I keep going over moral dilemmas in my head.

My mistake, I was being dumb. Ignore.

edited 13th Sep '11 9:10:25 PM by ViralLamb

Power corrupts. Knowledge is Power. Study hard. Be evil.

Thread Hop: I think it's important to accept that there isn't always clear cut answers to everything in life. Just follow your gut and if it doesn't work out, just shrug, and move on.

hashtagsarestupid

Indeed, but these thought experiments are designed to cut out the uncertainty in Real Life.

Either kill the Villain or thousands die; either kill 10 or 100 die; either kill self or ten die. The point is what to do when there is no third option?

Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!

@ OP: Personally, the first question I'd have is "Will the families of any of the dead people know who I am?" The second question, only asked if the first is answered "No" being, "Who are the ten people?" There is absolutely no guarantee that killing those ten people is the more moral option than killing the hundred aboard that plane. And if the families of the dead ten people will know who I am, then all hundred are going to die, because I'm not pushing that button. It might be more reprehensible, but while I stood back and permitted a hundred to die, I didn't murder ten people.*

Whether you have the right is irrelevant - sometimes, the decision must be made. Doing nothing is still a decision.

Apparently? Some people really are pacifists to that degree.

Damn the tiny signature limits! I want to put this one too!

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Whether you have the right is irrelevant - sometimes, the decision must be made. Doing nothing is still a decision.

You can always [[Trainspotting choose not to choose]], sometime the life biggest decisions can be made by the flip of a coin.

I'll let Heath Ledger explain it.

hashtagsarestupid

I am strongly utilitarian, to the point that people have called me a heartless sociopath. I don't care, really - principles are fine as long as they don't stand in the way of pragmatism. Face it, it's always the consequences that matter, unless you are religious and believe that taking strictly good actions will result in your salvation. You may be an otherwise utterly rotten person that accidentally saves a large number of people, you're still more useful to humanity than a sniper that lets hostages die by refusing to shoot the man holding them based on silly principles. Nobody cares about your principles, but what good you make out of them.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

I believe in principles and quite frankly I'm willing to let people die because of it.

End results? Not my problem...

hashtagsarestupid

I think it's more important to focus on expected consequences rather than actual consequences. If someone accidentally saves a large number of people, then they never did anything that they expected would have good consequences, so they haven't done anything particularly good — even though the actual consequences were good.

Similarly, suppose you could take some action that would save a thousand people with 99.99% probability, but with 0.01% probability would instead kill a thousand people. You would be right to take that action regardless of which outcome actually occurs, because the expected outcome is good. It's an important distinction to make; otherwise you end up with an ethical system that depends heavily on chance.

edited 14th Sep '11 3:55:50 PM by Enthryn

Absolutely. I just pointed out that I think that somebody who lets a large amount of people die because of his own principles ultimately did more harm than somebody who saved people by accident, even if completely rotten, and is by utilitarian principles a worse person.

The sin of silence when they should protest makes cowards of men.

@kaschei: Thank you. It looks interesting, and I'm very into psychological-themed stuff. I'll check it out.

@Eio: That's an interesting but disturbing article. I do give to charity, but it never feels like enough >.< Being a fan of a certain anime, I sometimes wonder if happiness and unhappiness really do balance out to zero (as in, one person's happiness comes about as a result of another person's self-sacrifice). Whether or not that's true, I do think people should do at least a little to help others, if they can, because if everyone who had the possibility did so, their combined efforts would make a difference.

I'm still undecided on the whole subject, but leaning towards trying to Take a Third Option whenever possible. Yeah, I'm still something of a Wide-Eyed Idealist.

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

Happiness and unhappiness certainly don't balance out to zero. This is easy to show; simply observe that there are certain actions that make people happier without making anyone else unhappier, and likewise one can make people unhappier with nothing to balance it out.

I'm sort of late, but, I would say that you're responsible for their deaths by not pulling the lever/pressing the button/whatever because in this context, doing so stops the deaths, and not doing so allows them to happen. The idea that there could be a third option is precluded by the scenario. This isn't reality, this is a bubble; what exists in that bubble is true, and nothing else is.

Conversely, doing it also kills people. So it's a simple choice: is it worse to be responsible by apathy or responsible by well-intentioned action that still directly causes harm—albeit less harm than would have happened otherwise?

Reality, unfortunately for us, is never this clear-cut, however...

I am now known as Flyboy.

True. It was just the bit about reducing oneself to near the level of the person they're trying to help that made me wonder. I re-read the article, and this bit intrigued me.

"In this instance, taking our conclusion seriously means acting upon it. The philosopher will not find it any easier than anyone else to alter his attitudes and way of life to the extent that, if I am right, is involved in doing everything that we ought to be doing. At the very least, though, one can make a start."

I'm definitely going to try giving more to charity after reading this, and look into voluntary work. While I don't think I'll end up developing Samaritan Syndrome like I probably should, this has encouraged me to make a little more of an effort.

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

OP: I'd let the villain fall. Now if there was an absolutely secure way to keep him from harming anyone again... That's utopian. In the second scenario I'd push the button, even with the lever option. What I know about the 111 people involved would affect my decicion however. Is there someone close to me in either group? Is it a choice between 100 Complete Monsters and ten Innocent Bystanders I would do nothing.

Carciofus:

Whatever you say I'd try to Take a Third Option. For an example: I'm pretty sure I could make a non-lethal hit with a hammer.

edited 16th Sep '11 2:04:01 AM by Qeise

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I have been thinking about what would I do and I'm not sure if I really like the results. Some people have mentioned closeness to the groups of people above. I think that at least for some (I think, but I'm not sure most) people this would be a key deciding factor. For me as well. Let's suppose that I don't know any of these people, none of them are responsible for the situation they are in and I am an ordinary guy just being there. (I will get back to that later.)

Then I think I am more likely to push the button and sacrifice 10 to save 100, but I'm not 100% sure. I'd not flip the lever as my life is more important for me and for my family and friends than the life of 10 or 100 random people. (And I would feel really bad after it later.) This decision would be likely to change as the number of random people grows and if my loved ones would know why did I die. I'd drop the villain if I was 100% sure he is guilty and think there is a significant chance for him to evade just punishment. Else I'd turn him in. I would totally shoot the hostage taker to save the innocents. Just like I'd let the 100 die instead of the 10 if I think they are responsible for their situation.

However this all changes if it is my duty or responsibility in a way to make such decisions. Then I have to make the right decisions regardless of my individual feelings. In that case I'd have be much more utilitarian: I'd always save the 100 unless they are grossly responsible for the danger they are in, even if there are people I care for in the ten. (But not if they are some of the much fewer really special ones I think.) I'd sacrifice myself for a much-much lower number of people. I'd turn the villain in. And of course I'd still shoot the terrorist.

What I would consider the "good" option would be whatever saves the greatest number of lives. What most people would probably do is whatever provides them with the greatest benefit.