Immiment Death Question

[Technotic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

No

[GentlySpitItOut]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would pull it. You save more by killing less!

[seththelezzy]

Re: Imminent Death Question

Have you read this thread? You either kill one person or let the train go as it does. It is not your fault if the 5 die, the train would still kill them if you were not there. If you pull the lever it is your fault you kill somebody.

You have a good point. But you COULD have saved those 5 people, and one person would die. It wouldn't be your fault if those 5 people die but it would be your fault if the one person died. That is why it is called 'Imminent' Death Question.

A. It's not a train it's a metal ball

B. I corrected the spelling of the title.

[Laotian_Vampires]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Heh, it's a tough question, but hey it's life. If I don't pull the lever, that's five people to cry over, or not, depends if I know them. Then there's feeling of guilt where as I could have saved them, exchanging one life or five. If I do, that's one person to cry over, or not, depends if I know that one person, but it could have been a person I truly loved and come to know. In this position, I would immediately cower. But if I were to make the choice, I would choose not to, since it's life and life comes at you fast.

[Laotian_Vampires]

Re: Immiment Death Question

is this an agruement about how to debate, or this an answer to the damn question?!

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

That's very ignorant.

This is one of the questions that you would not have the time to think about it like you could if you were sitting in front of your computer. You have 6 peoples life in your hands. You would probably react different if you were actually in the situation.

But I would pull the lever. I wouldn't know who they are. They might be someone that was sent to kill me, or for all I know the 5 people could be sent to kill me. But I wouldn't know that. Why take 5 people's lives if you could only take one?

But the 5 people could be your parents, your spouse and your children and the one person could be your ex-spouse. But you wouldn't know that.

But would you react the same way if the 5 people were on the other platform, and a giant metal ball was about to crush only one person?

Like I said, this could only be answered if you were in the situation.

Fine i'll repeat what i've been saying. You can't and do not have the right to choose who lives and who dies. If those 5 people are standing on that platform then thats thier fate. Now your playing god if you do.

[Chrissi]

Re: Imminent Death Question

A. It's not a train it's a metal ball

I posed an easier-to-understand question about a train, which is in effect identical but more realistic than instantly-moving platforms and the like. You can see it on the first page.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Immiment Death Question

consider this: You are a person who has lived for a while and have your own thoughts and predjudices. While you're trying to decide what to do, your mind has already made up its mind. You probably don't have much of a choice in the matter.

I probably wouldn't think about touching the lever. The thought of killing someone just isn't me. That's what I'll be doing if i made a decision. Allowing 5 people to die doesn't seem as bad as killing 1 and vice versa.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

consider this: You are a person who has lived for a while and have your own thoughts and predjudices. While you're trying to decide what to do, your mind has already made up its mind. You probably don't have much of a choice in the matter.

I probably wouldn't think about touching the lever. The thought of killing someone just isn't me. That's what I'll be doing if i made a decision. Allowing 5 people to die doesn't seem as bad as killing 1 and vice versa.

Like I said earlier you realy can't choose. Your just playing god then. So I wouldn't do anything as well.

[RPGFREAK]

Re: Immiment Death Question

No offense, but "fate" is the worst argument ever. For one, it can neither be proven or disproved. As someone said earlier, what if it is your destiny to save the five and sacrifice the one? Besides, fate shouldn't matter anyway, as if fate does exist, then wouldn't any action you take also be determined by fate and therefore making the argument null?

Also, what's this "you can't choose who death takes"? It's nonsense. Death isn't an entity that floats around from person to person taking their souls with it's scythe. Sorry, but that concept of death died with the rise of monotheism and was later abolished with increased knowledge human anatomy.

fixxed-ish. If I were to define fate, it would be something that will happen which nothing can change. If I were to define destiny, it would be somewhere along the line of a choice or series of choices which ultimately determine the outcome of an event. So, a person could purposely fail to realize their destiny and a person's destiny could be effectively squashed by intervention.

I do realise what I just said makes little to no sense. A person's destiny is usually forced by the attempted prevention.
And then you have a series of illogical circular logic that would make your mind explode, thus taking the decision to pull the lever out of your hands.

You know what, forget I posted anything.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I agree with you 110% there. With the whole fate thing. Thats a good post. Keep it.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

But what if it was your fate to save them? Or will you simply argue that no matter what course happens ever, it must have been fate, and thus take no responsability for any action you ever take?

Barring additional information, virtually all people will elect to kill one person rather than five. Equivocate all you like about the difference between "Killing" and "Letting die" but you're killing 1 person or 5. The original thought experiment was never meant to prove "1 life is worth less than 5" it was designed as an objection to Mill's "pleasure calculus" to point out that in order to carry out his desired operations to mathematically decide which decision resulted in the greatest pleasure for the greatest number, you'd be so bogged down in calculation that you'd never be able to decide anything.

And so far, it appears this thread bears out that objection. Everyone is saying "I'd do X...unless Y" People want to know who the 5 are, who the 1 is, whether they know any of them, whether they're criminals, whether there's a way to somehow save everyone, whether those means would have a chance to inadvertantly kill everyone instead, and in all this calculation, whoops, the train killed the 5, derailed, landed on the other, and killed all six, plus the 500 passengers on the train that nobody even wondered about existing.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Yes, this problem is best understood as a conflict between utilitarian and deontological modes of thought. No, the distinctions I have made are not equivocations. In fact they actually remove the vagueness of the assumptions most people make by dichotomizing the nature of the decision between action and inaction.

[monkeybomb45]

Re: Immiment Death Question

i would fall back on fate...if they were meant to die, they are to die....although going along those lines, if it was fate and i just happened to be in that spot next to a lever that would save someone, i dont know...i would probably end up just watching in horror...so no i would not pull the lever.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Yes, this problem is best understood as a conflict between utilitarian and deontological modes of thought. No, the distinctions I have made are not equivocations. In fact they actually remove the vagueness of the assumptions most people make by dichotomizing the nature of the decision between action and inaction.

I'm not entirely sure where I accused you of equivocation, in that iirc you weren't one of the ones trying to argue that if you "let nature take its course" you are somehow not at all responsable for the deaths of the five people. That remark was directed squarely at the "its fate, and I'd be more wrong to mess with it" responses.

I'm also pretty sure that "choosing between opposites" is basically what a dichotomy -is- so you can't really remove the fact that it is a choice between action on the one hand, and inaction on the other. I was merely saying that it makes no sense to try and claim you are morally free and clear if you choose inaction, you are responsable either way simply by having been in a position to make the choice.