Moral Dilemmas

[Barmy Army]

It is not the point of the exercise to find creative solutions and you can only make decisions based on what you know. Quite possibly the drunken old man in the first dilemma is a professor at the local university and is on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer. Quite possibly the baby will grow up to be someone awful like a serial rapist, a mass murderer or a Liberal Democrat MEP. But since you don’t know, I don’t think utilitarian calculations are of much use. You lack the time and knowledge to make them.

Quite a few interesting answers here. One or two baby killers....

[Blackthorne TA]

Three baby killers according to the numbers

[Gaear]

Originally Posted by Vorona

I figured that the drunk guy would have looked obviously drunk and have a bottle (otherwise, it's hard to tell the difference between drunk and different illnesses that affect balance and motor control), maybe be singing or yelling loudly and out of key or something.

I think I heard him say "I'm f*cked up!"

If I was there, I would point that out to everybody and also pester you about time concerns and ask for rapid updates on what you're going to do.

[Splunge]

Originally Posted by Barmy Army

It is not the point of the exercise to find creative solutions and you can only make decisions based on what you know.

OK, fair enough. Then I stand by my first answer, which is to try to reach the baby before the train does.

[Morgoth]

1. Yes, statistically speaking, the baby has more potential than the old drunk man. Also, the guy decided to get drunk, so I guess he will have to suffer the consequences of the unfortunate turn of events. (I guess this question only separates the people who don't want to make important choices from those who do. Easy question.)

2. No, because in capitalist america, bank robs you! (also in europe of course, but capitalist america is a good opposite of soviet russia ). As far as I am concerned: "don't steal" is not categorical imperative; money is a virtual commodity without true value; and banks are insured anyway. Also, screw banks.
(Assuming that these two decide to rob the bank in some creative way that doesn't leave any physical/mental scars. I'm only talking about taking away someone else's belongings. It's different matter if they invade a bank that is filled with customers and leave them traumatized.)

3. Yes, your promises can only be meaningful as long as you are willing to keep them. That the father is dead is irrelevant to the promise, it's about the honesty of the person who promises. I don't like dishonest people.

[T2Bruno]

Not much a dilemma for me -- yes to all three and didn't really have to think about them at all. I realize the definition of a moral dilemma is a choice between two bad things or two good things (generally two bad), but I also believe a person has their own set of ethics that makes most decisions fairly straightforward.

The first was simply a question of 'do you care enough to take any action.' I think most who would not flip the switch woula also not flip the switch if the train was heading for the drunk.

The second 'does the end justify the means.' In my opinion, the how is just as important as the end. I would love to donate millions of dollars to St Judes or other organizations helping children -- but I would not rob to do so.

The third scenario cuts to the core of honor and integrity.

[Vorona]

Originally Posted by T2Bruno

The first was simply a question of 'do you care enough to take any action.' I think most who would not flip the switch woula also not flip the switch if the train was heading for the drunk.

You're right. And yet, you're not. That is, yes, if the train was heading toward the drunk, AND I saw both the drunk AND the baby, I would not divert the train to force it to hit the baby. But if I only saw the drunk and did not see the baby, I WOULD divert the train and feel really guilty when it hit the baby.

So, it's not so much a lack of willingness to take action, but rather not willing to deliberately choose who gets hit if I could see that both were potentially in danger. The only way I would take action in that case is if I could cause BOTH of them to survive (like getting the endangered one off the tracks).

[joacqin]

My feelings are very similar to Vorona's I would not divert the train, by doing so I am actively killing another human being. By not taking action I am not taking action but I seriously do not think I am justified in deciding who lives and dies.

[T2Bruno]

Ultimately, not willing to choose is a choice. By not taking action a person still decided who will live and die -- although it is easier for many to justify (and live with) a lack of action rather than active participation. For me, the lack of action would cause me more issues than taking an active part.

[Erod]

Food for thought: By taking action you also commit a murder, which might have consequences later on.

[Blackthorne TA]

By not taking action a person still decided who will live and die...

I don't agree. All the circumstances surrounding the event decided who will live and die; I decided there was nothing that would lead me to change the circumstances.

To me there is a big difference between intervening and not. If you intervene, you decided the baby is more important than the old man. If you don't intervene, you decided one of two things: The old man is more important than the baby, or they are equally important.

[Gaear]

As regards the train and the baby -

I realize the point of this exercise is not to find literal solutions to the problem, but I would hazard a guess that in reality, very few could accurately predict what they would really do until they were actually placed in the circumstance. All these philosophical considerations become moot when you've got 2.14739 seconds to make a decision. In that time you don't ponder "do I have the right to decide who lives and who dies?", you just either do something or you don't, and most people probably will default to the latter.

Don't feel bad - when the cops take your statement afterward you'll just state truthfully that you didn't know what the hell was going on and before you knew it it was too late to do anything anyway.

[Paracelsi]

Food for thought: By taking action you also commit a murder, which might have consequences later on.

Murder implies malice, which (I assume) is absent in this situation.

Choosing not to act still counts as a decision, and whether your like it or not you are now part of this situation - your decision (whether to intervene or not) will affect it. This is analogous to potential energy in physics - it doesn't really participate, but you'll find that your calculations will be all screwy without it.

To me there is a big difference between intervening and not. If you intervene, you decided the baby is more important than the old man. If you don't intervene, you decided one of two things: The old man is more important than the baby, or they are equally important.

So you can save the baby but not decide that they are equally important? Thing is, if neither matters to you (or both are equally important) the situation changes. It's no longer about saving the man or baby. You might decide to do nothing because it's convenient. You might decide to ignore the whole thing and look at cloud patterns in the sky. You might decide to save the baby because you felt like taking a quick jog.

In the end, it all boils down to how if you didn't feel like expending extra energy (ie intervening) at the time, the baby would die. Reversing this (old man dies if you didn't feel like doing anything) wouldn't affect your decision in the slightest. So to me it doesn't make sense when you imply that you can intervene but not decide that they are equally important, when you say that not intervening can imply that you decided that they were equally important.

[dmc]

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice - Neil Peart

See, there's a Rush lyric for every situation.

Legally, there is more culpability tied to taking action than refusing to take action. This is a moral question though, not a legal one. I think the point of the exercise is to get you to grapple with your innate prejudices on the value of a life and the effects of taking action.

[Erod]

Originally Posted by Paracelsi

Murder implies malice, which (I assume) is absent in this situation.

Yeah, I was thinking of a second degree. But it would probably be manslaughter, now that I looked it up a bit more. But in any case, someone died because of your actions.

[Paracelsi]

Manslaughter, yes. This is a moral dilemma though, so deciding counts as an action.

We can't have that in a legal dilemma unless we start producing telepaths.

[Blackthorne TA]

In the end, it all boils down to how if you didn't feel like expending extra energy (ie intervening) at the time, the baby would die. Reversing this (old man dies if you didn't feel like doing anything) wouldn't affect your decision in the slightest. So to me it doesn't make sense when you imply that you can intervene but not decide that they are equally important, when you say that not intervening can imply that you decided that they were equally important.

If you felt that the old man and the baby were equally important, why would you intervene? You are deciding to act to save the baby; if you feel that the old man is equally important, why would you kill him?

Granted you may not care either way and so decide to stand by and do nothing because it makes no difference to you.

Also granted that you may think the baby is more important than the old man, but not enough so that you could be bothered to act.

I don't see how you can believe the old man is either more important than or equally important as the baby, but decide to act to kill him.

[joacqin]

By not acting I am letting the baby die, by acting I am killing the old man. For me there is a big difference between the two.

[T2Bruno]

Legally, there is more culpability tied to taking action than refusing to take action.

I would personally feign ignorance of the old man and tell the police I was rushing to save the baby. That may not make a difference in court but I'm inclined to believe it would carry weight with a jury.

[Paracelsi]

If you feel that the old man is equally important, why would you kill him?

If feel that the baby is equally important, why would you kill him/her (by deciding not to do anything)? This part is just glass is half empty/half full semantics, with a kill/save a life twist.

Edit: sums it up nicely

[Blackthorne TA]

It's not semantics at all. The difference is in actively doing something vs. letting things go as present circumstances dictate. By acting you have decided to change what was going to happen if you were not there; why would you change what was going to happen if they were equally important to you? What would impel you to take an active part to change things if either outcome is equally bad?

You did not kill the baby by not doing anything; the circumstances were such that the baby was going to die unless you decided to change that.

[Old One]

I would without thinking save the baby. I don't know why, just a built in women and kids first and perhaps not in that order.
Robery? When you start pointing guns around you must remember someone can be or will be shot. Call the cops.
Break a promise to your father for 10Gs? I dislike my father intensly and would be bound to keep the dead mans request because of a promise I gave.

[Paracelsi]

It's not semantics at all. The difference is in actively doing something vs. letting things go as present circumstances dictate.

From my viewpoint the person who has to make a choice is part of those circumstances. In my perspective, if we were to recreate the whole situation as a mathematical formula then not including the person and the part he/she could play in it would be just plain wrong, regardless of what he/she ultimately does or his/her intent.

[Blackthorne TA]

Again, you haven't explained what would impel you to act if you felt both choices were equally bad.

Let me propose something just a bit different to illustrate my point and then you tell me if you still think that it is equivalent to act vs. not act assuming the choice is equally bad.

Let's propose that it is a three-way switch you are standing next to. The way it is set up is that the track is out on the rail the switch is currently set to. The drunk old man is on one of the other tracks, and the baby is on the other.

So. If you do nothing the entire train derails and the dozens of people on the train will all die, and one of the cars will crush you. There are even several drunk old men and babies amongst the train riders. If you throw the switch one way, the old man dies; if you throw the switch the other way the baby dies.

Do you now see the difference in that choice vs. the originally proposed one? Now, you must choose to act one way or the other (assuming you're not going to let everyone on board and yourself die due to your inaction that is).

Now if you think the old man is just as important as the baby, I would say it could go either way. I don't see that happening in the original proposed dilemma.

[The Shaman]

Originally Posted by Old One

I would without thinking save the baby. I don't know why, just a built in women and kids first and perhaps not in that order.

The elderly are kinda in that category too, for me. I think getting the baby before the train comes is the best option - ironically the more you deliberate, the surer you kill one of them .

In all three dilemmas, the situation is such that you can think of many ways to go around what is meant to be a choice with only two options. Getting the baby out yourself (putting yourself at risk to help another instead of deciding to let someone die), warning the people that you know and would expose them to the police if they do, trying to smuggle the ashes (or haggle about the price), and so on.