_______________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
Contemplating murder strikes me as irrational, regardless of how logically you approach it - The extremes of rationality and logic are the domain of sociopaths.
Are you suggesting someone under that kind of duress would be capable of thinking rationally? I doubt I would be.
Possibly, but life isn't fair, people suck, morals are flexible...
As above though, once you start to discuss things, then you're missing the point of the original question, take it at face value.
There are always those that say they could never kill someone, I think that's either an out and out lie to make themselves feel good, or they lack imagination, in the same way as those that say "things couldn't get worse" have no imagination.
Does that make me some sort of psycho, or just a realist open to the fact that I am a flawed human being, and that I would have a limit as to what I would take before acting, the same as I believe everyone else is.
And about 60% of the population, and most computers... although arguably, those 60% who would murder someone are clearly not thinking rationally or logically, else they'd have figured out the ruse in the tests and seen the illegality in the killing. A rational mind would recognise this and understand that murder is only unlawful killing... before then figuring out how to kill under perfectly legitimate and legal circumstances.
The 'Rules Of Engagement' card issued to soldiers gives a very clear, logical procedure by which they can assess the situation and decide whether or not to shoot someone. It takes very rational thinking to go through that little checklist... and you don't get much more duress than when you can see someone is about to shoot you!
_______________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
In terms of rational & logical vs. moral it my perspective that rational/logical are calculators. They help you work through ideas and information but they are entirely dependent on the data available and input. They can tell you "if this, then that", or "this and this equals that". What logic and rationality can help with but cannot decide (by themselves) are values such as good/bad, better/worse etc. For that you need to have some values already in place, or else, assumed.
It can be very rational to consider in what circumstances one might commit murder. It would be irrational to hold that one can both commit murder in certain circumstances and that murder is never justifiable. It can be perfectly logical, just not moral or acceptable or polite or decent or... a number of other things.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
In such a panicked situation I doubt anyone without training would have much time for rational thought, you're more likely to react instinctively in line with your own unconscious bias, which will probably be based on who you feel a more kindred spirit with, the fat man or the people in the path of the tram.
I think it's less about what you would do in a real world situation and more the contrast between two scenarios.
In both cases the motivation and the results are the same - you want to save five people, you'll need to be willing to sacrifice one person to do so.
However, most people asked apparently answer that they'd pull the lever but wouldn't topple the big guy. If so, the question becomes why? In both scenarios you're taking deliberate action to save five people at the cost of one other person. Why be comfortable pulling the level but not pushing the human bumper?
Or for those who would or wouldn't do both, what's the reasoning?
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
Everybody is capable.
I don't know how I would live with it but that's not to say I couldn't. I hope I never have to find out whether I could or not.
But no issues? Yeah, you may not think you'd have issues but even seasoned soldiers have it come back to bite them, no matter how justified the killing.
But in a civilian environment with a rogue tram? Yeah, nah.
Grab that. Get that. Check it out. Bring that here. Grab anything useful. Take anything good.
No trees were harmed in the creation of this message. However, many electrons were displaced and terribly inconvenienced.
To nick a quote:
"Rationality implies the conformity of one's beliefs with one's reasons to believe, and of one's actions with one's reasons for action".
Rationality is also relative.
Pulling the lever puts the tram on a route with someone who was already there, in a dangerous situation. You didn't choose this, you just chose the lesser of two weevils.
Pushing the guy takes him from a potentially precarious situation into an almost-guaranteed death situation. This latter scenario involves an active and conscious escalation. It also only seems that the big guy will stop the tram, so the chance exists that you've just intentionally increased the death toll to six instead of five...
_______________________________________________________________________
Originally Posted by Mark Tyson
I didn't say I wouldn't expect it to come back to haunt me at some point, I suspect it would at some level, but the initial act, that, I would have no issue with.
1 - Nope, as it's murder if I choose to throw the switch. Even if it's legally 'OK', it's morally wrong. I'd probably shout at them to move their dumb butts out of the track. Surely one of the 5 should notice the sound of the tram, as it's not going to be whisper quiet! Plus the tram driver would notice, and hit the horns or brakes. If they can't hear that, then so be it.
2 - Same thing, I won't be party to murdering someone in the off chance that it might save someone else.
What I'd say will make this decision trickier is if one of the of people in this scenario is someone you know. Then is it morally right to save say your friend or loved one, by getting a stranger hurt or killed? That would be a much harder decision IMO.
Also a variation - what if you are the one put in danger if you pull the lever? Would you give up your life to save strangers?
Also, this looks like a variation of something I saw on Bright Side youtube channel a while back, items 1 & 2 in this video: 6 Hardest 'Would You Rather' Dilemmas Ever (Btw, I looked up this video after I wrote the above... only saying because my answers sound like some of the things in this video...)
Last edited by Scryder; 21-01-2020 at 10:17 PM.
"Arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you!" - Ambassador Londo Mollari
"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." - A General
"The Good Place" did a decent episode on the trolley problem.
I'm pretty sure in both cases I wouldn't act. Hopefully that won't ever become case law that through inaction you become guilty of 4 murders.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)