Double bind questions in OP's post will always have someone feeling affected in a negative way. And there's many factors that can make others unconsciously choose one option over the other, and a prime example is generally judging if the survivors would be worth it in the end in terms of having potential of creating more lives. Sort of how a person might save a child compared to an 80 year old man who pretty much doesn't have much to offer to the table with natural selection and offspring.
Kind of like a question someone might ask with,
"You haven't beaten your wife lately have you? Yes or No"
Although that might seem easy to answer, even if they say no, it sends an implication that before they probably beaten their wife. So it's a matter of really thinking things through. Because words like "healthy," "aware," etc. can all cause unconscious emotional triggers that can truly be the determining factor in how a person unconsciously makes the decision without little to no cognitive processing (seeing how these scenarios are more of reaction rather than having more time judging).
The Trolley
You find yourself on a trolley headed down a track. You see 5 unaware people in front of you on the track which the trolley is about to hit and kill. You may choose to pull a lever which will send the trolley down a different track, which one hiker is walking across. If you choose to hit the lever, you'll be killing the hiker, who was minding his own business, to save the other 5 people. Do you pull the lever?
Since I'm unaware of those 5 people being male or female or even their ages to determine which one would be able to procreate because of this and many factors, ultimately, I would've made an unconscious judgement that saving the lives of 5 would be better overall. Unless I knew in advance that those 5 people were just as capable of creating more life through reproduction as the hiker. But because I'm not aware of this, I'd HIT the lever.
Of course, I would feel guilty in the end, but even if I saved the guy instead of the 5 people, he and I would have greater emotional intensity of guilt because it's now just the two of us. When it comes to saving the 5 and killing the one guy, the emotional intensity is shared between the 5 and me, and it's easier to justify why my actions felt "just."
Because the action of pulling the lever, it becomes a situation where my life is on the line, so because I'm not necessarily causing the murder directly, it becomes a situation where "I had to do it for my safety." Because anyone is going to unconsciously pull the trigger if they could.
The Bridge
You are standing on a bridge above a trolley in a similar situation to the last, except there is no one in the trolley now and it will definitely hit the 5 people. A stranger is standing next to you. You know, somehow, that if you push this person off the bridge, they will land on the track and slow down the trolley enough to save everyone else. Of course this will kill the person. Do you push him off?
Since this is a scenario with abnormal Physics, implying that the body composition is enough to actually slow down a trolley that clearly weighs more than the person and is most likely isn't going to have its speed slowed down significantly to practically save those 5 people, I wouldn't even begin to push that person off the bridge.
The mere action of grabbing and pushing that person off is an act of murder, and at most, with the logic of abnormal Physics in this scenario, I'd probably just use an inanimate object to throw towards the bridge. Because that same stranger could've grabbed me and threw me off, and when people know that he essentially caused my death directly (or the other way around if I did it to him), they'll ask, "Was it really worth it?"
Because no one could really know if I had intentions to kill the stranger next to me, and using that situation with the machinery going towards those people's deaths and using that to cover up my plans (implying if I did had thoughts of murder), it would just be a shitty mess altogether. So I would just let those people die.
It's not my fault, nor is it the stranger's fault, we couldn't do anything, so no point throwing each other off like we're projectiles. Shit happens.
The Patients
You are a doctor with 5 patients. Each one is suffering from the failure of a vital organ, and there have been no matches found for transplants. All 5 patients are surely going to die. A 6th patient comes in for a regular check-up, and you find they are completely healthy. Also, during your analysis, you find that his organs happen to be perfect matches for your 5 dying patients. Do you murder the healthy person to save the other 5?
Kind of pointless seeing how unless he has 5 hearts, 5 kidneys, 5 livers, and whatever set of 5 vital organs to save those individuals, it's often unnecessary. But if that person is completely healthy, presuming that's a health report given to me in advance during my dilemma with 5 people, I wouldn't kill him.
The mere act of performing a dangerous surgery, even with the assurance that the person's vital organs can save them, there's always the probability that I would fuck up the procedure. Simply because the more pressure there is because of the death of that person to save one or all 5 of those people's lives is augmented. This increases the chance of whatever skill set I have that allowed me to be a doctor in the first place to become less efficient.
So if they're surely going to die, I would never even kill that other healthy person since it's not only impractical, but just another act of murder. The same principle would apply to just killing off your neighbor just to save your daughter who needs a heart transplant. You'd surely go to jail as a parent, and the child is going to think their existence is bullshit because their parents had to kill someone else to save them. They'll start having too many expectations of having to do well in order to compensate and not let the person's death be in vain.
Does your answer to any of these questions change if you would be saving less or more people than 5? What about 2 people? What about 10,000?
Either way, if I know the person is healthy, not going to kill them. If I have a situation where a lever is close by to me, I'd pull it because there's always the excuse to say one unconsciously pulled it. If I'm far away from death, and suddenly people around me become projectiles to save others, I wouldn't do that since I am not obligated to get my ass thrown in prison for murder. The whole "was it worth it," even if I found some way to win, everybody would still lose in having emotional trauma that probably won't fade away that easily.
|
|
Bookmarks