Interesting philosophical question :)

[Wildt4lon]

Imagine you are standing on a train platform. The track next to you forks either way. There are four men working on the right fork and there is one man working on the left fork. Suddenly, up ahead, you see a runaway train! Currently, the track is set to the right fork. The men will not have enough time to run, even if they knew it was coming. You can do nothing, except... In front of you, there is a lever. If you pull the lever, you will be able to switch the track so that the train runs left, and only one man dies. Aware that you cannot save everyone, do you pull the lever?
Think carefully!

[Kamikaze28]

A sociopath would pull the lever without hesitation. "Normal" people would hesitate and let the four men die and probably suffer from guilt.

I find the following an even more interesting philosophical dilemma:
Imagine a married couple. The woman is terminally ill but the one medicine that could cure her is very expensive. The man now asks all his friends and family to lend him money and he mobilizes his last reserves, but they can only come up with half of the money. The man now asks the chairman of the respective medical company to give him time to come up with the other half of the money while his wife is cured. The chairman refuses and insists on getting the full price up front.
The man now breaks into the medical company and steals one dose of the medicine to cure his wife and save her life.
Question: Should the man be punished for his theft? And why?

[TheQwertiest]

(01-20-2013 09:09 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  A sociopath would pull the lever without hesitation. "Normal" people would hesitate and let the four men die and probably suffer from guilt.

I find the following an even more interesting philosophical dilemma:
Imagine a married couple. The woman is terminally ill but the one medicine that could cure her is very expensive. The man now asks all his friends and family to lend him money and he mobilizes his last reserves, but they can only come up with half of the money. The man now asks the chairman of the respective medical company to give him time to come up with the other half of the money while his wife is cured. The chairman refuses and insists on getting the full price up front.
The man now breaks into the medical company and steals one dose of the medicine to cure his wife and save her life.
Question: Should the man be punished for his theft? And why?

theres no correct answer. your answer would depend on what stage you are in moral development. if i remember correctly thats kohlbergs example.

[Wildt4lon]

He should. Despite someone's life being at risk, there is NO excuse for theft. The deed is done, his wife is healed, and he should pay anyway. It majes sense because, this way, he has found a way to strike an inevitable deal with the chairman. So, in a sense, he has 'borrowed' the money and will pay back with a sentence in prison

[TheQwertiest]

youre at the preconventional stage in moral development

[Wildt4lon]

??? What?! I don't get that.

[Kamikaze28]

TheQwertiest, you hit the nail on the head

[TheQwertiest]

(01-20-2013 09:27 PM)Kamikaze28 Wrote:  TheQwertiest, you hit the nail on the head

did i? sorry im not very sure. i cant find my old books >.<

[Judment]

I would not allow the man to go unanswered for his crimes. Despite the necessity of his actions, the law is in place to ensure that certain standards are met and to allow those standards to waiver, even in such a difficult situation, the manager of the company had no obligation to hand out free wares, and the man had no justifiable legal reason to respond in such a way. If his crime were unanswered it would set a precedent that could, under no circumstances be a justifiable and reasonable answer.

[TheQwertiest]

if i remember correctly, youre in stage 4 under conventional stage ( still cant find my books)