The philosophy thread

[Hardy]

I'll kick it off with this thought-provoking exchange.

The proposition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z_O4ImvpCk

The rebuttal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drozvbGvJvU

Discuss.

[ONeill]

A small train is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

[thewobbler]

I'd call that in quite a clearcut way O Neill.

The train is not your responsibility. The fat man is not your responsibility. But if you choose to engage the fat man, you become responsible for his life, and for ensuring that by sacrificing his life, there us a greater gain. No man should accept that burden.

[Hardy]

I think we're missing the essential point here. Simon has introduced two fascinating new philosophical constructs: the Junkie's B**tard and the King of Dogshite.

[ONeill]

Yet you are the only one who can prevent all five deaths, with one fatality now the outcome. If you witness a burglar entering your neighbour's house, is it your moral responsibility to do something about it (lift a phone even) or do you turn a blind eye and say that's nothing to do with me, so live with a less hefty burden compared to the train scenario? Do your moral principles change due to the involvement of loss of life?

Would it make a difference if one of the 5 was a family member?

[Tony Baloney]

Yet you are the only one who can prevent all five deaths, with one fatality now the outcome. If you witness a burglar entering your neighbour's house, is it your moral responsibility to do something about it (lift a phone even) or do you turn a blind eye and say that's nothing to do with me, so live with a less hefty burden compared to the train scenario? Do your moral principles change due to the involvement of loss of life?

Would it make a difference if one of the 5 was a family member?

Ignoring the fact that it is easier to watch 5 people perish than it is to kill a man. Hardly equivalent to ringing the peelers about a burglary.

[muppet]

I think we're missing the essential point here. Simon has introduced two fascinating new philosophical constructs: the Junkie's B**tard and the King of Dogshite.

Darwin was correct up to when he created Darwism. Society since has made him wrong again. The two loons are proof of that.

[ONeill]

Yet you are the only one who can prevent all five deaths, with one fatality now the outcome. If you witness a burglar entering your neighbour's house, is it your moral responsibility to do something about it (lift a phone even) or do you turn a blind eye and say that's nothing to do with me, so live with a less hefty burden compared to the train scenario? Do your moral principles change due to the involvement of loss of life?

Would it make a difference if one of the 5 was a family member?

Ignoring the fact that it is easier to watch 5 people perish than it is to kill a man. Hardly equivalent to ringing the peelers about a burglary.

I'm talking about your moral stance on intervention. It has nothing to do with comparisons. thewobbler wrote about 'responsibility' being the clearcut factor here. Yet, if you saw a hood beat the crap out of two defensive elderly neighbours would you still hold on to your non-involvement stance?

Also, as you are the only one with the power to prevent those five deaths (bearing in mind the knock-on effect of families in each case) do you still find it easier to watch their deaths?

[bridgegael]

would it be fair on your own family, when you are locked up for years for murder/manslaughter when you push/kill this fat guy.

[Dinny Breen]

A small train is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

So how long have to work out that a heavy object will stop the train? How will you know the weight of the man, the speed of the train, the distance from the bridge to the track? Has someone given you this info if so why hasn't he/she done anything to stop it?

[ONeill]

To answer your last, that doesn't matter. What guides his moral decision making has no bearing on your decision here. As for the premise of weight etc, take it as given.

[ONeill]

would it be fair on your own family, when you are locked up for years for murder/manslaughter when you push/kill this fat guy.

So, you'd place your own family's suffering with you being in prison and that of the fat man's grieving family over the 5 grieving families?

[Pangurban]

While in these circumstances it might be acceptable to sacrifice your own life for the greater good, it would not be acceptable to sacrifice the life of another

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

WUMing is life's most glorious spectrum.

[mayogodhelpus@gmail.com]

I think we're missing the essential point here. Simon has introduced two fascinating new philosophical constructs: the Junkie's B**tard and the King of Dogshite.

Darwin was correct up to when he created Darwism. Society since has made him wrong again. The two loons are proof of that.

He even got an Australian city and Territory Capital named after him. A city built by man, destroyed by nature and rebuilt by man. Long live mankind.