Allow me to explain my last comment: I said that I'm neither a nihilist nor an infinite value person, but that my philisophy is closer to the latter than to the former.

Why?

Basically it boiled down to the fact that by flipping the switch they were making an action that would end a human life. They found that inaction was more excusable than action. We didn't get as much time to talk about it as I wanted because we had to move on to other issues.

Allow me to explain my last comment: I said that I'm neither a nihilist nor an infinite value person, but that my philisophy is closer to the latter than to the former.

But still, why flip the switch? If you lean on the side of humanity not having any sort of worth, why bother? It's just a few more bodies to add to the heap.

For example, if you believe that human life has an infinite worth, then one life is just as valuable as five. Five times infinity is still infinity.

MATHEMATICIAN'S ANSWER

To attain infinity is impossible. So, assign value X = value of a life

When comparing two values, a ratio is most common, so assign Z = the five people = 5X and Y = the one person = X -> Z/Y. Assume:

If Z/Y > 1, then the five people are worth more.

5X / X = ?

take

lim x -> infinity 5X/X

Then

lim x -> infinity 5X/X = undefined

Apply L'Hopital's Rule, take derivative of denominator and numerator separately

dx (5X) / dx (X) = 5 / 1 = 5

5 = Z/Y > 1

Save the five men.

Inaction is inexcusable and I hate math.

Inaction is inexcusable and I hate math.

Agree'd, but there's nothing we can really do about it.

But saving the five men requires the action.

See, this is why you people waste your time on moral quandaries while we mathematicians and future physicists and engineers are gonna roll in the BIG BUCKS

B)

EDIT: Oh, wait I thought the first part of your statement was referring to me.

There are no pointless questions in life. No worthless answers.

Why?

 

Basically it boiled down to the fact that by flipping the switch they were making an action that would end a human life. They found that inaction was more excusable than action. We didn't get as much time to talk about it as I wanted because we had to move on to other issues.

 

 

Allow me to explain my last comment: I said that I'm neither a nihilist nor an infinite value person, but that my philisophy is closer to the latter than to the former.

But still, why flip the switch? If you lean on the side of humanity not having any sort of worth, why bother? It's just a few more bodies to add to the heap.

Dude, I lean AWAY from the side that says humanity no worth.

Excuse me, my brain is not working properly at this hour and I'm heavily distracted.

Flip it.

Of course, if there were other options, i would flip, wait for the trolley to reach the intersection, then flip it while the trolley is on it.

Perhaps you should say "the switch will get jammed if it is moved"

Excuse me, my brain is not working properly at this hour and I'm heavily distracted.

Ah, I understand.

Five people going sploosh is louder than just one.

~EW~

Five people going sploosh is louder than just one.

 

~EW~

I like the way you think.

Why change what I already put in motion in the first place?

That's a good question.

The simplest approach we can take to this moral quandary is the utilitarian approach. According to the utilitarian theory, whichever action/inaction brings the highest net increase in happiness is the ethical action. Therefore it's pretty clear what utilitarianism dictates: save the five people at the cost of one. The five people will gain in happiness which would be preferred to the other option, which is only one person gaining in happiness at being saved.

But the utilitarian approach has its flaws, so let's use another theory to see if it will yield a different solution. The moral rights theory tells us that in this case the right to life is the moral right that is in question. All six people tied to the track have the right to life -- but because five people's rights to life outweigh one person's right to life, you will also have to flip the switch under this ethical theory -- unfortunately, at the cost of the poor one person.

Let's look at another theory: virtue ethics. Virtue ethics is all about figuring out the person you want to be, and then making actions depending on the standards you set for yourself. In this case, it depends not on the world or the people on the tracks, but on yourself. Do you want to be the type of person who acts for the 'greater good', willingly sacrificing one life for the sake of others? Or do you want to be the type of person who refuses to take a direct hand in the death of a person or people? Depending on which type of person you want to be, you would make that action accordingly.

But virtue ethics also includes the concept of the 'golden mean' -- the idea of setting two extremes for any given situation, and then finding the compromise between the two. In this case the extremes would be action and inaction...the golden mean may be an attempt to save both parties, perhaps by throwing oneself in front of the trolley. However, this is inadvisable -- most likely you would have made your decision already based on the type of person you want to be, and even if you cannot decide, two ethical theories have already told you to flip the switch, so that is the majority.

Now you might be conflicted. No need to worry, as there is another ethical theory we can use in an attempt to elucidate things. The Justice theory states that considerations of what is fair and/or just must come into play in every moral/ethical decision one makes in their lives. For example, do any of the people tied to the track deserve their fate? Is it fair to flip the switch to kill that one person rather than do nothing and let five die? However, Sentence has set the guidelines that in this moral quandary, we do not know any background information about the people tied to the track -- therefore, the Justice theory yields no results here.

But we still need a conclusive path to follow, and it is with this thought that we bring in a final ethical theory: Categorical Imperative. Consider the following: what if everyone did what you did? Let's say you decide to throw the switch and save five at the cost of one. If everyone in the world did what you did in similar situations, we would become a world of people who didn't mind becoming directly responsible of deaths as long as it was for a greater good. Blown to the extreme, we get a frightening image of the atrocities committed during World War 2 -- of people rounding other people into concentration camps 'for the greater good'.

And what if one takes the other path? What if everyone decided that in such a situation, they would not act? We would have a world full of people who would not work actively to the save the lives of others if they had the power to. Do we want a world of selfish people who prefer to keep their hands clean of incidents? Do we want a world of people who, when they witness a crime, turn their head and pretend they saw nothing?

This is a difficult decision indeed, but hopefully the essay written above will help to elucidate matters somewhat and help others decide what they believe would be the most ethical decision in this case.

That's it. Entry over. Spink's cat won.

If you are on the infinite value side, then what you've proposed to do is wrong. Because of the infinite value of human life, it wouldn't make sense to flip the switch. As I said earlier, five times infinity is still infinity. If anything flipping the switch would be the morally wrong thing to do because you would then be actively participating in the death of a human being. However if you don't flip the switch, then you're letting things follow their natural course.

I don't think infinite is really a fitting value here. At least, it doesn't reflect my belief. I would say each human is invaluable/of indeterminable worth. Again, following that math thing, assuming the worth of each person is x, 5 (or 4, I forget)x > x

Even so, I wouldn't say this is how I think of it. From my religious viewpoints (Assuming that I cannot discern any physical, mental, or religious characteristics) , I would be more inclined to save the five, giving more opportunities for religious safety than just one.

Also, let's not forget that each person influences every person they come into contact with. I would guess they would have some sort of "good" story to tell about this, possibly influencing others they come into contact with. Also, I would prefer to save more than one family the trauma of a death.

Also, in some situations it seems that not attempting to prevent the deaths of more is about the same as killing them. By not doing something to prevent it, you might as well be saying that the action is acceptable, and you support it.

As much as this makes sense to me, it still sounds sick and wrong, using logic to weigh the lives of actual human beings. ._.

Laka

As awful as this situation would be, I would have to choose saving the five lives rather than the one. The more saved the better, but I really would not have liked to be there in the first place.

I say "hey, Mister Rogers, stop tying the puppets to the track and then having the trolley do time trials around Make-Believe land with the puppets serving as speed bumps, because Queen Sara keeps complaining that the maids can't get the trolley marks out of her dresses."

-Nukaya

You could be self-sacrificing and save all six people, if you know your body will stop the trolley.

However your body can't stop the trolly. What do you choose?

I heard a question that is similar to this one before: “If you were in a burning building and could either save three strangers or one sibling, who would you save?” Three strangers. I would have to flip the switch and save the six lives. .

I would flip the switch. Human life to me has the value of 1. 5 times 1 equals 5. 1 times 1 equals 1

Leave Emanuel out of this!

He himself said that the catagorical imperitive was merely a theorem and that it is unable to be realised in real life.

I find the Virtue ethics to be the most helpful in my life, but in this case, it might not help.

I say flip the switch.

I perfer the odds of 5 potentially good/evil (though good and evil are subjective at best) people living, than 1.

Besides, not doing anything would eat away at me more than doing the wrong thing.

Reason for edit: Please do not quote massive posts.

Odds don't exist. Saving 5 people doesn't mean it's more likely that one of them will, say, save your life someday.

You can't even count on whether the families would be grateful. I think you need to put yourself in the place of everyone individually. If I was in one of the families, I'd obviously want my relative to live, so five of me means all five of those people would be missed, rather than just one.

On the other hand, running over five people would presumably derail the trolley, maybe killing/injuring people on board?

Also, if you ask me, not doing anything does not mean you didn't have a part in their deaths. And if you think nature should take its course, you should consider that you're a part of nature.

It's so complicated!

What I'd probably do is stand there and wonder about it until the trolley went ahead and ran everybody over.