NationStates Jolt Archive

Reading the thread about dying for 12 random people got me thinking about another hypothetical situation a old Navy buddy sprung on us one mid-shift:

You wake up to find yourself strapped into a chair. Before you is two windows. The rooms beyond are too dark to see clearly but in one room you can see several people (men women and children) and in the other a single person (Indeterminate gender but adult). They don't seem aware of the other room or you. Otherwise they look alert and healthy. The is also a timer between the windows counting down.

A voice over a loudspeaker draws your attention to a button under your hand. There is a canister containing serin gas hooked to both of the rooms. If you do nothing then the gas will be released into the room with the group of people. However you can save them by pressing the button before the timer reaches zero and the gas will there be diverted to the room with the single person.

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?

Reading the thread about dying for 12 random people got me thinking about another hypothetical situation a old Navy buddy sprung on us one mid-shift:

You wake up to find yourself strapped into a chair. Before you is two windows. The rooms beyond are too dark to see clearly but in one room you can see several people (men women and children) and in the other a single person (Indeterminate gender but adult). They don't seem aware of the other room or you. Otherwise they look alert and healthy. The is also a timer between the windows counting down.

A voice over a loudspeaker draws your attention to a button under your hand. There is a canister containing serin gas hooked to both of the rooms. If you do nothing then the gas will be released into the room with the group of people. However you can save them by pressing the button before the timer reaches zero and the gas will there be diverted to the room with the single person.

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?
Break the frakking straps, then find the motha-frakkin' SOB who set this up and kill his sorry ass, then set both rooms of people free before the time runs out. :p

You push the button and justify it to yourself with 'the needs of the many out wiegh those of the few'

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?
Nothing, and then lie about knowing there was anyway to affect what was happening. (Not really - gas the few, not the many.)

You are later informed that the individual in the room was your significant other.

You are later informed that the individual in the room was your significant other.
Even knowing that, I would still have decided on the room with several people in it, but not without a great deal of agony. ( Providing that I was unable to break the frakking straps! )

I wouldn't press it.

You are later informed that the individual in the room was your significant other.It would be extremely unlikely that I would ever get a "significant other", even if I wanted one. Which I don't. But seeing what my choice already is, it wouldn't matter, had I had one in the scenario. (however, I can't be too sure, since it would take some extensive "treatment" to convince me to get one, so if that were the case, I would hardly be my current self)

I'd sacrifice one to save many. Especially if that person in the other room was an adult and there's kids amongst those in the group.

Break the frakking straps, then find the motha-frakkin' SOB who set this up and kill his sorry ass, then set both rooms of people free before the time runs out. :p

I knew after I hit that post button that you ( among a small select handful) would make a reply like that :)

So for the record, there is no time to break the straps before the gas is released.





And NO you can't be James bloody Bond and use your laser shoe! :p

I knew after I hit that post button that you ( among a small select handful) would make a reply like that :)

So for the record, there is no time to break the straps before the gas is released.

And NO you can't be James bloody Bond and use your laser shoe! :p
Damn! :D

Is there a way gas can go into both rooms?

Break the frakking straps, then find the motha-frakkin' SOB who set this up and kill his sorry ass, then set both rooms of people free before the time runs out. :p
Pull a MacGyver.

I'd turn the situation into a reality TV show (assuming it wasn't already:eek: )

If you press the button, then it is you who is deciding that that one person dies. If you do nothing, it's still the decision of the person responsible for this situation. I do nothing.

In all seriousness, I would at no point press any such button; the contents of both rooms would expire as scheduled.

Is there a way gas can go into both rooms?
Why? Would you kill all of them?

If you press the button, then it is you who is deciding that that one person dies. If you do nothing, it's still the decision of the person responsible for this situation. I do nothing.
Seconded.

Press the button of course! Saving a group of people sacrificing one is ugly but prefrable. Also action is always prefrable to inaction, just sitting there would be unbearable.

Maybe press the button halfway through the release of the gas.

Or bite my fake tooth filled with cyanide. Not much point for the experimentor to go through with the elaborate setup if you're dead.

(note to self, get suicide tooth installed, just in case)

If you press the button, then it is you who is deciding that that one person dies. If you do nothing, it's still the decision of the person responsible for this situation. I do nothing.

Cowardice - take an action, press the button. You're not responsible for the situation you're _in_, only how you react to it.

Elgesh']Cowardice - take an action, press the button. You're not responsible for the situation you're _in_, only how you react to it.

If I press the button, then I've decided that that lone individual must die. If I do not press the button, I can absolve myself of responsibility. I'm cold.

If you press the button, then it is you who is deciding that that one person dies. If you do nothing, it's still the decision of the person responsible for this situation. I do nothing.

One taking that route still bears responsibility for the deaths of the people in the crowded room.

If one has the power to save someone and refuses to do so, they bear some responsibility for the consequence of that action. After all, it is by one's will alone that those people die, as opposed to being saved at the expense of the other gentleman.

The entire situation is morally murky, but absolute first thing I'd do is try to contact the single individual, explain the situation and try to get him to consent to the gassing to save the others, then gas him(the OP never specified that we couldn't shout and get the people's attention, just that they appeared unaware of us). Though seeing as that exploits a probably unintentional loophole in the original situation, if I couldn't do that I'd gas the individual, to save the group of people. All else being equal and with no other option, I must sacrifice the one individual's life to save many others.

If I press the button, then I've decided that that lone individual must die. If I do not press the button, I can absolve myself of responsibility. I'm cold.

No, you're being a pusilanimus ponce. Save 11 lives, or by your inaction when you had the power to save, kill 11. It's not your fault you have _someone_ will die, but it will be your _decision_ not to save those 11. No question, kill the 1, save 11.

One taking that route still bears responsibility for the deaths of the people in the crowded room.

If one has the power to save someone and refuses to do so, they bear some responsibility for the consequence of that action. After all, it is by one's will alone that those people die, as opposed to being saved at the expense of the other gentleman.

The entire situation is morally murky, but absolute first thing I'd do is try to contact the single individual, explain the situation and try to get him to consent to the gassing to save the others, then gas him(the OP never specified that we couldn't shout and get the people's attention, just that they appeared unaware of us). Though seeing as that exploits a probably unintentional loophole in the original situation, if I couldn't do that I'd gas the individual, to save the group of people. All else being equal and with no other option, I must sacrifice the one individual's life to save many others.

Of course the entire situation is morally murky, and I'm playing the devil's advocate to everyone here who decides that that one man must die for the others to live. That man is still a human being, and if you press that button, then you are actively deciding that he must die.

Elgesh']No, you're being a pusilanimus ponce. Save 11 lives, or by your inaction when you had the power to save, kill 11. It's not your fault you have _someone_ will die, but it will be your _decision_ not to save those 11. No question, kill the 1, save 11.

I am not the one killing those 11 people. It has been entirely someone else's decision that they must die for whatever reason. But if I press that button, then the responsibility rests upon my shoulders entirely. I am the one who has determined that his life is not worth those other 11 lives.

Since you're such an ardent believer that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, let me add a corollary to this equation. Say the 11 people are awful, terrible people; rapists and murderers. Do you still save the 11 lives? Is it about quantity to you?

Simple in the extreme. Your choices are to kill one stranger, or to kill many strangers. There's no possible motivation for killing the one; the total suffering and loss of value to the world caused by killing the many is much greater. If there are 10 people in the one room, and the average amount of loss and suffering caused by a given individual's death is denoted a, then you either cause a or 10a of suffering and life-value loss. How could you make any other choice?

I am not the one killing those 11 people. It has been entirely someone else's decision that they must die for whatever reason. But if I press that button, then the responsibility rests upon my shoulders entirely. I am the one who has determined that his life is not worth those other 11 lives.

Since you're such an ardent believer that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, let me add a corollary to this equation. Say the 11 people are awful, terrible people; rapists and murderers. Do you still save the 11 lives? Is it about quantity to you?

I know nowt about the moral charactyer of any of them, I save the 12.

And the responsibility for being in this dreadful situation isn't yours at all. You're as much a victim as the poor bugger[s] who get killed. But if, through _my_ action, I can save lifes, I have a moral duty to help them. I couldn't _live_ with myself if I did nothing to technically absolve myself from responsibility for future resuults - it's like saying 'if I don't vote, it's not my fault who wins'.

Elgesh']I know nowt about the moral charactyer of any of them, I save the 12.

And the responsibility for being in this dreadful situation isn't yours at all. You're as much a victim as the poor bugger[s] who get killed. But if, through _my_ action, I can save lifes, I have a moral duty to help them. I couldn't _live_ with myself if I did nothing to technically absolve myself from responsibility for future resuults - it's like saying 'if I don't vote, it's not my fault who wins'.

You couldn't live with yourself if you chose to allow the one man to die, and that is the point. Either way, you are choosing to allow people to die. How is it any less morally reprehensible to save the many at the expense of the one? You're still choosing to have a man die.

Of course the entire situation is morally murky, and I'm playing the devil's advocate to everyone here who decides that that one man must die for the others to live. That man is still a human being, and if you press that button, then you are actively deciding that he must die.

True, I do decide that he dies. But you can kill/harm/whatever people by failing to act. If we follow your plan, we do not act and the people die. Now if you didn't have the power to save them, then you are right in saying 'hey, somebody else set this gig up, I'm not the one doing the killing.' But like it or not you don't have that luxury because you do have the power to save them.

None of the options are perfect - as such it must come down to a ultilitarian equation. 11 people can live and one die if you act... if you fail to act 12 people die. All else being equal the 11 lives sadly must outweigh the one.

You couldn't live with yourself if you chose to allow the one man to die, and that is the point. Either way, you are choosing to allow people to die. How is it any less morally reprehensible to save the many at the expense of the one? You're still choosing to have a man die.

I would be thinking 'I couldn't help that poor soul, but at least I saved those 12' - it's like rescuing people from a fire - you do what you can, as long as you can. You didn't cause the fire, but once put in a situation where you _can_ help, you help as many as you can as long as you can.

Choosing to do nothing to save your own conscience is pretty cowardly, however you dress it up.

Break the frakking straps, then find the motha-frakkin' SOB who set this up and kill his sorry ass, then set both rooms of people free before the time runs out. :p
Don't be afraid to use real curse words on this forum. They don't get censored.

Elgesh']I would be thinking 'I couldn't help that poor soul, but at least I saved those 12' - it's like rescuing people from a fire - you do what you can, as long as you can. You didn't cause the fire, but once put in a situation where you _can_ help, you help as many as you can as long as you can.

Choosing to do nothing to save your own conscience is pretty cowardly, however you dress it up.

It's nothing like rescuing people from a fire, unless you go room to room and determine which people it would be most effective for you to save.

You think it's cowardly for me to do nothing; I think it's the height of arrogance for you to believe you have the right to determine who should live and who should die.

You couldn't live with yourself if you chose to allow the one man to die, and that is the point. Either way, you are choosing to allow people to die. How is it any less morally reprehensible to save the many at the expense of the one? You're still choosing to have a man die.

I'd live with myself easily. No regrets. Now, could you live with yourself if you condemned 12 people to death to save one, when you could have done the opposite?

And how could you possibly think that there's no difference? You're making the conscious choice to either cause one person's death, or cause 12 people's deaths. The fact that the latter is by inaction is completely irrelevant; shifting blame to your captor is a cowardly moral cop-out - you're trying to evade the moral dilemma and ease your mind.

Utilitarianism is the clear way to go.

I'd live with myself easily. No regrets. Now, could you live with yourself if you condemned 12 people to death to save one, when you could have done the opposite?

And how could you possibly think that there's no difference? You're making the conscious choice to either cause one person's death, or cause 12 people's deaths. The fact that the latter is by inaction is completely irrelevant; shifting blame to your captor is a cowardly moral cop-out - you're trying to evade the moral dilemma and ease your mind.

Utilitarianism is the clear way to go.

I think that it is actually examples like that the show the flaws of utilitarianism. I can never understand how the murder (if in this example it actually is) of 12 is any more culpable or morally appeasing than the murder of one.

I'd live with myself easily. No regrets. Now, could you live with yourself if you condemned 12 people to death to save one, when you could have done the opposite?

And how could you possibly think that there's no difference? You're making the conscious choice to either cause one person's death, or cause 12 people's deaths. The fact that the latter is by inaction is completely irrelevant; shifting blame to your captor is a cowardly moral cop-out - you're trying to evade the moral dilemma and ease your mind.

Utilitarianism is the clear way to go.

Utilitarianism is just as much a moral cop out. You ignore the humanity of what you are doing in favor of the sheer statistical reality of the situation. It's easy to say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when you aren't confronted with the consequences. But you're still trying to evade the moral dilemma in your own mind by justifying it "for the greater good".

It's nothing like rescuing people from a fire, unless you go room to room and determine which people it would be most effective for you to save.

You think it's cowardly for me to do nothing; I think it's the height of arrogance for you to believe you have the right to determine who should live and who should die.

I agree with Free Mercantile States' post above me in every respect.

The responsibility lies with the bugger who put you in such a dreadful position, not you. Abdicating your authority to help people because it helps _your_ conscience is unbelievably self-centred.

Don't confuse 'responsibility' with 'authority'.

It's nothing like rescuing people from a fire, unless you go room to room and determine which people it would be most effective for you to save.

You think it's cowardly for me to do nothing; I think it's the height of arrogance for you to believe you have the right to determine who should live and who should die.

If you can explain to me how deciding not to push the button is not deciding that 12 people should die instead of one, then come back and we can talk.

If you press the button, then it is you who is deciding that that one person dies. If you do nothing, it's still the decision of the person responsible for this situation. I do nothing.

Well said. The dilemma, of course, is that you may be in a room while another has to decide your fate vs that of another group. Kinda makes things interesting when you consider this from the prospective of the individual in the other room.

Having said this, I agree with the stated position. Do nothing and leave responsibility with the person who staged this.


QUESTION: Does anyone else feel like this question is really testing something else?

Elgesh']I agree with Free Mercantile States' post above me in every respect.

The responsibility lies with the bugger who put you in such a dreadful position, not you. Abdicating your authority to help people because it helps _your_ conscience is unbelievably self-centred.

Don't confuse 'responsibility' with 'authority'.

But assuming the authority to appraise the relative value of people's lives isn't self-centered?

I'm not not making a decision to assuage my conscience. I'm not making a decision because it's not my place to make such a determination, regardless of what your utilitarianism says.

If you can explain to me how deciding not to push the button is not deciding that 12 people should die instead of one, then come back and we can talk.

If I decide not to do anything, which in reality is the absence of the decision to press the button, then the predetermined course of action occurs. That predetermined course of action, the other 12 people dying, was predetermined by that other person, the person responsible for the whole situation. Pragmatism be damned; I'm not going to sit there and evaluate the relative worths of the lives in the two rooms and decide which are worthy of my blessing.

I'm sorry but has the person who started this thread seen Saw or Saw II too many times?

I'm sorry but has the person who started this thread seen Saw or Saw II too many times?

It's a common debate. Needs of the many vs. needs of the few. I usually take the position I'm taking because the vast majority of people take the opposite position, not considering what it really means. What I would actually do in this situation I'm not really sure.

I think that it is actually examples like that the show the flaws of utilitarianism. I can never understand how the murder (if in this example it actually is) of 12 is any more culpable or morally appeasing than the murder of one.

How can you not? In which case are you doing more harm? Simple as that. Ending more lives, causing more suffering, wiping out more futures, causes more harm, more pain, more evil, more loss than ending one life, on average. And since the people are strangers on one hand, not visible on the other, and use can't communicate, you can't assume that the one is some compassionate genius whose life is worth 12 others - you have to assume the average.

Utilitarianism is just as much a moral cop out. You ignore the humanity of what you are doing in favor of the sheer statistical reality of the situation. It's easy to say that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few when you aren't confronted with the consequences. But you're still trying to evade the moral dilemma in your own mind by justifying it "for the greater good".

The "humanity of what I'm doing"? What are you talking about? Reality check, morality isn't about assuaging your conscience and hearing sob stories - it's about making tough decisions and taking the path that is most right and will do the least harm. Let me reiterate: Morality - is - not - about - your - feelings. It's not about shifting blame, or feeling bad about one person's consequences, or feeling good inside yourself - it's about what's right.

As for all those things about "it's not my place to decide if they live or die" - get real and grow a freaking backbone. You are given a choice. You did not ask for that choice, but you have it, and you have to make it. You have to choose what to do and what is right, and to back out like some scared yet self-righteous little child is the height of moral cowardice.

But assuming the authority to appraise the relative value of people's lives isn't self-centered?

I'm not not making a decision to assuage my conscience. I'm not making a decision because it's not my place to make such a determination, regardless of what your utilitarianism says.

While i agree with you i think you have to realise (and you may well do) that not making a decision is a decision in itself:). Though, i do not know how much this harms your answer

But assuming the authority to appraise the relative value of people's lives isn't self-centered?

I'm not not making a decision to assuage my conscience. I'm not making a decision because it's not my place to make such a determination, regardless of what your utilitarianism says.

I'm not judging the people. I'm counting them. In a horrible, life or death situation, do the most good - or at least the 'least bad'. I'm counting 'good', or the 'least bad' as 'stopping a maniac from killing as many people as possible'.

'It's not my place'... for heavens sake, grow a spine. No one ever said life was always 'nice', or placed you in a position where there was a 'good' option and a 'bad' option - sometimes, you have to choose between the lessor of 2 evils. It's unpleasant but we have to do it. This example is a clear example of choosing between 2 evil options - sometimes the best we can do is soften the blow, not prevent it from landingin the first place.

Elgesh']I'm not judging the people. I'm counting them. In a horrible, life or death situation, do the most good - or at least the 'least bad'. I'm counting 'good', or the 'least bad' as 'stopping a maniac from killing as many people as possible'.

'It's not my place'... for heavens sake, grow a spine. No one ever said life was always 'nice', or placed you in a position where there was a 'good' option and a 'bad' option - sometimes, you have to choose between the lessor of 2 evils. It's unpleasant but we have to do it. This example is a clear example of choosing between 2 evil options - sometimes the best we can do is soften the blow, not prevent it from landingin the first place.

Are you incapable of having a debate without resorting to insults?

How can you not? In which case are you doing more harm? Simple as that. Ending more lives, causing more suffering, wiping out more futures, causes more harm, more pain, more evil, more loss than ending one life, on average. And since the people are strangers on one hand, not visible on the other, and use can't communicate, you can't assume that the one is some compassionate genius whose life is worth 12 others - you have to assume the average.


I don't think that morality can be accurately converted to satatistical equations. To do so i think is to trivialise the situation in the hope of finding a right answer. Plain and simple. Both courses of action i find equally abhorant.

Just as an aside would your answer be any differant if it was twelve mentally deficient people or your afforementioned genius?

Possibly. As I said, this thought experiment is simple in the extreme, but that one is much more difficult and problematic, and would require much more thought.

Just as an aside would your answer be any differant if it was twelve mentally deficient people or your afforementioned genius?
Would you rather kill twelve flies than a dolphin?

How do you compare the value of a life?

Why? Would you kill all of them?
Well, it was my understanding that the gas would kill them. But if that's not enough and there's a shovel handy, yeah, sure, why not?

Are you incapable of having a debate without resorting to insults?
Yes, but you offend me. Your 'me first' attitude and wilfull abdication of human decency justifies a touch of rudeness.

Possibly. As I said, this thought experiment is simple in the extreme, but that one is much more difficult and problematic, and would require much more thought.

I think it is immensly important as shows the underlying motivation for your response to the thought experiment this thread is about. It shows that it is not about 12 deaths or on death but really about something else.

Elgesh']Yes, but you offend me.

My position offends you. Not myself.

Would you rather kill twelve flies than a dolphin?

How do you compare the value of a life?

That was the point i was tring to make. My response was to someone who was trying to compare the value of life. I apologise if i was unclear.

Not really - it's the same thing. Utilitarianism is about doing the most good and the least harm. In the case of twelve randomly selected people and one randomly selected people, the decision is obvious - but choose specifics, and it becomes more complex. I'm leaning towards "save the genius", but I don't really want to seriously throw my weight on a side just yet.

That was the point i was tring to make. My response was to someone who was trying to compare the value of life. I apologise if i was unclear.

Take out the human part, then. If there were poachers going out, one after a dolphin and one after a pod of twelve, and you could teleport the police to one poaching party only, what would you do?

My position offends you. Not myself.

Well, if the fact of some stranger disliking what you take a stand for upsets you, change your position and we'll be fine! :p Will that salve your conscience?

How's about a real ethical dilemma for a change? How often is anyone put in this situation outside of a work of fiction?

That was the point i was tring to make...
The best answer I have come up with so far was that you'd have to value them according to what they have to lose - what would be the expected value of their remaining life to themselves and others.

Which means that if I get put into that situation, I'd have to kill the single person, simply because twelve lifes will on aggregate be more to lose than one single one.
However, if you now told me that the twelve were mentally disabled, then, as harsh as it sounds, perhaps they'd have "less to lose" than the single person.
But that is the decision that cannot be rationally explained, and with which you'd have to fight for the rest of your life.

How's about a real ethical dilemma for a change? How often is anyone put in this situation outside of a work of fiction?
seconded - question as it stands is pretty abstract...

This hypothetical is interesting because it exposes one of the central and more problematic aspects of Anglo-American tort law. Tort law is all about establishing and enforcing the duties that members of civilized societies owe to one another. When driving, for example, you are under a duty to do so safely. If you drive negligently and injure someone in the process, you pay. If you're a company, and you negligently manufacture a product that hurts someone, you pay. If you're a restaurant and you serve poisoned food that kills the people who eat it, you pay. If you're a restaurant that serves coffee that causes 3rd degree burns when a patron accidentally spills it on herself, you pay. This is all a function of tort law. You pay when you breach a duty to another person. The question is, what duties do you owe to other people?

While much of the world views this issue differently, in the US you have no duty to rescue another person in distress. If you see someone getting robbed, you have no duty to aid. If the robbed person sues you for not helping her, she'll lose in an American court. If you see homeless people starving on the street, you have no duty to help them. If you see a child drowning, you have no duty to aid the child. If you see a house burning, you have no duty to rescue those trapped in the house. In all these cases, you are immune from liability in tort because you are under no duty to rescue under traditional, Anglo-American tort law.

In many nations, however, you would be under a duty to rescue. Those who would sacrifice the 1 in order to save the 12 are, in effect, accepting that duty. They feel the need to do something just by virtue of the fact that they have the power to do something. Those who would do nothing are, in effect, claiming their tort immunity, i.e. I didn't create the situation and, therefore, I am not responsible for a problem that someone else created (the bugger who arranged this mess).

There is no "right" answer, of course. We should realize, though, that more liberal nations view the U.S. as rather backward and calloused because of its treatment of the poorest and weakest among us. That treatment stems from our embrace of traditional tort law, a law that has since been abandoned in much of the Commonwealth but which remains alive and well in the U.S.

Poor people? So what? Not my problem. No duty to rescue.


Edit:Quelsa--typos.

Take out the human part, then. If there were poachers going out, one after a dolphin and one after a pod of twelve, and you could teleport the police to one poaching party only, what would you do?

I don't think it is so much what i would do but rather; is one action more justified that the other. The point i have been trying to make is that perhaps they are morally equivalent.

Gas the poor bastard in the room by themself.

You aren't responsible for his death at all. This is a situation completely outside your control, orchestrated by someone else so that people would die. The moral responsibility for the inevitable death(s) rests entirely on that person's shoulders. When you choose to press the button that'll just gas the lone figure you aren't killing anyone, the person who put you here is. You're no more responsible than the passenger in a car who reaches across to put on the breaks in time to save all but one of a crowd of bystanders. Your act doesn't cause death, it saves lives.

...tort...

Poor people? So what? Not my problem. No duty to rescue.

Don't forget we'll looking at a _moral_ duty, not a _legal_ one. I'd never call for the _prosecution_ of someone in this hypothetical situation, that'd be silly! But I'd think they were a shit.

Elgesh']Don't forget we'll looking at a _moral_ duty, not a _legal_ one. I'd never call for the _prosecution_ of someone in this hypothetical situation, that'd be silly! But I'd think they were a shit.

I'm not talking about prosecution either. :)

I'm talking about tort law (duties we owe to one another) as opposed to criminal law (duties we owe to the state that, when breached, can land us in jail).

The point that I'm making is that our tort law reflects our attitudes (and, in many ways, creates our attitudes) about the duties we owe to one another.

Thanks for the reply.

Ethical dilemma aside, how can you justify to yourself after the fact either course of action? The lesser of two evils in pressing the button and gassing one person is a major evil in hiding because you kill that person. However, not pressing the button is a major evil in that everyone dies, but a lesser evil in that you are not responsible directly. However, you are responsible for your [I]inaction[I] and are therefore a mass murderer.

So I guess I'm trying to say kill em all and let God sort em out.

I'm not talking about prosecution either. :)

I'm talking about tort law (duties we owe to one another) as opposed to criminal law (duties we owe to the state that, when breached, can land us in jail).

The point that I'm making is that our tort law reflects our attitudes (and, in many ways, creates our attitudes) about the duties we owe to one another.

Thanks for the reply.

Ah, you'll have to excuse me - I only stuck out 1 years' worth of Scots Law at Glasgow Uni; hated every moment!

As far as I think about it, the law can only ever be a reflection of morality in the first instance; later on, I agree, it can influence atttudes towards how we think about our moral duties.

However, I'd also argue that the law ought only possess a 'looser' definiton of ethical practise than moral philosophy; the context is so important, and laws can't be drafted to take _everything_ into account...

To conclude, basing your moral actions on an appreciation of legal nicities is dodgy at best!

Reading the thread about dying for 12 random people got me thinking about another hypothetical situation a old Navy buddy sprung on us one mid-shift:

You wake up to find yourself strapped into a chair. Before you is two windows. The rooms beyond are too dark to see clearly but in one room you can see several people (men women and children) and in the other a single person (Indeterminate gender but adult). They don't seem aware of the other room or you. Otherwise they look alert and healthy. The is also a timer between the windows counting down.

A voice over a loudspeaker draws your attention to a button under your hand. There is a canister containing serin gas hooked to both of the rooms. If you do nothing then the gas will be released into the room with the group of people. However you can save them by pressing the button before the timer reaches zero and the gas will there be diverted to the room with the single person.

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?


I do nothing.

Since I'm strapped into the chair, I assume that I am there involuntarily and I am not responsible for setting up this situation. If I press the button, I am responsible for killing another person. If, however, I do nothing, whatever happens is the responsibility of the person(s) holding me captive. Additionally, since I am a prisoner and am not responsible for setting up this situation, how can I trust the word of my kidnapper? The only morally safe/correct action is to not comply with the activities or desires of a criminal, and be prepared to accept whatever happens to me as a result.

I do nothing.

Since I'm strapped into the chair, I assume that I am there involuntarily and I am not responsible for setting up this situation. If I press the button, I am responsible for killing another person. If, however, I do nothing, whatever happens is the responsibility of the person(s) holding me captive. Additionally, since I am a prisoner and am not responsible for setting up this situation, how can I trust the word of my kidnapper? The only morally safe/correct action is to not comply with the activities or desires of a criminal, and be prepared to accept whatever happens to me as a result.

Except for the part about trusting the kidnapper or not, what cowardly nonsense. Your only thought is what action makes you less responsible, legally and morally? What you have to do to keep your conscience appeased and shift blame and responsibility to your captor? So much for doing what's actually right....

I don't think it is so much what i would do but rather; is one action more justified that the other. The point i have been trying to make is that perhaps they are morally equivalent.

But why? You've said so several times, but given no actual reason why they're the same, and no real response to my argument and reasoning for the other position. How are you being moral if you don't have any basis for what you're doing, and won't do anything because of some sort of basless conception of irrational moral equivalency?

Except for the part about trusting the kidnapper or not...


It's a minor consideration. For all I know, it's pressing the button that kills us all.


Your only thought is what action makes you less responsible, legally and morally? What you have to do to keep your conscience appeased and shift blame and responsibility to your captor? So much for doing what's actually right....

If acquiescing to criminal threats is considered bravery, I shall be a "coward" and I shall be proud of it. (Edit: So long as I do not cave in to the demands of a criminal, I have not "shifted" anything.)

So, assuming the instructions given are true (those are the terms of the thought experiment), you'd rather spite the criminal than save lives? It seems a rather poor smoke-and-mirrors excuse for not doing what you can do to help people.

Snip...

Abdicating the authority to save folk, wilfull passivity in the face of the ability to stop 11 people losing their lifes... to salve your own conscience? I don't even understand how one can imagine this 'saves' you from accepting 'blame' - A) your voluntary inactivity kills people B) it's not your fault you're placed in a terrible situation.

I'd make sure I don't get knocked-out and snapped to a chair in the first place.

So, assuming the instructions given are true (those are the terms of the thought experiment),


Not a safe assumption. Since it is a voice describing to me the nature of the button, I must consider the possibility that the voice is that of a liar. Especially since my being a prisoner prevents me from determining otherwise, without actually pressing the button.


..you'd rather spite the criminal than save lives?


I'd rather not be a criminal accomplice. Plus, the stress of the situation may put me in a state of mind that is not conducive to rational thought. Trying to play hero in such a situation could prove to be exceptionally dangerous, not only to myself, but to my fellow prisoners as well. See above about making unsafe assumptions.

Elgesh']Abdicating the authority to save folk, wilfull passivity in the face of the ability to stop 11 people losing their lifes... to salve your own conscience?

And you know for a fact that my efforts will save lives because......?

To add to this discussion:
The first law of robotics is "A robot must never harm a human being or through inaction cause a person to come to harm" Asimov wouldn't have added that last part if wasn't important.(Incidentally, it very much is;there's a story where that's taken out from some robots. Long story short, one of them ends up attacking the person assigned to find the robot in a bunch of other robots.)
So I'd push the button.

To add to this discussion:
The first law of robotics is "A robot must never harm a human being or through inaction cause a person to come to harm" Asimov wouldn't have added that last part if wasn't important.(Incidentally, it very much is;there's a story where that's taken out from some robots. Long story short, one of them ends up attacking the person assigned to find the robot in a bunch of other robots.)
So I'd push the button.

1) I'm not a robot.

2) A robot, being in theory a totally rational entity, must consider the possibility that its action will cause more harm than it intends to prevent (for instance, the voice is lying and pressing the button kills everyone involved). As such, I would not conclude so quickly that the robot would choose to push the button. In fact, I would assert that since pretty much anything could happen as a result of pushing the button, the "laws of robotics" are a pathetically inadequate tool to use to determine ethical behavior. Most likely the robot would get stuck in an infinite loop: if I press the button, I save people, but pushing the button could kill people (violation of rule 1), but if I don't press the button people might die (violation of rule 1), but if I do push the button people might die (violation of rule 1), but if I don't...on and on to eternity. (Edit: Whether it wanted to or not, the robot would end up doing nothing.)

In the above the robot's brain would fry... Also the reason for the inaction clause in the rules was to prevent a robot using the hypothetical - if i drop this weight i can catch it before it hits those people. (Drop Weight)... If i dont catch that weight those people will die - but its really gravity killing them... (Do nothing, people die)


My position is to go to sleep... i dont know what the button does... i dont know how well everything is wired up... and i dont trust most people - let alone if tied up and given orders... As i have very few options sleep is my choice.

It's funny, the movie is on right now, and I'm watching it. [If you're talking about I, robot.]

EVIL...

I was referring to the Nestor story (title: Little Lost Robot) in the book I, Robot....

The movie has almost nothing to do with it...

(edit: added title, ajusted name)

welp i see 2 approaches to this problem.

1) kill the one guy to save the several. probably what i would do given my disorientation and the pressure of the countdown. no time to think it through, save the most you can

2) dont play his game. some sick fuck has you tied to a chair and you are his pawn. dont participate. deny him his fun. by rejecting the notion that you must be involved in his diabolical plan ( tell the truth, the one guy alone is really james bond isnt it?!) you may save some future people who will be invovled in the NEXT test by having him realize it isnt all that much fun anyway.

besides anyone who would set up such a scenario isnt to be trusted anyway. he's just as likely to kill all of you if you press the button.

Not a safe assumption. Since it is a voice describing to me the nature of the button, I must consider the possibility that the voice is that of a liar. Especially since my being a prisoner prevents me from determining otherwise, without actually pressing the button.



I'd rather not be a criminal accomplice. Plus, the stress of the situation may put me in a state of mind that is not conducive to rational thought. Trying to play hero in such a situation could prove to be exceptionally dangerous, not only to myself, but to my fellow prisoners as well. See above about making unsafe assumptions.

You're completely (and willfully, I think) avoiding or ignoring the actual, obviously intended point of the thought experiment by metathinking that deliberately sidetracks the issue. How about participating in the debate this thread is actually about?

It's funny, the movie is on right now, and I'm watching it. [If you're talking about I, robot.]

Please - never again compare the monstrosity of the Will Smith movie with anything Asimov wrote.

It's nothing like rescuing people from a fire, unless you go room to room and determine which people it would be most effective for you to save.

You think it's cowardly for me to do nothing; I think it's the height of arrogance for you to believe you have the right to determine who should live and who should die.

Perhaps we should give you a hand gun. Give another person a hand gun. You have eleven bullets. The other person has twelve. You've been told that you can either gun down the bloke with the twelve bullets or watch him gun down the eleven and then kill himself. What would you do? Drop the gun and walk away? As it is so often said, all that is nessesary for evil to triumph is for good men to stand by and do nothing. Inaction kills.

People have to make this sort of choice everyday. It's called 'command'. You can lay choose to sacrifice one life and let eleven live, you can sacrifice eleven so that one may live, or you can stand around with your thumb up your ass and let all twelve die.

Let the eleven live, kill the one. It's the least evil of all the situations. Including not doing anything.

*snip* If you do nothing then the gas will be released into the room with the group of people. However you can save them by pressing the button before the timer reaches zero and the gas will there be diverted to the room with the single person.

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?
I do nothing. Whatever deaths occur are on the hand of the person(s) who set up this scenario.

I do nothing. Whatever deaths occur are on the hand of the person(s) who set up this scenario.

But, either way, the deaths are on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Should Schindler have stood idly by while the Nazis gassed Jews and other 'undesireables', or is his an immoral man for spending his personal wealth to save as many Jews and 'undesireables' as he possibly could, even though it meant that others would still die?

But, either way, the deaths are on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Should Schindler have stood idly by while the Nazis gassed Jews and other 'undesireables', or is his an immoral man for spending his personal wealth to save as many Jews and 'undesireables' as he possibly could, even though it meant that others would still die?
Whatever action Schindler chose to take is on him; whatever action the Nazis chose to take is on them.

Whatever action Schindler chose to take is on him; whatever action the Nazis chose to take is on them.

What if we were to assign the buttons different meanings.

Let's say that both rooms are already being gassed, by some Magical Slow Acting Poisonous Gas That Can Be Cured. You have two buttons. One hooked up to the room with eleven that will immediately begin pumping in antidote and the other that leads to the room with the one, with the same effect. You can only choose one button. Which one would you choose, then, and how would it be different from if you had chosen to gas one or the other instead?

What if we were to assign the buttons different meanings.

Let's say that both rooms are already being gassed, by some Magical Slow Acting Poisonous Gas That Can Be Cured. You have two buttons. One hooked up to the room with eleven that will immediately begin pumping in antidote and the other that leads to the room with the one, with the same effect. You can only choose one button. Which one would you choose, then, and how would it be different from if you had chosen to gas one or the other instead?
Either way, the gassing of the victims is on the one who set up this scenario.

Either way, the gassing of the victims is on the one who set up this scenario.

So, given that they are responsible for the deaths, don't you feel that you should at least try to minimize the damage done?

So, given that they are responsible for the deaths, don't you feel that you should at least try to minimize the damage done?
But that's another question.

Whatever I did, I would still bear no responsibility for deaths.

My action to "minimize the damage" would depend upon the people involved. For instance, if I knew the fellow who was a solo in one of the rooms, and I loved him, he would probably be the one I would choose.

EDIT: But that is going beyond the parameters of the original scenario.

But that's another question.

Whatever I did, I would still bear no responsibility for deaths.

My action to "minimize the damage" would depend upon the people involved. For instance, if I knew the fellow who was a solo in one of the rooms, and I loved him, he would probably be the one I would choose.

I admire your romanticism, but....

Don't you think that selfish? What if one of the eleven were to go on to invent the better lightbulb? Cure the common cold? Eradicate AIDS? Unite all the tribes of men in glorious harmony? Though you love this man very much and, perhaps enough to keep you from having nightmares about the incident afterwards, do you think he would approve? Wouldn't you prefer to die than sacrifice eleven others for your own sake? Is it not true that a life is worth a life? If this is so, is your decision based on the spur of the moment or on the subjective value of those who might die, rather than the objective value?

I admire your romanticism, but....

Don't you think that selfish?
Entirely selfish... what's your point?

What if one of the eleven were to go on to invent the better lightbulb? Cure the common cold? Eradicate AIDS? Unite all the tribes of men in glorious harmony?
The future does not factor into destiny.

Though you love this man very much and, perhaps enough to keep you from having nightmares about the incident afterwards, do you think he would approve?
The ethical decision in this new scenario is my choice, not his.

Wouldn't you prefer to die than sacrifice eleven others for your own sake?
Truthfully, I am not that altruistic. If I don't know them, and I know him, that would be a factor.

Is it not true that a life is worth a life? If this is so, is your decision based on the spur of the moment or on the subjective value of those who might die, rather than the objective value?
A life is worth a life? Is that the same as an eye for an eye? No. That is not a moral code I hold to.

My decision to act, as opposed to not acting (which I indicated earlier) would entirely be based on the introduction of a subjective value to this scenario.

Entirely selfish... what's your point?

Nothing. Most people prefer to have selfless people around them. It makes their selfishness easier on everyone else.

The future does not factor into destiny.

Uhm... yes?

The ethical decision in this new scenario is my choice, not his.

True, but if he were so revolted by your choosing to sacrifice eleven for him, might he not abandon you?

Truthfully, I am not that altruistic. If I don't know them, and I know him, that would be a factor.

Ah, so the rest of the world could rot, fall into decay, and utterly implode, but so long as you're happy, you wouldn't care?

A life is worth a life?

Isn't it? All people are equally important, are they not?

Is that the same as an eye for an eye? No. That is not a moral code I hold to.

A life being equal to a life is not nessesarily an eye for an eye. Were it thus, you would have eleven lives to atone for.

My decision to act, as opposed to not acting (which I indicated earlier) would entirely be based on the introduction of a subjective value to this scenario.

This brings me back to the earlier thing, the world could be falling utterly apart, babies (not feti, mind you) thrown on spits right outside your front door, but you wouldn't care until it actually causes you some personal harm. Is this correct?

Uhm... yes?
Uhm... okay!

True, but if he were so revolted by your choosing to sacrifice eleven for him, might he not abandon you?
Then that is his decision. Whatever he might choose to do as a result of my action should not factor into my decision, because that is the future, and unless I can predict it with some accuracy, I shouldn't let it influence me.

And I'm a terrible guesser.

Ah, so the rest of the world could rot, fall into decay, and utterly implode, but so long as you're happy, you wouldn't care?
So, because I love someone you extrapolate all this from what I said about this scenario? Wow...

But to answer your question.... yeah. Damn right.

Isn't it? All people are equally important, are they not?
Only to someone non-human (i.e. who holds idealism above realism).

A life being equal to a life is not nessesarily an eye for an eye. Were it thus, you would have eleven lives to atone for.

This brings me back to the earlier thing, the world could be falling utterly apart, babies (not feti, mind you) thrown on spits right outside your front door, but you wouldn't care until it actually causes you some personal harm. Is this correct?
Heck, let's throw in the feti too.

That would disturb me greatly, but this has nothing to do with what I said, which was in the context of the scenario of the original post.

Uhm... okay!

Woohoo! (?(!))

Then that is his decision. Whatever he might choose to do as a result of my action should not factor into my decision, because that is the future, and unless I can predict it with some accuracy, I shouldn't let it influence me.

And I'm a terrible guesser.

Sounds like a cop-out... dun-dun-dunnnn!

So, because I love someone you extrapolate all this from what I said about this scenario? Wow...

But to answer your question.... yeah. Damn right.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't a horribly just thing to extrapolate. I wasn't factoring in the X/Y thing.

Only to someone non-human (i.e. who holds idealism above realism).

Realists claim that there are no souls, because they have none. If a life is not spent in a great cause, it is not a life and may as well have been aborted.

Heck, let's throw in the feti too.

No! Not the feti! Now the anti-choicers will be coming after you!

That would disturb me greatly, but this has nothing to do with what I said, which was in the context of the scenario of the original post.

But extrapolation tickles me so....

I bid thee adieu. Mine writing art starting to be teh suck and my mind (what precious little is left) is beginning to evaporate, so I need to go put it back in its terrarium.

Well, to be fair, it wasn't a horribly just thing to extrapolate. I wasn't factoring in the X/Y thing.
Okay, I don't know what "the X/Y thing" is. Maybe I should have read the previous pages in this thread.

Realists claim that there are no souls, because they have none. If a life is not spent in a great cause, it is not a life and may as well have been aborted.
Really? I didn't know that about realists. I thought that was materialists.

No! Not the feti! Now the anti-choicers will be coming after you!

But extrapolation tickles me so....

I bid thee adieu. Mine writing art starting to be teh suck and my mind (what precious little is left) is beginning to evaporate, so I need to go put it back in its terrarium.
See you tomorrow (I hope).

And you know for a fact that my efforts will save lives because......?

It's a thought experiment!! You have to proceed by the parameters laid down in the initial concept or it's utterly pointless!

Well, it's probably pretty pointless anyway, but if you don't use the internal logic of the construct, but bring in your own stuff to it, you can't have a sensible debate.

If you say 'oh, but the original poster might not have been telling the truth when he said pressing button X will do _this_, and button Y will do _that_', you may as well say that 'the original poster forgot to mention that the solo guy is a magic elf, and doesn't breathe so the gas won't affect him, while the 12 are babyrapists from Death Row' :p

But, either way, the deaths are on the hands of the person who set up the scenario.

Should Schindler have stood idly by while the Nazis gassed Jews and other 'undesireables', or is his an immoral man for spending his personal wealth to save as many Jews and 'undesireables' as he possibly could, even though it meant that others would still die?

Dangerously close to Godwin that was.

I'm sorry but has the person who started this thread seen Saw or Saw II too many times?

nope not ever (I hate those types of movies). Like I said this was presented to me years ago before Saw even came out. The guy who did it just loved screwing with people's heads. He was the kind of guy that would ask you if you were gay or lesbian and if you strongly denied it he'd asked if you had ever tried it. Assuming the typical answer of no, he'd then point out that you don't "know" that you don't like it you're only assuming. It got to the point we'd start saying "No and I try it once a year to make sure I haven't changed my mind". I hit him with the comeback that made him stop." I told him that I wasn't and I knew because while I wasn't sure if I liked sex with my own gender I knew that I did with the opposite therefore at best I was bi-sexual"

WTF...Did I just hijack my own thread?

What if one of the eleven were to go on to invent the better lightbulb? Cure the common cold? Eradicate AIDS? Unite all the tribes of men in glorious harmony?

This is a faulty argument. One could just as easily aske "what if the one was to go on to eradicate AIDS, invent the better lightbulb, cure the common cold, unite the wolrd in harmony AND free us from fossil fuels?" (shoot that last one alone might be a strong argument). Since one cannot know the future one cannot use such potentials in chosing between people.

BTW When did the group get to be a definate 11 people? I believe I used "about a dozen" which could mean anywhere from 10 to 14 depending on your definition of "about"

Well, if I wasn't gagged, I would tell the lone guy to get the hell out of the room, then would gas it.

But if I was gagged, or he couldn't hear me, I would do what is needed to save the many: gas the poor guy. I might try and negotiate with the guy in the loudspeaker to gas my chamber and let the rest of the poeple go, but I'm not sure if I would actually do that in practice.

All men were created equal, thus multiple men count more than one men. It's the same principle as democracy. I'm not sure what I would do if it was someone important in that one room (I don't mean personally, I mean like a world leader or something). It's possible to ignite a war if I gassed him in that case, which would cause more deaths and more suffering. So in this case, I would probably gas the many, because that is actually taking the needs of the many into account.

I would pray that everything turned out right in the end, and that the bastard who started this God damned situation got his just desserts.

(snip)
Most likely the robot would get stuck in an infinite loop: if I press the button, I save people, but pushing the button could kill people (violation of rule 1), but if I don't press the button people might die (violation of rule 1), but if I do push the button people might die (violation of rule 1), but if I don't...on and on to eternity.
First of all, I concede that that was a bad example, and second, the robot would do what is best for humanity as a whole, even if it had to kill one person.

First of all, I concede that that was a bad example, and second, the robot would do what is best for humanity as a whole, even if it had to kill one person.
Which is demonstrated by the God awful I-Robot movie very clearly (I wonder if Asimov was still around if he would disown it).

Reading the thread about dying for 12 random people got me thinking about another hypothetical situation a old Navy buddy sprung on us one mid-shift:

You wake up to find yourself strapped into a chair. Before you is two windows. The rooms beyond are too dark to see clearly but in one room you can see several people (men women and children) and in the other a single person (Indeterminate gender but adult). They don't seem aware of the other room or you. Otherwise they look alert and healthy. The is also a timer between the windows counting down.

A voice over a loudspeaker draws your attention to a button under your hand. There is a canister containing serin gas hooked to both of the rooms. If you do nothing then the gas will be released into the room with the group of people. However you can save them by pressing the button before the timer reaches zero and the gas will there be diverted to the room with the single person.

What do you do and what is your justification behind your decision?

I try and break free and save the people in the room. To just press the button to kill the single person is not acceptable as every human life is precious.

I try and break free and save the people in the room. To just press the button to kill the single person is not acceptable as every human life is precious.
What's your answer if you can't break free?