|
|
|||||||
| 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 |
|
#122
04-14-2007, 02:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You're welcome. Why would anyone call you silly? [/ QUOTE ] Fixed your error. [/ QUOTE ] well done. Now we've cleared that up, what's your view on criminality in optimal imperfect systems? chez 
|
|
#124
04-14-2007, 03:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
In this instance, it's still close enough and it is basically the same situation. I would randomly pull one and still pick one over five. I see what you are getting at, and you are right---as the situation branches out more and more and everybody ends up involved, then everybody is "involved" but not really. HOWEVER that is a hypothetical extrapolation and in reality as the situation branched out further, the core of the problem would likely still center around the main five and potentially some other small number of people. All of society is not going to happen to be walking on X number of tracks. So the situation in any practical scenario is still enclosed, IMHO.
The guy in scenario 2 represents an arbitrary member of society in a place where all members of society go at some point and is not implicitly involved. Five people on a train track is an uncommon situation and hence enclosed. My point in the first post was not that 5 people outweigh one, but that the circumstances dictate when sacrificing one is acceptable. In the latter scenario, the psychological damage and civil unrest in a society where 5 ALWAYS outweighs 1 does more damage than the uncommon occurance where one person is sacrificed but another (arbitrary) person on the same tracks has no expectation of being sacrificed. The specific circumstances and moral obligations to the minority in everyday situations make the cases separate. Good point though. I understand what you are saying, and admittedly my view is a bit of a stretch, but I stand by it.
|
|
#125
04-14-2007, 05:49 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Morality poll
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Balls. I'd actually read scenario 1 in the past and followed it with the slight change to make it into scenario 2. A Woodside pointed them it out a few posts earlier. Thing was I couldn't quite remember how it all worked through and balls'd it up. The 1 dying in scenario 1 is just unlucky as it's the sidetrack that saves the 5, the 1 dying in scenario 2 is murder as it's his organs that save the 5. I.e. the post of mine you quoted was utter [censored]. Hope this is clearer. [/ QUOTE ] I'm with you on this distinction, and its one thats been made and called important by several people. But to me it isn't quite that cut and dried, although it is extremely important to me, as it pertains to my ethical beliefs on several other topics (abortion for one). In scenario 1, we can say that the death is an unavoidable but unintended side-effect of saving the 5 lives, in that it is the switching which saves the lives, not the 'train hitting the poor sap.' I'm with you so far. But now, in scenario 2, we are no longer able to say this? Why? It isn't the murder of the poor sap that is saving these peoples lives...that is an unavoidable, but unintended, consequence of removing his organs. We can remove his organs in such a way that he does not immediately die, but he will inexorably die as a result of our actions. But it is the removal of his organs that save the lives. I know there is a distinction here, but it isn't as obvious to me as it apparently is to others. We can understand removing blood as not killing someone, we can understand removing kidneys as not killing someone, even if these procedures do sometimes lead to a death. And we've established that it isn't the CERTAINTY of his death that matters, since the death is certain in both scenarios. What is it about 'removing organs' that is different than 'flipping a switch?' [/ QUOTE ] When you're flicking a switch the only people involved are you and the switch and your decision is final. When you're removing organs, the organ owner is involved and his opinion on keeping his organs is, at least, equal to that of you, the organ taker. This is the difference.
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
