Thread: Runaway Train Dilemma

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I agree that it might be flawed and inconsistent. That's because morality isn't objective. We use emotion to decide what, at a core level, we think is right and wrong. As Stormcrow discussed, there is no 'right' nor 'wrong' independent of our minds. The moral choices are only right because most people feel that they are. It's disconcerting, but I don't see another way to measure morality when one doesn't believe in anything divine.

Well, something not being 'objective' doesn't imply inconsistency. There are plenty examples of things which are, or at least, are conceivably, consistent, yet not objectively real in any sense. Alternate geometries, for instance. Or... the quality of music. Assigning subjective values to music isn't 'objective', but it can at least, for the individual, be done consistently. The fact that morality seems that it can't be is what is concerning. We would like to think that it is possible to create meaning.

The only consistent morality I think I can say I know of is nihilism.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well, something not being 'objective' doesn't imply inconsistency. There are plenty examples of things which are, or at least, are conceivably, consistent, yet not objectively real in any sense. Alternate geometries, for instance. Or... the quality of music. Assigning subjective values to music isn't 'objective', but it can at least, for the individual, be done consistently. The fact that morality seems that it can't be is what is concerning. We would like to think that it is possible to create meaning.

I suppose I agree, but it isn't a very big deal, because these situations rarely come up. People generally agree on what's morally correct, even though we can't always explain why in a consistent way. But when we do disagree, it is concerning. I think the issue of abortion is one of these (ignoring religious bias).

Actually, I find the fact that all of our actions are performed to meet our desires, and that those desires have no basis other than the fact that we desire them, more concerning. (But this issue is a branch off of that one, I think).

I would disagree, I think disagreements about morality are widespread and have fundamental consequences. Capital punishment, warfare, abortion; these are contentious and important. The entire basis of society, the moral rights of collectives versus individuals; directly linked to this issue and with huge implications.

Aren't those only important issues that are focused on because of the disagreements? There are not many disagreements over whether stealing, murder or rape should be illegal, for instance.

Is taxation theft? Is war murder?

Wait, this is a philosophical discussion? I thought it was black humour.

Originally Posted by Xei

Is taxation theft? Is war murder?

Those are special circumstances, the situations are more complicated. Ask anyone on the street and you aren't going to hear that murder as we generally think of it is right.

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Wait, this is a philosophical discussion? I thought it was black humour.

It's nothing like Kenan and Kel...

Originally Posted by ♥Mark

Wait, this is a philosophical discussion? I thought it was black humour.

Originally Posted by Xei

It's nothing like Kenan and Kel...

I'm sorry. Just found this to be absolutely hilarious. Carry on.

I wish I knew what that was.

I'd probably let the train squish the baby.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

I wish I knew what that was.

Good too know I'm not the only one.

Originally Posted by Xei

10 infants vs. one infant.

The entire number of lives at stake are completely identical, my answer would be pretty obvious. :p

Uhh... you would make the same decision as last time?

Put it this way. I'm bat-shit crazy over french silk pie, It's my favorite type of pie. I also like lemon meringue but I like french silk much more. If I had a choice between 10 lemon meringue's vs 1 french silk, of course I'm choosing french silk. Now, if I had a choice between 10 french silks vs 1 french silk, I'm choosing 10. The more the merrier babe!

I'm a quality over quantity type of guy.

Originally Posted by Xei

You taking philosophy A-Level?

No; further maths, chemistry, economics.

I'm not fond of the hypothetical but I like the discussion of comparing life. Each individual life is so unique it's illogical to attempt to solve this moral paradox mathematically. Not only that but the chain of events are unpredictable and it's unknowable what kind of consequences could emerge. That baby could be Hitler, or Einstein (I'm assuming only Germans leave their babies unattended on train tracks). Those ten people could be the 49ers defensive line. Actually if that were the case I'd let it stay on course cause nothing can get past their defensive line (except maybe the falcons).

There are certain principles that can be worked out in a pretty agreeable way. For instance I think we can all agree though action is required to kill the baby and none is required to kill the 10 people, the absence of action is a decision equal to action. Choosing to let events run their course makes you just as responsible for the way events turned out as if you had intervened.

I also think we can agree that no matter which decision you make, you'll feel like shit. Even if you killed Hitler, because he'll never have a chance to grow into the wicked thing he was. For all you know, you just killed a baby.

In most situations, I would let the train kill the people, then I'd late-abort the baby. Humans suck.

OK, I know it's a philosophical question, and it's hypothetical, but I have trouble answering questions like this since this scenario is so extremely unlikely to exist. What people stand on train tracks (and what are the odds they are immediately after a switch, and someone else is on the other track, with all 11 people completely oblivious to the train coming, yet somehow I'm oblivious and unable to warn the people to run?) I like the doctor scenario that was brought up earlier, but even that is different because organs are physically a part of people...

I'd save the baby. If 10 people are unable to understand that you shouldn't stand on train tracks... we can let them take one (or 10) for the human race. Someone was clearly evil/stupid enough to leave a baby on the tracks, I don't think the baby should suffer for that evil/stupid decision.

I don't understand why it's difficult to answer.

I think that people who say it is are recognizing on some level that it is a difficult situation. It's a moral dilemma, but they make the excuse that the reason they can't answer it is because the people are stupid or something. That shouldn't come into play at all.

A little imagination can solve the 'not likely to actually happen' problem. Say a bus and a car have crashed on the tracks. Meanwhile a woman was pushing a baby carriage across the adjacent set of tracks. She got sideswiped by the bus and is dead now, but the baby carriage is sitting right on the tracks. So, no evil involved - no mustachioed Snidely Whiplash tying babies onto the tracks. Just a terrible accident laying out the pieces for this little game you must now play.

It's not a hard answer for me; I'd save the baby. I just have trouble trying to make this situation seem in ANY way possible. Because I would never be in this situation so I would never need to make a split-second decision. There are so many reasons why this scenario wouldn't exist for me.

I prefer questions with which I have even the slightest, tiniest chance of facing one day. The difficulty isn't in the response, it's that the question is designed to FORCE you to choose from A or B, when other options exist (even though this scenario would not exist.)

And to Darkmatters, I would have to be the conductor to have any control over the switch...

To all of the train engineers out there... I hope you never face this scenario. If you do... blow the whistle a few times so the people aren't oblivious. (And I apologize to the bus-riders for having a busdriver that did not follow the law by stopping before crossing.) If anyone dies, it's the bus driver's fault.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

It's a moral dilemma, but they make the excuse that the reason they can't answer it is because the people are stupid or something.

I'm sorry I said the word stupid. What I meant was that adult humans standing on train tracks should be able to help themselves, if they don't, something's wrong with them not specified in the OP.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

It's not a hard answer for me; I'd save the baby. I just have trouble trying to make this situation seem in ANY way possible. Because I would never be in this situation so I would never need to make a split-second decision. There are so many reasons why this scenario wouldn't exist for me.

I prefer questions with which I have even the slightest, tiniest chance of facing one day. The difficulty isn't in the response, it's that the question is designed to FORCE you to choose from A or B, when other options exist (even though this scenario would not exist.)

And to Darkmatters, I would have to be the conductor to have any control over the switch...

To all of the train engineers out there... I hope you never face this scenario. If you do... blow the whistle a few times so the people aren't oblivious. (And I apologize to the bus-riders for having a busdriver that did not follow the law by stopping before crossing.) If anyone dies, it's the bus driver's fault.

Wait - you'd have to be the conductor? There are switches alongside the tracks that people can push to switch the train to the other track.




Also - are you saying that accidents never happen on train tracks, or that because a bus driver stops and looks both ways at the track that automatically means he can't suddenly be struck head-on by a drunk driver coming over the tracks the other way?



Or are you simply saying that you refuse to engage in abstract reasoning?

We could do it another way... let's say you're in a real-life Saw movie...

By saving the baby, you're not killing the 10 people. The situation existed before you got there, and you had no hand in the making of it. You're not morally responsible.

On the other hand, by killing the baby, you did create the situation and thus share some of the blame for the baby's death.

Therefore, morally the best choice is to do nothing. End thread.

Originally Posted by cmind

By saving the baby, you're not killing the 10 people. The situation existed before you got there, and you had no hand in the making of it. You're not morally responsible.

On the other hand, by killing the baby, you did create the situation and thus share some of the blame for the baby's death.

Therefore, morally the best choice is to do nothing. End thread.

This, I can assuredly say is wrong. I'm pretty sure we'll all mostly agree this is wrong. Due to the complexity of life, I cannot say for certain whether 10 lives is worth more than 1, or whether 1,000,000 lives is worth more than one, but I can tell you that we are equally responsible for both action and inaction. To not pull that switch is a decision in just the same way as pulling the switch is. You are choosing who should die and you are responsible whether you do something or not.