The Trolley Problem

[Classified]

Lol @ Apophis. Khayr, I'm inclined to agree with Apophis on this. His logical approach on your "riddle" was by far the most appealing, frankly. I must admit, although he was trollin' you in your own 'Trolley problem' thread, he was actually making a lot more sense than the rest, nonetheless. lol

 

Apophis, self-defence is subjective, no? Christianity, for instance, think it's immoral, hence turning the other cheek is the moral thing to do. lol

[spartacus]

how about if the other track the one is tied a man. how about if that is the mad man .. i would push the full throttle and smash that mfcker..hehe

[Classified]

Can I let someone drown me? YES.

Without a struggle? It depends. Am I fully awake or completely knocked out?

Can any human? Sure, why not?

[AfricaOwn]

I will not do anything in this case, you let the trolley go.

[Alpha Blondy]

^ that's an omission. it's illegal in many western country ee sida uula soco.

[Reeyo]

Make it relative, ages? criminal history?.

 

Both decisions will be difficult to make and I would struggle, so as the mind demands what excuses would I use to justify?

 

Are the fives criminals, all old men that have no living family?

 

And is the single person a young Muslim pregnant lady?

[SomaliPhilosopher]

^ Criminal History is now a criteria for the value of life? This is only 'institutionalized' 'crafted' "immortality"

[Reeyo]

Yes it is, blame our social structure, from religion to civil law. If you commit a crime ( definition is relative) you are worth less then a moral person that has never committed a crime.

[AfricaOwn]

Alpha Blondy;987330 wrote:

^ that's an omission. it's illegal in many western country ee sida uula soco.

I have no duty to act in this situation. My action will cause another person to be harmed, so I'm opting to let that trolley go in its course, however If that individual was a family member, then I'll flip the switch in a heart beat.

[guleed_ali]

Reeyo;987381 wrote:

Yes it is, blame our social structure, from religion to civil law. If you commit a crime ( definition is relative) you are worth less then a moral person that has never committed a crime.

If you recall the story of the person who killed 99 people and asked someone if there is a chance of them being forgiven. When a man said he had no chance that man became victim #100. Don't be #100 with this nonsense about criminals being worth less than others.

[Khayr]

Reeyo,

 

It is all relative - right? Your decision depends on your knowledge of those people.

 

What if each decision, carried with it a penalty. In the court of law,

not taking action to stop a harm to someone else can make you

a suspsect. You could be charged.

 

A perfect example is if you are at a party and you are a witness to a rape and had the chance to intervene but chose not to - you would be held accountable for having endorsed such actions

by staying silent about it.

[thefuturenow]

Safferz;986813 wrote:

Alpha, how is Khayr's post a cryptic riddle? It's a pretty straightforward scenario.

 

I think the only ethical answer is to flip the switch... regardless, someone will be killed, and it seems unconscionable to me to allow the train to keep moving towards five people. Five killed, or one? I would choose the latter.

 

So you have chosen to assume agency. Now what if it was a sword in your hand and had to kill one to use his/her organs to save 5 people?