This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Trolley dilemma
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Monday
Useless information was his point, but this was a bit of an exaggeration.
He asked for a moral absolute. I gave it to him.
But the view of "good" is flexible, and some societies base it all upon honor/status and the like, nothing about morality.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But the view of "good" is flexible, and some societies base it all upon honor/status and the like, nothing about morality.
In a discussion about morality, when someone uses the word "good," it's implicit that they mean moral good.
Post by
Laihendi
So what if there was a trolley and it might break before it hit the people on the track, would you jump in front of it to save them anyways?
Post by
Laihendi
What if a trolley is going down a track and you're riding it, but you have to jump out before you hit a guy who's standing in the track intentionally to commit suicide, do you try to save him or do you just let him die?
Post by
Monday
But the view of "good" is flexible, and some societies base it all upon honor/status and the like, nothing about morality.
In a discussion about morality, when someone uses the word "good," it's implicit that they mean moral good.
Bingo. The OP never asked about 'good', but rather what would be morally correct.
As for me, throwing the switch is the same as shoving the person - they both are actions done by you, with you knowing the full consequences beforehand, that result in the death of someone who otherwise would have lived had you not acted. The difference is how intimate the killing is, and therefore how heavily it weighs upon your conscious after the fact. Because of this, I would be able to throw the switch, but unable to muster the courage(?) to shove the person to an equally certain doom.
Oh, and HsR, by your definition of 'killing', is locking someone in a room indefinitely to leave them to starve qualify as killing them? After all, you didn't actually end the life, but knew that survival was impossible thanks to your actions. I'm curious.
iirc if you are in the US you can be charged for murder.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But the view of "good" is flexible, and some societies base it all upon honor/status and the like, nothing about morality.
In a discussion about morality, when someone uses the word "good," it's implicit that they mean moral good.
Bingo. The OP never asked about 'good', but rather what would be morally correct.
i.e. good.
You're not making much sense.
Oh, and HsR, by your definition of 'killing', is locking someone in a room indefinitely to leave them to starve qualify as killing them? After all, you didn't actually end the life, but knew that survival was impossible thanks to your actions. I'm curious.
You don't seem to understand the distinction being made.
Many actions have two ends. In those cases you apply DDE (The Doctrine of Double Effect). The example you just gave is just one end.
iirc if you are in the US you can be charged for murder.
Legality =/= morality
Post by
Laihendi
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
You can't control your dreams.
Therefore it was nothing.
Post by
Laihendi
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
You can't control your dreams.
Therefore it was nothing.
But what if you dreamed it while intentionally doing it at the same time?
Post by
Monday
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
You can't control your dreams.
Therefore it was nothing.
But what if you dreamed it while intentionally doing it at the same time?
I didn't understand that.
Do you mean like sleep-pulling the lever or something?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But what if you dreamed it while intentionally doing it at the same time?
THIS THREAD IS NOT ABOUT DREAMS!
LEAVE, OFF-TOPIC TROLL.
Post by
148723
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Laihendi
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
You can't control your dreams.
Therefore it was nothing.
But what if you dreamed it while intentionally doing it at the same time?
I didn't understand that.
Do you mean like sleep-pulling the lever or something?
What if you steered a trolley into a person and killed him, but it was just a dream, but you had also actually steered a trolley into a person and killed him at the same time as you had the dream?
Post by
Monday
What if you steer a trolley into a person and kill him, but it was actually just a dream?
You can't control your dreams.
Therefore it was nothing.
But what if you dreamed it while intentionally doing it at the same time?
I didn't understand that.
Do you mean like sleep-pulling the lever or something?
What if you steered a trolley into a person and killed him, but it was just a dream, but you had also actually steered a trolley into a person and killed him at the same time as you had the dream?
You were asleep. If you could prove you were asleep you have no problem and it wasn't your fault.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's why I asked. I was wondering how, in the earlier scenario, cutting the tube was not killing while an abortion would be (I'm not debating abortion, but just clarifying the example).
And yes, I'm fully aware about legality versus morality. I'll look up DDE in a second :)
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/
Post by
Laihendi
You were asleep. If you could prove you were asleep you have no problem and it wasn't your fault.
But what if you
intentionally
steered a trolley into someone and killed him while you were asleep and dreaming of doing what you did?
Post by
Monday
You were asleep. If you could prove you were asleep you have no problem and it wasn't your fault.
But what if you
intentionally
steered a trolley into someone and killed him while you were asleep and dreaming of doing what you did?
If you are asleep how do you do that? Your brain is shut down.
Edit: And I believe Ciabli is correct. Doing likewise.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, simply appealing to dde is intellectually lazy... while the trolley example is a classic application of dde, there are still many criticisms of its application.
Simply denying a ethical tool that has been around for several centuries is what I call intellectually lazy.
Post by
229791
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.