Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 0:08:23 GMT -5
All I can say is I would not know it pushing the big guy off would stop the train. So I would not push.
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 19, 2015 9:30:06 GMT -5
Jindred Jancey MarchingOn Juggs craig440There is no trick to this question. It is just an interesting study that was done where people were asked how they would react I each situation. 95% of people would flip the switch and kill the one. 95% people would not push the person off the bridge though. There is a difference in the way the study posed the questions though, which I think would alter the results. They asked the first question, got an answer, then asked the second question. Asking them both together gets people to end them both and then try to figure out how they should answer, rather than just answering quickly what they would do. The point of the study was to see how a personal involvement changes the act of killing. The study overwhelmingly showed that the majority of people would press a button to kill on and save many, but would not physically, personally kill one to save many. I heard about this study in a debate about drones. I really like the discussion that has come up from the questions though. The point of this is to just give a quick answer, assuming you don't have time to weigh all of the implications of your actions, but the questions that everyone has raised about what you would do if given the time to think about it all is really interesting. I feel like my initial reactions would match the massive majority. If not given time to think, pressing a button to kill one to save five just makes sense, but pushing a man off a bridge doesn't not seem like a reasonable option. If I had time to think about it though, I kind of agree with Jin's thoughts. If the accident is inevitable, then why should I get involved and put someone's death on my hands in either case? But it's also worth asking when it's acceptable to sacrifice one t save many, and how many is enough to justify sacrifice? There aren't really answers to all these, but I find them fun to think about and discuss. Welcome to philosophy. And Craig, I mentioned that you need to ignore logic for this and assume that all outcomes are definite. So for the sake of the question, assume the fat guy will stop the train, assume you are able to easily push him over, and assume that the people will die from the decision that you make in every case.
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Feb 19, 2015 19:19:34 GMT -5
Reminds me of a scene from the Dead Zone. Herbert Lom (Chief Inspector Dreyfus of Pink Panther fame) is the main character's (Christopher Walken's) psychiatrist, and Walken asks him, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler before the concentration camps happened, knowing what you know now, would you do it? To which Lom replies, well, I'm a doctor, and my mission is to save lives, not take them. But I'd have to kill the son of a bitch. Different in a matter of degree.
I voted A-A. Not only is this a completely artificial and unrealistic situation, there is functionally no difference between pushing the button and pushing the guy off the platform, no matter how you rationalize it. With one subtle change, though, I might consider it: make the person whose life is lost the same one pushing the button. But I'd have to be clearly convinced of the likelihood of the "victims'" deaths.
Edited to add "before the concentration camps happened."
|
|
|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 19, 2015 19:38:22 GMT -5
Reminds me of a scene from the Dead Zone. Herbert Lom (Chief Inspector Dreyfus of Pink Panther fame) is the main character's (Christopher Walken's) psychiatrist, and Walken asks him, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing what you know now, would you do it? To which Lom replies, well, I'm a doctor, and my mission is to save lives, not take them. But I'd have to kill the son of a bitch. Different in a matter of degree. I voted A-A. Not only is this a completely artificial and unrealistic situation, there is functionally no difference between pushing the button and pushing the guy off the platform, no matter how you rationalize it. With one subtle change, though, I might consider it: make the person whose life is lost the same one pushing the button. But I'd have to be clearly convinced of the likelihood of the "victims'" deaths. This (the bolded section above), in my mind, is the point of the whole thing. The poll results here really mean nothing. People are overthinking things; thinking about personal ramifications of their actions and questioning the logic of the scenarios. The point is to make a quick decision assuming it is perfectly known that the people will certainly die in each scenario. The actual poll results had 95% of the people choosing to trip the switch in the first scenario and then 95% of the people choose not to push the man in the second scenario. As you stated, there is functionally no difference between pushing a button and pushing the man, yet the level of personal involvement in the victim's death makes virtually everyone change their mind. This was used in a debate that talked about how drones are leading to more reckless, or less careful decision making when determining who dies by drone strikes. Drones basically remove any personal attachment to the killing and so governments are more willing to send a drone to make a kill.
|
|
|
Post by gobolts25 on Feb 19, 2015 19:47:08 GMT -5
Reminds me of a scene from the Dead Zone. Herbert Lom (Chief Inspector Dreyfus of Pink Panther fame) is the main character's (Christopher Walken's) psychiatrist, and Walken asks him, if you could go back in time and kill Hitler, knowing what you know now, would you do it? To which Lom replies, well, I'm a doctor, and my mission is to save lives, not take them. But I'd have to kill the son of a bitch. Different in a matter of degree. I voted A-A. Not only is this a completely artificial and unrealistic situation, there is functionally no difference between pushing the button and pushing the guy off the platform, no matter how you rationalize it. With one subtle change, though, I might consider it: make the person whose life is lost the same one pushing the button. But I'd have to be clearly convinced of the likelihood of the "victims'" deaths. This (the bolded section above), in my mind, is the point of the whole thing. The poll results here really mean nothing. People are overthinking things; thinking about personal ramifications of their actions and questioning the logic of the scenarios. The point is to make a quick decision assuming it is perfectly known that the people will certainly die in each scenario. The actual poll results had 95% of the people choosing to trip the switch in the first scenario and then 95% of the people choose not to push the man in the second scenario. As you stated, there is functionally no difference between pushing a button and pushing the man, yet the level of personal involvement in the victim's death makes virtually everyone change their mind. This was used in a debate that talked about how drones are leading to more reckless, or less careful decision making when determining who dies by drone strikes. Drones basically remove any personal attachment to the killing and so governments are more willing to send a drone to make a kill. Hmm I think the difference for governments is also a matter of degree. They (including ours) have shown no squeamishness about killing people, whether by button-push or by sending in troops. The reason they're more willing to send in drones isn't some ethical difference based on the killing itself, it's that lives aren't risked in doing the killing. If you're talking about this on the personal level, the military is equally as callous about human (enemies') lives. If someone won't push the button because of an ethical dilemma, they'll find someone else who will. ...and, with perfect timing, Dr. Strangelove starts on TCM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 19, 2015 19:56:02 GMT -5
I picked A and A. I have seen the movie Final Destination and I dont want to get involved.
Bahahaha
Edit: Actually I seen all of them. And that grim reaper aint no joke. lol
|
|