Thought Experiment

cee134

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

WorkerDrone83 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

Exactly what I think!!
Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.

Quoting you because that's what made me think, not that you have to answer, but is there a difference between "killing" and "letting die"?

It can be a matter of perception. Are you killing or saving? I look at it as saving but I would still be killing. So being forced to decide, I would feel better saving 5 people then saving one. Not to mention that no matter what someone is going to die.

Edit to add: Yes, there is a difference. Letting someone die means you aren't the one murdering them.

dnm1207 wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

WorkerDrone83 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

Exactly what I think!!
Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.

Quoting you because that's what made me think, not that you have to answer, but is there a difference between "killing" and "letting die"?

That very question was what I had in mind when I asked if you would switch the track to save the 5 people if there were no one on the other track. If you can easily save lives and you choose not to do so, I don't see a difference between "killing" and "letting die".

But I also think I'd be willing to play god and throw the switch in this case.

I THINK

This is super interesting to me. I'm sure in the eyes of the law "killing" and "letting die" are very different. But if the outcome is the same then is it morally different? I'm genuinely asking, or just thinking aloud, not trying to be rhetorical.

It's the afternoon on Friday. I'm turning my brain off for now.

Edit:

I guess I can't.

I think of it as this. Killing someone one would be pushing them into a river were they drown. Letting someone die would be not throwing a rope to someone drowning in a river (assuming you aren't the reason they are in the river in the first place).

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

cee134

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

WorkerDrone83 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

Exactly what I think!!
Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.

Quoting you because that's what made me think, not that you have to answer, but is there a difference between "killing" and "letting die"?

It can be a matter of perception. Are you killing or saving? I look at it as saving but I would still be killing. So being forced to decide, I would feel better saving 5 people then saving one. Not to mention that no matter what someone is going to die.

Edit to add: Yes, there is a difference. Letting someone die means you aren't the one murdering them.

dnm1207 wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

cee134 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

WorkerDrone83 wrote: »

Vikka_V wrote: »

MeeseeksAndDestroy wrote: »

I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

Exactly what I think!!
Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.

Quoting you because that's what made me think, not that you have to answer, but is there a difference between "killing" and "letting die"?

That very question was what I had in mind when I asked if you would switch the track to save the 5 people if there were no one on the other track. If you can easily save lives and you choose not to do so, I don't see a difference between "killing" and "letting die".

But I also think I'd be willing to play god and throw the switch in this case.

I THINK

This is super interesting to me. I'm sure in the eyes of the law "killing" and "letting die" are very different. But if the outcome is the same then is it morally different? I'm genuinely asking, or just thinking aloud, not trying to be rhetorical.

It's the afternoon on Friday. I'm turning my brain off for now.

Edit:

I guess I can't.

I think of it as this. Killing someone one would be pushing them into a river were they drown. Letting someone die would be not throwing a rope to someone drowning in a river (assuming you aren't the reason they are in the river in the first place).

Exactly! So is one worse [morally] than the other? I really don't know. I suppose it's one thing if you can't save them, but if you can and do nothing anyway, is that as bad as killing?

Well at least with the killing thing. If you kill someone, it's 100% your fault.

I have to think that if you could save someone, and no harm would come to you by doing so, and you had a 100% chance of actually saving them. That would be murder too.