What Would You Do?

[citizenzen]

I'm a woman. An emotional woman. And my emotions would tell me save the 200. Sorry. Maybe I'm a poor example.

Your a fine example. The original hypothetical is a lurid attempt to tug at our emotions with little or no regard for reason. This isn't a lesson in values, this is a lesson in marketing.

On one side we have a little girl. In our minds she is virtually dripping with innocence as she tragically picks daisies and chases butterflies next to the Union Pacific railroad track.

On the other side we have what is best described as "passengers" and sometimes just merely "the train". This represents society: impersonal, mechanical, destructive.

The OP asks us to make a choice between the innocent individual vs. the oppressive machine. While we all want to save the individual, we know that the welfare of society more important.

But some of the 200 "passengers" are fathers, mothers and children—even cute innocent little girls—just as deserving of our compassion as the little girl by the tracks. It is too easy visualize them a sea of gray flannel suits.

In the end, we expose our attachments and our reactions help to explain why Madison Avenue and Hollywood continue to thrive. We are suckers for emotion. While there's nothing wrong with that, it helps to know when you're being sucked in.

 

[c0de]

@ Path

I edited my post to clarify my position but you had already posted your response by that time. What I want to put forward is that choosing to kill the girl to save the train is no different (technically) then those who choose to justify killing a small number of civilians in war (and calling it "collateral damage") to save a larger number of their own. Although, I suspect that you might re-consider your answer in those circumstances.

I think when it comes to a question like the one posted in this thread, it is hard for people to make a direct comparison between things like "collateral damage" in war and sacrificing the little girl... but I think that is exactly what makes this example so effective, as it exposes a dissonance within our perceptions.


.... ok... thats it... now I really need to hit the bed.

 

[path_of_one]

Actually, I think the two circumstances are quite different and my decision stands from my end.

Collateral damage may be far more people than we would stand to lose on "our side" (as we see in the case of the Iraqi war- it was highly unlikely Iraq would invade the US and cause tons of deaths, for example). We chose to lose lives both on "their side" and "our side," when tightening national security would have done much more to solve terrorism and shed little or no blood.

The other difference is that in war we never know the parameters. It is not "kill one, save 200" but rather "Well, maybe if we drop the bomb on Japan, it'll save us X number of lives. Or maybe not. I dunno."

In the case of war, I can choose to be an activist for peace, including working on development and mediation- both of which bring more prosperity and stability. I have options outside of the "kill somebody" box.

In your example, I don't. SG already tried that route and you shot it down.

So the parameters are set as they are, and bear little to no resemblance to real life. I'm playing by your rules. The real rules offer more capacity for creativity, thank God.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Im stood by the rail track. A big old cast iron lever in my hand. A couple of miles away is a young girl on a disused siding behind her house. She is young enough to never have seen a train on that bit of track and plays in eye-shot of her parents. Meanwhile. Hurtling toward me is a train with 200 prisoners composed of mostly Black and Hispanic recidivists on their way to a new high security facility. A storm has washed out a bridge across a precipitous gorge and all on board will surely die if I dont pull that lever. What do I do?

 

[greymare]

makes no difference the colour/ethneticity or criminality of passengers...........

if the parents are watching their child,, they will surely see the danger???
you do your best,,,,, but my point is AGAIN, its hypthetical, we can say we will do this or that,, but in reality, not everyone tries to be a hero....
some just stand by and watch...and think.... its none of my business.......

 

[c0de]

@ Path

Even though you might feel that the example of collateral damage in war and the scenario in this thread is different (and I agree that it feels different) nevertheless, fundamentally they are both the same. Observe:

The other difference is that in war we never know the parameters. It is not "kill one, save 200" but rather "Well, maybe if we drop the bomb on Japan, it'll save us X number of lives. Or maybe not. I dunno."

The example you provided of the use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki a perfect example of such parameters being applied. It is a fact that the decision to bomb these two targets was made after a calculation was made on the casualty rates of Operation Downfall (the invasion of mainland Japan):

"U.S. President Truman stated after the war that he had been advised that American casualties could range from 250,000 to one million men.[3] Other sources put the highest estimates at 30,000 to 50,000.[4] In a study done by the Joint Chiefs of Staff in April 1945, the figures of 7.45 casualties/1,000 man-days and 1.78 fatalities/1,000 man-days were developed. This implied that the two planned campaigns to conquer Japan would cost 1.6 million casualties, including 370,000 dead.[5] In addition, millions of Japanese military and civilian casualties were expected.[6]"

Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collateral damage may be far more people than we would stand to lose on "our side" (as we see in the case of the Iraqi war- it was highly unlikely Iraq would invade the US and cause tons of deaths, for example).

Remember the whole argument before the war (and today with the case of Iran) is that a lot more people will die if we do not invade/"liberate". This is why both choices are the same, because the threat that is presented at the time of decision is not a hypothetical.

So the parameters are set as they are, and bear little to no resemblance to real life. I'm playing by your rules. The real rules offer more capacity for creativity, thank God.

Well, not really. At the end of the day, it is the exact same choice... Even the parameters are defined in the exact same way:

Kill the girl = Drop the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (ends justify the means)

Save the Girl = Launch Operation Downfall and be prepared for more casualties (ends do not justify the means)

 

[17th Angel]

Wait sorry, what? How is letting one train run over one girl to save 200 people like dropping two nuclear bombs on two cities/nation? That seems like a bit O.T.T

Despite the obvious difference in casualty and fatality numbers.... Who are you saving by dropping two nuclear weapons?

 

[c0de]

Who are you saving by dropping two nuclear weapons?

Up to a million American soldiers (estimated). That is the choice Truman said he was presented with. The Joint Chiefs calculated 1.6 million casualties as the cost of mounting an invasion of Japan. The decision to use the nuke was based on this calculation. But this hides the bigger picture. Americans had been fire-bombing Japanese cities well before this point, and the total amount of civilians killed due to those bombings is actually much greater then Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined. Those decisions were also made on utilitarian grounds. All such decisions are made on these same principles...

That's the whole point.

The principle is flawed, and should be rejected on every level, whether it's one girl, or an entire city, that shouldn't matter.

 

[17th Angel]

Hurtling toward me is a train with 200 prisoners composed of mostly Black and Hispanic recidivists on their way to a new high security facility.

w....t....f has colour got to do with it? And you know there are many people that are imprisioned for crimes they actually didn't commit.... Even sent in some countries to death for crimes they didn't do..... And then there are those that do have death sentences (but seeing I believe the death sentence to be bs... anyway lol) But deserve to live.

Out standing... out, standing example of a reformed and innocent (of the sentenced crime) inmate that was murdered by the american state of california is Stanley "Tookie" Williams. He went on to save many lives and families from his actions... What if he were on that train?

 

[17th Angel]

And that some how connects to a girl and a train?

But ok fair enough... How many military complexs and units were destroyed in Hiroshima? And also please explain how that helped to lower fatality of yanky soldiers?

"I wanted to do everything that I could to subdue Japan. I wanted to kill the *******s." - Tibbets.... The man who dropped the bomb on the Japanese....

Then after the bullie... I Mean Americans dropped the first bomb..... What was the reason for the dropping of the second bomb? And was it dropped at a logical time in the war? Or a time where they wished to show what they were capable of?

 

[c0de]

And that some how connects to a girl and a train?

Dude It connects directly to it. Thats the whole point of the exercise. Check it out:

And also please explain how that helped to lower fatality of yanky soldiers?

They thought that if they nuked Japan, the Japanese would surrender (which they did) and so no invasion would be needed, and hence the lives of a million soldiers would be saved. So they chose to kill the girl (nuke Japan) to save the train (a million soldiers).

But ok fair enough... How many military complexs and units were destroyed in Hiroshima?

Imagine that you are the one who has to make the decision to nuke Japan. Would any number of military targets have made you choose to nuke those civilian cities?

Then after the bullie... I Mean Americans dropped the first bomb..... What was the reason for the dropping of the second bomb?

Japan didn't surrender after the first bomb... (they were in shock). They didn't even fully understand what actually happened. Hence, the second bomb was dropped... Interestingly enough, the US only had 2 bombs at the time...

And was it dropped at a logical time in the war? Or a time where they wished to show what they were capable of?

The decision to drop the bomb was totally logical at the time (right before they were about to launch the invasion). This is what I have been saying all along, these decisions are completely rational. But rationality is not enough... because a cold-hearted rationality, without a sense of morality and justice is exactly what leads to such actions...

 

[17th Angel]

mate no it wasn't lol... NO military units were taken out by this nuke... It was a dumb ass idea... And to this day it remains a dumb ass idea.... The second nuke was dropped as the Russians were moving... The Japanese were allready out lol.... But the pricks had to show off their power..... A nuke is something that well and truly f's this planet up.... Saving a girl doesn't have anywhere near the same effect man.... Hiro was the first bomb.. Nag was the second... I didn't say they were to surrender after the first lol....

It is a different ball park man.... If you had removed this question and say put the instead of the girl/train question...

You have to either choose to drop a nuclear device upon a civilian population or invade what would you do? Then I'd of simply not answered as I'd do neither... different ball park man :/ Both ways bring nothing but mass death......

 

[c0de]

You have to either choose to drop a nuclear device upon a civilian population or invade what would you do? Then I'd of simply not answered as I'd do neither... different ball park man :/ Both ways bring nothing but mass death......

Assume you have no option but to choose one or the other. Path said that real life provides more options, but it is also true that in life sometimes you get caught between a rock and a hard place and you have no choice but to choose between such options. This question addresses only those situations (for a reason).

mate no it wasn't lol... NO military units were taken out by this nuke...

When did I say there were? I asked you whether you would nuke the cities if it had military targets.

It was a dumb ass idea... And to this day it remains a dumb ass idea.... The second nuke was dropped as the Russians were moving... The Japanese were allready out lol.... But the pricks had to show off their power.....

That was an added "benefit" that they gained by showing the power of the nuke. The actual act of dropping the bomb was based on the calculations they made which would have saved an invasion. Also, the "benefit" of scarring the Soviets is also utilitarian in nature by the way.

A nuke is something that well and truly f's this planet up.... Saving a girl doesn't have anywhere near the same effect man....

It's the same thing magnified. The principle is the same. That's the point.

Hiro was the first bomb.. Nag was the second... I didn't say they were to surrender after the first lol....

dude you asked why they dropped the second bomb. I said they did it because Japan did not surrender after hiro. I don't understand what point you are trying to make with this.

 

[Faithfulservant]

I love history and I love learning about wars because I come from a military family. The Japanese made super soldiers because they had no fear and were also suicide bombers.. The Kamikazi.. They were extremist and didnt follow "honor code" of battle. I know thats an ozymoron but its the truth. You cant fight a war with someone that doesnt value their own life at least. I think its the same war we fight with terrorism its just called something different. We bombed Japan because of that they surrendered which stopped the war a lot sooner than it would have.

 

[c0de]

They were extremist and didnt follow "honor code" of battle.

No one followed the honor code in that war. That's the problem. If the allies had lost the war, they would have been tried as the war criminals.

 

[Postmaster]

I'm a woman. An emotional woman. And my emotions would tell me save the 200. Sorry. Maybe I'm a poor example.

It isn't just reason that causes me to choose that action- it is feeling and, in the moment, my intuition (which of course I cannot assess until it is that moment). Why should I feel more emotionally connected to one little girl I can see, than 200 people I cannot see?

This is a major issue in the human brain that I think limits our compassion and is a root cause of much of the evil in the world. We choose war because we serve ourselves and those close to us, and we have a hard time caring about the innocents slaughtered in some far distant country. We have no qualm about electrocuting some guy on death row, because in our mind, he's just a criminal and what does his life matter?

But to say that just because some people are instinctively born to be emotionally drawn to something visual as being one of the root causes of evil, to me is bad faith. I've seen the negative effects of favoritism, in acedemic and works places, its not nice to see but reason is also a choice and you can't really discriminate between a way a choice is made. To do so to me is one of the roots of evil.

 

[Faithfulservant]

No one followed the honor code in that war. That's the problem. If the allies had lost the war, they would have been tried as the war criminals.

Oh really? I think that could be said for ANY war and the losing side.

However.. Good did come from it.. Sympathy for the nation of Israel.. The end of the Nazi regime that literally decimated western Europe...Imperial Japan had colonized all of Asia that all now have liberty.

Germany and Japan had long histories of waging war on other nations, yet after World War 2 they became two of the most peace-loving and stable countries on the earth. If ww2 hadnt happened another war would have, and it is debatable as to whether any positive outcomes would have arisen from it. There would have been many more wars just at a smaller scale, but they wouldn't have had the same effect.

The technology grew by leaps and bounds. Relations between countries that had issues with each other ceased. Women in the US were for sure empowered since they ran things while the men were gone.

It may be debatable to some whether it was good.. but the United Nations came from the war

 

[nativeastral]

It may be debatable to some whether it was good.. but the United Nations came from the war

yes but what respect or authority do they have nowadays? look at Gaza, the Israelis knew what they were doing. Who is financing the UN? how much do the fat cats in that organisation get in their pay packet? Sure heavy responsibility etc but people in that position should be working for an adequate wage and more importantly for the love of it [sorry ranting after the debacle of bank of scotland fat cats]

 

[c0de]

Oh really?

Yea... really.

I think that could be said for ANY war and the losing side.

You were the one that brought it up FT...



p.s. Just to add to Nativeastral's point above, progress built injustice, is not really progress at all... It is the illusion of progress.

 

[Faithfulservant]

Yea... really.


You were the one that brought it up FT...



p.s. Just to add to Nativeastral's point above, progress built injustice, is not really progress at all... It is the illusion of progress.

Im sorry I dont think there was injustice. The only injustice I saw was that it was going on for as long as it did.

One of the bad guys was obliterating an entire people through torture and expirementation and the other was creating a race of suicide bombers responsible for Pearl Harbor. You arent going to get me to regret that war.. That was a war that had to happen.