To what % below 100%? You realize we are all going to die right, and that actually from the moment we are born we are all in the process of living and dying at the same time?

Since we're all going to die anyway what you're saying is that the subjective experience of 5 random people is more important than the experience of 1...the problem is this promotes the idea that quantity of life is more important than quality(if 5 live and 1 dies it's a net gain or if one person lives to be 80 and another 70 the person that lives to be 80 had a more successful life) which is an idea that is completely arbitrary. None of us are in a position to judge or determine the quality of another person's life as we are only able to view it from our perspective of what a quality life is which will vary in different ways with every person you meet. Doing it randomly to avoid this issue still leaves the issue that quality is less important than quantity of life.

This has nothing to do with quality versus quantity.

So what is the basis for proposing a surgeon press a button that kills 1 to save 5 then? It clearly implies quantity > quality of life.

We are stipulating quality is equal. Then you can use quantity as a tie breaker. If that's also equal you see which ones have read Theory of Poker when deciding who to kill.

You are tossing out stipulations as you go that are only possible in hypothetical constructs of the situation but would never be remotely applicable in real life. Basically asking....OK now that all other things are created equal, do you agree with me? Well yea, if the question is would I rather have 5 brand new Ferraris than 1 brand new Ferrari I'd have to be an idiot to only take the 1. Human beings aren't things that have a set value of $x that we all agree on though. You are asking however, for us to agree on a set value for all human life across the board. It's just really silly and accomplishes nothing more than making David Sklansky feel good about himself bc a bunch of people on the internet agreed with him under the constructs of "if all things are created equal other than x and based only on my saying so"....zzzzzz

If you want to discuss the application of morality on society you should at least construct situations that are somewhat realistic. Otherwise you are basically just asking...would you rather have 10 apples or 1 apple....the obv answer is pretty much always going to be 10.

Let me rephrase. We are stipulating that quality is ON AVERAGE equal and we know nothing about the people involved.

In any case you are missing the point. If you agree that if quality is equal then quantity matters you are rejecting the idea that having fewer people die is still not acceptable if they are different people. That's what some theists would say. They don't want to play God. You seem to agree that there aren't secular arguments if the people can be considered equal. In that case you and I would both reduce the number of deaths.

And I don't need these arguments to feel good about myself.

That may be true. However when you post these hypotheticals in which people disagree with you and give multiple good reasons for doing so, your response seems to be to add more stipulations which make it harder for anyone going forward to disagree with you. You have several threads that you started within the past few days in which you're doing this consistently.

that the humans are equal (or more correctly, that our knowledge of them is equal: none) is completely standard. If someone hadn't made it explicit then it is only because it is assumed as obvious.

So perhaps the person that is executed for donor harvest is someone who previously benefited from the previous event. All subsequent executions would be limited to one of the previous benefactors, so you'd at least limit yourself to only one completely random execution: the very first.

But doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of this scenario? If there was no execution to save five patients, you would end up with five transplant sources, with twenty-five patients being saved.


OT: As for the Donor option on the driving license, I think I remember this being brought under discussion some time ago (can't remember where, or when), that it should be changed to an opt-out rather than an opt-in. But the reason, I thought, was not whether the wording was action vs. inaction, but simply that people are lazy and do not answer questions unless they are required to. You could find out whether the action/inaction wording was significant by asking the question at the end of every driving test (and I'd be surprised if it really made a difference). btw, I think the opt-out proposal was deemed illegal, but I really don't remember any details.

The Trolley Car Caper

So at the last second, the trolley driver switches the train to a secondary track that kills one guy, but saves five. It is all recorded on video. The trolley driver becomes a hero to the public for making this tough, but seemingly correct, moral decision. He is absolved of all blame. Then one detective digs deeper into the incident. He discovers that not all was what it seemed. It turns out the the dead man was a card mechanic who had for years played poker with the six other men and always won money. He had also secretly slept with each of the six men's wives. Under tough questioning the trolley driver breaks downs and reveals, "Yes , it is true! The guy was a cheat and a creep. We found him out and then we planned the perfect crime of vengeance! We knew he liked to linger on that track. Five of us stood on the main track at the right time, You can't convict us for what we did either. It was either five of us dead or just him. Switching tracks was the right thing to do. Just read that poker internet forum." The detective thought about it for a long time, and then let him go.

On a less silly note. Suppose I have it in for some unsavory type who I know might not be above robbing me. And I flash big money in the casino in front of him several days in a row in the hopes he will follow me home and break in. Unbeknownst to him I am well prepared for that and if and when he breaks in I shoot him dead. Is it murder if they can prove my intentions?

Legally it should constitute as murder as you have not acted out of necessity (the legal principle of when it is appropriate to violate the law, not individual judgement of appropriate action), you have also displayed intent to kill and you have planned the action in advance.

To prove necessity you generally have to show you had no other reasonable alternative. That would not be the case in this scenario.

You might get in a minor point on mitigating circumstances (you felt your wealth was threatened, he broke in, you might have been momentarily at risk), but assuming all the facts are on the table and the verdict is in accordance with the actual events you should definitely go away for murder.

Although this is an unpopular view, and atheists who sell books like to argue otherwise, I think you would be hard pressed to find any compelling reason to do anything (divert the train, don't divert the train, shoot a robber, cut up someone for their organs, beat a child, you name it) that either does not invoke religion or an appeal to a god -OR- which at its core is nothing more than "because I want to."

If neither the universe itself nor an intangible father-god is dictating our actions, we are free to as we wish, and take whatever meaning or pleasure or shame from it as suits us -- or which may be mostly inborn and tangled up in our emotions and our upbringing and largely outside our direct control.

If you impose a moral code on your actions, for example "try not to hurt people, and when in doubt, think about what Grandpa would have done," you can then measure diverting the train versus not diverting the train against your code and see what shakes out. But I refuse to accept that you can justify your action in any meaningful way to me, except insofar as I am lazy and conformist because I have better things to do than deal with moral decisions that lie outside the accepted range of normal within my society. You could convince me that your moral code is reasonable -- but reasonable does not mandate it, does not mean it is right and any other system is wrong. It just comes down to more of the same - if I feel like behaving the way you suggest, I may do it. If not, I probably won't.

Can I make rocks soft, so they don't hurt anyone?

The problem arises because you have assigned a value to a human life that's one problem I see. You also assume that more people alive is better? How so? Why is saving 5 people to 1 person better? To me its like saying its better to have 50 billion people than 7 billion people!

In other words none of this means a dam thing because of the arbitrary value one gives a human life.

Another problem is that we will never have all the information to make a "correct" decision. Serious the human condition is a disease.

there is only one philosophical question

If you had taken a minute to read though the post you've written off as silly you may realise it has actual implications for the trolley problem you decided to post about the day after learning of it. It's at least as relevant to trolleyology than the post to which I'm replying.

To what extent are the intentions of the actor relevant? If his decision to divert the trolley is not based on some greater good but instead because he intensely dislikes the person he directs the trolley at how are his actions compromised.

There's a book

http://www.amazon.com/Would-You-Kill...dp/0691154023/

It's pretty interesting and tests our commitment to particular ethical frameworks. Given that you posted in SMP about theoretical hypotheticals it seems reasonable that you may consider the legitimacy of them when posted before just knee jerking. The poster may just be taking the piss but it doesn't mean there's no relevance.

we are clearly arguing with respect to specific moralities, and in some sense flushing out which moralities have various consistencies and the like. Its fine to point out the lack of an objecting morality bequeathed to us by the great capital u Universe, but there is nothign wrong with accepting moral axioms and talking about their consequences. Questions about the ontological status of morality don't need to be brought up in everything thread involving moral questions.

Basically most people do what they feel is right, and devise ethical arguments that can justify the decision later. Besides probably not to long to think about issue at the time.

Which action would leave you feeling the more guilty? Likely this will vary depending on how bad things resulting from your inaction effect guilt emotion. Which will vary, some people feel responsible for things they could have stopped, while others are only feel guilt for actions they take.

This is likely to be bound up and influenced by practical matters. For instance the family of someone you actively kill is likely to take more issue with you than the family of the other five. As the cause and effect is clearer. This does not have to be a real issue, just a fear affecting your emotional judgement of the situation based on some past experience.

You're right.

But I thought in this case the OP was asking for this kind of conversation. What moral axioms do we take for granted when considering this question? Maybe I misunderstood his purpose in specifying that he didn't want religion or god to inform the answer.

Although I am not an atheist I think you were talking to me. Why did you think I would disagree with you.

I understand it could have implications but the posters intent appeared to be jocular. And it was far from the first day I learned about it.

Thanks, someone got the point.

Jocular is okay. Fine, you've known about it a while it seems to have piqued your interest recently and as such it may be worth considering the actual implications however jocular the situation be posed.

I realize now that to get the answer I was looking for even the Trolley Problem muddies the waters. Five people have been selected at random to be killed. You have the power to proclaim that it be only one person. But that person will be someone else. You will never know who those six were. But you will know that because you said "one not five" someone will die who would not have if you remained silent. Assuming you don't think that it is good when people die, is their a reasonable academic philosophical argument not invoking something like "God's will" ( or "it will make me feel bad" )that would ethically justify your silence?

Do we need a hypothetical? Is the current ebola quarantine not highly analogous to the trolley problem?

Soldiers ordered to shoot to kill to protect greater good.

And this where apparently lives of state official valued above others...

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...nrovia-liberia

Or would rather a new thread.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using 2+2 Forums