhile the other 5 would die. You can of course save those 5, but then the severely injured one dies - what would you do?

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM
Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."
 
So I shall ask you now, what would YOU do?

My take on this.

Spoiler

PART ONE
I'd say that no matter what you'll do it will be immoral and someone will suffer.
If there is no way out without sacrificing anyone, it is quite logical to try and minimize the losses.
From your point of view, you're screwed anyway, now you can only do something for other people.

PART TWO
I think in this case, morality really doesn't apply. Morality exists only within the society and that was a case of survival.
Survival is an instinct, I really don't think morality applies here.

[Orz]

Please provide a description (I some how screwed up your video post). I'm not watching 54 minutes of video to make a response, and morality being the issue is a slippery slope, as what makes up a persons morals are things not to be discussed on this forum for the most part.

Plus...all caps? C'mon kid-kun, you know better.

[kid-kun]

Good point, I'll write a description, though I still encourage you to watch it when you'll have some free time
(All caps - copy'n'pasted :< my bad)

[Zirith]

You are the driver of a train and are on the path to kill 5 people you can turn a few moments later and kill 1 which track do you take?
Next there are 4 guys stranded at sea, on the 10th ish day one guy had drank sea water and appeared to be dying, 2 decided to kill and eat him on the 19th ish day and the 3 survived but taken to court, are they guilty of murder?

I only skimmed it.

I would kill the 1, and they are guilty.

[Orz]

This is basically the prisoner's dilemma in the first one. Chris Nolan did a good job with it in Batman: The Dark Knight in the ferry scene.

Fat people run slower, but make horrible meals.

[kid-kun]

Fat people run slower, but make horrible meals.

but I guess it'd be better to hit something with less mass with a car at least.

[Zirith]

For orz's example I'd always rat, what is the ferry scene again? Was there a bomb on the ferry and a bunch of hostages over looking the water strapped with bombs?But then the hostages looked like gunmen. Been so long >.>

[actellim]

I'm an egoist utilitarian. I would save the most people that I could without incurring a cost to myself.

I would steer into the one, as either way I will be a murderer; however I would not push the fat man unless I was somehow purveyor to objective knowledge that I wouldn't be caught.

[Armstrong]

For orz's example I'd always rat, what is the ferry scene again? Was there a bomb on the ferry and a bunch of hostages over looking the water strapped with bombs?But then the hostages looked like gunmen. Been so long >.>

I think hes referring to the part with the two ferries. One was full of civilians and one was full of convicted prisoners. Each boat had the detonation trigger for the other boat.

[StandBY]

for the first one, cant you steer off into the side where theres nobody? that way only you would suffer injuries?

[Orz]

for the first one, cant you steer off into the side where theres nobody? that way only you would suffer injuries?

The purpose of the mental exercise is that you must choose one or the other in the situation. In life we can make many choices but often morality comes down to the choices we have when lives are the only thing at stake.

[Zirith]

I think hes referring to the part with the two ferries. One was full of civilians and one was full of convicted prisoners. Each boat had the detonation trigger for the other boat.

Oh ya, I'm probably going to watch that if i finish this lab report early.

[cata]

This is basically the prisoner's dilemma in the first one. Chris Nolan did a good job with it in Batman: The Dark Knight in the ferry scene.

Fat people run slower, but make horrible meals.

It really isn't. You should read that Wikipedia article you linked (or attempted to) more closely if you think that it is.

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

[Zirith]

every link on here that is more than one word to an article of wikipedia has been cut off for me, it might be the 's though as the link sent me to prisoner :/

[Orz]

It really isn't. You should read that Wikipedia article you linked (or attempted to) more closely if you think that it is.

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

Yes, that is the exact example of what I was trying to convey (and yes, the link did get cut off from what I was trying to link and has been fixed). You should try to look more deeply into things and see context over content. Playing the dick card doesn't help.

Both problems relate to what is the better course of action and which one comes out with the best solution. The trolley problem as you linked makes it a MORAL issue. The prisoner's dilemma makes it a GAME THEORY issue. Yes the trolley problem is the exact issue, I was relating more on how to go about solving the problem, but in either case, solving it has consequences.

In the end of the trolley problem, someone is going to die regardless of the outcome, and depending or not on how high of regard you hold human life, both outcomes are atrocious and should be to most people. Why should someone have to die? What a stupid question to pose to someone, making them HAVE to kill someone? These morality traps are what makes for poor discussions on boards such as these because posters tend to miss that simple point, and most have not been in a situation to kill or save someone, and haven't been close enough to death to realize how important and precious life really is.

That is my humble opinion due to having seen enough death in two wars over the past 10 years. The majority of people would do exactly this - panic, and let fate happen.

There you go, breaking my own rule as I stated above, but I think I kept it civil.

[Deft]

I would kill myself, absolving me of all moral responsibility related to the situation.

Orz made a good point. Why should someone have to die? That's not always the case, and don't try to take the easy way out by assuming it is. Usually there are other ways to explore but they may be harder for yourself to take, or may even cost you your own life. I think that's where true morality comes into play. Just picking who lives and dies is actually moral irresponsibility.

[kid-kun]

Of course, in a real situation it never comes down to "this or that", I believe philosophy out of it's nature is loosely bound by reality, as such it often takes artificial environments to present a philosophical problem - so yeah, someone has to die in that particular example. Here the focus was on presenting that morality is really relative and conditioned (is that the right word?).
It may be obvious to some of us, because it's something we've learnt already, but I still meet a lot of people who claim to have an "iron set of rules" or "unwavering morality".
That's all fine and healthy to have, but in the end it's just like Orz wrote.