This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Trolley dilemma
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
561322
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Question is irrelevant until a moral system is defined.
I can answer them according to my own framework.
1. If the intention is to save the people, then it is morally permissible to do so.
2. It is not morally permissible to do so.
--------------------------------
On a related note, this is more or less relevant to a real-word example: ectopic pregnancy.
Using the same framework, it is morally permissible to cut the tube to save the mother (which results in the death of the embryo), but it is not morally permissible to directly kill the embryo.
Post by
Orranis
Many of you have probably heard this before, but here we go!
Question 1:
An empty trolley is on a track bound for five people tied to the rail. However, you can hit a lever to switch the course of the trolley before it hits those five people and the trolley will hop on another rail where there is only one person tied to the rail killing just one person instead of five.
Would it be morally correct to hit the lever?
Question 2:
Like before, the trolley is bound for five people tied to the rail, but there is no fork in the tracks with a lever. Instead, you have the option of pushing one person in front of the trolley to save the lives of the five people, instantly killing that one person.
Would it be morally correct to push that person in?
Ignoring all my moral nihilists arguments, I'm going to simplify it and say yes.
On the other hand, I doubt a trolley could kill anyone.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The questions are to be answered according to your own intuitive understanding of what is moral.
But then there is no room for discussion...it's just a fill-in-the-blank exercise.
Post by
Orranis
Because 5>1.
Post by
Orranis
The questions are to be answered according to your own intuitive understanding of what is moral.
But then there is no room for discussion...it's just a fill-in-the-blank exercise.
Moral absolutes. Go!
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
On a related note, this is more or less relevant to a real-word example: ectopic pregnancy.
Using the same framework, it is morally permissible to cut the tube to save the mother (which results in the death of the embryo), but it is not morally permissible to directly kill the embryo.
My intuitive belief here is that it is morally permissible to directly kill the embryo allowing the mother to have future pregnancies. Both actions kill the embryo, but I see no reason in damaging the uterine tube to achieve the same ends. This example is related, but is a much easier moral question in my mind because the embryo at this stage does not have a developed nervous system and would not be conscious to pain while those on the trolley are going to crushed while fully conscious.
You just proved my point. The question is irrelevant until we have a common moral system.
You don't believe human life has intrinsic value. I do.
Moral absolutes. Go!
Do good, avoid evil.
Post by
Orranis
Moral absolutes. Go!
Do good, avoid evil.
That's the equivalent of putting 21 divided by three into your calculator and getting 21/3.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Moral absolutes. Go!
Do good, avoid evil.
That's the equivalent of putting 21 divided by three into your calculator and getting 21/3.
Uh...what?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The intrinsic worth of human life has no relevance here as you are killing the embryo either way.
Wrong.
The embryo is
dying
either way.
You're only killing it in one.
DDE
Post by
Orranis
Moral absolutes. Go!
Do good, avoid evil.
That's the equivalent of putting 21 divided by three into your calculator and getting 21/3.
Uh...what?
Define good. Define evil.
Post by
Orranis
The intrinsic worth of human life has no relevance here as you are killing the embryo either way.
Wrong.
The embryo is
dying
either way.
You're only killing it in one.
DDE
That's kind of selfish if you ask me.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
That's kind of selfish if you ask me.
How is what selfish?
Define good. Define evil.
Good is that which all things seek after. Evil is the absence of good.
Post by
Orranis
That's kind of selfish if you ask me.
How is what selfish?
Because both actions kill the embryo, and one saves more than the other. To weigh in whether you are killing it or not, something that ultimately boils down to your own guilty conscious and nothing else, seems incredibly selfish to me.
Define good. Define evil.
Good is that which all things seek after. Evil is the absence of good.
If all things seek good, there can be no absence of it, but in mistake. Are you going to say no one on this planet has ever willingly done an objectively evil act?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
However, the fact that cutting the tube results in sterilization adds another variable.
An irrelevant detail if, again, you believe in the intrinsic worth of the human being. Life > Fertility. To make fertility an end above life would be morally wrong.
If the mother wants future pregnancies, aren't you preventing future good by cutting the tube? Wouldn't allowing for future pregnancies outweigh the minor evil of killing the embryo?
Again, see? You don't accept the intrinsic worth of the human life. The loss of fertility is the "minor evil" in this situation.
It would be a more interesting moral problem if the baby would survive in an ectopic pregnancy, but the mother would die.
You cannot kill the mother for the sake of the child just like you can't do the converse. The mother can choose to save the child, however.
Because both actions kill the embryo, and one saves more than the other. To weigh in whether you are killing it or not, something that ultimately boils down to your own guilty conscious and nothing else, seems incredibly selfish to me.
No one has said anything about
conscience
, so what does that have to do with anything?
And as I already said, only one is killing.
If all things seek good, there can be no absence of it, but in mistake. Are you going to say no one on this planet has ever willingly done an objectively evil act?
Every
thing
is good to some degree or another. To sin (commit evil) is to choose a lesser good over a greater.
Post by
Laihendi
Pushing someone in front of the trolley is stupid, because you could jump in front of it yourself. Only a selfish !@#$%^& would push someone in front of it like that.
And for the first scenario... assuming you know nothing about the people you're trying to save, it seems like the obvious thing to do would be to save the 5 people instead of the one, because it's hard to imagine how one person could be worth 5 people's lives.
Post by
Orranis
However, the fact that cutting the tube results in sterilization adds another variable.
An irrelevant detail if, again, you believe in the intrinsic worth of the human being. Life > Fertility. To make fertility an end above life would be morally wrong.
If the mother wants future pregnancies, aren't you preventing future good by cutting the tube? Wouldn't allowing for future pregnancies outweigh the minor evil of killing the embryo?
Again, see? You don't accept the intrinsic worth of the human life. The loss of fertility is the "minor evil" in this situation.
It would be a more interesting moral problem if the baby would survive in an ectopic pregnancy, but the mother would die.
You cannot kill the mother for the sake of the child just like you can't do the converse. The mother can choose to save the child, however.
Because both actions kill the embryo, and one saves more than the other. To weigh in whether you are killing it or not, something that ultimately boils down to your own guilty conscious and nothing else, seems incredibly selfish to me.
No one has said anything about
conscience
, so what does that have to do with anything?
And as I already said, only one is killing.
Essentially, are differences are this. With you, evil is a verb. With us, it's an end. For you it's killing an embryo. For us it's saving fertility.
Post by
Orranis
Pushing someone in front of the trolley is stupid, because you could jump in front of it yourself. Only a selfish !@#$%^& would push someone in front of it like that.
And for the first scenario... assuming you know nothing about the people you're trying to save, it seems like the obvious thing to do would be to save the 5 people instead of the one, because it's hard to imagine how one person could be worth 5 people's lives.
Your tied down to. Happy now?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Essentially, are differences are this. With you, evil is a verb. With us, it's an end. For you it's killing an embryo. For us it's saving fertility.
That honestly doesn't make any sense. Verb?
Post by
Laihendi
However, the fact that cutting the tube results in sterilization adds another variable.
An irrelevant detail if, again, you believe in the intrinsic worth of the human being. Life > Fertility. To make fertility an end above life would be morally wrong.
If the mother wants future pregnancies, aren't you preventing future good by cutting the tube? Wouldn't allowing for future pregnancies outweigh the minor evil of killing the embryo?
Again, see? You don't accept the intrinsic worth of the human life. The loss of fertility is the "minor evil" in this situation.
It would be a more interesting moral problem if the baby would survive in an ectopic pregnancy, but the mother would die.
You cannot kill the mother for the sake of the child just like you can't do the converse. The mother can choose to save the child, however.
Because both actions kill the embryo, and one saves more than the other. To weigh in whether you are killing it or not, something that ultimately boils down to your own guilty conscious and nothing else, seems incredibly selfish to me.
No one has said anything about
conscience
, so what does that have to do with anything?
And as I already said, only one is killing.
Essentially, are differences are this. With you, evil is a verb. With us, it's an end. For you it's killing an embryo. For us it's saving fertility.This thread is about trolleys. Stay on topic, or you will be reported. Consider this a warning (that goes for all of you doing this).
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.