Ethics

[Birdjaguar]

I'd slip an opiate in her drink to cheer her up so I could watch my movies uninterrupted by annoying weeping.

Exactly as I would have thought you would post, but I know it's not what you would actually do.

 

[Kozmos]

I saw a fascinating poll on ethics on a website (no link as there are clues there). Think about this question and post your answers with reasons.

1) One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

These other question were there too, if anyone's interested:

2) A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3) The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4) An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Should you blast Big Jack out?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

Fascinating stuff!

1)**** no.Here is the worlds tiniest violine playing for him.

2)Stand back and watch the blood splatter.

3)Unlikey that I would sacrifice myself for someone else.But in that case put the fatso on the track.Self-preservation baby.

4)Blow him to kingdom come.

 

[Dann]

1) One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

No obligation, naturally. However I will ask to speak to the leaders of this Music Appreciation Society and :
1) Ask to telephone some of my friends and relatives and arrange for them to stay by my side during these months, but in truth some of them will actually be policemen that we know.
2) Now that I'm secure, negotiate an appropriate payment for my time, or else. Kidnapping is a capital offense here.

2) A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

No. I'll walk away. Fast. And then claim absolutely no knowledge of the incident.

I'd remember to go and burn paper money at their graves though.

3) The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Again, No. I'll convince the fat man to walk away also.

Or we could look for a large rock to drop.

4) An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Should you blast Big Jack out?

First, the idiot who lets a fat guy be the scout in such a situation should be shot.

Next, blast away.

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

You mean I'm the stuck guy? Blast away.

But those people better remember to send me plenty of money in the afterlife or else I'll come back to haunt them.

 

[7ronin]

I would get up from the bed and unhook myself. I am not under any moral or ethical obligation to save the life of the violinist.

 

[Dann]

The first thought experiment is like accidental pregnancy and refusing to spend 9 months of your life to save someone may be equivalent to ‘pro-choice’. Agreeing to save the violinist for cash is similar to the practice, in some cultures, of putting your kids to work in return for allowing them to live. Agreeing to stay linked by tube to the patient is similar to pro-life, assuming that the steps were taken to prevent the pregnancy and they failed.

Kids ARE an investment. You let them be born, care for them, bring them up, educate them, pay for college, heck even help with their marriage expenses. In return they're supposed to take care of all your needs when you're old and grey.

You board aplane for a long (6 hour) non stop flight. You have your new laptop and three movies you haven't seen. You are in a two seat row and a young (your age) woman sits next to you. Just as the pilot permits you to turn on your computer you notice the girl is crying softly to herself. How do you spend the flight?

Is she hot or not? That would affect my decision very crucially.

 

[HawkeyeGS]

1) I am not obligated but would certainly be inclined to stay anyway.

2) While I am against killing a small amount of people to save a large amount I would flip it because this is not killing (like as in shooting someone) but physically saving people.

3) I would not jump off or push the fat bloke off. I don't do harm or self-harm.

4) Again i am not into harm. I am sure that under the circumstances there would be another method out or the perceived way out is not a way out really.

 

[Xenocrates]

do I have sex or not?

We should have a poll on this very question. Should Warpus....

The difference, of course, is that in your scenario I was abducted and had no choice whatsoever over whether I was going to be used to keep the musician alive. Getting pregnant, on the other hand, relies on you making a decision - do I have sex or not?

So yeah, that's not a valid analogy.

The point is that in both cases your decision will cause the life or death of another individual. If you argue that unexpected and 'protected against' pregnancy is ethically different from the violinist scenario it's interesting to know why. That's the point really. Maybe your precautions against abduction failed in the same way as the condom?

 

[capslock]

The first one is not a good abortion anology, unless:

1) the woman was raped
2) the scenario adds the stipulation that you caused the truama that is killing the violinist

A woman is in TOTAL control, and can easily avoid getting "kidnapped" by her child. How, in the scenario, am I supposed to avoid being kidnapped? It starts with me awaking in the hospital. Am I to understand that women can wake up suddenly pregnant, ambushed by a baby they don't want? If there is ever some kind of miracle conception like this, then I would say abortion is an option. I know, however, that it doesn't work that way, and the woman's condition is a direct result of her decisions and actions. Me waking up in a hospital is in no way similar.

edit: at least the scenario acknowledges that the unborn child is a human individual, thats a plus

Sorry for the rant. On topic, I liked the questions and its interesting to see how others answer. I just didn't like the explanation for the first one, partly because I answered that I have no obligation to stay, but I am a strongly opposed to abortion.

 

[Xenocrates]

The woman had sex and didn't expect to get pregnant because they used a condom. When we walk down the street we don't usually take any precautions against kidnap. Yet we all know that abduction is not against the laws of physics.

Of course there is a difference between the two scenarios and that difference will allow us to understand ethics.

Similarities:

Cutting the tubes to the violinist will result in his death, exactly as they would for a foetus.

Neither you nor the woman expected to be in that position.

Differences:

You only have 9 months of servitude to the violinist, but 18 years to the foetus.

You weren't directly responsible for the illness of the violinist, but the foetus wouldn't have existed without your action.

The probabilities of pregnancy with a condom and abduction like this are different, but probability doesn't control ethics, or does it?

The violinist won't need welfare and isn't a criminal but your son/daughter might be. Another probability point.

Questions:

Would it make any difference if the violinist was a baby?
Would it make any difference if the violinist was your son, daughter, mother or father?

Perhaps we need some women to post on this (hint) for balance!

Personally I've never been able to make up my mind on the abortion question. I'd sincerely like to know why other people can be certain about it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

How do you spend the flight?

Cursing my lousy luck and trying to get another seat.

 

[Shaihulud]

1.) I would stay connected and save that fellows life, although i will expect to be paid for my services, nothing too exorbitant.

2.) Yes i will divert the trolley. I don't see how this can be a question of ethical decision, there is only one right solution.

3.) No i will not push him. I don't like to put people through troubles and i will definitely react without considering such an unethical act anyway.

4.) Jack will die for the greater good, maybe i can tear off his ears so the rest of the group can escape, but then he will not be able to fit though the hole anyway.

 

[warpus]

The point is that in both cases your decision will cause the life or death of another individual. If you argue that unexpected and 'protected against' pregnancy is ethically different from the violinist scenario it's interesting to know why. That's the point really. Maybe your precautions against abduction failed in the same way as the condom?

I am responsible for my actions. When I have sex, I know that there is a chance that I'll get the girl pregnant - and the girl knows that by having sex with me she can get pregnant - even if we use protection and are very careful. We are morally responsible for the consequences of our actions - this would include an 'accidental' pregnancy.

On the other hand, none of my actions lead to the violinist's injury - therefore I am not morally responsible for him being injured.

That is the difference - in the first case I was involved in the decision making process that lead to the pregnancy. In the second case, I had nothing to do with the injury whatsoever.

If I somehow got pregnant, without having sex, or having been artificially inseminated (pretend I'm female for a sec) I'd say that the scenarios would in that case be morally equivalent.

 

[warpus]

Xenocrates

To give you a better idea of why I think that the 2 scenarios aren't morally equivalent, I'll explain myself again with an example.

Scenario A: I roundhouse kick a guy in the face - he was getting on my nerves. Next thing I know he's in the hospital and dying - and he needs my kidney to survive - and ONLY my kidney. (pretend for a sec that that is somehow medically feasible)

Scenario B: Some random person I've never heard of until today tells me that he will die in 5 days unless I give him one of my kidneys - no other person's kidney will do.

Sure, in both scenarios there's a life on the line - but in scenario A there's a life on the line BECAUSE OF ME, whereas in scenario B I wasn't involved at all.

 

[Xenocrates]

I paint a picture and I decide that I no longer like it. So I decide to burn it.

I walk into a gallery and see a picture painted by another artist and I burn it.

Some would argue that destroying your own creation is morally better than destroying the creation of another.

You have nailed the most significant difference, but in both cases the end result is the same: someone dies. Why does the issue of who created that life matter? Maybe there are evolutionary reasons to favour the killing of other people's kids? In that case our ethics are perverted by the self-interest of our genome. But, we should then be happy that others are killing their own foetus's as it gives ours more chance of survival.... This is genuinely tricky to understand.

If we peruade others to keep their children it actually leads to more competition for resources, more crime and more disease risk for our own offspring. In the long term I contend that preventing abortion leads to more deaths and allowing abortion to fewer deaths. So, like in the train experiment, we are directing the train towards the five to save the one.....

 

[warpus]

You have nailed the most significant difference, but in both cases the end result is the same: someone dies. Why does the issue of who created that life matter?

In the case of the injured musician, if I injured him and am responsible for his situation, then I have a moral obligation to help him - a higher moral obligation than I would have to someone who is injured that I DIDN'T have anything to do with.

I see that you're attempting to make a point about abortion - I won't engage you in that discussion right now. I am merely commenting on the validity of the supposed moral equivalency between the scenario involving the musician and an accidental pregnancy - they are not equivalent.

 

[Technocactus]

I saw a fascinating poll on ethics on a website (no link as there are clues there). Think about this question and post your answers with reasons.

1) One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

These other question were there too, if anyone's interested:

2) A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3) The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

4) An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. Should you blast Big Jack out?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?

Fascinating stuff!

1) I'd only stay if he pays handsomely.
2) I'd flip the switch.
3) I'd shove the guy.
4a) Kill Jack.
4b) Frankly, I'd rather keep my life than sacrifice myself for any amount of people.

 

[Ayatollah So]

warpus:

@ the original post: cases 2 and 3 show the difference between using another person (the fat man) to stop something bad from happening, versus a foreseeable harmful consequence (the one guy on the one track getting run over) of stopping something bad from happening. There's too much moral hazard in using people that way - it's hard to know if the people on the track might have been able to get out of the way anyway, for example, and even harder in most real life cases to know what will happen in the alternative. Better to have a blanket rule against using people like that.

 

[Xenocrates]

People use ethics to justify their opinions about war, abortion and all of the other typical forum topics.

I just thought it would be interesting to build up to these issues from the ethical foundation rather than making assumptions about the ethics of the posters.

BBC poll

1) 25% thought they were obliged to save the violinist so far
2) 76% said they would divert the trolly onto the single victim
3) 25% wanted to push the fat man down onto the track to stop the train.
4) 75% said that they would blast big jack.

Now, anyone have a clue what this means? There seems to be a 3-1 split here.

 

[Narz]

I would stay with the violinist if they paid me and also if helping keep him alive would not harm me in any way. I would not give him any of my organs though maybe a little of my blood.

I would not kill to save others. Only exception is if it meant saving a loved one or myself. I still would seek other alternatives rather than the ones presented here.

 

[Xenocrates]

There's never a statistician or a sociologist around when you want one.....