Interesting philosophical question :)

[Alvendor]

(01-22-2013 09:27 AM)GoHeat 3 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:12 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  Interesting thread, regarding the lever and fat man issue. Am I in the minority in that I would pull the lever but would not push the man?

I agree with you and so does TheQwertiest!

I guess you could make a scenario that is in the middle of those two that could make me unsure, but in their current form I'm pretty clear of my actions.

---

Imagine the fat man was already laying on the trail. he asks you for help, you have the option to drag him away but in that case the train will kill 4 other people. What do you do?

---

To be able to analyze decisions and morals in these scenarios I think you have to assume that there are no more options than those present. Hence you are 100% sure what the outcome is for both choices.

But I agree there is an uneasy feeling in discussions morals in a very hypothetical situation!

[TheGreatErenan]

(01-22-2013 09:27 AM)GoHeat 3 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:12 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  Interesting thread, regarding the lever and fat man issue. Am I in the minority in that I would pull the lever but would not push the man?

I agree with you and so does TheQwertiest!

Assuming all people involved are completely innocent and generally equal in all respects, I would pull the lever. But I would not push the fat man, except perhaps if I knew he was the villain responsible for the scenario in the first place. Mostly this is just my intuition talking.

But if I think about it a little, I guess the way I see it is twofold:

1. In a real-life scenario like this you can be sure the lever would alter the train's path, but how can you be sure that a fat man's mass would actually stop the train and save anyone's life at all? This also means that I would try to pull the fat man off the tracks if he was there and pleading for help.
2. The person on the "safe" track is already in danger. He's standing on a train track, for crying out loud. Pulling the lever alters a dangerous situation in a way that minimizes casualties. This is comparable to steering an already crashing plane toward a place of minimal population. On the other hand, pushing a fat man off a bridge is creating a new dangerous situation for someone who was previously not in any danger.
   

---

Should a part of this scenario be to assume that you don't have enough wits to spawn a Bramble and create thorns to stop the train?

[TheQwertiest]

(01-22-2013 09:27 AM)GoHeat 3 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:12 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  Interesting thread, regarding the lever and fat man issue. Am I in the minority in that I would pull the lever but would not push the man?

I agree with you and so does TheQwertiest!

I think you got my answer wrong goheat.
i would not pull the lever. i wont decide on who gets to live or die. the only way i could make a decision in scenario like that would be if i knew the people personally.
i think pulling the lever is the same as actually pushing the man to his death.

[GoHeat 3]

(01-22-2013 11:51 AM)TheQwertiest Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:27 AM)GoHeat 3 Wrote:  

(01-22-2013 09:12 AM)Alvendor Wrote:  Interesting thread, regarding the lever and fat man issue. Am I in the minority in that I would pull the lever but would not push the man?

I agree with you and so does TheQwertiest!

I think you got my answer wrong goheat.
i would not pull the lever. i wont decide on who gets to live or die. the only way i could make a decision in scenario like that would be if i knew the people personally.
i think pulling the lever is the same as actually pushing the man to his death.

Oh ok it was a misunderstanding! My bad. I guess it's Alvendor and I then!

[brayton]

I would not push the fat man, unless i could assume things from him(such as i hear him on the phone, talking in a harrassng manner and seems like he is cold, not caring or swearing at people. In that case i would feel alot more inclined to push him if i could save others, since my morality says "if he doesnt appreciate life in that sense, the others are likely to appreciate it more so"). This only applies if i have 100% certainty about the #deaths number outcome, since if not i would surly hesitate.

With the lever, i am too far away to know ANYTHING about the men. I feel as if it is a more 'heroic' act to pull a lever and kill a man, saving 4 verses to push him to his death for the same outcome.
Lever seems more like saving, while pushing seems more like killing. i migh not even act for the lever, as i assume the men understand the risks involved.
I dont want to chose who lives or dies unless i atleast have aome info. But i wold pull the lever if i had the time to think it over.


As for whether the fat man fell on the tracks, or was pushed by someone else so that he was on the tracks, i would likely not risk myself to save him, when him being saved condems the others.

As for the raft issues, i would stay on the raft since i could never forgive myself. By staying with them, i am increasing they're chance of survival. we will all die, and even if i had something i wanted to do or say, effecting others life so severly would not allow me to do it.
If my last convosation with my dad was bad, and i hated him(or portrayed that) duringthe convosation, i would not leave the sinking raft, because if i live and tell my dad/wife/daughter whatever i want to say, i wouldnt be the same. Id have to hope/assume they'd think that of me, and if i returned, they know i didnt stay, fufilling my duty of helping the raft. I wouldnt be able to live the same, and others perception(of me) would be different.

---

As for the women with medicine problem, i wouldnt justify the theft unless there is no shortage of material. Stealing, which would mean that someone else cannot get treatment. I just wouldnt think its okay for someone to be luckyier in who they are born as, what choices they make, and then to steal from them. If someone whose grandfather had done something, and this wealth gave them just enough to buy the medicine, but have nothing left like you, your stealing from them. That just isnt right, they made sacrifices too, but are just luckier.


I would not push the fat man, unless i could assume things from him(such as i hear him on the phone, talking in a harrassng manner and seems like he is cold, not caring or swearing at people. In that case i would feel alot more inclined to push him if i could save others, since my morality says "if he doesnt appreciate life in that sense, the others are likely to appreciate it more so"). This only applies if i have 100% certainty about the #deaths number outcome, since if not i would surly hesitate.

With the lever, i am too far away to know ANYTHING about the men. I feel as if it is a more 'heroic' act to pull a lever and kill a man, saving 4 verses to push him to his death for the same outcome.

"not sure if last post posted, but i copier most of it. Damm forums

---

And thats why we need bumping.....

You guys are much smarter than me, but everyone seems fairly intelligent morally.

With the fat man, if i heard him on the phone, saying how he loves family members, and that he works for them, i wouldnt push him.

If he was on the tracts, well i, in no universe LIFT A FAT MAN.

---

Im just not that strong. Passiveness is alot easier to take when people will definatly die,
If the fat man was the president, i wouldnt care. They are a representative. Not a hero

[brayton]

Also, pushing someone into a train to save ohers is more man-slaughter like, verses to pull a lever is more saving, less man-slaughter

[Wildt4lon]

Uhhhhmmm Brayton, why would someone be randomly on the phone just as you approach the scene?

[Alvendor]

To those who wouldn't pull the lever:

You are the only one in an airplane loaded with nuclear weapons crashing down. If you do nothing the airplane will crash into a big city killing hundreds of thousands. You can't land the plane but have the option to steer it away from the city, crashing it in the countryside which would still kill people but it would be way less.

If you don't pull the lever, do you still steer away the plane from the city? The two situations seems fairly equal to me.

[TheQwertiest]

(01-22-2013 08:36 PM)Alvendor Wrote:  To those who wouldn't pull the lever:

You are the only one in an airplane loaded with nuclear weapons crashing down. If you do nothing the airplane will crash into a big city killing hundreds of thousands. You can't land the plane but have the option to steer it away from the city, crashing it in the countryside which would still kill people but it would be way less.

If you don't pull the lever, do you still steer away the plane from the city? The two situations seems fairly equal to me.

yes i would steer the plane away.
the two cases are a bit different cause in the first one its like youre forcing someone
else to make the sacrifice for.. oh wait its the same.. damn you rick. haha

well anyway on your case i really would choose to steer the plane away.
atleast on your example i wouldnt have to live with the guilt of having to choose who gets to live or die.

so i would prefer to have less people die if im to die anyway

[brayton]

Yeah, since with the plane its less i choose you to die and more that (smaller) group is 'effected'.
It seems less personal. Like not im killing someone, its more so such large area is killed with me, less single person sacrificng.. Just seems less personaly... Yes i wouldnt go for city.

Reply to the office email question..
I ask boss if i can say.
He says no. Damm.
I tell freind that she might be cheating, mabey make up scenareo(she called me, thinking i was the other guy). He is very cautios. He might see it, but if ot life is still good for him(lol, it aint as good as it semms). No need to mention email....
(how much did the lol effect things. I thought id just put it there to show the change in oppinion of me)

As for the Daughter being *****, well i would tell authorities of him not killing her, but that he raped her. Trial goes either way for him, but definatly no prison for merder atleast.

As for daughter drowning. If i had a daugther, if its 50-50 chance she dies, verses 100% chance neice dies, id go for neice if it is 75% daughter, but as for how it is(50%) id go for daughter.
She is your daughter, and there would allways be bias..she is your child. Just my selfishness. Dont send your kids to me(!!!)

And as for the Phone cenario with fat man, lots of people are on phones at train stations these days(not sure about days before) and so there is quite a bit of likely hood to be able to gather some info on the person.

Also, say with the email, how its nore realsitic, or the man and your daughter, It gives too many options to REALLY force your hand.

As for the Plane vs Lever vs Fat man thing, its how its displayed. Wiping out heeps of people or steering away from them(albeit at a cost of others), pushing a man to his death to save others or kiling a man during the process of saving the others. Its really quite different. Plane is more passive, lever is more 'colateral damage/unfortunate happening' while pushing is a very Active thing, it just dont happen . I mean the difference is pushing is his death is the action, while lever is death as a consequence. Might make a good interactive novel or game, titled MORAL.... Dun dun dahhh!!!

Alternative to the Plane thing...
Sorry if this offends anyone based upon their countries past.

The rebublic of MoO is at war, after the communistic country QUaCK started invading in a horible movtive of Genocide. The war is just starting, and the people are angry, causing riots about their leaders actions, while the rest support them in the hainous motion.

60% whant to overthrow the government, but have little miltiary power. 40% are racist and support the government. The government has power over the people due to their military might. Killing those who are rioting.

After day, or a short time of war, QUaCK has allready killed far to many, in horrible ways.
Since the war is fresh, the neirboughing country BARK(neirboughs to both MoO and QUaCK) hasnt had time to react properly. Airlines are now being halted, but not before some have left. Nuclear weapons are on a plane operated by a BARK crew. QUaCK has started acting against BARK, but hasnt attacked.
Masses of MoO families are seeking refuge in BARK, and BARK allows that since they are such good Allies, the people never being hostile and caring deeply. The MoO government has offered support when natural disaster stikes. The Plane is transporting Nuclaer weapons to SQUeAK, a country attacked by others in a completly different contenent. SQUeAK is the victim, and will perish if not for the aid of BARK. The Plane is shot by QUaCK forces, and is overhead the border of MoO and QUaCK, with no other lands in sight.

The Plane, losing Alititude quickly, has options. The land directly below is the rural/suberb area of COWLAND. It could make it there, but the smaller population will perish in the Explosion.
On the same side of the border, it could hit DIARY, a mid sized city of MoO.
Killing all in the city.
Over the border

---

over the border, QUaCK is nearby. It has suberbia, known to be a region strongly supporting The militay acts. Furher away, but still within reach the Capitol city of QUaCK's most powerful region, DUCK. DUCK has 40-60 in the support/dissaproval of the military act. The city AVIARY, OF DUCK has a large amount of troops to suppress and kill rioters and opposers Of the Goverment. Other troops are moving through here to reach the front line.

Your question is, where do you crash.
Kill the least amount of people, that would likely die in the following days,
Kill small-medium amounts of mostly racist enimies wanting genocide,
Wipe out the large city, killing millions. Some are enemy supporters, while others are civilians taken, abused and given no choice to the matters. Many Enemy troops are here.

This choice could define the war.
Many deaths could save many lives.
This attack could stop the war, or give the other countries time to save the citizens.

Although BARK is not at war with QUaCK, they dissaprove of them, but are fearful of uprising.
Even though you are not at war with them, you dont think its right.

Please change stats to make it harder choice.

---

I tried to not referance any real countries, so chose cows, dogs and ducks were a safe way to go.

I personally have a mixed oppion about war.
Being at my age, i havent developed to that extent morally.
I remember being young, thinking that at night in bed that a soldeir shooting another with a gun is the same as murder, only legal. I also thought how can commanders bomb places, killing the residents, when the troops are just residents with guns, defending their stake, working their job, without a say in who dies(in the long run).
See due to my religious raising, i was taught that killing is up with the worst things you can do, and so i didnt understand a difference between 'tactially' killing for 'defense' verses 'heartless/cold' killing of civilians.

TheKwirtiest(haha, ......ok im sorry, please dont hurt me, im sorry, ok...) and any others with a background in Physocology please help..... What is the morally right decision.
How many lives are worth the cost to take down a group of men who call the shots.
Really, war is not agianst a nation, its against a group of men who order death.

Whats your oppinions