Morality Quiz and a Dilemma - Page 2

Chuck · #31 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 05:45 AM

If I knew that for sure then it would be different. Someone on railroad tracks with a train approaching looks a lot like he's endangered himself. Trains are dangerous.

snarkophilus · #32 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishman

I ran across an interesting morality quiz with some ramifications I am having trouble sorting out. I thought I'd share the quiz, and then later post the dilemma for consideration. Here goes.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally "obligatory", "permissible", or "forbidden".

1. Flipping the switch is __________.

2. Picking up the child is ___________.

3. Taking the healthy person's organs is _____________.

It's so nice not to have a defined set of morals, and thus to be totally untroubled by such questions.

1. I'd flip the switch, unless I thought the one guy was more important to the well-being of the world than the five, in which case I'd think it my responsibility to keep that guy alive

2. Obviously I'd pick up the kid. Several million years of evolution would kick in at that point. My pants are not necessary to the survival of the race. (Actually, I rarely wear pants, but that's another matter entirely

)

3. Murder. That doesn't mean it's wrong necessarily, but I'd say it is if the healthy guy had a reasonable expectation that his organs weren't going to be harvested when he went in. On the other hand, if they lived in a society where that was a normal thing, then the guy should have stayed away from the hospital if he valued his life. The only way I would think it's wrong is if there was an unexpected deception involved. (That is, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game, unless that game is Calvinball.)

The Supreme Canuck · #33 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 05:54 AM

Chuck: I see. So the recklessness is subjective, not objective. I was just wondering where the right to life outweighed other considerations from your point of view.

Snarkophilus: But having trustworthy doctors and hospitals that you can go to without fear of getting cut up and given away benefits society, doesn't it? It allows people to get medical care rather than stay away due to fear. So wouldn't the murder be wrong as it harms society by harming the view of hospitals as safe?

I love this stuff.

Chuck · #34 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 05:59 AM

I can't evaluate every possible situation in advance. The one given in this problem is kind of obvious. Others might require that I decide on the spot.

The Supreme Canuck · #35 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 06:03 AM

Yes, that is a problem, isn't it?

farmerjumperdon · #36 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:01 PM

I don't think a person is ever obligated or forbidden to save another's life, not in the strictest sense of the words; and primarily because I think that the underlying "morals" that would lead to such a conclusion are a human invention - not absolute truths to which we must adhere. They are a more like a social contract, and the most I should expect from saving or killing someone is that I should not be surprised if others were to treat me the same.

That being said, my answers come from 2 ideals - personal liberty and being practical/pragmatic. I wouldn't touch the switch - not my call to say who lives and dies in that situation if the setup dictates that someone must die. I'd save the child - not practical to save my pants instead of the kid. And the healthy person would be safe - it's a matter of personal liberty. In addition, the harvestee has the right to kill anyone who tries to take their innards by force.

I have no trouble with these kinds of quizzes; primarily because I don't give a whole lot of value to human-created "morals." They are too plastic to be revered. They change from culture to culture and over time.

hhEb09'1 · #37 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

They are then all in the same condition (assuming all else is equal). So I'd flip the switch. But then I would anyway.

I'm still trying to figure out--if we have so much time that we can actually switch the trolley onto another set of tracks--why we wouldn't yell at them and tell them to jump off the tracks. The tracks aren't that wide, are they?

mickal555 · #38 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hhEb09'1

I'm still trying to figure out--if we have so much time that we can actually switch the trolley onto another set of tracks--why we wouldn't yell at them and tell them to jump off the tracks. The tracks aren't that wide, are they?

]

You are the train control station and you are watching a video camera of it then...

Argos · #39 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:48 PM

Obligatory, obligatory, forbidden.

SeanF · #40 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Supreme Canuck

In the scenario you give, for example, I would say that the driver is right to avoid hitting the drunks but that the drunks are wrong for running out into the street. The driver is not morally responsible for your death because he was doing his moral duty. The drunks are responsible for your death because they caused the driver to swerve while not doing their moral duty. That's where I'd slot responsibility in.

Nothing personal, but you ought not to have a driver's license.

I'm curious why you draw a different conclusion in this case than in the hospital case. Don't you think that it's better for society if we can expect vehicles' drivers to restrict themselves to the roads and not be driving on the sidewalks?

Numbers 2 and 3 are definitely obligatory and forbidden, respectively. I'm still thinking about number 1, but I'm leaning toward obligatory.

Doodler · #41 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishman

I ran across an interesting morality quiz with some ramifications I am having trouble sorting out. I thought I'd share the quiz, and then later post the dilemma for consideration. Here goes.

Consider the following three scenarios. For each, fill in the blank with morally "obligatory", "permissible", or "forbidden".

1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railway worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is __________.
[For the sake of clarity, the one person is not the railway operator who can throw the switch, but some other person.]

2. You pass by a small child drowning in a small pond, and you are the only other person around. If you pick up the child, she will survive and your pants will be ruined. Picking up the child is ___________.

3. Five people have just been rushed into a hospital in critical care, each requiring an organ to survive. There is not enough time to request organs from outside the hospital. There is, however, a healthy person in the hospital's waiting room. If the surgeon takes this person's organs, he will die, but the five in critical care will survive. Taking the healthy person's organs is _____________.

I would like some responses from others, and will post later with more discussion and the second part of the topic, the dilemma.

1. Forbidden. By doing nothing, nature takes its course. By flipping the switch, he's a murderer.

2. Obligatory. No explanation needed.

3. Forbidden. Triage sucks, doesn't it?

hhEb09'1 · #42 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeanF

Numbers 2 and 3 are definitely obligatory and forbidden, respectively. I'm still thinking about number 1, but I'm leaning toward obligatory.

I'm still trying to get more clarification.

If we're watching this on video camera, how do we know that the people on the track aren't getting ready to get off the track? Are they having a picnic? Why didn't we notice that before?

Roy Batty · #43 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:11 PM

1. Can't decide between obligatory or permissable.. leaning towards former.
I don't see the 'nature takes its course' argument at all. By inaction then surely you are a murderer of five people instead of one?

2. Obligatory.

3. Forbidden. But then I open myself up to what I said in 1, except 3. seems a lot more premeditated than 1. which seems more a split second decision from the description. I'm also a bit of a Utilitarianist it seems

This is all very interesting & so are all the responses so far!

Ilya · #44 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irishman

1. A runaway trolley is about to run over five people walking on the tracks. A railway worker is standing next to a switch that can turn the trolley onto a side track, killing one person, but allowing the five to survive. Flipping the switch is __________.
[For the sake of clarity, the one person is not the railway operator who can throw the switch, but some other person.]

#1 is ridiculously oversimplified. How do I know the person will REALLY hit the switch in correct direction? I may kill him for nothing. How do I know he won't overpower me and throw ME onto the rails? Or perhaps he will grab onto something as he falls, neither kill me nor die himself, and I am then charged with attempted murder? Come to think of it, I could be charged with murder here in any case.

My point is, overwhelming majority of humans will NOT actually push someone in this situation -- not out of moral reasoning, but out of self-interest and uncertainty.

Doodler · #45 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

1. Can't decide between obligatory or permissable.. leaning towards former.
I don't see the 'nature takes its course' argument at all. By inaction then surely you are a murderer of five people instead of one?

2. Obligatory.

3. Forbidden. But then I open myself up to what I said in 1, except 3. seems a lot more premeditated than 1. which seems more a split second decision from the description. I'm also a bit of a Utilitarianist it seems

This is all very interesting & so are all the responses so far!

My response to #1 shouldn't be construed as black and white, its a gray area to be sure. The way I see it, inaction leads to a fatal accident. Action would save their lives, however, it would end up taking the life of someone who would otherwise not have died. Knowing this ahead of time and still acting upon it is second degree murder. Its not premeditated, but it is still the willful taking of a life that would not otherwise have been lost. I wouldn't see that as permissible and definitely not obligatory, because no one should have the right, nor should they be obligated, to play God.

Roy Batty · #46 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:27 PM

Well I'd prefer for the law & god to be taken out of the debate since neither necessarily have anything to do with the ethics/morals under discussion

Doodler · #47 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roy Batty

Well I'd prefer for the law & god to be taken out of the debate since neither necessarily have anything to do with the ethics/morals under discussion

Law is definitely a factor here, because it is an aspect of self preservation to avoid trouble with authorities. Self preservation is definitely a factor in ethical and moral decisions because it is one way of quantifying the risks involved. My reference to "playing God" was not religious, only a way of expressing that no one should be forced into a position where they are required to decide who lives and who dies (Triage nurses, doctors and soldiers excepted).

Argos · #48 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:31 PM

About #1, isn´t there a horn in that darn train?

hhEb09'1 · #49 (**permalink**) 16-January-2006, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilya

Come to think of it, I could be charged with murder here in any case.

Right. If you're watching it on video camera, then you probably were asleep when they walked on to the rails, unless there is unlimited access--but then there would be unlimited egress too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Argos

About #1, isn´t here a horn in that darn train?

Another detail!