LucemFerre:


TF is wrong with you? How is it the right thing to do?

TheConfuser:

Okay my brother.



Yes. Like the Good samaritan of the Bible I will save that child.



Confusing, Ha . Ecclesiastes 1:8 says that there is a time for everything, and I am sure the man has enough time to spare after he saves the childs life. Besides, the new treatment for malaria, ACTs, cost 2-2.5 dollars for an adults dosage

I would push the train track lever and direct the train to the side where one man is working, then I would run as fast as I can to move the man away bro.

If I have the time to push a fat man who would offer resistance to my murder attempt, then I also have the time to do something else, so No. I would throw a rock at the five men so that they notice me, and when I point the train to them they would get out.

About the two train scenarios, after saving them, I would make a complaint with the subway company to ban the use of sound blockers on tracks still in use, and wouldn't the men feel the train vibrations as it was coming?

tartar9:


You remind me of that my friend in primary school that sets his own questions in an exam when he can't answer the ones given.

Image123:
What is the value of morality without spirituality? Who determines what is moral or not? Therein lies the answers to your question.

CoolUsername:
1a. The man is morally obligated to save the child since he'll only lose his suit and no damage would be done to him.

1b. The man isn't morally obligated to take care of a foreign child's problems. The society should have systems in place to avoid casualties from treatable illness, you cannot save everyone.

2a. I would probably redirect the train to the side where one man is working. Although, I won't fault anyone for whatever decision he/she makes.

2b. I wouldn't push the fat man into the track. Can't really put my reason into words, but it just seems more... homicidal, maybe?

johnydon22:


I think he is considering number of lives in his conception of good

Sacrifice 1 to save 5

johnydon22:


These two scenarios present similar circumstances only distance is the difference.

Curious how our morality wanes with distance?



Aren't the two actions and result for 2a and 2b the same?

How come you choose differently?
50% Off! A rare Opportunity to
Own Christal Villa Queens Court
with C of O Shapati Lekki at N5m
+ Free Deed of Assignment...

For details/Inspection:

NIKE 07064401427
IYKE 08023963432
SAHEED 09066815852
ABIOLA 07036435999

Becoming a Landlord has been made easy .......!

johnydon22:


But either way you are not morally obligated to save the child. Yes?




2b is murder even though it achieves same aim as 2a? Isn't 2a murder since an argument can be made that you willfully murdered the lone man working on one side of the track?

LucemFerre:


Yea, he shouldn't have said it was the "right" thing to do. He's not in the position to judge who should live and who should die? I think these horrible, inhuman scenarios are more about decision making than about moral judgement.

festwiz:

Yes.

I knew you'd say that. The only reason I tagged 2b as plain murder is because he was never in harms way. The illustrations I posted depicts the actual "Trolley problem".

tartar9:

Yes,I should direct the train towards the lone worker and push off the fat man;this shouldnt be an option-its the right thing to do.Though,in reality,I most probably wont be emotionally strong enough to do so-given the very limited time available to make such a decision
,more especially for 2b.
Many will choose saving the five in 2 but object to 2b when in actuality they are both exactly the same act-this depicts how strongly emotions directs our moralilty.Its kinda the same way,for example,a man who manufactures a poison to achieve an aim of killing a thousand people will be seen as less a monster than his accomplice who actually administers it to the targets.

Evangkatsoulis:


So if the question were such that you, instead of the fat man, would be the only person capable of stopping the train, would you jump in front of the train?

johnydon22:


Why do you think it is called a moral dilema?

LucemFerre:


It is a dilemma alright. Just not a moral one.
The first and second instances could be classified as moral dilemmas.
One cannot judge morality by choosing either of the other options.

johnydon22:
Great.

The question actually is: Are you morally obligated to?

It's a thought experiment, you can't run to the save the other. It's either 1 or the other



It's thought experiment so the assumption that the fat man would resist is inexistent.

So?

johnydon22:


These two scenarios present similar circumstances only distance is the difference.

Curious how our morality wanes with distance?

johnydon22:

Aren't the two actions and result for 2a and 2b the same?

How come you choose differently?

LucemFerre:


Good good, if you did then you'd know spirituality has nothing to do with morality. If anything it makes one obedient, not moral. Get

Image123:


Lol, it does. Hence it is of no use or value.

johnydon22:


Explain?

johnydon22:


What is the use of morality?

What is the value of morality?

Can you expatiate on your lack of these terms?

Image123:


Without spirituality, there is ultimately no point being moral. Morality itself being subjective.

Image123:


Without spirituality, there is ultimately no point being moral. Morality itself being subjective.

johnydon22:
Does morality serve any purpose in a society that is independent of spirituality?

MrPresident1:


What is spirituality?

johnydon22:
Does morality serve any purpose in a society that is independent of spirituality?

MrPresident1:

What is spirituality?

Image123:


Would be nice to see your definition.

MrPresident1:


Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

This is spirituality. Is it subjective?

Image123:



i never said it was, read carefully.

Image123:


Lol, it does. Hence it is of no use or value.