Morality and Ethics - The Trolley Problem

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

5 minutes ago, ryoder said:

 plowed into the stopped car, missing the tire-changing moron 

Hi Robert,

Wasn't it Darwin who something about survival of the fittest?

Jerry Baumchen

[jakee 1,254]

6 minutes ago, ryoder said:

I'll bet the accident happened as the bike was changing lanes.

From the articles it sounds like the bike was following a car who changed lanes at the last minute to avoid the stationary vehicle. 

[timski 80]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Are the group of five all dudes who beat your ass in school? Is the one guy Einstein or someone you owe bank to? Is there time to sell the opportunity? These thought games always take a lot of thought, sometimes.

I quickly read that as Epstein, I'm definitely taking out that scum bag, oh way, ...

[JoeWeber 2,299]

45 minutes ago, timski said:

I quickly read that as Epstein, I'm definitely taking out that scum bag, oh way, ...

One mans Epstein.....

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

16 hours ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi Wendy,

30 yrs ago, when my daughter first started driving, our insurance agent talked to her.  I went with her.  One of the things that he said/told her ( using your terms ) was to hit the squirrel.

Jerry Baumchen

On a somewhat similar note, I know of several people who have had serious accidents swerving to avoid a deer. 
One of those cost a friend her life.

 

Hit the deer, squirrel or whatever. 

[wmw999 2,121]

Oh absolutely; swerves I've done have been instinctive, and minor. But that instinctive part is hard to fight.

Wendy P.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

On a somewhat similar note, I know of several people who have had serious accidents swerving to avoid a deer. 
One of those cost a friend her life.

 

Hit the deer, squirrel or whatever. 

I'd suggest avoiding the moose though.

 

[billvon 2,397]

On 1/16/2020 at 11:42 AM, airdvr said:

No question.  1 dead vs. 5 dead?  I'm morally obligated to do anything within my means to change the outcome. 

OK, then here's a similar situation:

You are a doctor in charge of the ER in a hospital.  A man comes in unconscious from a car accident.  He will almost surely recover 100%.  Also in the ER are five people who will die within the day unless organ donors are found, but no donors are available.  The unconscious man is a perfect tissue match for those five people.

Do you choose 1 dead or 5 dead?

[billvon 2,397]

22 hours ago, wmw999 said:

I agree with the "no moral obligation in 1 second" attitude. Also with the second-guessing. I'd like to say I'd probably pull the lever, but I'm not sure. I wouldn't push the guy off the bridge.

Most people choose those two answers.  Interestingly, when a very specific brain structure is damaged (the VMFPC) people almost unerringly give the utilitarian answer (i.e. sacrifice one to save five) even in the push-the-guy-off-the-bridge case.

[BIGUN 1,053]

2 minutes ago, billvon said:

ost people choose those two answers.  Interestingly, when a very specific brain structure is damaged (the VMFPC) people almost unerringly give the utilitarian answer (i.e. sacrifice one to save five) even in the push-the-guy-off-the-bridge case.

I was waiting for it . . . but, it never came. Now that you've given your answer on the train of pulling the lever -

Is your answer the same if it's your daughter or son that's on the side track?

 

 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

18 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Is your answer the same if it's your daughter or son that's on the side track?

For me it isn't the same. I believe I now do have a moral obligation to act and will sacrifice the 5 or 10 or 20 or whatever to save my child.

 

[DJL 232]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

OK, then here's a similar situation:

You are a doctor in charge of the ER in a hospital.  A man comes in unconscious from a car accident.  He will almost surely recover 100%.  Also in the ER are five people who will die within the day unless organ donors are found, but no donors are available.  The unconscious man is a perfect tissue match for those five people.

Do you choose 1 dead or 5 dead?

First you have to pretend the Hypocratic Oath dosn't exist in a hospital, specifically "First, do no harm."

5 dead.  One simply can't be admitted to the hospital under the risk of being harvested for other patients.

[DJL 232]

26 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

For me it isn't the same. I believe I now do have a moral obligation to act and will sacrifice the 5 or 10 or 20 or whatever to save my child.

 

I've heard this scenario involved in the "Son trapped on the railroad bridge" situation.  They can pry up the track and save the kid but the father sees that it's a passenger train and hundreds will perish.

[jakee 1,254]

14 minutes ago, DJL said:

5 dead.  One simply can't be admitted to the hospital under the risk of being harvested for other patients.

What's the difference? You've decided the poor guy on the side track can be sacrificed simply for going to work on the railway (or whatever reason he's there). 

 

Let's not pussyfoot around it - in either situation you are intentionally murdering one person to save five. Why is the utilitarian ethics valid in one setting but not the other?

[billvon 2,397]

27 minutes ago, DJL said:

First you have to pretend the Hypocratic Oath dosn't exist in a hospital, specifically "First, do no harm."

The person considering throwing the switch could as easily be a doctor.

But strip away all the other obligations (like that oath, or the idea that maybe the railroad worker isn't authorized to touch the switch.)  What's the _moral_ thing to do?

Quote

5 dead.  One simply can't be admitted to the hospital under the risk of being harvested for other patients.

Would it also be just as valid to say "one simply can't work on any form of transit under the risk of being sacrificed for other workers?"  Or is it more personal, since a person might have to go to a hospital, but can choose to never be a transit worker - and thus the trolley problem isn't as personally valid?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

36 minutes ago, billvon said:

What's the _moral_ thing to do?

Pray and let god decide.

 

38 minutes ago, billvon said:

Would it also be just as valid to say "one simply can't work on any form of transit under the risk of being sacrificed for other workers?"  Or is it more personal, since a person might have to go to a hospital, but can choose to never be a transit worker - and thus the trolley problem isn't as personally valid?

Difference being that expectation of a random person on a trail yard and a doctor at work in an emergency room are different.

[jakee 1,254]

39 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Difference being that expectation of a random person on a trail yard and a doctor at work in an emergency room are different.

Doctors aren't expected to make moral decisions but random people are?

 

Kinda selling the medical profession short, eh?

[billvon 2,397]

56 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Difference being that expectation of a random person on a trail yard and a doctor at work in an emergency room are different.

The doctor would be expected to be less moral, because he is forbidden from choosing the utilitarian option?

[SkyDekker 1,122]

21 minutes ago, jakee said:

Doctors aren't expected to make moral decisions but random people are?

 

Kinda selling the medical profession short, eh?

Yeah, kinda the other way around.

Though I did once know a surgeon who had to drink to keep his hands from shaking.

[airdvr 197]

6 hours ago, billvon said:

OK, then here's a similar situation:

You are a doctor in charge of the ER in a hospital.  A man comes in unconscious from a car accident.  He will almost surely recover 100%.  Also in the ER are five people who will die within the day unless organ donors are found, but no donors are available.  The unconscious man is a perfect tissue match for those five people.

Do you choose 1 dead or 5 dead?

Not really seeing the conundrum on this one.  

[billvon 2,397]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Not really seeing the conundrum on this one.  

So there is a simple answer to the doctor paradox.  What is it?

[turtlespeed 212]

41 minutes ago, billvon said:

So there is a simple answer to the doctor paradox.  What is it?

Ever hear of the Kobayashi Maru?

[billvon 2,397]

34 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Ever hear of the Kobayashi Maru?

Yep.  That was a conundrum with no easy answer.  I am interested in Airdvr's easy answer.

(Note that there is no right and wrong answer - but trying to answer it leads to some interesting perspectives on it.)

[headoverheels 291]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

Yep.  That was a conundrum with no easy answer.  I am interested in Airdvr's easy answer.

(Note that there is no right and wrong answer - but trying to answer it leads to some interesting perspectives on it.)

The 5 should die.  It is their time.

(not to mention the million dollars saved by not doing 5 transplants).

 

[airdvr 197]

12 hours ago, airdvr said:

He will almost surely recover 100%.

There's your answer.  If you said he most surely will die there was an episode of M.A.S.H. that dealt with that scenario and  even then they waited.