Ethics

[Xenocrates]

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!

 

[Heretic_Cata]

1) I have no obligation to stay there, but if he is world famous that means he has money. If he pays than i'll stay there.

2) Yes. But only hypotheticaly, kuz i am not good in crisis situations ...

3) Probably not...

4) If the other 3 tourists & Jack agrees then dynamite. If Jack doesn't agree but the 3 other do then dynamite him anyway...
Reverse:
I get out of there, even with my skin torn away ... but if not then:
- think of other ways for them to escape ... swimming or smthing

If i allow them do die then how the hell am i going to get out of that hole ?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

1. Why should it matter if the guy is a great violinist or not? The implication then is that anyone other than a great violinist wouldnt be worth saving. I feel an obligation to help save the persons life, and then even more obligated to initiate legal proceedings against the music geeks that kidnapped me.

2. Depends on who the one person is who would die to save the five. It could be a loved one of mine, in which case, say goodbye to the five other people.

3. I dont jump off of bridges. I also dont try to shove other people off of bridges.

4. Id place the stick of dynamite in the rectum of whatever idiot let Big Jack go first, light it and dive underwater as deeply as I can to get away from the blast.

 

[Xenocrates]

4. Id place the stick of dynamite in the rectum of whatever idiot let Big Jack go first, light it and dive underwater as deeply as I can to get away from the blast.

Errm LOL I think it was you Bozo!

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Well in that case, if theres anything you need to discuss with Big Jack, youd better hurry before he gets blown out of the hole like a champagne cork on New Years Eve!

 

[Xenocrates]

After one day I'll link the site and let you know the implications of these thought experiments!

 

[warpus]

1. I would attempt to negotiate with the music geeks, saying that I will do everything in my power to disconnect the tubes unless we can come to some sort of an agreement - likely involving exchange of money. I would be bluffing - it would be hard for me to disconnect the tubes - but 9 months is a long time and worth a lot to me... and it's likely I'd go crazy lying there and disconnect the tubes out of frustration.

2. Depends on who the people are.

3. No, I wouldn't push him. First of all, it'd be impossible for me to know that he'd stop the trolley - second of all, I couldn't bring myself to push somebody to a certain dath.

4. I wouldn't have used the dynamite for this reason - if there is a way to get 'Big Jack' out of the hole - it most certainly would not involve dynamite. Dynamite would just mess $@!t up.

 

[skadistic]

1) Only if he pays

2) No. If they can't get out of the way thats thier fault and the world could use a few less idiots that are to stupid to get out of the way or know better not to get in the way in the first place.

3) I'm torn on this one. On one hand you have idiots that probaly deserve to be eliminated. And on the other you have a man that doesn't care about himself wich is evident by his poor eating habbits and taking him out would save the world a small chunk of money in health care costs.

4a) Screw Jack. I'd have never let him go first anyway.

4b) I wouldn't have needed to.

 

[bhsup]

1) - absolutely would not stay. I have obligations to family and so forth, not to mention that I was abducted against my will.

2) - Only if the group who are, by choice of fate, either kids with an adult on the other track, or they are all women with a man on the other track. My gut reaction is revulsion at choosing one person who otherwise would not be in danger simply to spare others that fate/chance/whatever put in harms way. However, I would always choose to save children over an adult and choose to save women over a man.

3) - Yes, No

4) - Appeal to Jack's humanitarian nature. If that is not sufficient, I guess we're dead.

EDIT: Just to be consistent, choices # 3 and 4 I would need more information on. For example, in # 4, are Jack and I scout leaders who are responsible for the safety of 3 kids? If that's the case, and Jack won't voluntarily let himself be blown up...well, tough luck Jack.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

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 would, for money
2) Rather one dead than many
3) I would probably just hesitate and not do anything. I can't be sure he will stop it.
4) Blast the fatso

 

[silver 2039]

1. Sure why not, but I want money
2. Yes one will die so many may live
3. Yes once again one will die so many will live
4. One will die so the rest of the group will live go ahead

 

[Xenocrates]

I'll link the official website soon, but i want to change the train example thus:

You are alone on the forked line and have the only lever by your hand.
5 other people are on the other fork and the train is coming. You can either take the train in the face or send it the other way to squash the 5 people. you can't stop it and there is no other course of action, such as escape.

What will you do?

Does the answer change if:

The train is coming towards you curently or towards them?
The other group are, in your opinion, bad people?

 

[warpus]

I'll link the official website soon, but i want to change the train example thus:

You are alone on the forked line and have the only lever by your hand.
5 other people are on the other fork and the train is coming. You can either take the train in the face or send it the other way to squash the 5 people. you can't stop it and there is no other course of action, such as escape.

What will you do?

Does the answer change if:

The train is coming towards you curently or towards them?
The other group are, in your opinion, bad people?

If it's either them or me - I'd save my own life.

 

[The 777 Hoax]

1.) No way. Get me out of there.

2.) Probably.

3.) I don't plan on jumping out in front of a trolley car anyway.

4.) Well, what kind of idiot tried to push the fat guy through the hole first?!?!

 

[Heretic_Cata]

You are alone on the forked line and have the only lever by your hand.
5 other people are on the other fork and the train is coming. You can either take the train in the face or send it the other way to squash the 5 people. you can't stop it and there is no other course of action, such as escape.

What will you do?

Does the answer change if:

The train is coming towards you curently or towards them?
The other group are, in your opinion, bad people?

A):I think they (police) would be able to "trace" the fact that i killed the 5 ppl by pulling the switch. But i would still pull it...

a) no, but i could lie to them and say "i can't pull it...", "it's stuck".
b) if they are bad ppl in my opinion then i would choose to kill them with less hesitation and no remorse.

EDIT: 1500 posts w0000t

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

1) I would leave. Im sure someone else who apreciates his music would do this for him
2)id do it, and say i didnt see the person on the other track. I would be a hero.
3) i would do it, its basicly the same as 2
4) bombs away, in both cases.

 

[Xenocrates]

OK thanks for replies everyone.

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.

The second and third experiments are similar to the argument in the stated aims of the war in Iraq. Kill a few to save many. However the real war in Iraq is the opposite of that; save the few to kill the many….

The fourth experiment is similar to global warming, big Jack represents the big consumers of the first world and the ‘drowners’ the third world. Arguing to blow Jack is like arguing to blow up the rich to save the environment and thus save the poor. It’s a dilemma, especially if you are big Jack!

The one that I made up, I tried to make equivalent to suicide bombers, who sacrifice themselves to kill people they think are bad in order to save many people that they think are good. However I didn’t get it right and it’s not quite the same.

Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

The point of doing this was to see whether people's opinions were truly derived from ethical thought or simply from emotion. Any comments?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Here is another dilemna for you all:

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?

 

[Perfection]

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

 

[warpus]

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.

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?

A closer equivalent to an accidental pregnancy would have been: "Through a series of unfortunate events, you end up severely injuring a famous musician. Somehow, your type of blood is the only type that will save him - and you'd need to be hooked up to him for 9 months - otherwise he dies. Do you agree to help him?"

So yeah, that's not a valid analogy.