FA+
Shop
Philosophical Trick question
9 years ago
The classic.
There are 6 people. 5 on the left and 1 on the right. None of them notice the impending danger coming until it is too late for them to safely get out of the way. You can choose to pull the lever which will change the path of the danger to the one person, in essence saving the 5 at the cost of the 1 or not pull it and let the other 5 die.
This is less of a question and more of a test to see what a person believes.
ENDS>MEANS
You could see this as it is your Duty or the ends justify the means and saving 5 people is better than saving one.
You cause someone to die, to spare others.
Problem is this is very shifty ground. Because once you justify that one person is worth less that more than one you have to justify more. How many more is justifiable? 3? 2? are some people worth more than others? say, 1 doctor vs 3 lawyers? Its a quick downfall because one question leads to another.
MEANS>ENDS
You could see this as how the cards have been dealt, or that it is not moral to chose to kill anyone to save another person. Now this has merit, because you would be killing someone to save another. The workers were not paying attention or were not supposed to be there, perhaps someone else made a mistake and it is their fault. Some would still blame you because those people would have pulled the lever. Its not a popular pick but it can be justified.
OTHER
Then there is the out of the box thinker who would say something like "well this is a decision that is fully dependent on the situation and there is no moral formula for determining the answer." Which isn't wrong. So often people don't realize, the world is not a true or false question. You can forage your own path and choices. But it also does not answer the question, its just asking for more details. However the choice WILL have to be made eventually.
So often people say the "either you are for or against us" is bad logic. It isn't, its just badly phrased. If you see someone choking on food and you know first aid, you WILL either help them or you will not. By not choosing to do something, you are still choosing something. And again this is where morals come in. When something is happening there are sometimes multiple choices, however not always. Sometimes it is as simple as you either do it or you don't.
ALTERNATIVE (not really)
Now again there is another creative answer, however hardly any better. Some might say to pull the lever halfway and derail the train. but at this point you are still risking the lives of both groups, however you are also risking the lives of anyone on the train now too. Basically, the worst solution for trying not to be bad, but ending up doing the most harm at the same time.
Understand that ALL choices have consequences. Some immediate and others delayed. If you eat sugar puffs for breakfast with sweet tea every morning, it may not play a big role in anything, but down the line it may mean a kidney stone. Eating a bowl of deep fried jalapeno's with wasabi on the other hand will have a much more immediate reaction you may regret. Long term & Short term, both must be examined. Being short sighted is no better than overlooking immediate effects.
There are 6 people. 5 on the left and 1 on the right. None of them notice the impending danger coming until it is too late for them to safely get out of the way. You can choose to pull the lever which will change the path of the danger to the one person, in essence saving the 5 at the cost of the 1 or not pull it and let the other 5 die.
This is less of a question and more of a test to see what a person believes.
ENDS>MEANS
You could see this as it is your Duty or the ends justify the means and saving 5 people is better than saving one.
You cause someone to die, to spare others.
Problem is this is very shifty ground. Because once you justify that one person is worth less that more than one you have to justify more. How many more is justifiable? 3? 2? are some people worth more than others? say, 1 doctor vs 3 lawyers? Its a quick downfall because one question leads to another.
MEANS>ENDS
You could see this as how the cards have been dealt, or that it is not moral to chose to kill anyone to save another person. Now this has merit, because you would be killing someone to save another. The workers were not paying attention or were not supposed to be there, perhaps someone else made a mistake and it is their fault. Some would still blame you because those people would have pulled the lever. Its not a popular pick but it can be justified.
OTHER
Then there is the out of the box thinker who would say something like "well this is a decision that is fully dependent on the situation and there is no moral formula for determining the answer." Which isn't wrong. So often people don't realize, the world is not a true or false question. You can forage your own path and choices. But it also does not answer the question, its just asking for more details. However the choice WILL have to be made eventually.
So often people say the "either you are for or against us" is bad logic. It isn't, its just badly phrased. If you see someone choking on food and you know first aid, you WILL either help them or you will not. By not choosing to do something, you are still choosing something. And again this is where morals come in. When something is happening there are sometimes multiple choices, however not always. Sometimes it is as simple as you either do it or you don't.
ALTERNATIVE (not really)
Now again there is another creative answer, however hardly any better. Some might say to pull the lever halfway and derail the train. but at this point you are still risking the lives of both groups, however you are also risking the lives of anyone on the train now too. Basically, the worst solution for trying not to be bad, but ending up doing the most harm at the same time.
Understand that ALL choices have consequences. Some immediate and others delayed. If you eat sugar puffs for breakfast with sweet tea every morning, it may not play a big role in anything, but down the line it may mean a kidney stone. Eating a bowl of deep fried jalapeno's with wasabi on the other hand will have a much more immediate reaction you may regret. Long term & Short term, both must be examined. Being short sighted is no better than overlooking immediate effects.
Von Krieger
~hellkat
https://xkcd.com/1455/
