Responsibility and Morality

[S.A.Y]

If Rescued dead from accident which didin't caused by the rescuer, the rescuer doesn't need to take any responsibility.

1. He isn't the perpetrator, for he didn't cause the trouble.

2. He won't do harm to others, for he is a person who is warm-hearted. And he'll be sad if he knows that the person has been died.

3.Nobody will dare to help others who are in danger if he takes the responsibility.

[DismalDuke]

Well, there you have it.

[blm14]

You see a train coming down the track about to hit 5 workmen, and you're too far away to warn them. You happen to be inside a room where you can pull a switch and re-route the train so that it moves over to a different track, a track that only contains one workman. Do you pull the switch?

Alternatively, same scenario, except in this one, you can stop the train instead of by pulling the switch to kill the one person, rather by throwing the one person in front of the train, thereby derailing it and saving the other five. Do you do it?

Are these two scenarios fundamentally different in some way? If so, how?

[_ironman]

yes because in the first scenario the workers/people have a chance to move out of the way

also i don't think that a single body would derail a train

[sawyer]

morality is for evil people

[blm14]

AND EVILITY IS FOR MORAL PEOPLE

[t3hcoke]

morality is for people you don't like.

[freshkills]

You see a train coming down the track about to hit 5 workmen, and you're too far away to warn them. You happen to be inside a room where you can pull a switch and re-route the train so that it moves over to a different track, a track that only contains one workman. Do you pull the switch?

Alternatively, same scenario, except in this one, you can stop the train instead of by pulling the switch to kill the one person, rather by throwing the one person in front of the train, thereby derailing it and saving the other five. Do you do it?

Are these two scenarios fundamentally different in some way? If so, how?

In both situations, no. By pulling the switch or pushing the individual, one becomes directly responsible for the death of one person.

[S.A.Y]

You see a train coming down the track about to hit 5 workmen, and you're too far away to warn them. You happen to be inside a room where you can pull a switch and re-route the train so that it moves over to a different track, a track that only contains one workman. Do you pull the switch?

Alternatively, same scenario, except in this one, you can stop the train instead of by pulling the switch to kill the one person, rather by throwing the one person in front of the train, thereby derailing it and saving the other five. Do you do it?

Are these two scenarios fundamentally different in some way? If so, how?

I think they are not the same thing. Because if you want to save the 5 peoples you must kill the 1 person. I think it is not your fault because you have saved 5 person. You have another choice that is you can give up saving them all, because you think if you save this side means you have to kill another side, if you can not make a decition that whether you should save them or not, you can give up, but I think it is more cruel.

[S.A.Y]

morality is for evil people

Everyone has moral bottom line, no matter you are evil person or not you must have morality.

[blm14]

In both situations, no. By pulling the switch or pushing the individual, one becomes directly responsible for the death of one person.

So if you knew in advance what hitler was going to do, you shouldn't kill him, because then you'd be DIRECTLY responsible for his death as opposed to indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of europeans that you could have prevented, had you killed him?

(godwin's)

[redX]

you'd still be put on trial for having killed him because at that point hitler hadn't yet ordered any people killed

Edited August 21, 2012 by redX

[fobsquad]

if you save someone and they say, "i owe you my life!" would you then take it from them?

[freshkills]

So if you knew in advance what hitler was going to do, you shouldn't kill him, because then you'd be DIRECTLY responsible for his death as opposed to indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of europeans that you could have prevented, had you killed him?

(godwin's)

i feel the reductio ad hitlerum has modified the question entirely. no longer are we dealing with merely 5 anonymous persons vs. 1 anonymous person. instead, we've ascribed a heavy negative value to one individual (hitler) and a neutral value to the other (europe). in this case, the response is easy; the value of the millions of europeans outweighs any value ascribed to the life of hitler. however, would your response still hold if the inverse case was presented; would you still switch the train onto the opposite track, killing one european, in order to save the life of 5 hitlers? what i am trying to get at is that the reason the original trolley problem is so difficult is because we have no idea who we are killing and who we are saving. given that, it is (in my opinion) morally more permissible to neglect than to intervene. as soon as you ascribe any value to any of the people involved, it become a complete different question.

although in general, our intuitions on bizarre thought experiments of the sort presented in the trolley problem are unreliable and provide no warrant for the conclusions they are intended to support.

Edited August 21, 2012 by freshkills

[blm14]

OK how about a much simpler and less "thought-experiment-y" one:

http://www.sas.upenn...3a/jdm7303a.htm

(I highly recommend Paul Slovic's other work on the phenomenon of 'psychic numbing' also - fascinating stuff)

And I totally agree with in regards to the knowing specifics about the workmen. Using generic terms like 'workmen' or 'individuals' makes a different moral calculus than referring to someone specific that you know, or a public figure whose actions are well documented etc.

Edited August 22, 2012 by blm14

[dovo]

i did not know i could write like this. this is fucking awesome.

what was this thread about tho? saw giant words but didn't read.

[the hall of vame]

i did not know i could write like this. this is fucking awesome.

what was this thread about tho? saw giant words but didn't read.

your words were bigger than the other big words so i skipped right to them. this is a thread?

[Champion champs]

My pupils are dilating.

[jackg]

OK how about a much simpler and less "thought-experiment-y" one:

http://www.sas.upenn...3a/jdm7303a.htm

(I highly recommend Paul Slovic's other work on the phenomenon of 'psychic numbing' also - fascinating stuff)

And I totally agree with in regards to the knowing specifics about the workmen. Using generic terms like 'workmen' or 'individuals' makes a different moral calculus than referring to someone specific that you know, or a public figure whose actions are well documented etc.

great read! thanks blm14

[blm14]

^ I am working my way (slowly!) through every endnote in harris' book "the moral landscape"

Yes, I am a geek. LOL

[sawyer]

Everyone has moral bottom line, no matter you are evil person or not you must have morality.

i was joking, that sentence is a paradox/contradiction

[Pandemonium]

the moral landscape is a joke

[blm14]

did you read it?

[Pandemonium]

i read the foreword and i knew where it was going. so i put it down and did something else.

edit: something else as in, something better.

Edited September 2, 2012 by Pandemonium

[blm14]

So basically you're criticizing it without having read it.

Well done, sir!

[Pandemonium]

yep and i don't feel one pence shittier for it.