4 ms·

The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rule

by pnt12 11y ago

The train question has always annoyed me. It's a fantasy world where you kill and save people by pulling a lever. And after the you answer, people add more rules, like "you may have to face jail time if you deliberately kill anyone". What about negligence? Call me obtuse, but no one could convince me yet that not pulling the lever is the right option. Does it detach you from the problem? No, you still took an option and acted according to it. Maybe even better, we should look for the sociopath who's trapping people in these train racks for the fun of creating moral dilemmas.

gchadwick 11y ago
Darkside by Tom Stoppard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkside_%28radio_play%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkside_%28radio_play%29) is a short radio play that explores this. It's set to Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. It's all a bit silly but I quite enjoyed it. It's available on Spotify.
MatekCopatek 11y ago
It's not a fantasy - you kinda had a similar situation on 9/11 with United 93. In that case, the passengers brought it down before a decision could be made, but in case they didn't, the moral question would be nearly identical. There's a plane full of people that got hijacked and will definitely be used to cause even more casualties. You know that the people on the plane are going to die anyway. Would you really shut it down just like that?
- agarden 11y ago
  If you really know, then yes. On those on flight 93 seemed to know. But the other two planes didn't and they didn't do anything. Totally reasonable. Where I in the hypothetical train scenario, I would not pull the lever. Because in truth, I don't <i>know</i> that the five people will be killed. One of them may look up in time, shout, and all of them scatter. But the one loner? He may be too absorbed in his task. The details in these kinds of things really matter. They make or break the morality of the scenario. And the details in the train & lever scenario are implausible. The supposed level of certainty is too high.
Laaw 11y ago
Yeah, your view here is pretty obtuse. The whole point is to explore the differences in decisions between people, and by saying "no one could convince me of a different decision" is to completely ignore the reason the hypothetical is asked.

by pnt12 11y ago

gchadwick 11y ago

Darkside by Tom Stoppard (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkside_%28radio_play%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darkside_%28radio_play%29) is a short radio play that explores this. It's set to Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd. It's all a bit silly but I quite enjoyed it. It's available on Spotify.

MatekCopatek 11y ago

It's not a fantasy - you kinda had a similar situation on 9/11 with United 93. In that case, the passengers brought it down before a decision could be made, but in case they didn't, the moral question would be nearly identical. There's a plane full of people that got hijacked and will definitely be used to cause even more casualties. You know that the people on the plane are going to die anyway. Would you really shut it down just like that?

agarden 11y ago
If you really know, then yes. On those on flight 93 seemed to know. But the other two planes didn't and they didn't do anything. Totally reasonable. Where I in the hypothetical train scenario, I would not pull the lever. Because in truth, I don't <i>know</i> that the five people will be killed. One of them may look up in time, shout, and all of them scatter. But the one loner? He may be too absorbed in his task. The details in these kinds of things really matter. They make or break the morality of the scenario. And the details in the train & lever scenario are implausible. The supposed level of certainty is too high.

Laaw 11y ago

Yeah, your view here is pretty obtuse. The whole point is to explore the differences in decisions between people, and by saying "no one could convince me of a different decision" is to completely ignore the reason the hypothetical is asked.