RE: Dilemma for the board....

RE: Dilemma for the board.... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Dilemma for the board.... (3/15/2011 4:24:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: gungadin09 quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent A car driver's brakes fail. Is the car driver justified in swerving onto the pavement and killing one person walking down the path, in order to avoid killing 5 people walking across the road? i think the driver is justified, but the thought of it just chills me. On a happier note: (sort of) A while ago there was a private plane that crashed near a local school during recess. The two pilots died rather than crashing it into the playground. pam Interesting then.....someone is justified in choosing to take a life (given certain circumstances).... Maybe Ron has it about right.....no justification whatsover...although there is some sort of reasoning....or is there? The OP misstates the entire issue. The moral dilemma of the trolley problem has nothing to do with justifying the actions of the driver. It is a problem about the ethics of an outsider making the decision between the 1 and the 5, not the driver...nor the madman who dooms the 1 or the 5 in the original thought experiment.

Termyn8or -> RE: Dilemma for the board.... (3/16/2011 10:37:03 AM)
"In this case there are only two options. " Not possible. Whip the wheel to the left, HARD (in the US, in the UK whip it to the right). What is stopping you from going left of center or right of centre ? Oncoming traffic ? Not logical, but even if it was you should hit a car rather than a person. Any inanimate object will do. If you whip the wheel all the way, that will dissipate the forward motion of the vehicle. You are in a car, protected. Take the case of being on slick ice. I've had that plus had brakes fail a couple of times. On the ice I tried to head for the barrier, figuring my big Buick would be fairly decent protection. It was out of my hands though, and in that case if I hadn't hit another car I found later, that I would've probably mowed down a few people on foot. I was only going about 30MPH on the highway, but that is plenty fast for people on foot. Point is, if you can steer, the circumstances in which you cannot avoid hitting a person are extremely rare. In fact if one gets into that predicament, they were likely going too fast. In my case I could not steer. It just kept moving forward. And the fact is I was going too fast, but there was no way in hell I could've known that. If the dilemma is to play God, better analogies exist. Life and death by numbers ? Or do you figure out who was going to die sooner anyway ? Maybe you don't have time. Is it five little old Ladies or one kid, or is it five kids or one little old Lady ? Is one of them going to cure cancer or something ? And is there time to evaluate all this ? Really, I think I know what you're getting at, but this example is not the best. T^T

masternoname -> RE: Dilemma for the board.... (3/17/2011 9:35:36 AM)
If you have no choice, you have no choice and I suppose 1 is better than 5 but it's a hell of a situation.

Termyn8or -> RE: Dilemma for the board.... (3/18/2011 2:09:30 AM)
FR Look man, you take and put both hands at the top of the steering wheel (if vehicle is so equipped) and pull down whichever direction. Not only will you stop the forward momentume, you will also attract attention to yourself. As I said, a better analogy is needed here, there is an underlying point that is not competently adressed in this hypothetic. Lemme think a minute.......... OK, you are piloting a jet eastbound over southern Illinois. All the engines went out. This is a small jet and is carrying 10 passengers. There is no way in hell to make it to a large enough body of water before you stall, and you might be able to land on a highway, which is a feat. On the highway you see five cars, traffic is sparse. You come down on tht highway people will swerve to avoid you landing them in the ditch, and you don't know how many people are in those vehicles. They could die. But you are responsible for the lives in the craft which you pilot. There are fields, and you could go down in one of them but the chances of your and your pasengers' survival are very slim due to the terrain, it is almost certain death, or very serious injury, if they get to you in time. If you take the highway, you have a fifty fifty chance of surviving, especially up in the cockpit. And you can't land at the nearest airport because without engines you have no thrust reversers, or more aptly put, not thrust to reverse. That would guarantee disaster because there is no time. A jet stalls pretty quick when the engines go out because of the "higher" flight envelope. Who dies ? It's your choice. T^T

NorthernGent -> RE: Dilemma for the board.... (3/19/2011 2:20:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Isn't this the same as the " Trolley problem" in human psychology? If I remember what I saw on PBS people were given a problem to solve. They had control of a track switch on a trolley line. A serial killer , or something like this, had tied 5 people to the trolley tracks. They could flip the switch and direct the trolley to another track and save the five. The only problem however was one person was tied on that track and would be killed. The majority of those tested saw no choice but to flip the switch. Then they were given a second problem... They were on a bridge over the trolley track and the same 5 people were tied to the track. They were told a heavy object dropped on the track would stop the trolley and save the lives. There was a very fat heavy man leaning over the rail over the tracks… The question was should they push him over stopping the train…killing him but saving 5 lives. The majority refused. Interesting that their actions would produce the same result but show very different results. Butch No, I don't think it is the same (based on your conclusion). The OP is really a philosophical question with implications for political systems. That being: confidentally stating that the one should die is in line with Bentham's Utilitarian approach and assumes that the value of life and associated rights can be whittled down to a numbers game - and I suppose this is a democratic approach. According to Kant, it wouldn't be ethical to choose to kill the one because the value of that individual's life, and his/her rights, can never be measured in numbers. I suppose Kant would say choosing the one is a pragmatic approach that demeans human life and denies the empathy that we feel for another human being. And then I suppose there's the question of universal principles based on the actions that you or I as an individual would expect from other people. If you were the one to die to save 5 lives, would you accept that? If not but you'd sacrifice someone else, then that raises further questions. Oh and to the other lad, "How should I live my life?" is a philosophical question, and I'm sure you've asked yourself that at some point.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.320313E-02