Human Rights

[Dapper]

Do people have varying degrees of "human rights" according to their degree self-awareness? Doesn't Ayn Rand think so? And is self-awareness subjective?

 

[Danoff]

Do people have varying degrees of "human rights" according to their degree self-awareness? Doesn't Ayn Rand think so? And is self-awareness subjective?

I don't know what Rand thinks on that. The reason self-awareness plays a role in human rights is that it is necessary to comprehend rights in order to observe them, and it is necessary to observe rights in order to have them. Human beings can retain rights that they can observe. If someday some being is capable of understanding and observing rights without being self-aware, they should also have rights (I don't see how that's possible, but for the sake of discussion...).

Nothing subjective there.

 

[Dapper]

I don't know what Rand thinks on that. The reason self-awareness plays a role in human rights is that it is necessary to comprehend rights in order to observe them, and it is necessary to observe rights in order to have them. Human beings can retain rights that they can observe. If someday some being is capable of understanding and observing rights without being self-aware, they should also have rights (I don't see how that's possible, but for the sake of discussion...).

Nothing subjective there.

That (the bold part) is against what I believe, believe it or not. What that says to me is that anyone that is incapable of observing human rights has no human rights. Is that really what you mean? I am pretty sure that is what Ayn Rand thinks at least. Certainly individuals have different degrees of self-awareness, so what does that mean? What it means to me is that in a society everyone starts life with the same rights, malice is what takes them away, not a handicap. Even early human civilizations didn't treat everyone with the same rights. I am sure you learned how ancient Greeks would just leave their handicapped children on the outskirts of town, or even healthy children they couldn't take care of. Therefore before organized civilization everyone wasn't born with the same rights, for they were not observed.

 

[Danoff]

That (the bold part) is against what I believe, believe it or not. What that says to me is that anyone that is incapable of observing human rights has no human rights. Is that really what you mean?

Yes. Anything that is incapable/unwilling to observe human rights - whether a lion, a murderer, or a person in a persistent vegetative state, does not have rights. Handicapped kids can, by in large, observe the rights of others. The easiest way to determine whether someone can or is willing to observe human rights is to observe a rights violation.

This is a necessary condition of rights - because requiring someone to observe the rights of someone who cannot/does not observe their rights values the 2nd person above the first - and we already established that this is not possible to do objectively.

Certainly individuals have different degrees of self-awareness, so what does that mean?

If they have different degrees of capability/willingness to observe the rights of others, then they have varying degrees of rights. Specifically, the ones they refuse to observe are the ones they don't have.

What it means to me is that in a society everyone starts life with the same rights, malice is what takes them away, not a handicap.

Does the person who is born without a brain have rights? This person is a sack of tissue and blood, and nothing more. What rights do they have and why?

Some handicaps have to absolve you of some rights. If you're a danger to the people around you, you need to go someplace where you can be supervised (no more freedom). The (easy) way to demonstrate this in court would be to cite examples where the person was a danger to those around them.

I am sure you learned how ancient Greeks would just leave their handicapped children on the outskirts of town, or even healthy children they couldn't take care of. Therefore before organized civilization everyone wasn't born with the same rights, for they were not observed.

First of all, whether their rights are observed has no bearing on whether they have them. They weren't treated with the same rights.

Secondly, kids can observe rights at an early age, and having a gimp leg doesn't change that. Note that kids do not have a full compliment of rights immediately in our society either. We wait until they are (presumably) old enough to understand the implications of their actions.

 

[Dapper]

Yes. Anything that is incapable/unwilling to observe human rights - whether a lion, a murderer, or a person in a persistent vegetative state, does not have rights.

This is supposed to be moral? It is immoral to me. But incapable and unwilling are vastly different in my opinion.

If they have different degrees of capability/willingness to observe the rights of others, then they have varying degrees of rights. Specifically, the ones they refuse to observe are the ones they don't have.

This is objective? Using judgement to decide one's degree of capability is not objective.

Does the person who is born without a brain have rights? This person is a sack of tissue and blood, and nothing more. What rights do they have and why?

No brain means no life. Maybe a severely mentally retarded person would be a better example. And they have every right you and I have.

Some handicaps have to absolve you of some rights. If you're a danger to the people around you, you need to go someplace where you can be supervised (no more freedom). The (easy) way to demonstrate this in court would be to cite examples where the person was a danger to those around them.

First of all, whether their rights are observed has no bearing on whether they have them. They weren't treated with the same rights.

Secondly, kids can observe rights at an early age, and having a gimp leg doesn't change that. Note that kids do not have a full compliment of rights immediately in our society either. We wait until they are (presumably) old enough to understand the implications of their actions.

(the underlined part is a direct contradiction to an earlier statement)

Depending on the degree of disability and age... both are highly subjective areas. So, there is nothing objective about human rights?

You say "human rights" are reasoned in an objective manner but can only apply them subjectively. Which means they are subjective.

 

[Danoff]

This is supposed to be moral? It is immoral to me. But incapable and unwilling are vastly different in my opinion.

I've given you a rational explanation why that is moral. Give me a rational explanation why I am wrong (other than just your opinion).

This is objective? Using judgement to decide one's degree of capability is not objective.

No, using judgement to decide one's degree of capability is not objective. That has no bearing on whether on not human rights are objective.

No brain means no life. Maybe a severely mentally retarded person would be a better example. And they have every right you and I have.

Except freedom.

(the underlined part is a direct contradiction to an earlier statement)

Maybe a contradiction to one of your statements. Rights are not observed all the time. I call it a "violation" of rights. This does not nullify the existence of rights.

Depending on the degree of disability and age... both are highly subjective areas. So, there is nothing objective about human rights?

Conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. Your rights are determined by your ability to observe rights. There is nothing subjective about that. Determining your ability to observe rights can be objective too (simply by observing your violation of someone else's rights). Regardless of whether that determination is made subjectively or not, rights are objective.

You say "human rights" are reasoned in an objective manner but can only apply them subjectively. Which means they are subjective.

Three things

- They can be applied objectively
- They can be applied subjectively
- The manner in which they can be applied has no bearing on the nature of their existence.

Even if rights COULDN'T be applied in any way whatsoever, that would have no bearing on the nature of their existence.

 

[Dapper]

...and it is necessary to observe rights in order to have them.

...whether their rights are observed has no bearing on whether they have them.

Maybe a contradiction to one of your statements. Rights are not observed all the time. I call it a "violation" of rights. This does not nullify the existence of rights.

So observing rights makes rights exist, and not observing rights means nothing. That literally makes no sense. Because you say so doesn't mean so.

Human beings can retain rights that they can observe.

This is true of certain humans who are of an undetermined age, which is different for everyone, and who display an undetermined capability for comprehending and observing "rights"... Yet you think this is something that is objective?

 

[Danoff]

So observing rights makes rights exist, and not observing rights means nothing. That literally makes no sense. Because you say so doesn't mean so.

Read those statements again. You must observe the rights of others in order to retain them for yourself. Whether someone else observes your rights has no bearing whether you have them. Only you can determine whether you have them, by observing the rights of others.

This is true of certain humans who are of an undetermined age

All ages.

which is different for everyone

Yes. Some criminals don't respect the right to property but do observe the right to life. Others don't observe freedom. Some don't observe contract. All use force but in varying capacities, warrantying a proportionate response from those around them.

and who display an undetermined capability for comprehending and observing "rights"...

Correct. See above.

Yet you think this is something that is objective?

It is.

 

[niky]

It's pretty simple. A comatose person with no chance of revival and with brain damage that prevents them from cognition cannot observe rights, and whatever rights we give them are by proxy. That's why relatives can decide for them (under law) whether or not to pull the plug and why, if they don't want the plug pulled, they should state so in writing or verbally before going into said condition.

And that we allow them to state so, that they don't want to live on life support, even though most societies don't allow euthanasia. means that we recognize the body is no longer a person,

-

A person who doesn't recognize or honor the rights of others forfeits their own rights. That's how we justify the penal system and the death penalty.

-

A mentally retarded person, in a limited way (depending on severity), recognizes other people as entities possessing rights.

It gets pretty sticky when you consider autists, the worst of whom do not interact with other humans, but that's more of an inability to communicate or use social norms than a complete disregard for the rights of others.

 

[homeforsummer]

It's pretty simple. A comatose person with no chance of revival and with brain damage that prevents them from cognition cannot observe rights, and whatever rights we give them are by proxy. That's why relatives can decide for them (under law) whether or not to pull the plug and why, if they don't want the plug pulled, they should state so in writing or verbally before going into said condition.

Unless you're in the UK, where the individual needs to have specified in their will or spoken under a state of sound mind that they want the plug pulled and doing so without their personal consent, even if they're in excruciating pain, would be a criminal offense for the doctor and something stupid like conspiracy to commit murder for the family member who asked the doctor.

It's basically the exact opposite of the logical version given above. The individual can be screaming for the plug to be pulled but much of the time they'll be judged "not of sound mind" and therefore their request cannot be fulfilled unless they've given consent beforehand

But then, the UK legal system is a complete shambles, and it's why people often go abroad to let their loved ones die peacefully.

 

[Dapper]

You must observe the rights of others in order to retain them for yourself.

And since everyone does not do that, then rights are not inherent. Human rights simply are not real. All you've said is what you think is necessary, self-awareness, and the fact is every human doesn't have what you think is necessary. So it isn't human rights, it's more like "specific humans' rights", which still has no validity since it can't be tested or proven in any way.

It's pretty simple. A comatose person with no chance of revival and with brain damage that prevents them from cognition cannot observe rights, and whatever rights we give them are by proxy.

I think that is not true if we take away the no chance for survival part. There are a lot of documented cases of people in a coma that were aware, or at least remember, of what happened while in a coma. So some people that seem like they can't observe rights really can.

 

[Danoff]

And since everyone does not do that, then rights are not inherent. Human rights simply are not real. All you've said is what you think is necessary, self-awareness, and the fact is every human doesn't have what you think is necessary. So it isn't human rights, it's more like "specific humans' rights", which still has no validity since it can't be tested or proven in any way.

Here's what you just said...

...because criminals exist who might violate the rights of others, human rights do not exist.

I think that is not true if we take away the no chance for survival part. There are a lot of documented cases of people in a coma that were aware, or at least remember, of what happened while in a coma. So some people that seem like they can't observe rights really can.

..solved by guardianship contracts.

 

[Famine]

Here's what you just said...

...because criminals exist who might violate the rights of others, human rights do not exist.

I know my car doesn't exist because someone might nick it.

 

[Dapper]

Here's what you just said...

...because criminals exist who might violate the rights of others, human rights do not exist.

But you aren't specific. A new born doesn't observe rights, along with many other humans. And a lot of people aren't self-aware, yet you have nothing but subjective judgement to say who has rights. How is that objective? Nothing you have said is objective actually.

I know my car doesn't exist because someone might nick it.

A car is yours when you pay for it and the title is in your name. Then your car can be nicked, before that your car can't be nicked because you have no car. As I pointed out, there is no definite line that says when every has human rights. Plus a car is objective! duh

 

[Danoff]

But you aren't specific. A new born doesn't observe rights, along with many other humans. And a lot of people aren't self-aware, yet you have nothing but subjective judgement to say who has rights.

You're getting a bit confused about what is subjective and what is objective. If I say "you must observe the rights of others in order to have rights yourself" and "you forfeit rights when you refuse to/demonstrate that you are unable to observe them", that is objective (for reasons not included in this post). You can then use subjective reasoning to determine what the best way to implement that practically is... but that has no bearing on the objectivity of rights themselves.

Here is an example:

Objective:
Harry is an adult human being. He has violated no-one's rights to date - thereby observing the rights of those around him. One day, harry decides to commit murder. He has now forfeit his right to life, and any individual can kill him at will without forfeiting their own rights.

Subjective:
Society has determined that the best possible way to process people like harry is for the police to take him into custody, put him on trial using a carefully constructed judicial process that is designed to convict as few innocent people as is practical, and lock him behind bars rather than execute him for his crimes. Harry is sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole at 40 years, because society has democratically concluded that 40 years in prison, with proof of reform, is sufficient before Harry should be allowed back into public.

That is objective reasoning to determine who has rights, and subjective reasoning to determine how those rights are implemented in society.

Questions?

 

[Famine]

A car is yours when you pay for it and the title is in your name.

Ah, my car is real because a theoretical construct replacing the bartering system was exchanged and someone in a government position put it on some paper. Of course!

Plus a car is objective! duh

Prove my car exists.

Have fun with that one.

 

[Dapper]

You're getting a bit confused about what is subjective and what is objective. If I say "you must observe the rights of others in order to have rights yourself" and "you forfeit rights when you refuse to/demonstrate that you are unable to observe them", that is objective (for reasons not included in this post).

Those are both wrong. Kids can't observe rights, and sometimes when one is in a coma they can observe rights but they are unable to demonstrate they observe them. How is something wrong objective? And this leads to you not understanding what objective really means.

Ah, my car is real because a theoretical construct replacing the bartering system was exchanged and someone in a government position put it on some paper. Of course!

You seem to not understand the point, the government or anything of the sort is irrelevant. I just used a real world example that maybe you are not aware of. I doubt cars were sold when just bartering was around. But the same idea applies if you barter for your car. It isn't yours until you own it. You can't nick your car if you don't own it, or in other words your car doesn't exist if you don't own it. There is a definite time when something becomes yours. I am just asking when the definite time comes that people get rights. Observing and understanding have been proven to not be definite at times in humans' lives.

Prove my car exists.

Have fun with that one.

Seeing and touching an object makes it objective. How is that hard to prove?

 

[Famine]

I used a real world example and it is just theoretical?

Money has no real value - only theoretical value. An 8x3 piece of cotton with some ink on it isn't worth $100. The face value of money is a guarantee from the issuing treasury that the bearer of the money has a spending power equal to that amount - but that amount is only absolute in relation to other valuations in the same currency. $100 is worth a different amount of £ today than it was yesterday. Then again, $100 is worth a different amount of stuff today that it was yesterday due to inflation.

You're arguing that I have ownership of an item because some valueless paper with arbitrary numbering on it and some valueless paper with some arbitrary lettering on it say I do - the question that begets of course being "So... what says I own either of the bits of paper then?".

It isn't yours until you own it.

Same with rights - only you're arguing that because they can be taken away we never really own them. As above, so below.

Seeing and touching an object makes it objective. How is that hard to prove?

I'm asking you to objectively prove the existence of my car. You cannot see it or touch it.

As I said, have fun with that. You won't actually be able to do it.

 

[Dapper]

You're arguing that I have ownership of an item because some valueless paper with arbitrary numbering on it and some valueless paper with some arbitrary lettering on it say I do - the question that begets of course being "So... what says I own either of the bits of paper then?".

I am not arguing the value of money at all.

Same with rights - only you're arguing that because they can be taken away we never really own them. As above, so below.

I am arguing they never exist! As of now, you have no proof they do exist. Cars are objective, you can own them, rights are not, they are fake.

I'm asking you to objectively prove the existence of my car. You cannot see it or touch it.

As I said, have fun with that. You won't actually be able to do it.

What a meaningless question.
I have no problem taking your word that you own a car. The fact remains that if you have no car you can't nick it.

 

[Famine]

I am not arguing the value of money at all.

Indeed, you're just telling me I own a car because I exchanged some paper with arbitrary numbers on and I got some paper with arbitrary lettering on (without explaining why I owned the first paper and why I now own the second) and not because I own a car.

I am arguing they never exist!

On the basis they can be taken away. My car can be taken away, so by your argument, it also does not exist.

Of course this doesn't suit you, so it's just ignored.

What a meaningless question.

Oh, of course. If you have absolutely no interest at all in updating your knowledge, that is. Which, to be fair, is wholly consistent with your position so far...

 

[Dapper]

Indeed, you're just telling me I own a car because I exchanged some paper with arbitrary numbers on and I got some paper with arbitrary lettering on (without explaining why I owned the first paper and why I now own the second) and not because I own a car.

All wrong, not surprisingly. Use strict bartering for all I care, forget money. Your wriggle isn't helping your pont.

On the basis they can be taken away. My car can be taken away, so by your argument, it also does not exist.

Of course this doesn't suit you, so it's just ignored.

Wrong again. The car can be taken because it is real. Rights are not real (outside our artificial rights assumed by living in cooperation), they can't be taken.

Oh, of course. If you have absolutely no interest at all in updating your knowledge, that is.

Why should I care to update my knowledge on a guy on a computer arguing fictional rights on the other side of the world and if he has a car or not? That is rather worthless.

 

[Famine]

All wrong, not surprisingly.

Yeah, wrong as.

A car is yours when you pay for it and the title is in your name.

Oh wait, no, that was exactly what you said.

Wrong again. The car can be taken because it is real.

Prove it.

Rights are not real (outside our artificial rights assumed by living in cooperation), they can't be taken.

Your determination is that since rights may be ignored they do not exist. My assertion is that since my ownership of my car may be ignored then, by your argument, it does not exist either.

Why should I care to update my knowledge on a guy on a computer arguing fictional rights on the other side of the world and if he has a car or not? That is rather worthless.

By proving to yourself that your assertion - something which may be ignored cannot be said to exist - is incorrect you will update your knowledge. In fact by learning about why we can own things at all (quick clue: it's nothing to do with a piece of paper printed by a civil servant, or a picture of Benjamin Franklin), you will update your knowledge.

Since you don't care to, you won't. I called it several days ago.

Anytime now.

Indeed. Never going to happen.

 

[Dapper]

Oh wait, no, that was exactly what you said.

What I also said was-

You seem to not understand the point, the government or anything of the sort is irrelevant. I just used a real world example that maybe you are not aware of. I doubt cars were sold when just bartering was around. But the same idea applies if you barter for your car. It isn't yours until you own it. You can't nick your car if you don't own it, or in other words your car doesn't exist if you don't own it. There is a definite time when something becomes yours. I am just asking when the definite time comes that people get rights. Observing and understanding have been proven to not be definite at times in humans' lives.

Then I said-

Use strict bartering for all I care, forget money. Your wriggle isn't helping your point.

Prove it.

Prove cars are real? That is what your argument has come down to?

Your determination is that since rights may be ignored they do not exist. My assertion is that since my ownership of my car may be ignored then, by your argument, it does not exist either.

I do ignore what isn't real. To do otherwise is insane.

By proving to yourself that your assertion - something which may be ignored cannot be said to exist - is incorrect you will update your knowledge. In fact by learning about why we can own things at all (quick clue: it's nothing to do with a piece of paper printed by a civil servant, or a picture of Benjamin Franklin), you will update your knowledge.

Since you don't care to, you won't. I called it several days ago.

A car is real, meaning objective. Whether you really own one is absolutely worthless to this conversation. If you own one, it can be nicked. If you don't own one, it can't be nicked.

your assertion - something which may be ignored cannot be said to exist

This is simply ludicrous. I ignore a lot of things, and they exist. But they are also real and objective.

 

[Famine]

What I also said was-

Then I said-

None of which changes anything. You said I own a car because I paid for it and have a title. Money is an imaginary construct (wealth isn't) and a title is a piece of paper written by a civil servant. Neither of these things give me ownership of a car - I didn't pay for my money and get a title for it, yet I owned it, nor did I pay for my title and get a title for it ("Yo dawg, I heard you like ownership, so we gave you a title for your title so you can own what you own"), yet I own it - and yet own the car I do.

Solve the problem of what ownership is and you'll get there.

Not that you want to.

Prove cars are real? That is what your argument has come down to?

No - prove my car and my ownership of it are real.

You'll see your definitions of "subjective" and "objective" are starting to blur. Or you won't, because you don't want to.

I do ignore what isn't real. To do otherwise is insane.

You miss the point (because you want to). You assert that something can be ignored (by criminals, no less) and that renders it unreal. My ownership of my car can be ignored (by criminals, no less) and that, by your insistence, renders my ownership of my car unreal - and yet you're stoically defending your position that I own a car (without any evidence that I do, I might add).

A car is real, meaning objective. Whether you really own one is absolutely worthless to this conversation. If you own one, it can be nicked. If you don't own one, it can't be nicked.

Here, have this:

Rights are real, meaning objective. Whether you really own them is absolutely worthless to this conversation. If you have them, they can be taken. If you don't have them, they can't be taken.

Maybe you'll spot the relevance there. Or not, since you don't want to.

This is simply ludicrous. I ignore a lot of things, and they exist. But they are also real and objective.

Just like rights.

See, I knew we'd get there.

 

[arora]

Dapper does not believe in ownership, a point I will make for him because he is painfully drawing out his true agenda. It seemed to take eons for the no god part to come out, so lets just get on with the no right to property so we can pave the golden road to his utopian marxist dream shall we?

I will leave the libertarian camp on one point though, I do believe in a responsability beyond observing rights of others. Ironic my christian values overlap in that way.

 

[GTsail]

I have a bit of a wrinkle to my Train Problem:

Lets say that instead of standing next to the track, you are onboard the train yourself. Futher, lets say that the "mad philosopher" has installed a button on the train that can throw the track switch.

You are stuck on the train and are barreling along, and know that you are about to perish when the bomb on the train goes off, but you have two options: 1) Do nothing (except maybe swear) --- and the train will continue down the main line and destroy the city of 100,000 and yourself, or (2) Push the button --- and the train will switch to the siding and destroy some countryside and one innocent person living by the un-used mine and yourself.

What would you do?

You are faced with a decision: Do you let "fate" (or in this case, the mad philosopher) decide the outcome, or do you take some action to try to minimize the loss of life.

Are you immoral if you push the button?

Now, I realize that my "Train Problem" is pretty far-fetched, and might only occur in a movie, so I've tried to think of a more realistic but comparable situation:

GTsail's "Airplane Problem"

Lets say that you are the pilot of an airplane that suddenly loses its ability to fly (thru no fault of yours).

As the airplane falls out of the sky, you see that your plane is headed directly towards a large crowd of people on the ground.

You have two choices: (1) Do nothing and let the plane auger straight into the crowd of people, or (2) Steer the plane as much as possible away from the crowd realizing that you will instead hit a much smaller group of innocent bystanders on the ground?

What would you do?

You know your plane is going to crash and will likely kill some innocent bystanders. Do you try to minimize the damage/loss of life, or do you let "fate" decide?

Would you consider the pilot immoral for specifically steering the airplane away from the crowd towards the smaller group of bystanders since it will still inevitably injure/kill a small group of people?

The above airplane scenario is essentially the choice that the pilot of the P51 Mustang had just before he crashed at the Reno Air Show --- link:https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=223227

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Realistically, my goal in both of those scenarios would be to actively try to save everyone's life including the people on the train/airplane.

With the aircraft especially, you're responsible for the deaths of those that your aircraft take out. Doesn't matter that the aircraft stalled from no fault of your own, you took it up in the first place. So in that case you're the mad philosopher that put yourself in that position. You're going to commit murder, the only question is how many times.

For the train, your situation hasn't really changed. The mad philosopher has put you in a position where you can kill an innocent person to prevent him from killing others. That's immoral every time. So pushing the switch is immoral... with perfect knowledge.

Let me ask a question.

Let's suppose you have the same train scenario, but now instead of knowing for certain that someone will die if you flip the switch, all you know is that there is a significantly increased chance that NO ONE will die if you flip the switch? This is closer to reality, as perfect knowledge is impossible.

 

[CSLACR]

Realistically, my goal in both of those scenarios would be to actively try to save everyone's life including the people on the train/airplane.

With the aircraft especially, you're responsible for the deaths of those that your aircraft take out. Doesn't matter that the aircraft stalled from no fault of your own, you took it up in the first place. So in that case you're the mad philosopher that put yourself in that position. You're going to commit murder, the only question is how many times.

For the train, your situation hasn't really changed. The mad philosopher has put you in a position where you can kill an innocent person to prevent him from killing others. That's immoral every time. So pushing the switch is immoral... with perfect knowledge.

Let me ask a question.

Let's suppose you have the same train scenario, but now instead of knowing for certain that someone will die if you flip the switch, all you know is that there is a significantly increased chance that NO ONE will die if you flip the switch? This is closer to reality, as perfect knowledge is impossible.

In either case I think it would be immoral not to flip the switch. Without saying it would be moral to flip the switch.
When neither action is morally correct, the common moral would be to choose the less immoral option.

Also, murder is typically used to refer to the intentional killing of others, whereas deciding which group to accidentally crash into would not fit under the common definition of murder, but rather involuntary manslaughter.
Taking a plane in the air and it malfunctioning and crashing does not constitute murder by these definitions which have been accepted by society.

 

[GTsail]

...
For the train, your situation hasn't really changed. The mad philosopher has put you in a position where you can kill an innocent person to prevent him from killing others. That's immoral every time. So pushing the switch is immoral... with perfect knowledge...

I agree, my wrinkle to the Train Problem does not really do much to change the underlying nature of the situation. But it does put you in the middle of the predicament. So my question still stands... What would you do?

Personally, I would throw the switch. And I would consider it the "moral" action.

Let's suppose you have the same train scenario, but now instead of knowing for certain that someone will die if you flip the switch, all you know is that there is a significantly increased chance that NO ONE will die if you flip the switch? This is closer to reality, as perfect knowledge is impossible.

If I understand your scenario: Option # 1: do nothing and 100,000 will die, or Option # 2: throw the switch and possibly none will die (maybe my guard at the un-used mine is on vacation!).

I would find it easy to throw the switch (but still cross my fingers, really hoping that the guard is on vacation).

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/...ate/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true