Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

[Cyrus]

How about this:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Oh, this question again.

This must be the millionth time I've seen this scenario here.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Really......a whole thread on the moral conduct of batman? Hmmmmmmmmm...

Clearly you are ignorant of the utility of such a discussion. I know you hate the Philosophy forums, but please refrain from trolling from thread to thread denouncing topics as "useless".

 

[Pengwuino]

Really......a whole thread on the moral conduct of batman? Hmmmmmmmmm...

Actually its the faree.. fairee... the ship thing...captain that we're analyzing here.

Get out of the thread.

 

[Cyrus]

Clearly you are ignorant of the utility of such a discussion. I know you hate the Philosophy forums, but please refrain from trolling from thread to thread denouncing topics as "useless".

But it is useless. I don't hate the philosophy forums. I don't like really lame stuff trying to pass as philosophy...like this thread.

 

[Evo]

I don't care what is rejected in western philosophy. What is relevant is the difference the captain makes by blowing the other boat up. The difference is that 1000 people that would otherwise die, survive. He has the opportunity to save 1000 lives at the price of nothing except a possible feeling of guilt. Therefore he should do it. Not doing it would be immora.

What if the boat with more people were all sadistic killers? Do we place more value on what we consider "good' people? If the boat with less people were all small children in your care and the boat with more people were adults, which would be the proper choice? Are numbers all that count? Why do numbers count more than who the people are? What about animals? Would you blow up 1,500 puppies? What if the 500 people were PETA members?

Ok, that was inexcusably silly. But basing a decision on numbers alone is interesting to me. I could not kill people entrusted into my care over a group that was not.

 

[Cyrus]

Actually its the faree.. fairee... the ship thing...captain that we're analyzing here.

Get out of the thread.

On that note, you've been great. Tip jar is up front by the piano. I'll be here all week. Ciao

 

[superwolf]

Oh, this question again.

This must be the millionth time I've seen this scenario here.

Why is it different from the trolley problem?

 

[Cyrus]

Why is it different from the trolley problem?

...exactly...... it's not. It's a rehasing of the same thing.

 

[superwolf]

What if the boat with more people were all sadistic killers? Do we place more value on what we consider "good' people?

That's different. My scanario assumes that we know nothing about the people. In my opinion, the boat with sadistic killers should be blown up. Killers don't value human lives, and hence their interests should be subordinated non-killers. Not that I support death penalty...

When it comes to animals, it's my opinion that it would be better to blow up animals than humans because I doubt that their level of consciousness makes them able to grasp the situation and suffer like humans do. But maybe I'm underestimating them...

 

[superwolf]

...exactly...... it's not. It's a rehasing of the same thing.

Some will point out that nobody has more right not to be overrun by a train than others, while the fat man has the right not to be pushed down from the bridge. But does he have more right not to be thrown down from the bridge than the five people have the right not to be overrun by a train?

Personally, I think there is a difference. The difference is that we don't want a society where killing random people to save others is OK, while in the trolley problem, the conductor is forced to kill either 1 or 5.

 

[DaveC426913]

But it is useless. I don't hate the philosophy forums. I don't like really lame stuff trying to pass as philosophy...like this thread.

Dude. Just un-sub.

Or are you objecting to other people discussing it?

That's a rhetorical question. Just un-sub; I'll draw my own conclusions.

 

[DaveC426913]

I could not kill people entrusted into my care over a group that was not.

There are circumstances in which you could kill 500 people?

 

[Cyrus]

Dude. Just un-sub.

Or are you objecting to other people discussing it?

That's a rhetorical question. Just un-sub; I'll draw my own conclusions.

I just wanted to give you guys a hard time for turning Batman into philosophy.

 

[Cyrus]

Some will point out that nobody has more right not to be overrun by a train than others, while the fat man has the right not to be pushed down from the bridge. But does he have more right not to be thrown down from the bridge than the five people have the right not to be overrun by a train?

Personally, I think there is a difference. The difference is that we don't want a society where killing random people to save others is OK, while in the trolley problem, the conductor is forced to kill either 1 or 5.

Who cares? That isn't a problem in our society. What's the point your trying to make here, that we should worry about what our society will become based on what was seen on a batman movie (and isn't even real BTW) ? I think there are enough real issues to worry about that we don't need made up ones to add to the list.

 

[DaveC426913]

Who cares? That isn't a problem in our society. What's the point your trying to make here, that we should worry about what our society will become based on what was seen on a batman movie (and isn't even real BTW) ? I think there are enough real issues to worry about that we don't need made up ones to add to the list.

The Batman movie posed a moral dilemma. We all saw the film, so we know the sitch. The movie didn't invent the scenario.

Then again, I'm sort of on your side; I think almost everyone here is missing the point of making ethical decisions. They have to apply to real life. And that means there are ALWAYS more than two solutions. The only place where there are only two solutions is when you're playing a game (by game, I mean where you tacitly accept that there are rules that you choose to abide by). And, in a game, ethical decisions are merely academic.

 

[superwolf]

It's for fun.

 

[Evo]

There are circumstances in which you could kill 500 people?

Sure, if I was convinced there was no other way with better *guaranteed* results. I wouldn't ask to be put in that position, but I could handle it.

 

[superwolf]

I think almost everyone here is missing the point of making ethical decisions. They have to apply to real life. And that means there are ALWAYS more than two solutions.

It does apply to real life as long as it is possible. The batman scenario is not, because we cannot be 100% confident that Joker isn't joking, but it's still an ethical decision when we are in the situation. The situation with the fat man on the bridge is an ethical dilemma. Are there more than two solutions here?

 

[superwolf]

Sure, if I was convinced there was no other way with better *guaranteed* results. I wouldn't ask to be put in that position, but I could handle it.

How can you know before you have been there?

 

[Pythagorean]

There's a similair one we ask (smug) new medical students.

Q>Is it better to save one life or six?
A>Six, they all parrot.
Q>So if you see a healthy jogger go past the hospital you should kill him and use heart/lungs/kidneys/liver to save 6 patients?

That's somewhat unfair how you bring a bunch of additional information in on the second question. If you don't talk about the seven people's differences, they don't have any in the hypothetical situation, so all your medical students are imagining seven patients all close to dying, all with the same value to society, all in the same boat, all the same, all the same, etc, etc.

 

[Pengwuino]

You know what, wasn't the scenario in the movie actually even a better philosophical question then what was posed? Wasn't it 2 boats, 500 or something people in each, but one was carrying 500 prisoners?

 

[russ_watters]

That's misusing the logic though, not showing that it's bad. Killing 25 million to simply improve the lives of 300 million isn't the same as killing 25 million to save the lives of 300 million.

Why not? Why draw the line there? It is the utilitarians who make it a subjective numbers game:

-Is it ok to kill 1 to save 2? 4? 1000?
-Well then is it ok to kill 1 to save 1 if the 1 you save is a better person?
-Is it ok to kill a sick person to save a healthy person?
-A poor, starving peasant might wish death: improving his life by a lot is not unlike saving him. If killing one person allowed millions of others to live better, fuller, richer lives, would that be ok? No, it isn't life for life, but it is a huge benefit to a huge number of people for the price of a single life...and oh, by the way, that's not even counting the fact that the "betterment" includes a longer life expectancy, which is tantamount to saving lives.
-People sometimes choose to sacrifice themselves for nothing more than the betterment of others (ie, the military). If it makes sense to do it to yourself, why doesn't it make sense to do it to someone else?

These types of subjectives fit into the utilitarian principle even if you don't like taking the logic that far. You're drawing a line, but it is a completely arbitrary one based on how far you allow the logic to go before it starts to turn your stomach. But it is most definitely the same line of logic.

I personally feel society feels its somehow immoral to kill people to save the lives of others... yet we have had wars that everyone feels were completely justified. The best example is WW2, we as a society sent people out to their deaths knowing that if we did not, far more people would die. Does anyone feel it was immoral to do so? I've never heard a person say so or argue such.

Now that is an incorrect comparison. In the scenario in the OP, you have someone in one of the two groups making the decision to kill those in the other group. In the case of WWII, you have a 3rd party (the government) choosing to risk the lives of (not kill: the government isn't pulling the triggers that kill them) one group (the military) to save the other group (the civilians).

Yes, it is an application of the utilitarian principle - and the military is one of the rare exceptions where western philosophy considers it acceptable - but it is a much weaker/less direct conundrum than the one presented in the OP. That said, I'm wondering if anyone ever challenged the draft in court and under what logic the challenge was shot down. It would seem to be a violation of the Bill of Rights.

 

[russ_watters]

So would I be punished if I changed directoin in the trolley problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I wouldn't (and didn't) say that you would be, but by proper application of the law you should be. Juries are composed of ordinary citizens, not lawyers and they don't always rule according to the law. Either way, though, you would, absolutely, lose a wrongful death lawsuit by the family of the person you killed.

 

[russ_watters]

My thoughts are similar to those of John Stuart Mill, pioneer of Utilitarian ethics. Regardless of which boat I am on, I have the moral obligation to do the most good, and in this case, inflict the least pain.

Inflict the least pain? In one case, you inflict no pain at all, in the other case, you kill 500 people. The action you take is not the one that inflicts the least pain. The key to this conundrum is that by accepting the scenario the madman presents you, you take over partial responsibility for it.

Put another way, you cannot be convicted for not pushing the button regardless of what the madman eventually does. But you can be convicted of murder of pushing the button if the madman was bluffing. The ambiguity is part of the (but not the only) reason for the immorality of the action. And that's why the trolley problem is better, imo, it takes away the 3rd party. It's all you: with one choice, you allow a bunch of people to die and with the other, you kill one person.

 

[Pengwuino]

Now that is an incorrect comparison. In the scenario in the OP, you have someone in one of the two groups making the decision to kill those in the other group. In the case of WWII, you have a 3rd party (the government) choosing to risk the lives of (not kill: the government isn't pulling the triggers that kill them) one group (the military) to save the other group (the civilians).

I was talking about the 6 sick patients and the healthy passerby. The idea of sacrificing healthy people for the good of the rest of society has been a seemingly sanctioned idea for modern societies. Then again I retract that argument since there is a definitely a difference morally as to volunteer soldiers vs. conscripted soldiers...

 

[russ_watters]

I don't care what is rejected in western philosophy. What is relevant is the difference the captain makes by blowing the other boat up. The difference is that 1000 people that would otherwise die, survive. He has the opportunity to save 1000 lives at the price of nothing except a possible feeling of guilt. Therefore he should do it. Not doing it would be immora.

What matters is the reason it is rejected by western philosophy, not the fact that it is. The utilitarian principle is rejected because it violates a person or peoples' individual rights, not because one might feel guilty for acting that way (one might feel guilty either way, so that is irrelevant anyway). The individual rights approach may seem overly rigid, but the utilitarian approach is overly vague and leads to easy justification of terrible atrocities. The utilitarian approach has no inherrent line between immoral and moral: it is simply a matter of how much you are capable of stomaching.

 

[russ_watters]

What if the boat with more people were all sadistic killers? Do we place more value on what we consider "good' people?

Yes, as I said, that's the problem with the utilitarian principle: There is no inherrent line, so it requires an individualized judgement call and too much ambiguity.

The scenario you describe is closer to how the scenario in the movie works too...

Are numbers all that count? Why do numbers count more than who the people are?

Some utilitiarians, when they argue it, will try to stick to the numbers, but that isn't what the utilitarian principle is about. As someone arguing it stated earlier, it is about doing the most good. And doing the most good isn't about numbers, it is about subjective judgement of what "good" is. If you are faced with killing a child or killing a 90 year old, the numbers game would tell you you couldn't make a decision. But if you ask the 90 year old, they'd probably gladly give their few remaining years to save the kid. There is no way to escape the need for subjective judgement.

 

[russ_watters]

Then again, I'm sort of on your side; I think almost everyone here is missing the point of making ethical decisions. They have to apply to real life. And that means there are ALWAYS more than two solutions.

But more than two solutions does not mean more than two choices. For the people on the boat, there are only two choices: push the button or not. And that forces them to make some of the types of subjective judgements and scenario evaluations we've discusse here:

-Do the convicts deserve to die instead of us?
-If there are more of us, are we justified in killing them?
-If we push the button, will the Joker just kill us anyway?
-Is this a trick and there are no bombs?
-Is this a trick and our transmitter detonates our bomb?

 

[russ_watters]

Who cares? That isn't a problem in our society. What's the point your trying to make here, that we should worry about what our society will become based on what was seen on a batman movie (and isn't even real BTW) ? I think there are enough real issues to worry about that we don't need made up ones to add to the list.

You've got blinders on, Cyrus. The scenario posed in the OP isn't even the exact scenario in the movie. The point here is that the OP saw the movie and it caused him/er to start to wonder about the applicability of the utilitarian moral principle. That's it. And the applicability of the utilitarian moral principle vs the individual rights principle most certainly is a "problem" - a critical issue - in our society. The application of these two principles is one of the fundamental influences that governs how people view political questions. Which one was at work on 9/11? With the starting of the Iraq war? With the torture issue? Taxes? Social security?

Take taxes, for example. Idividual rights would say that the government shouldn't take my money, but the utilitarian principle says that the government needs tax money to help everyone. The tug of war between democrats and republicans on taxes is a fight between the two principles.

 

[russ_watters]

I was talking about the 6 sick patients and the healthy passerby. The idea of sacrificing healthy people for the good of the rest of society has been a seemingly sanctioned idea for modern societies. Then again I retract that argument since there is a definitely a difference morally as to volunteer soldiers vs. conscripted soldiers...

No need to retract - in WWII, most were conscripted. But certainly the utilitarian principle doesn't apply to a volunteer military.