Human Rights

[TankAss95]

http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/05/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-new-research-on-a-classic-debate/?xid=gonewsedit&google_editors_picks=true

Thanks for sharing.
Weighing life is a really complex issue, and I doubt the accuracy of a persons predictions, or even actions in a simulation in which they would have to act in such way.
Common sense tells me that the young and the female would be the most important group of people to save in a disastrous situation. Also I think those who are in pain (rather than unconscious) would also get our priority through instinct. I'm honestly not sure how I would respond in such a situation. Would I change the course of action, do nothing, or just 'freeze up' in panic? I don't think anyone could predict this.
My answer to the question though would simply be to save the five. Because we know nothing about the people involved, numeracy takes priority. Basically save as much people as you can.
I know little about human rights, but I think according to the general opinion you cannot sacrifice any person but yourself to protect others? (Please correct me if I am wrong in saying that). According to this, leave nature take it's course. Have no interaction.
Very interesting and complex issue. There is no correct answer.

 

[Keef]

There is no correct answer.

It is generally accepted that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Agreed?

Therefore, there is a correct answer.

The correct answer is to not intervene in the scenario. Let it happen without any input from you.

If you do not intervene, you did not hurt anybody. If you do intervene (via a utilitarian/mathematical approach to the problem) then you have consciously decided to kill another human - you have committed murder, whether you judge it by law or reason.

This study goes to show that the vast majority of humans are not able to control their animalian instincts during times of duress. They're unable to solve problems logically when situations at hand require it most. In these dire circumstances, they're unable to differentiate themselves from mere animals.

Congratulations, they found out that most humans are stupid! Tell us something we didn't know.

 

[Dapper]

This study goes to show that the vast majority of humans are not able to control their animalian instincts during times of duress.

In short, those who can control their emotions are more likely to murder one in order to let five live.

Why does the study directly contradict your non-professional opinion?

 

[Danoff]

Why does the study directly contradict your non-professional opinion?

The utilitarian approach to morality is more likely to show up with those who don't undergo an emotional response. It just so happens that the utilitarian approach to morality is a contradiction in terms.

I'm not sure how they come to the conclusion that those who can control their emotions better are in the 90% given that 90% of the group (emotional control or not) made the same utilitarian choice. The 10% probably did so for a variety of reasons, perhaps none of them right.

I think the study generally points out how hypocritical human beings are. We're willing to murder someone to intervene on others' behalf, and yet, not when it's us or our loved ones. Ridiculous... but that's us apparently.

 

[Keef]

Why does the study directly contradict your non-professional opinion?

Because you didn't read the whole article...

What does all this teach us about human nature? Evolution has hardened us into brutal and selfish creatures. We make split-second calculations that result in murder...

Read more: http://healthland.time.com/2011/12/...w-research-on-a-classic-debate/#ixzz1fiRalurS

When it comes to the survival of the family/group/clan/tribe/regime/country/race/species, humans tend to defend it with ruthless brutality and selfishness. Just like many animals. As I said, they're unable to elevate themselves above basic instinct and into the realm of rational thought when their minds must make very real, permanent decisions.

Interestingly, serial murderers are also often described as cold and calculating. They do not feel sorrow or remorse for their victims or anybody at all. They simply research, plan, and execute. It is human instinct to assess a situation, make a decision based on what is best for oneself, and execute the plan. That is what murderers do. That is what these people did, without even realizing it.

How else are you going to transport your village across the frozen Bering Straight when you're being chased by wolves, but to simply kill the slowest person in the group and run away while the wolves are busy feasting? Makes sense in terms of the group's general survival. Ever heard the phrase "the squeaky wheel gets the grease", or "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link"? Some people are more ruthless than others, males in particular, but even the most emotionally distraught person is capable of flipping the switch when it they deem it necessary.

TV shows often experiment with human nature because it is an excellent way to rouse people emotionally. Take a recent example from The Walking Dead, a show about a steadily shrinking group of people trying to survive during a zombie apocalypse:



He's trying to get scavenged medical supplies back to his group of people. The fat guy, obviously physically inferior, is unable to keep up. If they both continue at this pace, the zombies will catch them before they reach the truck. Shane (the ex-Sheriff's deputy) realizes there is a problem, he considers solutions, he decides on a solution based on his own well being and that of the group's in general, and he executes the plan. He does the exact same thing that 90% of the people in that study did, which is the exact same thing that has been observed in the wild by various species of animals.

The author of the article stated, as you quoted,

In short, those who can control their emotions are more likely to murder one in order to let five live.

, but he didn't define what it means to "control" their emotions. It seems to me that he was referring to their tendency to subdue their emotions and instead weigh outcomes based on an undefined value system, which inevitably led to their decision to murder a human in order to save numerous others.

But this isn't what I would call "control" at all! I've demonstrated that this is actually a perfectly natural response in such situations. It is human instinct. It shows an inability to control basic human instinct and instead solve a problem rationally.

But it doesn't surprise me that the author concluded (this conclusion was not cited as that of the researchers) that people who control their emotions are more likely to murder another human; he himself admitted that he came to the very same conclusion. He came to his conclusion through his own failure to apply his implied knowledge (he did describe two aspects) of human nature to his decision or those of the other people.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

It is generally accepted that it is wrong to kill an innocent human. Agreed?

Therefore, there is a correct answer.

The correct answer is to not intervene in the scenario. Let it happen without any input from you.

If you do not intervene, you did not hurt anybody. If you do intervene (via a utilitarian/mathematical approach to the problem) then you have consciously decided to kill another human - you have committed murder, whether you judge it by law or reason.

This study goes to show that the vast majority of humans are not able to control their animalian instincts during times of duress. They're unable to solve problems logically when situations at hand require it most. In these dire circumstances, they're unable to differentiate themselves from mere animals.

Congratulations, they found out that most humans are stupid! Tell us something we didn't know.

Let me be stupid.

You can save 5 people but you do not do it.
That is "none assistance to people in need" (AKA failing your duty to rescue) and might be judged as punishable by law. Although I doubt you have to fear a serious result in the above case.

The Human right to live does not equal the human sin to kill.
Those 5 people have a right to live as much as the other person has, it is unethical to intervene, who are you to decide who dies, but it might be unethical not to intervene, why not save the mathematical 4 lives that have a right to live. It is completely unethical to change your action if you know the 1 person, well yeh you can not win them all.

One of the only reasons not to intervene, that is accepted, is when intervening would put your own life in danger.

There is no such thing as a Human right to be spared of difficult choices.

 

[Danoff]

Let me be stupid.

You can save 5 people but you do not do it.
That is "none assistance to people in need" (AKA failing your duty to rescue) and might be judged as punishable by law. Although I doubt you have to fear a serious result in the above case.

The Human right to live does not equal the human sin to kill.
Those 5 people have a right to live as much as the other person has, it is unethical to intervene, who are you to decide who dies, but it might be unethical not to intervene, why not save the mathematical 4 lives that have a right to live. It is completely unethical to change your action if you know the 1 person, well yeh you can not win them all.

One of the only reasons not to intervene that is accepted is when intervening would put your own life in danger.

There is no such thing as a Human right to be spared of difficult choices.

There is no such thing as a human right to be saved. There is only the human right not to be killed. Rights fundamentally cannot compel others to act. In cases where the law specifies a duty to act to save another human being, the law is wrong.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

There is no such thing as a human right to be saved. There is only the human right not to be killed. Rights fundamentally cannot compel others to act. In cases where the law specifies a duty to act to save another human being, the law is wrong.

Now we go a little off topic, but still:

You have a child of 2 and you do not take care of it. No issue on your input above.

 

[GTsail]

Thanks Danoff, for finding and posting this study. I noticed that someone actually mentioned the Reno Air Show crash.

....
The author of the article stated, as you quoted, "In short, those who can control their emotions are more likely to murder one in order to let five live"

but he didn't define what it means to "control" their emotions. It seems to me that he was referring to their tendency to subdue their emotions and instead weigh outcomes based on an undefined value system, which inevitably led to their decision to murder a human in order to save numerous others.

But this isn't what I would call "control" at all! I've demonstrated that this is actually a perfectly natural response in such situations. It is human instinct. It shows an inability to control basic human instinct and instead solve a problem rationally.

But it doesn't surprise me that the author concluded (this conclusion was not cited as that of the researchers) that people who control their emotions are more likely to murder another human; he himself admitted that he came to the very same conclusion. He came to his conclusion through his own failure to apply his implied knowledge (he did describe two aspects) of human nature to his decision or those of the other people.

The study implys that the less "emotional" participants are making the choice to save 5 people. Doesn't this mean that these are the more "logical" participants? Isn't the study saying that the more "logical" participants are chosing to save the 5 people? You seem to be recommending that we should let our emotions decide when we are in this situation (instead of using logic). Isn't this diametrically opposed to the normal Libertarian response?

I have two more wrinkle's to the "Airplane Problem"

1) Lets say that on this particular day, everyone watching the Air Show is a member of your extended family (1000 members of your family are in the grandstands, and 50 members of your family are sitting on the edge of the runway). Since its a given that the airplane is about to crash --- which group of your family members would you prefer that the airplane hit? The 1000 family members that are in the grandstands or the 50 members on the edge of the runway? Would you appreciate the actions of the pilot who tried to save as many members of your family as he could (by injuring the smallest number possible)?, or would you have preferred that the pilot just let the plane auger into the packed grandstands?

A corollary to the above example would be:

2) Lets say that you yourself are the pilot, and as above, everyone in the audience at the Air Show are members of your extended family. You realize that the plane you are flying is about to crash. Do you let "fate" decide, and allow your plane to auger into the packed grandstands? Or do you try to steer the airplane a little to kill/injure as few members of your family as possible? If you take no action, do you think that the 50 surviving members of your extended family will appreciate your in-action?

Isn't it possible that the "moral action" is to kill/injure as few people as possible when stuck in such a difficult situation?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Now we go a little off topic, but still:

You have a child of 2 and you do not take care of it. No issue on your input above.

Fair enough.

Children are a voluntary choice on your part to take on a moral and legal responsibility for another human being. The same is true if you sign a contract that says, as a bodyguard, you have a duty to act to save another human being. It is voluntary to enter that contract, and so it does not apply in this case.

I have two more wrinkle's to the "Airplane Problem"

1) Lets say that on this particular day, everyone watching the Air Show is a member of your extended family (1000 memers of your family are in the grandstands, and 50 members of your family are sitting on the edge of the runway). Since its a given that the airplane is about to crash --- which group of your family members would you prefer that the airplane hit? The 1000 family members that are in the grandstands or the 50 members on the edge of the runway? Would you appreciate the actions of the pilot who tried to save as many members of your family as he could (by injuring the smallest number possible)?, or would you have preferred that the pilot just let the plane auger into the packed grandstands?

A corollary to the above example would be:

2) Lets say that you yourself are the pilot, and as above, everyone in the audience at the Air Show are members of your extended family. You realize that the plane you are flying is about to crash. Do you let "fate" decide, and allow your plane to auger into the packed grandstands? Or do you try to steer the airplane a little to kill/injure as few members of your family as possible? If you take no action, do you think that the 50 surviving members of your extended family will appreciate your in-action?

Isn't it possible that the "moral action" is to kill/injure as few people as possible when stuck in such a difficult situation?

Respectfully,
GTsail

I still like my earlier response to this:

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 manslaughter, the only question is how many times.

There is a big difference between trying to right your own mistakes, and intervening in another situation. In the case where you're guaranteed to commit a crime, you should make every attempt to minimize that crime.

 

[GTsail]

...
There is a big difference between trying to right your own mistakes, and intervening in another situation. In the case where you're guaranteed to commit a crime, you should make every attempt to minimize that crime.

I see that you are hung up on the issue of the pilot's responsibility, so I have another wrinkle:

3) Lets say that you are a passenger on the airplane and have no responsibility for aircraft maintenance. You are just a passenger surfing the internets!

The pilot yells out over the plane's intercom that the aircraft has lost the ability to fly and he says to expect to crash. The pilot then yells "help" so you rush up to the cockpit and see the pilot keel-over with a heartattack. So now you are left with the same situation as before:

Do you try to steer the airplane to avoid the large grandstand, or do you do nothing, and let the plane auger straight in?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

I see that you are hung up on the issue of the pilot's responsibility, so I have another wrinkle:

3) Lets say that you are a passenger on the airplane and have no responsibility for aircraft maintenance. You are just a passenger surfing the internets!

The pilot yells out over the plane's intercom that the aircraft has lost the ability to fly and he says to expect to crash. The pilot then yells "help" so you rush up to the cockpit and see the pilot keel-over with a heartattack. So now you are left with the same situation as before:

Do you try to steer the airplane to avoid the large grandstand, or do you do nothing, and let the plane auger straight in?

Respectfully,
GTsail

It's a tough scenario because I want to say "I'd try to land successfully". Basically I'd be trying to save everyone involved and not hit the ground at all. I know this isn't what you're getting at, but it's realistically how I'd respond in that scenario - and I think it's a moral choice.

 

[GTsail]

It's a tough scenario because I want to say "I'd try to land successfully". Basically I'd be trying to save everyone involved and not hit the ground at all. I know this isn't what you're getting at, but it's realistically how I'd respond in that scenario - and I think it's a moral choice.

I think that your impulse to try to land the plane successfully is the courageous response.

However, by doing so, you've moved the airplane's controls, so exactly who gets injured/dies is no longer just being decided by "fate".

Are you now a murderer because of your actions?

Have you picked an "immoral" course of action?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Danoff]

I think that your impulse to try to land the plane successfully is the courageous response.

Not really, I'm on the plane after all - so really I'm just saving my own skin.

However, by doing so, you've moved the airplane's controls, so exactly who gets injured/dies is no longer just being decided by "fate".

Are you now a murderer because of your actions?

Have you picked an "immoral" course of action?

No.

The problem is intent. I intended to save everyone in this scenario. If you switch the trolley tracks, you intend to kill a person to save others. My intent is not immoral, and so if my actions result in the deaths of others, the worst anyone could claim is that I was somehow negligent in my response.

Having not put the plane in the situation to begin with, and then attempting and intending to save everyone in the scenario, I'm struggling to find anything immoral or even negligent in this scenario.

 

[Keef]

The study implys that the less "emotional" participants are making the choice to save 5 people. Doesn't this mean that these are the more "logical" participants?

"Logical", probably (in quotes because those same 90% would probably misdefine the term "logic"), but actually logical, no.

Basically, logic is the scientific study of correct inference and reasoning. Correct being the key word there.

These participants did not come to the only logical conclusion given the choices, because their final decision violates one of three logical facts: the rights of life, liberty, and property. These three rules are logical consequences of our existence, our self-awareness, and our ability to reason.

The decision of the 90% violates the right to life of the lone railworker because they consciously chose to sacrifice (murder) him. Their decision and action to switch the track was the precise cause of that man's death; otherwise, it simply would not have happened.

Isn't the study saying that the more "logical" participants are chosing to save the 5 people? You seem to be recommending that we should let our emotions decide when we are in this situation (instead of using logic). Isn't this diametrically opposed to the normal Libertarian response?

There are two things that can happen when you subdue your emotions in order to make a decision: You can either allow your basic animalian instinct to guide you, as these people did, or you can be like, hold the phone, I refer to myself as a human, not an animal, and therefore I shall consider this matter logically.

I stress once again that these people did not think logically. They used instinct. The things humans do when their minds are overwhelmed are generally not logical, as we all can agree. An inexperienced driver, for example, taking his hands off the wheel and screaming in terror as he careens toward oncoming traffic. Fear is instinctive. Any amount of fear beyond what is required to motivate one to think logically is just excess stupidity.

I have two more wrinkle's to the "Airplane Problem"

1) Lets say that on this particular day, everyone watching the Air Show is a member of your extended family (1000 members of your family are in the grandstands, and 50 members of your family are sitting on the edge of the runway). Since its a given that the airplane is about to crash --- which group of your family members would you prefer that the airplane hit? The 1000 family members that are in the grandstands or the 50 members on the edge of the runway? Would you appreciate the actions of the pilot who tried to save as many members of your family as he could (by injuring the smallest number possible)?, or would you have preferred that the pilot just let the plane auger into the packed grandstands?

Seeing that killing the audience was not the pilot's intention, this example has no correlation to the Trolley Problem whatsoever. This is simply an unfortunate accident and nothing more.

In the Trolley Problem, you, the bystander, had no previous interaction with the trolley. The only interaction with the trolley available to the bystander is to use the trolley specifically to kill another person.

But the pilot did have prior interaction with the plane in your scenario, and you've provided so much detail that it's clear his intention was to perform in an airshow. However, his machine failed him, which lead to a tragic accident.

Libertarian point of view:

On the surface it appears there may have been rights violations which would leave the pilot vulnerable to manslaughter. Luckily for the pilot, the only logical form of government is a republic, in which a trial by jury would be held, evidence would be presented, and he would be given the opportunity to defend the manslaughter charge. The defense might present the contracts signed by the audience which stated that the airshow performers cannot be held liable for any injury or death resulting from their inherently dangerous performances which the audience payed to watch...

That's the libertarian point of view on that scenario.

A corollary to the above example would be:

2) Lets say that you yourself are the pilot, and as above, everyone in the audience at the Air Show are members of your extended family. You realize that the plane you are flying is about to crash. Do you let "fate" decide, and allow your plane to auger into the packed grandstands? Or do you try to steer the airplane a little to kill/injure as few members of your family as possible? If you take no action, do you think that the 50 surviving members of your extended family will appreciate your in-action?

As above, there is no moral conflict in this scenario.

I'll remind you again that in the Trolley Problem there are two possible choices: Do nothing, or murder. But in your scenario, your two choices are to either kill a few people or a lot of people, and without malice aforethought at that. Even if rights violations did occur, there is no differentiation between a moral and immortal solution in this scenario.

Isn't it possible that the "moral action" is to kill/injure as few people as possible when stuck in such a difficult situation?

Life, Liberty, Property. If you unjustly take one of these rights from another human, you've committed an immoral act. Keep in mind that these three inalienable rights, as a consequence of reason, are innate and omnipresent whether or not we realize it, and removing them requires action.

To the folks who insist that inaction is a liability, I will say that it is an infantile concept, literally a concept learned during infancy, that one cannot affect change without putting forth effort to affect said change. You cannot make the ball roll without inciting it to roll. You cannot get the square piece stuck in the round hole without actually doing it through whatever means necessary. You cannot pull the sleeping dog's hair without crawling over there and pulling the dog's hair.

You cannot infringe the life, liberty, or property of another human being without putting forth effort toward infringing the life, liberty, or property of another human being.

EDIT:

It's a tough scenario because I want to say "I'd try to land successfully". Basically I'd be trying to save everyone involved and not hit the ground at all. I know this isn't what you're getting at, but it's realistically how I'd respond in that scenario - and I think it's a moral choice.

You and FK, always itching to think outside the box!

Saving all the lives would be a moral choice if it worked. If it didn't, you're screwed. Within the confines of that problem, the only surefire moral choice would be to do nothing, thereby no affecting anything at all. In that situation, the captain would bear the immoral burden because he was in charge of running the show, and he failed. Again, manslaughter, but then of course he died too so it seems nature doled out some justice once again.

Danoff, I don't think morality depends on intent. I think it is very simply the unjust violation of inalienable rights, for whatever reason.

Because if intent were key, then there is no moral justification for the crime we call manslaughter.

Then again, removing the crime of manslaughter would make a defendant's job of defending themselves much easier, while making the government's job of proving malice aforethought much more difficult. And that kinda seems like a good thing.

EDIT 2: Use any of my references to the crime of manslaughter only as, well, reference, because I have had a manslaughter epiphany. Manslaughter, the crime we all know well of accidentally killing somebody, which usually carries a reasonable healthy punishment, is BOGUS.

Yeah, I said it, the idea of manslaughter is completely bogus. Punishments for the crime should be taken off the books. You cannot punish people for being involved in circumstances which are beyond their control; that's like suspending from school the little kid who was getting beat up. Doesn't make any sense. Besides, manslaughter cases already have built-in punishment - the vivid memories of you killing somebody. Cases should be taken to court, obviously, and when the manslaughter verdict is handed down the case should end without any punishment. It does occasionally already, but not usually.

 

[Vince_Fiero]

I have an essential issue with how easy people go over the fact that not switching the trolley is so much better since you did not kill.
IMHO you did kill the 5, since you made the choice and did act on that choice not to intervene. As stated before I do believe both choices have major moral issues.

For human rights: If you say you have a right not to be injured, the same is valid, you could avoid injury of 5 and did not do it, so your action does lead to injury.

Now the judgment would depend to me the type of society:
Individualistic society: you did not change anything, that is the best solution
Collective society: you saved the most lives of our community that is the best solution
Discriminating societies: you saved the one most valuable in the society (that could be 1 of the 5 compared to the other one) that is the best thing
Anarchistic society: who cares, people will die


Now that you do not have a human right that someone acts to save you is valid as well.
We are spoiled and complain when the police, ambulance of fire squad take more then 10 minutes to intervene in critical situations. But there is not right to be saved, these are things that are nice to have and that our society put in place, however you can not claim them.

Finally on the child, I do believe that some exceptions are valid on the way we protect children, due to lack of independence. Sadly this can lead to violation of some rights as well, so should be done with care.

 

[Crispy]

Would it be against moral if you killed someone who was about to kill another person. You meant to injure them, but instead you killed them?

 

[Danoff]

I have an essential issue with how easy people go over the fact that not switching the trolley is so much better since you did not kill.
IMHO you did kill the 5, since you made the choice and did act on that choice not to intervene. As stated before I do believe both choices have major moral issues.

Then you just killed a starving kid in Africa by not sending him money.

Ooops you just killed another one.

There goes another one...

For human rights: If you say you have a right not to be injured, the same is valid, you could avoid injury of 5 and did not do it, so your action does lead to injury.

Incorrect for the same reason you're not guilty of killing the kids in Africa. You cannot be held accountable for the actions and situations of others - only your own actions. If they have a right for you to act, you have no rights to your own liberty - at which point the concept of human rights dies altogether.

Now the judgment would depend to me the type of society:
Individualistic society: you did not change anything, that is the best solution
Collective society: you saved the most lives of our community that is the best solution
Discriminating societies: you saved the one most valuable in the society (that could be 1 of the 5 compared to the other one) that is the best thing
Anarchistic society: who cares, people will die

The type of society has no bearing on the existence and nature of human rights.

Now that you do not have a human right that someone acts to save you is valid as well.
We are spoiled and complain when the police, ambulance of fire squad take more then 10 minutes to intervene in critical situations. But there is not right to be saved, these are things that are nice to have and that our society put in place, however you can not claim them.

You hired them, and they have a contract that they entered into (voluntarily) to save you. This is the same as the child scenario and does not apply to the trolley case.

I have had a manslaughter epiphany. Manslaughter, the crime we all know well of accidentally killing somebody, which usually carries a reasonable healthy punishment, is BOGUS.

As you know, I disagree. Actions that show a lack of regard for the rights of others (ex: gross negligence) are justifiably punishable. Take, for example, the guy who drives down the freeway with a blindfold on as a dare. He might not have intended to kill that family, but his demonstrated lack of regard for the rights of others should result in a proportionate curtailment of his own rights.

 

[Keef]

I have an essential issue with how easy people go over the fact that not switching the trolley is so much better since you did not kill.
IMHO you did kill the 5, since you made the choice and did act on that choice not to intervene. As stated before I do believe both choices have major moral issues.

Then you just killed a starving kid in Africa by not sending him money.

Ooops you just killed another one.

There goes another one...

See Danoff's response to this statement. If inaction were a liable, then every single person would be at fault for anything that ever happened that they didn't decide to help stop. Surely you would agree that Danoff's simple example sounds so ridiculous it must not be true.

For human rights: If you say you have a right not to be injured, the same is valid, you could avoid injury of 5 and did not do it, so your action does lead to injury.

Riiiight...you could avoid injury of five people...while also willfully taking the life of the other person. I think you missed that little part there, about murdering that one person.

Now the judgment would depend to me the type of society:
Individualistic society: you did not change anything, that is the best solution
Collective society: you saved the most lives of our community that is the best solution
Discriminating societies: you saved the one most valuable in the society (that could be 1 of the 5 compared to the other one) that is the best thing
Anarchistic society: who cares, people will die

Only one of these states of society is logically sustainable, though, which means the others are wrong and will eventually fail. It doesn't matter what is more applicable to them because their inevitable failure is already set in stone, which means that any decision you could make based on that ideology is ultimately wrong.

We are spoiled and complain when the police, ambulance of fire squad take more then 10 minutes to intervene in critical situations. But there is not right to be saved, these are things that are nice to have and that our society put in place, however you can not claim them.

If I pay taxes to support these services then I expect prompt service. So yes, I and everybody else in my city can lay claim to these services because we've already paid for them. The employees of these services were hired knowing that they are expected to help others. If they don't, they're violating their employment contract and any oaths they may have given to the taxed public.

Would it be against moral if you killed someone who was about to kill another person. You meant to injure them, but instead you killed them?

Actually it would probably be better to kill them because then they can't argue against you in court. That is precisely what they teach us in self-defense license training courses.

We've argued about a third party stepping in to protect the rights of somebody being attacked. I can't recall what conclusion we came up with, and this bacon is too distracting to consider it right now.

But the libertarian side of me says that a third party should not simply kill the supposed attacker. After all, they're a third party, and how can they be sure who is at fault? Instead they should arrest the supposed attacker, send him to trial, and find out the truth of the situation in order to choose an appropriate punishment.

As you know, I disagree. Actions that show a lack of regard for the rights of others (ex: gross negligence) are justifiably punishable. Take, for example, the guy who drives down the freeway with a blindfold on as a dare. He might not have intended to kill that family, but his demonstrated lack of regard for the rights of others should result in a proportionate curtailment of his own rights.

I simplified too much. There are different types of manslaughter. You can accidentally kill somebody through uncontrollable circumstances, and you can also accidentally kill somebody while engaging in risky behavior.

I think a person driving drunk and accidentally killing somebody deserves punishment. But I think that running into a random fool who wandered out from behind a blind corner does not. The circumstances should be judged in court.

 

[Danoff]

We've argued about a third party stepping in to protect the rights of somebody being attacked. I can't recall what conclusion we came up with, and this bacon is too distracting to consider it right now.

Once you violate/attempt to violate someone else's rights, a third party can intervene since you have forfeited your rights. That third party could be the police, a friend, or whoever. The problem is knowledge. It's tough for a third party to know for sure who is in the wrong.

I think a person driving drunk and accidentally killing somebody deserves punishment. But I think that running into a random fool who wandered out from behind a blind corner does not. The circumstances should be judged in court.

Interestingly enough, the law agrees with you. A friend of mine recently got run over by a distracted driver. Two people were hit, my buddy and a friend of his. The 2nd guy died. The criminal wrongful death trial found the driver not guilty. So you can hit someone accidentally, and even kill them, and face no criminal punishment. There will be civil charges though, and I don't have the results from that trial yet.

 

[GTsail]

....
I'll remind you again that in the Trolley Problem there are two possible choices: Do nothing, or murder. But in your scenario, your two choices are to either kill a few people or a lot of people, and without malice aforethought at that. Even if rights violations did occur, there is no differentiation between a moral and immortal solution in this scenario....

I don't see the distinction that you and Danoff are making between the Trolley case and my 3rd Airplane scenario.

I'm not talking about Danoff's scenario of "trying" to save everyone... I'm talking about my scenario where the participant is making a choice to direct the vehicle towards the smaller group of bystanders ... or not.

In both cases, the participant's intention is to save as many lives as possible. In neither case is there any prior intention to "murder" anyone. In both cases, the action to divert the direction of the vehicle results in someone being killed. In both cases, it is not the participant who puts the deadly vehicle in motion. In both cases the participant's intention is to direct the vehicle towards the smaller group of bystanders. In both cases, doing nothing will result in a large group of innocent bystanders being killed.

To make the Trolley/Train case match my 2nd Airplane example, put 1000 family members on the main track. Put 50 family members on the side-track.

You are saying that you would not flip the switch directing the Trolley/Train towards the smaller group of family members. Right? You would just stand there and let the Trolley/Train kill 1000 family members?

Respectfully,
GTsail

 

[Keef]

I'm not talking about Danoff's scenario of "trying" to save everyone... I'm talking about my scenario where the participant is making a choice to direct the vehicle towards the smaller group of bystanders ... or not.

In the Trolley Problem, the choice is to either do nothing and let a majority die or choose to save the majority but murder somebody. One of the choices is moral, the other one isn't.

In your scenario you stated that the choice was either to accidentally kill a few people, or accidentally kill a lot of people. Either way he's screwed, and either way it's accidental.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see the distinction that you and Danoff are making between the Trolley case and my 3rd Airplane scenario.

I'm not talking about Danoff's scenario of "trying" to save everyone... I'm talking about my scenario where the participant is making a choice to direct the vehicle towards the smaller group of bystanders ... or not.

In both cases, the participant's intention is to save as many lives as possible. In neither case is there any prior intention to "murder" anyone. In both cases, the action to divert the direction of the vehicle results in someone being killed. In both cases, it is not the participant who puts the deadly vehicle in motion. In both cases the participant's intention is to direct the vehicle towards the smaller group of bystanders. In both cases, doing nothing will result in a large group of innocent bystanders being killed.

To make the Trolley/Train case match my 2nd Airplane example, put 1000 family members on the main track. Put 50 family members on the side-track.

You are saying that you would not flip the switch directing the Trolley/Train towards the smaller group of family members. Right? You would just stand there and let the Trolley/Train kill 1000 family members?

Respectfully,
GTsail

The problem is that I'd try to pull the nose of the airplane up to avoid crashing even if it meant aiming the aircraft at MORE people along the way.

Let's say the airplane is headed straight down and there's one dude. All around him is a thick circle of people. In order to pull the nose of the airplane away from headed straight down, you have to momentarily pull the nose of the airplane through a trajectory that aims at MORE people than the single guy. I'd do that though, every time, in an attempt to avoid the crash altogether.

 

[GTsail]

The problem is that I'd try to pull the nose of the airplane up to avoid crashing even if it meant aiming the aircraft at MORE people along the way.

Let's say the airplane is headed straight down and there's one dude. All around him is a thick circle of people. In order to pull the nose of the airplane away from headed straight down, you have to momentarily pull the nose of the airplane through a trajectory that aims at MORE people than the single guy. I'd do that though, every time, in an attempt to avoid the crash altogether.

Makes sense^^^

But now the example is moving further away from the Trolley case. The purpose of my Airplane Problem was to try to find a real-life example that was almost exactly the same as the Trolley case.

GTsail

 

[GTsail]

In the Trolley Problem, the choice is to either do nothing and let a majority die or choose to save the majority but murder somebody. One of the choices is moral, the other one isn't.

In your scenario you stated that the choice was either to accidentally kill a few people, or accidentally kill a lot of people. Either way he's screwed, and either way it's accidental.

In my Airplane examples, the participant is making a choice, just like in the Trolley case.

If you go back and look at Danoff's first post about it, you will see that he was labeling it murder because the participant was directing the direction of the airplane. It is not an accident on which group of bystanders gets hit, its being directed by the pilot/passenger.

GTsail

 

[Danoff]

Makes sense^^^

But now the example is moving further away from the Trolley case. The purpose of my Airplane Problem was to try to find a real-life example that was almost exactly the same as the Trolley case.

GTsail

Yea, it's just that the trolley has a level of certainty to it that's hard to get in a real life scenario. In the trolley case you know and intend to kill someone to save others. But people face real life scenarios more like Captain Kirk doing the Kobayashi Maru. They don't believe in no-win scenarios.

But I do think that's a critical component to the trolley case. You're intervening with intent to kill.

 

[Keef]

In my Airplane examples, the participant is making a choice, just like in the Trolley case.

If you go back and look at Danoff's first post about it, you will see that he was labeling it murder because the participant was directing the direction of the airplane. It is not an accident on which group of bystanders gets hit, its being directed by the pilot/passenger.

Danoff calls that trolley choice murder because it is - literally, the bystander decides "in order to save five, I must murder one".

In your example, the pilot doesn't intend to kill anybody, or at least you didn't specify whether or not he was.

As I've already said, your problem presents no moral dilemma. Not only does the pilot not want to kill people, but in your scenario his choices are to accidentally kill a few or accidentally kill a bunch. That's not a moral issue.

You seem as if you're suggesting that willfully killing one person is somehow less important that willfully killing a bunch of people...

 

[Vince_Fiero]

In the trolley case you know and intend to kill someone to save others.

Danoff calls that trolley choice murder because it is - literally, the bystander decides "in order to save five, I must murder one".

In the trolley case you can act in 2 ways:

You know and intend not to save 5 people or
you know and intend not to save 1 person.

The only moral thing to do is stop the trolley, but that seems unlikely in the timeframe given.

I regret to see that we will never meet on this point. Not intervening is an act and intervening is an act, both acts can lead to legal persuits.
From a Human right perspective I remain that expecting someone to act in your favour is not a right, but also in what you call the only moral choice people act!

In court (not of relevance) this could give something like this:
1) You are accused of not saving 5, you state: everything went very fast, before I realized what was happening it was over.
2) You are accused of killing 1, you state: everything went very fast, I tried to save the 5, never saw the other one.

Case 2 might give you manslaughter, but probably on probation.

 

[Famine]

I regret to see that we will never meet on this point. Not intervening is an act and intervening is an act

Inaction is not an action, just as atheism is not a belief. Choosing to act knowing that you will kill any number of innocents is murder. Choosing not to act knowing that the actions of another will kill any number of innocents is not.

Some countries may legislate that not acting is a culpable act but we're not discussing legislation.

 

[Danoff]

In the trolley case you can act in 2 ways:

You know and intend not to save 5 people or
you know and intend not to save 1 person.

...almost.

You know and intend not to murder 1 person or
You know and intend to murder 1 person

Either it is right to kill the one innocent person to save the 5, or it is not. How do you judge that the one person's life is forfeit to the 5 who's life is at risk? How can you say that the 1 person is always worth sacrificing - even from a utilitarian point of view?

Would it make a difference if that 1 person were about to invent an energy source that would power the world cleanly for free? Would it make a difference if the 5 were mentally handicapped? What if the 5 were criminals convicted of petty crimes? This is the problem with the utilitarian view of the situation.

Not intervening is an act and intervening is an act

Then you're killing kids in africa as we speak.