Immiment Death Question

[VampyressKyttie]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would probably pull the lever and switch it so only one person died instead of five or I would stare and be like OMG OMG OMG.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Eh, I would probably grab a bag of chips and watch. Its not everyday you see a giant metal ball fall from the sky?

[chuckey]

Re: Immiment Death Question

while the platforms pass that one dude would jump on to the one that will be safe

[DarkbearX]

Re: Immiment Death Question

well damn what if i only pull the lever halfway and the switch is incomplete so then they are all in the middle n the thing just plumets down past them?

the two platforms will instantaneously switch positions

No, you can't.

Also, I agree with Kilroy; it's not one's obligation to save them, though it'd be the moral thing to do.

Just like the bystander effect; hundreds of people could do the right thing, but they choose not to. =/

[Hepcat06]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Kilroy is right. And i will stand by his argument. Somehow he magically puts my exact thoughts into his typing. Great argument Kilroy.

Are you not religious? I know I wouldn't want to answer to God when he asks me why, when I had every means to do so, I didn't save those people.

--Guido

I am religious and I personally believe that God would agree with Kilroy, me, and the various other people who agree with our argument to not pull the lever. God knows the nasty person who tied those six (in total) people to the tracks, and if no one tied them there, then he knows the full story.

God would also know that I really had nothing to do with the situation. I was just put there. It's not my duty to save those five people and in turn kill that other man. I do however believe that whatever my choice was, God would acknowledge the situation I was put into, and how difficult a choice I had to make. I think either way he would let it slide.

After saying all that, I really don't think you needed to bring religion into this.

I really don't agree with that logic at all. In my perspective, taking no action is, in itself still an action, and would therefore put at least some blame on yourself for neglecting the lever and letting the 5 people die.

You helped me argue with you here by saying letting five people die. That's exactly it. I'm letting them die, because before I came along to that lever... they were already facing death. However, if I do pull the lever I am not only letting the one person die, but as many of us have already said... I'm killing that person.

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

1 word says it all.

....Popcorn....


Honestly probably pull it partial way, see what happens. If it like stops half way.

[jamuko]

Re: Immiment Death Question

1 word says it all.

....Popcorn....

Thanks for contributing.

Anyway, out of curiosity, to the people on Kilroy's side: do you believe in fate or karma?

I can imagine that a belief in something like that could make that choice much easier to come to. We have no idea why those people are on a platform facing death. For all we know, there could be a good reason for it, and they're getting their just desserts for one reason or another. In that instance, we would have no right to alter fate by putting an innocent person in their place.

[Hepcat06]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Good question. But whether it's their fate to die there or not, i'm not pulling that lever.

This forum really gets you thinking.

[Cyanite]

Re: Immiment Death Question

The more I think about this, the simpler it really seems to be.

You've got 5 people about to die, whom you don't know at all. You don't know their history, who they are, or why they're there. You don't know if they deserve to die or not. All you know is that they WILL die, unless you sacrifice one person, whom again, you don't know at all.

Really it seems like the only logical explaination is to sacrifice the one person. There's no justification for letting 5 people die when you can easily save them at the expense of 1/5th of what the casualties would have been.

It just seems like this is turning a bit too complicated now, what with the arguments that "I don't have an obligation to do anything" or "By interferring, I'm directly responsible for a death, while neglect means I'm not responsible for 5 deaths".

It's all just starting to sound overcomplicated. Maybe it's just me, I don't know.

[jamuko]

Re: Immiment Death Question

It's because you (and many others) are seeing it in the simple, logical way as a computer would... when the fact is, in reality we are humans who don't necessarily make our decisions based on straight computer-esque logic, whether we want to admit it or not.

[Cyanite]

Re: Immiment Death Question

in reality we are humans who don't necessarily make our decisions based on straight computer-esque logic, whether we want to admit it or not.

I really don't see it as computer-esque logic, just common sense. You're faced with either letting 5 people die, or killing 1 person to save those 5. I really can't imagine a scenerio where you can presume that letting that one person live at the expense of 5 others is logical in any way, especially since we don't know who they are or why they're there.

I'm just seeing it in the "simple, logical" way because I can't find any influences strong enough to allow the one person to live at the expense of 5 others.

[jamuko]

Re: Immiment Death Question

People don't always behave rationally. =) There are a lot of complex reasonings that could go on deep down, which is what Kilroy and the others are seeking to describe.

You're right about not knowing who they are or why they're there, but that can also be used in the opposite argument. As was touched on with my question about fate/karma, what if the people on the death platform are there for a good reason? As far as we know no malicious person has put them there; they're could be there because they had it coming, "God's will", it's just their time to go, etc. Who are we to decide who lives and who dies? Would you save five elderly people and sacrifice a child?

Don't get me wrong, I'm leaning toward the "logical" side as well, but I do sympathize with the other argument.

[Chrissi]

Re: Immiment Death Question

jamuko, if you are there, isn't it also very possible that their fate is to be saved by you?

How does fate explain anything? You are there, so your fate is, obviously, to be there, since you are there. If it wasn't fate you wouldn't be there (if you believe in fate, that is.)

So if your fate is to be there, your fate is to make a choice.

So just make the "best" choice - save 5 people for the expense of 1. Maybe you are supposed to.

[jamuko]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Heh... good point. I hadn't really thought of that. XD

In any case, I'm not really arguing for that side so much as trying to help show that it has at least enough validity to give it some consideration.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I assume for my arguments the categorical imperative

I will represent the argument over this subject in logic, to the best of my ability.

(5xL & 1xD) iff yp v iff ~yp (1xL & 5xD)

x=people, l=live, d=die, y=you and p=pull lever


Now, the categorical imperative assumes that to treat a person as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves is immoral.

From this I assume that: (yp => ~yg) v (~yp => ~~yg)

g=act in accordance with categorical imperative

However, the categorical imperative also states that you should act by any maxim which you would desire to become universal law. If you accept the mathematical truth about the subject, that 5>1, then perhaps you could will pulling the switch to become universal law. However this would also will a violation of the second formulation of the categorical imperative.

So either: (YbF & ~YbS) v iff (YbS => ~YbF) => (YbS & ~YbF)

F=First categorical, S=second, b= behave in accordance with.

Basically, if treating every person as an end in themselves implies that something you would will to become a universal maxim cannot (maximization of life), then the two imperatives are in conflict if you don't pull the lever (and also if you do), but as I don't believe you can coherently will this act to become a universal maxim I believe they are not in conflict if you do not pull the lever and are in conflict when you do, meaning the more logical action is to not pull the lever.