|
|
|||||||
| View Poll Results: If HR4411 does pass, will you continue to play online when/if ways around the law prevail? | |||
| Yes |
   
|
40 | 78.43% |
| No |
  
|
11 | 21.57% |
| Voters: 51. You may not vote on this poll | |||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#51
04-12-2007, 08:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, in the case OP presented, the trolley guy knows that one person will die. Therefore, it does make it necessary. If the man didn't know whether or not there was someone on the side track, then of course he would throw the switch. This example introduces another dynamic. That is, this trolley guy decides who is to live, and who is to die. I'm not certain his choice of an innocent bystander is the correct decision. The opposite holds true for chez's pilot. He doesn't know that someone must die. His goal is no deaths. By crashing in a sparsely populated area, he increases his chances of reaching his goal. He isn't looking into the eyes of someone on the ground (as the trolley guy is) and choosing who lives and dies. Obviously, his choice of a sparsely populated area is the correct one. I still see a real problem with throwing the switch. 
|
|
#52
04-12-2007, 08:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, in the case OP presented, the trolley guy knows that one person will die. Therefore, it does make it necessary. If the man didn't know whether or not there was someone on the side track, then of course he would throw the switch. Your example introduces another dynamic. That is, this trolley guy decides who is to live, and who is to die. I'm not certain his choice of an innocent bystander is the correct decision. The opposite holds true for chez's pilot. He doesn't know that someone must die. His goal is no deaths. By crashing in a sparsely populated area, he increases his chances of reaching his goal. He isn't looking into the eyes of someone on the ground (as the trolley guy is) and choosing who lives and dies. Obviously, his choice of a sparsely populated area is the correct one. I still see a real problem with throwing the switch. [/ QUOTE ] suppose in the trolly example its a 50% chance of killing each of 5 people or a 50% chance of killing 1. What about 90% or 99.9999% What changes when the probability becomes 1? Edit: Plus of course in any real type 1) situation he cannot know that anyone will die so a very high probability is what we should really consider. chez
|
|
#53
04-12-2007, 08:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
Minor sideline, I'm not judging based on that at all. That was just padding. The point was the uncertainty. [/ QUOTE ] Fair enough. I suppose what really matters is that even if everyone involved had equal utility (by whatever measure) then the scenarios would still be different. chez
|
|
#54
04-12-2007, 08:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not absolutely necessary that someone else get killed in the hospital situation - i.e. if there are organs already preserved from a previously dead person at hand, or if there is already another patient at the hospital who faces imminent death (assume a hopeless case) and has already agreed to donate his organs. Sure, that would be changing the hypothetical, but I certainly can do that if you can also postulate that situation 1 does not require a person standing (or tied up, whatever) on the other track. [/ QUOTE ] Sigh, one more time, then I think I'm done. Yes, you're correct, that is changing the hypothetical, which is one of the main things I'm arguing against. If you contantly change the hypothetical and introduce new elements to it (preserved organs that were never mentioned before) you're basically destroying any rigor the discussion may have and making it next to impossible to make any definitive statements about the morality involved (this task is hard enough already). Furthermore, I'm not changing the train hypothetical in any way by merely pointing out that the causal links are different than in the case of the doctor. I am not "postulating" anything. It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. Surely you can see that by merely observing this state of affairs I'm not changing diddly. [/ QUOTE ] Surely the death of *someone* is necessary for the organ transplant in #2. But the question - and the distinction I'm making - is whether the killing of someone is necessary in either #1 or #2. It is not, for the reasons I've stated previously (and quoted here). So once again, I say that I'm not changing hypothetical #2 any more than you are changing hypothetical #1 in this respect. What seals the case for me doesn't even have to do with the necessity of killing (or lack thereof). It's about the duties and responsibilities that are either assigned to the person in question or which said person assumes. [/ QUOTE ] Killing someone is necessary in case two because that is what the hypothetical stipulates. You have to take his organs, and this will kill him. This is an assumption the hypothetical is making, if you say otherwise you are talking about a different hypothetical. By introducing new organs that the doctor finds in the hospitals closet you are obviously changing the hypothetical. Obviously in the train case person 1 dies, but it's not directly in the causal chain in the same way as the doctor case. It looks like this if you take the saving 5 option: Case 1: Flip switch -> (a) save 5 people, (b) one guy dies Case 2: KILL patient -> (a) save 5 people It doesn't mean you have to think that this is morally relevant, and certainly under many moral systems it's not (utilitarian for example) but it IS a difference, and I am not changing a thing by pointing that out. Not sure why that's so hard to get across. **Again, I haven't said what my opinion is either way, just trying to point out the relevant discussion points**
|
|
#55
04-12-2007, 08:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. [/ QUOTE ] Unfortunately, in the case OP presented, the trolley guy knows that one person will die. Therefore, it does make it necessary. If the man didn't know whether or not there was someone on the side track, then of course he would throw the switch. This example introduces another dynamic. That is, this trolley guy decides who is to live, and who is to die. I'm not certain his choice of an innocent bystander is the correct decision. The opposite holds true for chez's pilot. He doesn't know that someone must die. His goal is no deaths. By crashing in a sparsely populated area, he increases his chances of reaching his goal. He isn't looking into the eyes of someone on the ground (as the trolley guy is) and choosing who lives and dies. Obviously, his choice of a sparsely populated area is the correct one. I still see a real problem with throwing the switch. [/ QUOTE ] The reason I said "not necessary in the same way" is because I recognize that there are different ways of using the word 'necessary' that may make what I'm saying confusing. Of course in the hypothetical it is 'necessary' that he dies if you flip the switch, because that's what the hypothetical says... What I mean by "not necessary in the same way" is that the causal chains of the events are different. In the train case you have to divert the train to save the 5, and there happens to be another guy in the way; in the doctor case you have to KILL the patient in order to save the 5, there is nothing incidental about it. A slightly different train situation that would be completely morally analogous to the doctor case would be this: There is a train that is going to run into 5 people a mile down the road. You see a really fat guy standing on a bridge above the track and know that if you push him in the way it will stop the train. Should you push him? Does this help clarify the difference I'm trying to get at?
|
|
#56
04-12-2007, 08:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It's not absolutely necessary that someone else get killed in the hospital situation - i.e. if there are organs already preserved from a previously dead person at hand, or if there is already another patient at the hospital who faces imminent death (assume a hopeless case) and has already agreed to donate his organs. Sure, that would be changing the hypothetical, but I certainly can do that if you can also postulate that situation 1 does not require a person standing (or tied up, whatever) on the other track. [/ QUOTE ] Sigh, one more time, then I think I'm done. Yes, you're correct, that is changing the hypothetical, which is one of the main things I'm arguing against. If you contantly change the hypothetical and introduce new elements to it (preserved organs that were never mentioned before) you're basically destroying any rigor the discussion may have and making it next to impossible to make any definitive statements about the morality involved (this task is hard enough already). Furthermore, I'm not changing the train hypothetical in any way by merely pointing out that the causal links are different than in the case of the doctor. I am not "postulating" anything. It's a fact that the death of person 1 is not necessary for saving 5 in the train case in the same way that the death of person 1 is necessary in the organ case. Surely you can see that by merely observing this state of affairs I'm not changing diddly. [/ QUOTE ] Surely the death of *someone* is necessary for the organ transplant in #2. But the question - and the distinction I'm making - is whether the killing of someone is necessary in either #1 or #2. It is not, for the reasons I've stated previously (and quoted here). So once again, I say that I'm not changing hypothetical #2 any more than you are changing hypothetical #1 in this respect. What seals the case for me doesn't even have to do with the necessity of killing (or lack thereof). It's about the duties and responsibilities that are either assigned to the person in question or which said person assumes. [/ QUOTE ] Killing someone is necessary in case two because that is what the hypothetical stipulates. You have to take his organs, and this will kill him. This is an assumption the hypothetical is making, if you say otherwise you are talking about a different hypothetical. By introducing new organs that the doctor finds in the hospitals closet you are obviously changing the hypothetical. Obviously in the train case person 1 dies, but it's not directly in the causal chain in the same way as the doctor case. It looks like this if you take the saving 5 option: Case 1: Flip switch -> (a) save 5 people, (b) one guy dies Case 2: KILL patient -> (a) save 5 people It doesn't mean you have to think that this is morally relevant, and certainly under many moral systems it's not (utilitarian for example) but it IS a difference, and I am not changing a thing by pointing that out. Not sure why that's so hard to get across. **Again, I haven't said what my opinion is either way, just trying to point out the relevant discussion points** [/ QUOTE ] I really don't see it that way. Under #1, you're killing one guy while saving 5 by actively flipping the switch, because you know that the person is on the other track. You have performed an affirmative action that directly and proximately caused one person's death. If you did not know that there was a person on the other track, then yes, you could say that the one person's death was incidental.. Basically, in terms of killing, there is no difference between #1 and #2. #1, as presented, does require us to kill one to save 5. #2, as presented, requires us to kill one to save 5. The difference lies in the extent of duty to which I've previously referred. I think what you're really trying to say is that under #2, you're not only killing the person, but using his organs in addition in order to save others. That is indeed a distinction, and might be relevant in another scope, but not in the way you've been arguing.
|
|
#57
04-12-2007, 09:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
suppose in the trolly example its a 50% chance of killing each of 5 people or a 50% chance of killing 1. What about 90% or 99.9999% What changes when the probability becomes 1? [/ QUOTE ] You're changing the scenerio, but this is just too easy. If there is any chance at all that no one will die, no matter how remote, then of course you throw the switch. No-brainer. But as soon as the probability becomes 1, and you have the choice, you must be passive. You have no right to decide who lives and who dies.
|
|
#58
04-12-2007, 09:05 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
Does this help clarify the difference I'm trying to get at? [/ QUOTE ] No, it doesn't. You're still deciding who lives and who dies. You would not throw the man off the bridge for the same reason I wouldn't throw the switch and kill the innocent bystander (or kill the man in the hospital) -- because it would be wrong.
|
|
#59
04-12-2007, 09:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] suppose in the trolly example its a 50% chance of killing each of 5 people or a 50% chance of killing 1. What about 90% or 99.9999% What changes when the probability becomes 1? [/ QUOTE ] You're changing the scenerio, but this is just too easy. If there is any chance at all that no one will die, no matter how remote, then of course you throw the switch. No-brainer. But as soon as the probability becomes 1, and you have the choice, you must be passive. You have no right to decide who lives and who dies. [/ QUOTE ] Okay you think its a no-brainer to say definite yes with a probability 99.99999999999999999999999999999 and a definite no with a probability 1. I think I agree with you though we may have a different definition of no-brainer [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] chez
|
|
#60
04-12-2007, 09:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't see it that way. Under #1, you're killing one guy while saving 5 by actively flipping the switch, because you know that the person is on the other track. You have performed an affirmative action that directly and proximately caused one person's death. If you did not know that there was a person on the other track, then yes, you could say that the one person's death was incidental.. Basically, in terms of killing, there is no difference between #1 and #2. #1, as presented, does require us to kill one to save 5. #2, as presented, requires us to kill one to save 5. The difference lies in the extent of duty to which I've previously referred. I think what you're really trying to say is that under #2, you're not only killing the person, but using his organs in addition in order to save others. That is indeed a distinction, and might be relevant in another scope, but not in the way you've been arguing. [/ QUOTE ] Read my alternative train scenario: There is a train about to run into 5 people down the track, there is a guy you can push in the way that will stop the train (nobody on the train gets hurt, please refrain from changing the hypothetical) from doing so, but it will kill this person. Do you find this situtation completely analogous to the first train case, or do you see a difference?
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
