Interesting philosophical question :)

Wildt4lon · 01-21-2013, 07:45 AM

Haha Spacechef seen that one only the gentleman is a fat man, fat enough to stop the train. Funnely enough, the average shallow thinker would pull the lever, but would not push the man, despite similar consequences.

Dr.LASR · 01-21-2013, 08:14 AM

I would pull the lever.
He should, but in a way he pays it back, not through jail time
I would push him.

Judment · 01-21-2013, 08:25 AM

I feel that I would push the man, in the interest of saving the lives of the four men.

The needs of the many outway the needs of the few as they say

Wildt4lon · 01-21-2013, 08:29 AM

But, judgement, consider if that man in the bridge were to invent a cure for cancer? And consider if, perhaps, he had a wife who has a child of only a couple of months?

Judment · 01-21-2013, 08:56 AM

The same theory holds true for the four men on the train track, only magnified by four. I am sure that the mans family could take reconciliation from the fact that his death was the leading factor in the saving of the lives of four others.

EkoFox · 01-21-2013, 11:09 AM

Wild, if the odds that any one person would cure cancer were the same, then those four men have four times the chance to cure cancer than that one man.

So: Yes pull the lever, either inaction kills four or action kills one, preserve 3 more lives.
No don't punish him, by doing a small infraction of theft, he did the greater moral good of saving a life.
Yes push the guy, same as first question.

Coolio · 01-21-2013, 03:32 PM

If they're working on the railroad are they really gonna cure cancer?

**TheQwertiest** · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2013 03:33 PM by TheQwertiest.)

(01-21-2013 04:34 AM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:
(01-21-2013 04:24 AM)Wildtalon1851 Wrote: TheQwertiest, are you entirely sure that you haven't biased your judgement in respect to my age?

No, I don't think he has. You argued in the 'Law and Order'-direction which corresponds to the 4th stage of Lawrence Kohlberg's model of moral development. Most people are on the same level.

i actually put her on preconventional under stages 1,2.
i think her answer is more on the direct consequence for the action and also leaning into "paying for a benefit" which is categorized under stage 2. but i could be wrong and which would place her in stage 4.

i think we could judge more accurately if we change the question from "should the man be punished for his theft? and why?" to "should Heinz (the man) have broken into the lab to steal the drug for his wife? why or why not?" which was used in the example

EkoFox · (This post was last modified: 01-21-2013 04:37 PM by EkoFox.)

Answering the new question, yes, he should, because saving a life is more important than the law, which is in place to protect against something 'bad' like stealing just to sell for even more money on the black market.

Same reasoning, just applied to whether he should break in and steal.

**TheQwertiest** · 01-21-2013, 06:00 PM

(01-21-2013 06:38 AM)spacechef Wrote: There's a possible follow up question to the train track dilemma. Instead of a lever, imagine you're standing next to someone on a bridge, watching as the train barrels towards four workers. If you push the gentlemen next to you off the bridge, you'll be able to save the four workers. Do you do it? If you answered yes to pulling the lever, why would you answer no to pushing the man off the bridge? Mathematically, the result is the same.

SHAMELESS PLUG ALERT

Also, check out Radiolab, they gave an interesting podcast on morality, as well as a bunch of interesting podcasts. The one on games might be interesting for those of you who obsess over Outwitters tactics and strategy.

i will not kill a man to save 4 people.