What Would You Do?

What would you do? (See below for scenario details)

  • I would sacrifice the little girl

    Votes: 8 57.1%

  • I would let the train run off the cliff

    Votes: 6 42.9%
  • Total voters
    14

@ FT

Allow me to respectfully disagree... :) (with everything you said, lol). It seems your mind is made up on this issue FT, so no point in arguing I guess...
 
Perhaps we are leaving out the third person in the situation, which is you. You are the one with the lever, so maybe that is why the comparisons are not connecting with everyone. After all, a person with a lever is not personally involved in the result of the decision, while a people at war are directly impacted by what they decide.

The hidden variable in this scenario is your own life, which is just as important as the girl and the train. How much do you value your own life? If you do not know, then how can you know whether to pull the lever or not? Once you decide, can you 'live' with your decision?

Now to complicate matters, imagine you are holding the lever and you are being videotaped by the Associated Press. Then what do you do?
 
Postmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry- it is not that reason isn't a good way to make a decision, but people are rarely rational beings when they make decisions. We mostly base our decisions off emotion, so I see our limitations in being emotionally invested in other beings whom we do not personally know as a contributing factor to why we get stuck making poor decisions. Our lack of rationality would be another contributing factor. I suppose, by extension, our poor assessment of probability would be likewise.

For C0de:

You and the philosophy professor can argue all day long that this scenario is equivalent to collateral damage in war, but it isn't.

Your scenario is not based on assumption- you left no room for doubt. You said that the train would either run off the cliff and kill 200 people, or it would run over a little girl and kill her. And I make the decision, and only me.

That is nothing like the probabilities assessed in war, which are not based on known variables, but on hypothetical situations.

The scenario you set up is not hypothetical, nor does it allow creative response (as you demonstrated with SG). So it bears no resemblance to real life, and certainly not to war strategies, which are based off both hypotheticals and offer creative response. It was not "known" but rather "hypothesized" what the effects of dropping nuclear warheads was on Japan. In your little circumstance set up here, you provide known ends, and both involve killing people.
 
@ Path of One

I actually hate philosophy.... Before I started this thread, I asked this question to a friend of mine. He got just as irritated with this as you are now. And his complaint was the same as yours: he felt suffocated by the lack of a "creative response".

In my opinion, life doesn't always afford such luxuries as a "creative response"... And it is decisions we make in those moments which end up defining us, I think... If you disagree, that is fine. If you think I care to have a philosophical debate with you, you are very mistaken...

good bye
 
I'm not irritated. Why would you think so? Stating my point of view strongly is not indication of irritation. It's what forming a strong point of view in any philosophical discussion requires. :confused:

But if you didn't want philosophical debate, then why did you start this thread? Obviously, you must have known that all answers would not be the same. And why insist my points were invalid or argue about my points, if you did not want debate? I don't mind debate- I quite enjoy it (it's good mental exercise)- but I'm now thoroughly unclear as to what the point of this thread is. :confused:

I'm just pointing out what to me is quite clear- that a hypothetical like this is not the same as a real life scenario. Life always allows creativity of some sort, even if it is only to be creative about how we choose to feel and think inside of ourselves.

One of my friend's fathers was an infantryman in Vietnam. When he got there and realized he was being forced to kill children and civilians, he felt deeply that this was not aligned with his spiritual life as a Christian, and that he could not do such things. Yet, he also did not want to dishonor his commitment of service to his country or abandon his fellow soldiers. He was an artist, and instead of fighting, he filled his gun with sand so he would not be tempted to shoot if fired upon (recognizing his limits as a human beings, and the effects of fear) and then he spent the rest of his tour drawing his account of the war- the heroism of his fellow soldiers, the horrors of war, the agony of both sides, the sorrow of death. And he prayed with them and for them.

Even in our most dire circumstances, we have a chance to think creatively about how we can be as compassionate as possible. That is my belief and my observation.
 
path_of_one said:
One of my friend's fathers was an infantryman in Vietnam.

When he got there and realized he was being forced to kill children and civilians, he felt deeply that this was not aligned with his spiritual life as a Christian, and that he could not do such things.

Yet, he also did not want to dishonor his commitment of service to his country or abandon his fellow soldiers.
Click to expand...


Abandon his fellow soldiers? What to the threat of children and civilians?

I think he made the right choice and shouldn't feel any "dishonor".... He showed honor to a much bigger scale..... That was a true man... Specially being there in the front lines at the time and deciding it was wrong... Takes something, no idea what, but it takes something to be there like that and say... No, this ain't me.

Thank you for sharing... I rejoice when I hear stories of soldiers placing their tools of death and destruction to the ground and turning round.
 
I know a few who have. I don't mean to say that Vietnam's kids and civilians weren't also involved in the war, by the way. But he recognized that using them in this way was not their own doing and not a fully informed choice, and that he could make another choice than to shoot at them. By all accounts I've heard, Vietnam was a real mess, but individuals made some amazing choices in that war.

What I meant about abandoning his fellow soldiers is that he didn't want to just stop being compassionate toward them, either. Recognizing that you can make another choice, but perhaps your fellows alongside you cannot yet do that, means they need prayer and compassion too.
 
path_of_one said:
I'm not irritated. Why would you think so?
Click to expand...

I just wanted to see how you would react when I said you were.

But if you didn't want philosophical debate, then why did you start this thread?
Click to expand...

I wanted to see if there were any arguments that would convince me to consider killing the girl. My thoughts had become clouded and I wanted an outside perspective. Looking back, I guess this thread was a sort of test. (for myself)

Life always allows creativity of some sort,
Click to expand...

If I really wanted a debate with you then I would have told you right off the bat that what you just repeated here is a fallacy (dicto simpliciter). Instead I only hinted at it, because I wanted to see what you would say next. Would you have changed your position, or would you have re-stated it... (you re-stated.)

One of my friend's fathers was an infantryman in Vietnam. When he got there and realized he was being forced to kill children and civilians, he felt deeply that this was not aligned with his spiritual life as a Christian, and that he could not do such things. Yet, he also did not want to dishonor his commitment of service to his country or abandon his fellow soldiers. He was an artist, and instead of fighting, he filled his gun with sand so he would not be tempted to shoot if fired upon (recognizing his limits as a human beings, and the effects of fear) and then he spent the rest of his tour drawing his account of the war- the heroism of his fellow soldiers, the horrors of war, the agony of both sides, the sorrow of death. And he prayed with them and for them.

Even in our most dire circumstances, we have a chance to think creatively about how we can be as compassionate as possible. That is my belief and my observation.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the story, that was amazing. I disagree with your conclusions yea... but thats ok... agree 2 disagree i guess. :)

All I gotta do now is to cast my vote (with the rest of the crackpot minority. lol : p)
 
SHOULD DO AND WOULD DO are very different things. Even though we may disagree on the "should" do, i find it interesting that you asked "would" do.
we all like to think we could be heroes in real life, But so many of us "dont want to get involved".
Smaller scenario..
A man, woman and 12yr old boy observe a different man, woman and baby walking up their street, The walking man suddenly stops, yells obscenities at his woman and baby, the woman turns to flee, the man picks up stones and rocks from the street and throws them at fleeing woman and baby. The man pursues her...

If you were the observing family what WOULD or SHOULD you do?
 
c0de said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, no, no, the Axis didn't believe in holding trials. A lot of people would have been shot summarily, as in every other country they overran.
 
Grey + Bob



@ Grey

You are right Grey. I should have worded the question differently. However, if a person knows what should be done, then he is more likely to follow his instincts at the moment of crises. In your scenario, I can only answer by saying what should be done, and hope that if the moment comes, I would follow my instincts and not be dumbstruck and do nothing.

I would tell the person standing next to me to call 9-1-1 while I chase the person down. (Depending on the size of the male, I might pick up any weapon I find on the way.) Once I get within earshot, I would yell at him to get his attention. If he stops chasing the woman and the baby, mission accomplished. The cops are on their way, and the woman and the baby are safe. I would talk him down, trying to keep the situation from escalating. If he keeps chasing them, then I would have to catch up to him, and take action depending on the circumstances as they come up. No point in planning anything beyond this point. This is what I think should be done in that scenario. Of course, only God knows what we would do.



@ Bob

Keep in mind that the allies included the Soviets. Stalin wasn't a big fan of holding trials either. Besides, I am sure if the Axis had won, they would have put on a good show to legitimize their insanity as well.
 
c0de said:
I just wanted to see how you would react when I said you were.
Click to expand...

OK. I still don't get it. LOL My reaction: puzzled.

I wanted to see if there were any arguments that would convince me to consider killing the girl. My thoughts had become clouded and I wanted an outside perspective. Looking back, I guess this thread was a sort of test. (for myself)
Click to expand...

Oh. I thought you were just curious about everyone's responses and what it had to do with their religious beliefs.

If I really wanted a debate with you then I would have told you right off the bat that what you just repeated here is a fallacy (dicto simpliciter). Instead I only hinted at it, because I wanted to see what you would say next. Would you have changed your position, or would you have re-stated it... (you re-stated.)
Click to expand...

I restated because although you see it as a fallacy, I do not. The statement fits with my observations of life. I've never seen a situation where I didn't have a choice in some way, at least in my own internal reaction to it. And I've been in some very bad situations, including ones with a good deal of physical pain. I still think it's my choice in how I react, how I integrate it into my life- what I do with it.

I am not sure how you stating my observations and conclusion is a fallacy makes it so. Perhaps in philosophy that works; in social science it doesn't, so perhaps we're just operating out of different systems of logic. :confused:

Thanks for the story, that was amazing. I disagree with your conclusions yea... but thats ok... agree 2 disagree i guess. :)
Click to expand...

That's what makes the world go 'round, yes? The diversity? :D
 
I have voted not taking any action thus the little girl survives. The people in the trian have a chance to jump out.
 
seattlegal said:
[/i]
Then whomever is being inflexible with the rules when there is a viable alternative available is responsible for any deaths that occur.
Click to expand...

No problem. I will be flexible and responsible . I would switch the lever to take out the little girl first, then switch it back to the other track up ahead so it goes off the cliff. No hard feelings that way and I accomplish population control at the same time
 
:cool: It seems some people refrained from posting a vote. That is allowed. It is allowed. I guess I will count them as not having pulled the lever.
 
Yeah it’s not fair to be directly responsible for someone’s death. The little girl would have to watch in horror while someone artificially changes the course of her fate. I know if this was me I'd be extremely annoyed, since when did I say I wanted to sacrifice my life? Would you?. Also if the people in the train knew they were going to fall off a cliff they would im sure make an effort to jump out of it and if they didn’t know at least they don't have to go through the torment of knowing their death is inevitable. To me anyone that pulls the lever is a murderer.
 
There is no death, just the ending of a body. The child most likely put herself in that
position as that was part of her destiny.
 
That can also apply for the people on the train as well, it was their destiny to get on the train and there destiny to fall off the cliff. We should respect the rights of the little girl that asked her parents if any trains where going to pass before she went to play. Or manipulate the situation to commit murder.
 
Path + Snoop


@ Path


I thought you were just curious about everyone's responses and what it had to do with their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
I was... (excuse my mercurial inclinations)

I restated because although you see it as a fallacy, I do not. The statement fits with my observations of life.
Click to expand...
I am happy for you... and I hope you never come across a moment which will force you to realize that such moments exist.

I am not sure how you stating my observations and conclusion is a fallacy makes it so. Perhaps in philosophy that works; in social science it doesn't, so perhaps we're just operating out of different systems of logic.
Click to expand...
In the social sciences you gather information via interviews, calculating statistics etc. Well, 99% of the choices in life do contain creative possibilities. But sometimes, that 1% pops up... (these figures are approximate ;)) Most humans (thankfully) will never be faced with that 1%, so your chances of studying this are already very slim. But the trouble for social scientists do not end there. Because the few who have been forced to make such choices will (most likely) never want to be interviewed or studied. This is why a logical fallacy is still applicable to the argument: just because you have not experienced something yourself, or interviewed someone else who has, does not mean such cases do not exist. This, incidentally, is why the "science" in the social sciences can (sometimes) remain an unapproachable ambition... Don't feel too bad though, it's the same with the official "sciences"... (just ask the scientists).


@ Snoop

I guess the "philosophy" which I respect most is Occasionalism, which started in the Islamic Near East.... But I have problems with this approach as well, because occasionalism is a dualist philosophy, and I am a monist/idealist... maybe there is a way to reconcile monism with occasionalism.... I'll ponder on it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top