Greetings,
I wish to poll our delightful forum on this moral dilemma. The (personally) counter-intuitive responses I've seen in other threads about this issue have surprised me, so I wanted to make a clean poll about it.
Assumptions:
- These people whose lives are at stake are all equally "innocent" (have an equal right to life under your standard or any standard of right to life)
- There is no personal threat to your well-being (besides any psychological trauma from killing an innocent person)
- If you do nothing, five innocent people will die. If you kill one innocent person, nobody will die other than the one innocent person. The long-term considerations for both cases are irrelevant and/or equal.
- The probabilities and certainties of the situation are perfectly clear and known. For example, this isn't a hostage situation where you have to kill one so that the rest go free (you wouldn't know that the hostage-takers wouldn't kill everyone anyways). This is a magical hypothetical where you know for certain the results of your action (or inaction) to be as they are currently laid out.
- ADDENDUM: This is a choice that is forced upon you (rather than one you seek out). Please disregard the idea that choosing the morally obligatory option would imply that each one of us should go out and start killing people whose deaths would save a lot of lives.
The context of the problem has been left intentionally vague and undefined. The list of assumptions is not exhaustive; please try to stay within the "spirit" of the problem.
Would you kill one innocent person in order to save five?
If you believe that it is morally obligatory, then any person put into this position SHOULD kill the one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this would be considered good. A person who would refrain from doing this would be considered bad (alternatively under Kantian ethics, if the person wanted to do good by fulfilling this moral obligation, but couldn't under psychological imperatives, they could still be considered good, but let's not get into semantics).
Example: If you were to activate some sort of demolishing machine, and shortly afterward realize that an innocent child is in imminent danger from being killed by the activated machine, most would say that you are morally obligated to stop the machine.
If you believe that it is morally permissive, then any person put into this position would have the OPTION to kill one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this would be considered good. A person who would refrain from doing this would NOT be considered bad (note that they wouldn't be considered good either). It would be their option, but they wouldn't be morally obligated to do either way.
Example: If you were to donate funds to organizations that help feed starving children in Africa, you would be considered a good person... but you wouldn't be a bad person if you didn't.
If you believe that it is morally abhorrent, then any person put into this position SHOULD NOT kill one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this (kill the one person) would be considered bad. A person who would refrain from doing this could be considered good or neutral.
Example: If you were to hire a hit-man to kill a neighbour because the neighbour's clean front lawn outshines yours, you would be considered a bad person.
Note that I've placed forward a non-exhaustive list of moral options. This is how I want it to be. Certain options such as, for example, "morally irrelevant" (in which you value human life to be worthless) are disregarded.
So? How about it, OT?
I wish to poll our delightful forum on this moral dilemma. The (personally) counter-intuitive responses I've seen in other threads about this issue have surprised me, so I wanted to make a clean poll about it.
Assumptions:
- These people whose lives are at stake are all equally "innocent" (have an equal right to life under your standard or any standard of right to life)
- There is no personal threat to your well-being (besides any psychological trauma from killing an innocent person)
- If you do nothing, five innocent people will die. If you kill one innocent person, nobody will die other than the one innocent person. The long-term considerations for both cases are irrelevant and/or equal.
- The probabilities and certainties of the situation are perfectly clear and known. For example, this isn't a hostage situation where you have to kill one so that the rest go free (you wouldn't know that the hostage-takers wouldn't kill everyone anyways). This is a magical hypothetical where you know for certain the results of your action (or inaction) to be as they are currently laid out.
- ADDENDUM: This is a choice that is forced upon you (rather than one you seek out). Please disregard the idea that choosing the morally obligatory option would imply that each one of us should go out and start killing people whose deaths would save a lot of lives.
The context of the problem has been left intentionally vague and undefined. The list of assumptions is not exhaustive; please try to stay within the "spirit" of the problem.
Would you kill one innocent person in order to save five?
If you believe that it is morally obligatory, then any person put into this position SHOULD kill the one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this would be considered good. A person who would refrain from doing this would be considered bad (alternatively under Kantian ethics, if the person wanted to do good by fulfilling this moral obligation, but couldn't under psychological imperatives, they could still be considered good, but let's not get into semantics).
Example: If you were to activate some sort of demolishing machine, and shortly afterward realize that an innocent child is in imminent danger from being killed by the activated machine, most would say that you are morally obligated to stop the machine.
If you believe that it is morally permissive, then any person put into this position would have the OPTION to kill one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this would be considered good. A person who would refrain from doing this would NOT be considered bad (note that they wouldn't be considered good either). It would be their option, but they wouldn't be morally obligated to do either way.
Example: If you were to donate funds to organizations that help feed starving children in Africa, you would be considered a good person... but you wouldn't be a bad person if you didn't.
If you believe that it is morally abhorrent, then any person put into this position SHOULD NOT kill one innocent person to save the five. A person who would do this (kill the one person) would be considered bad. A person who would refrain from doing this could be considered good or neutral.
Example: If you were to hire a hit-man to kill a neighbour because the neighbour's clean front lawn outshines yours, you would be considered a bad person.
Note that I've placed forward a non-exhaustive list of moral options. This is how I want it to be. Certain options such as, for example, "morally irrelevant" (in which you value human life to be worthless) are disregarded.
So? How about it, OT?
)
