Morality poll

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

No qualitative difference here whatsoever. I don't push the guy into the train for the same reason I don't pull the switch knowing I'm killing a guy. The fact that pulling a switch seems less personal than directly manhandling a guy is an aesthetic/emotive distinction that doesn't play a factor in my decision.

I expect you to come back and say something to the effect of, "you're *using* the fat guy to stop the train, but you aren't using anyone in the trolley case." If so, I say irrelevant as far as the decision to kill or not kill is concerned. If not, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you think the situations different as you clearly imply you do.

Edit: and while we're at it, perhaps you'd like to just come out and state your answers to the OP's poll instead of proclaiming and repeatedly emphasizing, as you have been doing, that you are not taking a position on the issue.

[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

No qualitative difference here whatsoever. I don't push the guy into the train for the same reason I don't pull the switch knowing I'm killing a guy. The fact that pulling a switch seems less personal than directly manhandling a guy is an aesthetic/emotive distinction that doesn't play a factor in my decision.

I expect you to come back and say something to the effect of, "you're *using* the fat guy to stop the train, but you aren't using anyone in the trolley case." If so, I say irrelevant as far as the decision to kill or not kill is concerned. If not, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on why you think the situations different as you clearly imply you do.

Edit: and while we're at it, perhaps you'd like to just come out and state your answers to the OP's poll instead of proclaiming and repeatedly emphasizing, as you have been doing, that you are not taking a position on the issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is some disconnect here. The reason I painstakingly point out that I'm not taking a position and that the difference I'm referencing may not be morally relevant to everyone is to try and pre-emptively stop objections from people that don't really understand how this type of ethical philosophy is done. I failed, obvi.

This is a classic case in ethical philosophy, used to illustrate and question exactly the issues I've brought up.