Warning: Dark scenario.

Help me out with this, if you will.

"Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok to painlessly kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five(?) why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the conductor's compartment of a runaway train and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the train onto the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the train left, killing one to save five (?)"

"But then why not kill Bill?"

Thoughts. Comments. Answers. Questions.

Is this some form of Saw15?

ArchEnemy:
Is this some form of Saw15?

Arguably worse.

What say you?

Kill Bill, or Saving Private Ryan Bill?

EnlightenedSoul:


Arguably worse.

What say you?

Kill Bill, or Saving Private Ryan Bill?

leave Bill alone

ArchEnemy:
leave Bill alone

Please do so. Logically.

Simple, I can't kill Bill because he is not in my path, he is not in my track, not in same room.
Same reason you don't feed every homeless guy in street 'cause you have enough cash.

P.S Funny that I saw kill Bill vol 2 last night. Eye patch vs blonde part

Akanniade:
Simple, I can't kill Bill because he is not in my path, he is not in my track, not in same room.
Same reason you don't feed every homeless guy in street 'cause you have enough cash.

P.S Funny that I saw kill Bill vol 2 last night. Eye patch vs blonde part

Fair enough....but he is in your path. You've the same initiative - saving lives.

It's def a great movie franchise. I haven't watched it in years.

I still stand with letting Bill live. Bill stands to live a more wholesome life. The harvested organs may fail their recipient or add just some extra years.

The 2 other scenarios requires instant decisions. You judge solely by number.

I can't kill Bill for the organs neither will I kill any of the hostages to save others. In the case of the people tied to the railway, I won't bother saving anyone since by doing so I may unintentionally take a life to save the life(s) of people I don't know their karma nor can I guarantee their actions tomorrow.

JustCare:
I can't kill Bill for the organs neither will I kill any of the hostages to save others. In the case of the people tied to the railway, I won't bother saving anyone since by doing so I may unintentionally take a life to save the life(s) of people I don't know their karma nor can I guarantee their actions tomorrow.

Some time ago, a 29 yr old woman passed away from a motor vehicle accident. The other driver had died on the scene, but though alive herself, she'd bled out too much and sustained severe injuries. A little while after hearing the trauma alert over the intercom, the DR would order but one test: HIV testing. That's how we knew she was dead, even before it was updated in our system as "EXPIRED". They'd done all they could, and now all they needed to know was whether or not all the blood that had expelled itself from her body was infectious.

Recently, I heard tell that she was the perfect candidate for someone who was waiting in desperation for an organ, but that she was not an organ donor, and that it was probably too late anyway.

Next thing you know, I come across this conundrum.

EnlightenedSoul:
Warning: Dark scenario.

Help me out with this, if you will.

"Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok to painlessly kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five(?) why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the conductor's compartment of a runaway train and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the train onto the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the train left, killing one to save five (?)"

"But then why not kill Bill?"

Thoughts. Comments. Answers. Questions.

girls dont ask smart questions like this, are you a guy?

As long as my life is not involved,,i walk away

EnlightenedSoul:


Some time ago, a 29 yr old woman passed away from a motor vehicle accident. The other driver had died on the scene, but though alive herself, she'd bled out too much and sustained severe injuries. A little while after hearing the trauma alert over the intercom, the DR would order but one test: HIV testing. That's how we knew she was dead, even before it was updated in our system as "EXPIRED". They'd done all they could, and now all they needed to know was whether or not all the blood that had expelled itself from her body was infectious.

Recently, I heard tell that she was the perfect candidate for someone who was waiting in desperation for an organ, but that she was not an organ donor, and that it was probably too late anyway.

Next thing you know, I come across this conundrum.

yes! all are difficult situations but we can only try 'smartly'. If we must help in some situations, then the help must be out of ones intuitive perception and with deep sense of logic.

mumumugu:
As long as my life is not involved,,i walk away

your life may be involved though but not directly as you think.

To answer you question E-soul. The right answer is always 'the greater good'.

But then, you also legitamize crazy individuals by taking their options seriously. Once you go down that path, its hard to come back from it.

I encourage you to watch this. Some of your questions have been asked and is answered by this Harvard Professor.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Ajuran:
To answer you question E-soul. The right answer is always 'the greater good'.
But then, you also legitamize crazy individuals by taking their options seriously. Once you go down that path, its hard to come back from it.
I encourage you to watch this. Some of your questions have been asked and is answered by this Harvard Professor.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

I disagree @ "The Greater Good"

By steering the trolley from its track, I'm choosing, actively, to kill that one person. Morally speaking, we always lend our focus to how upright the action itself is. The proper (moral) answer IMO, is to let the chips fall where they('re) may/meant.

The trolley was already on it's course. The consequence of that is (quite tragically) of no consequence, so to speak.

Nonetheless, I say well done to your attempt at intelligent conversation.

EnlightenedSoul:


I disagree @ "The Greater Good"

By steering the trolley from its track, I'm choosing, actively, to kill that one person. Morally speaking, we always lend our focus to how upright the action itself is. The proper (moral) answer IMO, is to let the chips fall where they('re) may/meant.

The trolley was already on it's course. The consequence of that is (quite tragically) of no consequence, so to speak.

Nonetheless, I say well done to your attempt at intelligent conversation.

My dear friend, you can never attempt to imagine the many things that I am.

EnlightenedSoul:


I disagree @ "The Greater Good"

By steering the trolley from its track, I'm choosing, actively, to kill that one person. Morally speaking, we always lend our focus to how upright the action itself is. The proper (moral) answer IMO, is to let the chips fall where they('re) may/meant.

The trolley was already on it's course. The consequence of that is (quite tragically) of no consequence, so to speak.

Well isn't inaction a course of action in itself? I would think that since you're present in the situation, and possess the ability to affect the outcome at no cost to your own life, then you're obliged to be a participant. If you decide to take no action, then you have, in essence, allowed the death of five over the death of one. Again, this holds if and only if you are considered an active participant in the scenario by virtue of your proximity, and latent power of influence.

Also, since this is in the religion section, I suppose I could ask, "What would Jesus do?"

Does he support the utilitarian point of view aka "the greater good'? Like in your first scenario, would he harvest the one man's organs to save the other five and basically take from Peter to pay Paul? Well, according to the bible he once saved a man's life by driving out his demons into a farmer's herd of pigs, causing them to immediately plunge to their deaths. So maybe?

But then again, multiple comparably great evils are perpetrated in the world daily that one would think Jesus, being God himself, would have the power to stop, but evidently doesn't. So it would seem that he's given to inaction as well?

I'm curious. How do Christians answer these questions?

This is his best video. I encourage you E-soul to watch this. It's about Affirmative action.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUhReMT5uqA

Bump

In empirical terms, what value do you put on Bill's life? What makes Bill's life less valuable than 5? Bill offers value to family, friends, employers and possibly his employees. How do you put a value to that? How do you put a value to the other 5?

In making policy decisions(for instance), value on human life is one of the most difficult. We really can't adequately compensate for this.

Does killing Bill to save 5 have advantages? You will find this difficult to properly assess because of the subjectivity involved.

Can't trust a kidnapper's word... With a gun in hand, I'd be pointing it at the kidnapper instead. Self preservation is a human instinct but as humans, we can look beyond our instincts. Personally, it is not a choice. it holds little guarantees plus you will be paying the cost of it everyday of your life. As someone not used to killing, the guilt could be debilitating. Your life might be destroyed as a result.

The railroad, this looks like a split second decision with few options. What looks right at that moment will be done.

tbaba1234:
Can't trust a kidnapper's word... With a gun in hand, I'd be pointing it at the kidnapper instead. Self preservation is a human instinct but as humans, we can look beyond our instincts. Personally, it is not a choice. it holds little guarantees plus you will be paying the cost of it everyday of your life. As someone not used to killing, the guilt could be debilitating. Your life might be destroyed as a result.

I would do the same. The kidnapper chose to gamble with his life, and lives of others.

In empirical terms, what value do you put on Bill's life? What makes Bill's life less valuable than 5? Bill offers value to family, friends, employers and possibly his employees. How do you put a value to that? How do you put a value to the other 5?

In making policy decisions(for instance), value on human life is one of the most difficult. We really can't adequately compensate for this.

Does killing Bill to save 5 have advantages? You will find this difficult to properly assess because of the subjectivity involved.

The railroad, this looks like a split second decision with few options. What looks right at that moment will be done.

To me, Bill and the Railroad present identical scenarios. In that case, I'd go with inaction every time.

timmy2409:


Well isn't inaction a course of action in itself? I would think that since you're present in the situation, and possess the ability to affect the outcome at no cost to your own life, then you're obliged to be a participant. If you decide to take no action, then you have, in essence, allowed the death of five over the death of one. Again, this holds if and only if you are considered an active participant in the scenario by virtue of your proximity, and latent power of influence.

Also, since this is in the religion section, I suppose I could ask, "What would Jesus do?"

Does he support the utilitarian point of view aka "the greater good'? Like in your first scenario, would he harvest the one man's organs to save the other five and basically take from Peter to pay Paul? Well, according to the bible he once saved a man's life by driving out his demons into a farmer's herd of pigs, causing them to immediately plunge to their deaths. So maybe?

But then again, multiple comparably great evils are perpetrated in the world daily that one would think Jesus, being God himself, would have the power to stop, but evidently doesn't. So it would seem that he's given to inaction as well?

I'm curious. How do Christians answer these questions?

Sorry, didn't see this somehow.

You bring up a valid point...and interesting religious discourse. However, unsure as I am of the outcome(s) myself, and considering the circumstances, I would deem inaction the most rational reaction, or in your opinion/view the most rational "action", if you will. I think it's folly that people simplistically factor numbers - and only numbers - into 'calculating' what they firmly believe to be the so-called "Greater Good" (the irony in that being, we could not possibly know what the "Greater Good" actually is/was by 'virtue' of our own limitations).

Macaanto, I have missed you.

EnlightenedSoul:


Sorry, didn't see this somehow.

You bring up a valid point...and some interesting religious stipulations. However, unsure as I am of the outcome(s) myself, and considering the circumstances, I would deem inaction the most rational reaction, or in your opinion/view the most rational "action", if you will. I think it's folly that people simplistically factor numbers - and only numbers - into 'calculating' what they firmly believe to be the so-called "Greater Good" (the irony in that being, we could not possibly know what the "Greater Good" actually is/was by 'virtue' of our own limitations).

Valid point there. I agree that it is indeed impossible to determine the value of life on either side of this equation with no other piece of information to go on besides the number of individuals on each track. Value to whom anyway? To you, the victims or to the larger society?

Nevertheless, I do think that it is much safer to approximate that the combined value of the lives of 5 individuals outweigh those of a single one.

I mean, at some point the majority has to hold a higher inherent value right? 5 might seem like a benign number of individuals, but what if your choices were between watching the train run into a gathering of 500 individuals vs diverting it into a single man on the adjacent track? Irrational or not, I think you will find very few people that would argue for inaction in this scenario.

timmy2409:

Nevertheless, I do think that it is much safer to approximate that the combined value of the lives of 5 individuals outweigh those of a single one.

I mean, at some point the majority has to hold a higher inherent value right? 5 might seem like a benign number of individuals, but what if your choices were between watching the train run into a gathering of 500 individuals vs diverting it into a single man on the adjacent track? Irrational or not, I think you will find very few people that would argue for inaction in this scenario.

It is inevitable that moral actions revolve around value. A ladder of value by which the actions are allocated. And you have rightly pointed out value as essential. Value could be assessed by quantity or quality. The example you made, relates to quantity. What about quality? Lets say 500 ordinary peasants are in the way of the train versus diverting it into a King or an esoteric scholar?

For Western civilization which we are very much part of, the value of a King is greater than 500 peasants, regardless of what the families of those peasants think.

tbaba1234:
In empirical terms, what value do you put on Bill's life? What makes Bill's life less valuable than 5? Bill offers value to family, friends, employers and possibly his employees. How do you put a value to that? How do you put a value to the other 5?
In making policy decisions(for instance), value on human life is one of the most difficult. We really can't adequately compensate for this.
Does killing Bill to save 5 have advantages? You will find this difficult to properly assess because of the subjectivity involved.

Despite the subjectivity cloud around it, the moral choice comes down to you. . therefore, your subjective view is what matters. How do you weigh the life of a person? Isn't yours greater than a number of people's?

Kay17:


It is inevitable that moral actions revolve around value. A ladder of value by which the actions are allocated. And you have rightly pointed out value as essential. Value could be assessed by quantity or quality. The example you made, relates to quantity. What about quality? Lets say 500 ordinary peasants are in the way of the train versus diverting it into a King or an esoteric scholar?

For Western civilization which we are very much part of, the value of a King is greater than 500 peasants, regardless of what the families of those peasants think.

Eh. I doubt that I would hesitate running that m*therfucker into the King. He represents a self-perpetuating autocracy, whereas supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses.

Humor aside, I do agree with your point. Given the choice between 500 pastorpreneurs and a construction worker, I'm pretty sure who's getting run over. But that's what I would do. There is a variant of the trolley problem that posits that a family member or friend is the single person on the other track. Of course study participants heavily favored inaction in this scenario, allowing the train to run into the initial five. The issue here clearly is that qualitative value is determined by an assessor who is prone to his/her own biases. For instance: Is it moral if I, being a villain myself, diverted the train into an innocent man, successfully saving my brothers-in-crime from death?

As tbaba1234 mentioned, it is incredibly difficult to accurately assess the qualities of life on either side of the equation in these scenarios. The very nature of the trolley problem as it is asked, allows very little room for this exercise, such that one's decision to act must be made primarily based on a quantitative analysis of the scenario. Really, the more imminent implication in today's society revolves, not around human beings, but around artificial intelligence applications. If an autonomous automobile loses its brakes while operating in a crowded area, how does it mitigate injury to human life? If it finds itself hurtling towards a crowd of people, should it steer away into the single individual on the opposite sidewalk? For a neutral entity as this, I would think quantity trumps quality all day erryday.

^^

The autonomous automobile is a piece of human encoding and programming also. It is not the perfect example.

The assessment of value is not really a conscious decision, it is more subconscious. It is an intuitive effort made in a split second.

timmy2409:


Valid point there. I agree that it is indeed impossible to determine the value of life on either side of this equation with no other piece of information to go on besides the number of individuals on each track. Value to whom anyway? To you, the victims or to the larger society?

Value in general. As strangers their true value more or less lies in the hearts and lives of others (also unknown to me) - morbid as that sounds, it is the truth. As for me, my only connection would be through the general compassion we're capable of as humans. But, how do you decide one group is more deserving of that than the another? You don't? As for the victims, barring the opposite extremes (the martyr and the suicidal individual) their own life is of more value to them over the next person/victim. As for society, who's to say?

Nevertheless, I do think that it is much safer to approximate that the combined value of the lives of 5 individuals outweigh those of a single one.

I can't outrightly agree. That is probable, however.

I mean, at some point the majority has to hold a higher inherent value right? 5 might seem like a benign number of individuals, but what if your choices were between watching the train run into a gathering of 500 individuals vs diverting it into a single man on the adjacent track? Irrational or not, I think you will find very few people that would argue for inaction in this scenario

.

Again, that's due more to playing the game of numbers, and probability than anything else. With higher tolls, it becomes more probable that you're doing the right thing in 'saving' the larger crowd. But, is it really? I also imagine it's easier to indirectly 'kill' one over five, but I digress. My main gripe to begin with was active participation. With the kidnapper, active participation became crucial and more-or-less a necessity. Duty even. On the railroad, the lines are more blurred (no pun intended). In this case, I'm actively choosing to veer the train off it's initial course, and fully intending to involve a non-participant in the most negative manner.

timmy2409:


Eh. I doubt that I would hesitate running that m*therfucker into the King. He represents a self-perpetuating autocracy, whereas supreme executive power should derive from a mandate from the masses.

Lol, amusing.

E-soul please talk to me. I will go on a hunger strike wallahi.

axum:
E-soul please talk to me. I will go on a hunger strike wallahi.

Do eeiiiiiitttt