[Discussion] Morality Games - The Trolley Problem

[wanderingcactus]

this is basically the same logical and ethical problem that automotive self-driving developers are facing (that's why there isn't any car that is fully automatic yet).

Where if the car were to be put in an accident in which the only course is to hit the soft spot (in this case people and high chance of killing them) or the hard spot (low chance of survival for the passengers).
Should the car kill the passengers to save others or should the car prioritize the lives of the passengers?

but whenever deciding the fate of others, the rule that the person in charge must abide is "few is sentimental, many is statistical"

most would have to default to choosing the latter.

 

[JENchuuriki]

1 I will save the five people, and bear the guilt of killing that one person.
>> because more lives are important, even if it would mean to sacrifice one life. I hope those five people will live their life for that one person who died in place for them.


2 I’ll pray for him/her and attend his/her funeral.


3 same with #2


4 I will not change the train’s course


Basically, save more people~

It's like Lord Itachi did. Killing his entire clan just to save more people from reigniting war.

Sacrifices for the greater good.

 

[Ciao]

is it possible to reverse the train to kill all the people on the tracks?

 

[Deadlift]

In scenario 1, 2 and 4 I'd activate the switch and save people from track A. In scenario 3 I'd save the kid, just drove from my emotions.

Those who would do nothing gained my disrespect

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

In scenario 1, 2 and 4 I'd activate the switch and save people from track A. In scenario 3 I'd save the kid, just drove from my emotions.

Those who would do nothing gained my disrespect

you'll let your family and an innocent person be killed to save five people but kill five people to save a kid. that makes no sense. the one kids life is worth more than five others? not if they're older than a kid though, after childhood they can die so everyone else can live

if thats the peak of your analysis skills, enough to judge yourself as somehow higher than others with such stupid logic. i dont want your respect at all. i hope you get stuck in a really long line

 

[Deadlift]

you'll let your family and an innocent person be killed to save five people but kill five people to save a kid. that makes no sense. the one kids life is worth more than five others? not if they're older than a kid though, after childhood they can die so everyone else can live

if thats the peak of your analysis skills, enough to judge yourself as somehow higher than others with such stupid logic. i dont want your respect at all. i hope you get stuck in a really long line

Take it easy man, I was trying to troll Claymantan XD

 

[Jazzy Stardust]

Take it easy man, I was trying to troll Claymantan XD

oh my bad, thought that was towards me. i just have so much anger

 

[Deadlift]

oh my bad, thought that was towards me. i just have so much anger

Don't worry even because I'd probably end up killing myself trying to block the other train I couldn't save ahahah

 

[Ludicrous]

1: Save 5 People
2: Save 5 People
3: Save 5 People
4. Save 5 People (Send to tunnel)

As you can see I have a pattern here. I don't like it when people discriminate in this scenario. I'm just saving the max amount of people. I know people care about their families and would want to save them, but those 5 other people have just as meaningful lives as your sister, aunt, grandpa, etc. By doing that I acknowledge the fact that I believe in total equality and my morals transcend family or rules. I believe this is called post-conventional morality.

 

[Marin]

Track A in all scenarios if I'm objective. Save the family member if I'm not.

Death will fall on my shoulders regardless of the choice and in my eyes if people are gonna die regardless of what I do me saving one track over another isn't immoral, especially with a lack of knowledge on these people.

The real person to blame for their deaths is the one who gagged them. Not me.

 

[Claymantan]

Take it easy man, I was trying to troll Claymantan XD

I read your post and I was like "Well, I went half-and-half, so I guess that's fine." XD

I know people care about their families and would want to save them, but those 5 other people have just as meaningful lives as your sister, aunt, grandpa, etc. By doing that I acknowledge the fact that I believe in total equality and my morals transcend family or rules. I believe this is called post-conventional morality.

As I understand it, post-conventional morality is based on adhering to the broader societal good in moral decisions irrespective of rules, and applying this form of morality universally. If protecting ones family is held to be a societal good, and the principle of protecting one's family is applied universally, then logically, protecting your family doesn't contradict post-conventional morality.

The problem with post-conventional morality is that it's referential to what's good for society, and this may be subjective. Is treating familial ties as dispensable good for society?

 

[Deadlift]

I read your post and I was like "Well, I went half-and-half, so I guess that's fine." XD

It was because this thread reminded me of the one where we were death-battling each other XD

 

[Yubel]

Morality are manmade stories just like religion.

 

[Deadlift]

Morality are manmade stories just like religion.

Off topic much?

 

[Wabbit]

Scenario 1: Exactly as above. Do you change the train's course to save the five on Track A, but kill the one on Track B? Or do you do nothing? Why?
Let it go. I do not know them. **** those people.

Scenario 2: The one person on Track B is an adult family member. You have never discussed this scenario with them, and have no idea what they would want you to do.
Kill 1 guy. I dnt want that person on track B coming and whining at me I would have saved the 5.

Scenario 3: The five people on Track A are adult family members. You have never discussed this scenario with them, and have no idea what they would want you to do. The one person on Track B is a child, who is a stranger.
Kill the stranger

Scenario 4: Track A is fully visible, but Track B is in a tunnel, and you cannot see if someone might be on the tracks. The people on Track A yell that there may be a person or persons on Track B, in the tunnel, but they don't know anything more. There is not enough time to get more information.
Let it go

Bonus
Scenario 5:
switch the track between carriages and **** the train up and kill all the people in the train and shoot the people at A and B you just saved.

 

[Yubel]

Off topic much?

No, it's very on topic.