In Another Vein...

[Vigile]

 

I would let the seven die, I am not going to actively kill someone to save 7 people, just like I wouldn't actively kill someone and harvest their organs to save 7 people.

 

But isn't deciding not to act an act? As a control man are you not duty bound and solely responsible for the switch and wouldn't your refusal to act actually then be an act of actively killing 7 instead of one? I think this scenario doesn't quite correlate to the organ harvesting scenario. I could be wrong, so I'll wait for you to prove me so.

 

Here's food for thought: regardless of any ethical reasoning that is applied to this situation in reality you would likely face less public scrutiny for killing the one than you would by refusing to act and killing the seven. In fact, you would probably receive public sympathy. However, by refusing to act you may invoke an inquiry into your actions and would be forced to defend your actions before a private, and perhaps even public inquisition. Therefore, based primarily on pragmatism and self interest, wouldn't the best decision be to kill the one and not the seven?

[Asimov]

Jesus fucking christ, Dhampir. You're two options, AS STATED ARE:

 

1. Actively kill one person and save 7.

2. Let 7 people die and NOT actively kill one person.

 

Your inane adherence to mind-NUMBINGLY stupid minor details are irrelevant. If you don't care to answer the question, then don't! It's that simple.

 

 

 

But isn't deciding not to act an act? As a control man are you not duty bound and solely responsible for the switch and wouldn't your refusal to act actually then be an act of actively killing 7 instead of one? I think this scenario doesn't quite correlate to the organ harvesting scenario. I could be wrong, so I'll wait for you to prove me so.

 

It doesn't directly correlate to it, but it has similarities.

 

Letting people die is not a choice, it's an acceptance. We let people die all the time.

 

It wouldn't be actively killing 7, it would be letting 7 die. The train is already on course to get those 7 people, if you weren't there they would have died anyways. By hitting the switch you are making a decision to kill one person. By not hitting the switch you are making a decision to let 7 people die.

 

Is there a difference? I think so.

 

Here's food for thought: regardless of any ethical reasoning that is applied to this situation in reality you would likely face less public scrutiny for killing the one than you would by refusing to act and killing the seven. In fact, you would probably receive public sympathy. However, by refusing to act you may invoke an inquiry into your actions and would be forced to defend your actions before a private, and perhaps even public inquisition. Therefore, based primarily on pragmatism and self interest, wouldn't the best decision be to kill the one and not the seven?

 

Yes, and that's a direct result of the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ideology that societies have set up. It's a dilemma...if you kill one person to save 7, then are you setting a specific value on individuals? And if you are, why does that value not apply to other things? For instance, organ harvesting?

 

 

Oh wait, you mean in real life? Well, I'd probably get a little high and while I was considering all the possibilities some random folks would be liquified by a train.

 

That's why towelie says, don't forget to bring a towel.

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Jesus fucking christ, Dhampir. You're two options, AS STATED ARE:

 

1. Actively kill one person and save 7.

2. Let 7 people die and NOT actively kill one person.

 

Your inane adherence to mind-NUMBINGLY stupid minor details are irrelevant. If you don't care to answer the question, then don't! It's that simple.

 

So basically, you are asking the ethical question:

 

Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

 

You are asking a very complex question, and attempting to make it simple, when in fact it is not simple at all.

 

It needs more situational information - this is because when dealing with Humans, the situation is never as simple as you stipulated.

 

In some cases, yes, the needs of the many WILL outweigh the needs of the one. In the case of war, a much smaller percentage of the population will go and die fighting. This is a clear case of the needs of the many (those who do not die in the fighting) outweighing the needs of the few (those that die fighting). It is seen as properly ethical by most cultures.

 

However, in some cases the reverse is acceptable ethical behavior. In the case of a child lost in the woods. One child. But, 100's of people will turn up to look for the lost child, and sometimes, if the weather is bad, several of them will be killed looking. Thus, the needs of the one (lost child) outweigh the needs of the many (those looking who died). This, too, is seen as properly ethical by most cultures.

 

Thus, your hypothetical situation has two properly ethically answers; to switch is ethical, and to do nothing is ethical. It would depend on a larger and more situation than what you present, wouldn't it?

 

You are trying to simplify the issue by placing artificial constraints, but in reality this is almost never the case - as is demonstrated by the varied and creative 3rd possibilities offered by other postings.

 

Moreover, it is rarely, if ever, a simple "Either-Or" question ... there's ALWAYS a 3rd or 4th possibility, if one would pay attention and look ...

 

 

And in case you are wondering which I would do ...

 

The correct answer is: "I do not know"

 

I do not have a pre-concieved answer to that situation, because there is insufficient information to formulate an answer.

 

Your simplistic and artificial constraints are too limiting to make an ethical decision.

 

So, based only on the criterian you posted, I do not know how I would act. I'd have to actually go through the experience ...

 

And, if I ever do, I'll come back and let you know which way I decided.

 

And, I'll likely not loose any sleep over my decision, either.

[Asimov]

 

In some cases, yes, the needs of the many WILL outweigh the needs of the one. In the case of war, a much smaller percentage of the population will go and die fighting. This is a clear case of the needs of the many (those who do not die in the fighting) outweighing the needs of the few (those that die fighting). It is seen as properly ethical by most cultures.

 

However, in some cases the reverse is acceptable ethical behavior. In the case of a child lost in the woods. One child. But, 100's of people will turn up to look for the lost child, and sometimes, if the weather is bad, several of them will be killed looking. Thus, the needs of the one (lost child) outweigh the needs of the many (those looking who died). This, too, is seen as properly ethical by most cultures.

 

Good post, btw.

 

Yes, it's never as simple as hypotheticals paint it.

 

I am reminded, interestingly enough, of Star Trek II and III. Spock sacrifices himself to save the ship because "the needs of the many outweight the needs of the few", and then Kirk and the crew go to the Genesis planet to find Spock because (as Kirk says) "the needs of the one outweight the needs of the many".

 

That's very interesting and it gives me something to think about.

 

In the case of war, those few who do go and fight are not sacrificed by others though. They go willingly, choosing to fight because THEY believe that protecting what they love is important. The same thing with the child. Someone sees a parent looking for their lost child and feels empathy for them, voila, a search party is formed. Thus, these people are sacrificing themselves for what they think is right in BOTH situations.

 

In my situation, you are sacrificing someone else for what you think is right. I think there is a huge difference from those examples you did give from what I gave. If we are going to equate, it would be you who was trapped on that train track and the button was near you, so you sacrifice yourself to save the seven people.

 

Do we have the right to sacrifice other people?

[narcissist]

Assuming all things were equal (qualities of potential victims, etc) I'd actively switch the track to save "the many" and "minimise the damage". I believe that someone is just as responsible for their lack of action in any situation as they are for their action.

[Dhampir]

Hey, dude, if I of all people can find it, you must be fallin' off. But really, I was just fuckin' with you. And I DID answer the question in the last post. So unbunch your panties.

 

 

Now of course I know that his intent was to provide a scenario wherein nothing is possible but the choices offered. But I digress. Deacon, by choosing to do nothing, you are making a decision, additionally, I might be inclined to do nothing myself, if for no other reason than to not have to deal with the family of the one. Of course, I'd have to deal with the families of the other seven, making it a no win sitch. realistically, I'm not sure there is a moral dilemma here either way. Either I do nothing and 7 people die, or I do something and 1 dies. I suppose it's a matter of how one deals with the ramifications of inaction as well as action.

[Vigile]

But isn't deciding not to act an act? As a control man are you not duty bound and solely responsible for the switch and wouldn't your refusal to act actually then be an act of actively killing 7 instead of one? I think this scenario doesn't quite correlate to the organ harvesting scenario. I could be wrong, so I'll wait for you to prove me so.

 

It doesn't directly correlate to it, but it has similarities.

 

Letting people die is not a choice, it's an acceptance. We let people die all the time.

 

It wouldn't be actively killing 7, it would be letting 7 die. The train is already on course to get those 7 people, if you weren't there they would have died anyways. By hitting the switch you are making a decision to kill one person. By not hitting the switch you are making a decision to let 7 people die.

 

Is there a difference? I think so.

 

I had to go back and read the op. You did not in fact state that you are a switch man, just that you are standing by the switch. I was hung up on the fact that the switch man would be duty bound to act. A civilian may be duty bound to act as well (I refer to the the last episode of Seinfeld as an example) but this is a detracting question so I'll drop it.

 

Here's food for thought: regardless of any ethical reasoning that is applied to this situation in reality you would likely face less public scrutiny for killing the one than you would by refusing to act and killing the seven. In fact, you would probably receive public sympathy. However, by refusing to act you may invoke an inquiry into your actions and would be forced to defend your actions before a private, and perhaps even public inquisition. Therefore, based primarily on pragmatism and self interest, wouldn't the best decision be to kill the one and not the seven?

 

Yes, and that's a direct result of the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" ideology that societies have set up. It's a dilemma...if you kill one person to save 7, then are you setting a specific value on individuals? And if you are, why does that value not apply to other things? For instance, organ harvesting?

 

No, I'm not arguing utilitarianism here. I'm arguing self interested pragmatism. Because SOCIETY would evaluate your action or inaction based on a utilitarian assessment I'm saying that it would be in YOUR best interest to take the course of action that society would expect you to. Doing so may or may not be ethical in your own mind, but you would likely suffer less or no consequences due to societal judgment of your actions. Make sense?

 

This to is a detraction from the point you are trying to make. It's just an aside or an afterthought.

[Asimov]

Assuming all things were equal (qualities of potential victims, etc) I'd actively switch the track to save "the many" and "minimise the damage". I believe that someone is just as responsible for their lack of action in any situation as they are for their action.

 

What the fuck is your avatar? Sorry, I can't concentrate because I keep staring at it.

 

 

Hey, dude, if I of all people can find it, you must be fallin' off. But really, I was just fuckin' with you. And I DID answer the question in the last post. So unbunch your panties.

 

Jerk.

 

No, I'm not arguing utilitarianism here. I'm arguing self interested pragmatism. Because SOCIETY would evaluate your action or inaction based on a utilitarian assessment I'm saying that it would be in YOUR best interest to take the course of action that society would expect you to. Doing so may or may not be ethical in your own mind, but you would likely suffer less or no consequences due to societal judgment of your actions. Make sense?

 

Yes, true. I think either way I chose I would feel badly about it. I don't consider people dying a good thing, and as Dhampir kept pointing out most would probably try as hard as they could to save everyone.