NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a BBC article about ethical dilemmas - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

There's four situations, and you're allowed to vote for which option you'd pick in each one. Now, it explains the purpose of each dilemma after giving the situation, so you might want to vote before reading the whole bit. Also, unless you want the purpose of some of them spoiled for you, don't read the rest of this post until you've finished the article.

My answers were: No, Yes, No, Yes.

Personally, I don't agree that the first situation is a parallel to abortion. When a woman is pregnant, yes, she is (kinda) 'kidnapped' for 9 months and hooked up to another person, but in the situation given, at the end of the 9 months, you would never have to have anything to do with the violinist again - unlike with a baby.

And the fourth one is just stupid. Why would you let the fat guy go first?

No (but I'd probably do it anyway)
No (since that's murder, rather than negligence. There's a good chance I'd do it anyway)
No (same as above)
No (but again, I'd do it anyway, since I would choose my own life as paramount. Although, seriously, why would you send that guy first?)

No, but might consider it.
Yes
Yes
Yes

No (but I'd probably do it anyway)
No (since that's murder, rather than negligence. There's a good chance I'd do it anyway)
No (same as above)
No (but again, I'd do it anyway, since I would choose my own life as paramount. Although, seriously, why would you send that guy first?)
I'd be tempted to say yes to the first one, so long as some arrangement could be made by which I get to spend all day every day on NS. I mean, it's what I do now, so why change?

As to the second one, that was the only one I wasn't sure about. Yes, it's murder not negligence, but I'd rather have one death on my conscience than five.

From the article:
To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Screw that. If they kidnapped me, they are probably evil enough to kill me so I won't talk. It's my duty to escape as soon as possible. Sorry maestro.

Thomson used the experiment to show that a pregnant woman need not go to full term with her baby, as long as she had taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant. It is thus a "pro-choice" argument.

What the flug? If I don't take reasonable steps to avoid being kidnapped I have no right to try to escape? That's messed up, man.

I'd be tempted to say yes to the first one, so long as some arrangement could be made by which I get to spend all day every day on NS. I mean, it's what I do now, so why change?

Which is why I'd do it, I just wouldn't see it as an obligation, which is what the article said (IIRC)

The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.
Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

If you're the sort of person who can instantly decide it is morally right to kill a fat guy, even to save five lives, I'm not saying you're bad, I just want to keep my distance from you. Otherwise you might realize the amount of food I eat could be used to save five Ethiopians.

Here is an ethical delemia for you:

You are walking down the street one day when you realise that with the security code to your company your could break in, steal a hundred thousand dollars and use it to save dozens, or perhaps even a hundred lives in the third world. Do you push a fat man off a bridge to celebrate having this idea?

No (I'd probably do it, but I have been taken against my will.)
Yes
No
Yes (but...all options would have to be explored...)

1. Yes, with some good p0rn:D
2. Fuck that, I wasn't there...
3. I am teh fat man, so no.
4. Yes. If I was in the position I would advise them to blow the hell out of me. But, why the fuck would you let the one with the most chances of getting stuck first?:confused:

1. No. It be very nice of me to do that for the guy, but I don't have to.

2. Depends on their ages, as a previous paster stated. If they're all the same age, I'd flip the switch.

3. How fat is this fat guy? I mean, does he have a sure chance of blocking the trolley? If so than yeah, I suppose I would.

4. Why would we let the big dude go first?

no, no, yes (I don't like fat people), yes (see previous)

Why can't you just scream "Get off the tracks, you lot!"?

I don't think you're obliged to do - or not do - any of those things. If you assume that it's better to have more humans than fewer then it's obvious which choices you should make, but if you don't then it only matters to you in the last one; in the others it doesn't involve anyone you know or care about.

Personally, I don't agree that the first situation is a parallel to abortion. When a woman is pregnant, yes, she is (kinda) 'kidnapped' for 9 months and hooked up to another person, but in the situation given, at the end of the 9 months, you would never have to have anything to do with the violinist again - unlike with a baby.And potentially the violinist could be hooked up to someone else. Foetal transplants aren't possible yet as alternative to abortion.

I don't think you're obliged to do - or not do - any of those things. If you assume that it's better to have more humans than fewer then it's obvious which choices you should make, but if you don't then it only matters to you in the last one; in the others it doesn't involve anyone you know or care about.

If you think fewer humans is better I'm keeping you away from guns, knives and heavy equipment.

No, no, no, yes.

No, you don't have an obligation, did anyone answer yes to this one o.0
No, none of my business
No, again not my business
Yes, this IS my business and I don't like fat people *boom*

If you think fewer humans is better I'm keeping you away from guns, knives and heavy equipment.That's only an issue if he thinks 'having fewer people around' is more important than going to jail (or other consequences).

No, Yes, Yes, Yes.

My favorite response in the poll was from Robin in Edinburgh:

I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man.
Robin, Edinburgh

No, no, no, yes.

That's only an issue if he thinks 'having fewer people around' is more important than going to jail (or other consequences).
That's the rub, ain't it? ;)
People don't behave because they're nice; they behave because they're afraid of the consequences.

Yes - saving life at no expense to my own is a very logical and easy choice. don't really like the idea of staying in hospital for 9 months but assumedly they can bring me corn dogs and porn (and maybe some small compensation for my efforts too)

Yes, obviously. greater good yadda yadda

No - it is not the fat man's choice to die, and not my power to decide for anyone else

a tough one... given that there is no other way out and the man is immovable, i would still have to stick to what i said above - it is not my choice to decide whether another person dies or not. i could try to convince "Big Jack" that it is for the greater good, but ultimately it is his decision. perhaps we would survive with the tide in anyway... No.
if the roles were reversed... it'd be a difficult decision. perhaps they could just hack one of my arms off to free me instead of blowing the shit out of me with TNT :p

That's the rub, ain't it? ;)
People don't behave because they're nice; they behave because they're afraid of the consequences.Well, that and because they like the consequences of behaving (like getting cookies). And then there's ingrained behavioral patterns, the desire to be part of a group etc.
Considering how much people think about consequences (i.e. not bloody much), I don't really think it even factors much into what they do in their day to day life..

Which is another reason why it's nto really fair to give people such unrealistic choices for scenarios they probably never have, nor will, find themselves in.

No, Yes, No, Yes.

But most likely I would mess them up... :p

*boom*

que?

Yes - saving life at no expense to my own is a very logical and easy choice. don't really like the idea of staying in hospital for 9 months but assumedly they can bring me corn dogs and porn (and maybe some small compensation for my efforts too)
Erm...they kidnapped you. Why would they then compensate you?

Yes, obviously. greater good yadda yadda
You'd rather be responsible for murdering one person than responsible for the deaths of others through not doing anything? The law would only see that as manslaughter.

No - it is not the fat man's choice to die, and not my power to decide for anyone else
Yeah, I agree on this.

a tough one... given that there is no other way out and the man is immovable, i would still have to stick to what i said above - it is not my choice to decide whether another person dies or not. i could try to convince "Big Jack" that it is for the greater good, but ultimately it is his decision. perhaps we would survive with the tide in anyway... No.
if the roles were reversed... it'd be a difficult decision. perhaps they could just hack one of my arms off to free me instead of blowing the shit out of me with TNT :p
The situation is that you will die if you don't explode poor Jack...heheheh...if you don't do jack...ahem. Seeing as how Jack will be fine if the tide rises, I don't see how you'd convince him. You could try putting it to a vote between the five in the cave...

No
Yes
No
No....Yes....No....*explode*

Erm...they kidnapped you. Why would they then compensate you?

good point. well no matter, i still get my corn dogs and porn :D

You'd rather be responsible for murdering one person than responsible for the deaths of others through not doing anything? The law would only see that as manslaughter.

the law is wrong then. or at least doesn't take the full picture into account. i would rather, given the choice, have the blood of one person on my hands than five.
i know your point is that standing by and doing nothing doesn't make you responsible for the deaths of those five, but given the scenario, letting those people die makes you responsible for their deaths. one life for five makes sense in my book.


The situation is that you will die if you don't explode poor Jack...heheheh...if you don't do jack...ahem. Seeing as how Jack will be fine if the tide rises, I don't see how you'd convince him. You could try putting it to a vote between the five in the cave...
i meant trying to persuade jack that sacrificing his own life for the five in the cave makes sense (as above). it is his decision though... which provokes an inconsistancy with the last one: above i decided to take one man's life to save five; here i am saying it should be that man's choice. however the situations are subtly different in that in the former case there would be no time to ask the man if he's willing to get hit by a train. in this case there is, which is how it becomes his decision. i admit there's a big flaw in my logic/morals here :(

My answers were: No, Yes, No, Yes.
My answers were: Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

This is a BBC article about ethical dilemmas - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

There's four situations, and you're allowed to vote for which option you'd pick in each one. Now, it explains the purpose of each dilemma after giving the situation, so you might want to vote before reading the whole bit. Also, unless you want the purpose of some of them spoiled for you, don't read the rest of this post until you've finished the article.

My answers were: No, Yes, No, Yes.

Personally, I don't agree that the first situation is a parallel to abortion. When a woman is pregnant, yes, she is (kinda) 'kidnapped' for 9 months and hooked up to another person, but in the situation given, at the end of the 9 months, you would never have to have anything to do with the violinist again - unlike with a baby.

And the fourth one is just stupid. Why would you let the fat guy go first?

No, No, No, and Eeew.

No, yes, no, yes.