[aldo_14]

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm

[Wild Fragaria]

Very interesting.  I think if someone wants to sacrify himself for another person, he should have the right to do so.

[Jetmech Jr.]

Is it bad that I voted "Yes" for each one without hesitation?

[ilya]

Well, in two of those situations hesitation would case the death of people, but in the other two, taking a moment to think about it would be advisable, IMO.

[Herra Tohtori]

My opinions about these mentioned dilemmae.

#1. The violinist is *not* comparable with a fetus. A fetus is not capable of sentient life, and if it is terminated early enough, it will never be. No harm done. Things become different when the fetus becomes a baby (that is, not yet born but having all the organs on the right place and having cerebral activity). A child at this stage should not be aborted any more, and in most countries it is actually outlawed after this point, save for cases where both the life of mum and baby are endangered.

At this point, however, the thing that separates the unborn child (not fetus any more) from the violinist is the following: The mother had the chance to take the test and abort the fetus before this point - she didn't, so she has already made her choice - to give birth. About the violinist, one is not given any kind of choice beforehand, so the situations just aren't analogous enough for this thought test to have any significant relevance about opinions of abortion.

Shortly, I'd have no obligation to stay connected - whether I'd do so would greatly depend on many other things than the survival of the violinist, mainly my current life situation and how good the violinist is. Probably I'd stay connected if I'd be allowed to stay in contact with my close ones.

#2. I'd definitely flip the switch. This is simple arithmethics and doesn't require complex philosophical analysis. The death of the single person cannot be seen as intentional murder IMO - at most it could be seen as a manslaughter, but even so - the choice not to act could equally be seen as five involuntary manslaughters. And in both cases, the true reason wor all this happening is criminal incompetence of the railroad workers, or perhaps a mechanical failure, or anything you don't have control over.

#3. This is the most interesting one.

I'd definitely not push the Fat Man because I still can't know for sure whether he'll stop the trolley or not. The trolley could keep going and kill the five people in addition to te Fat Man. At worst, it could result in the trolley flipping and causing its gasoline load to detonate, killing not only the Fat Man but also the five man further, me, and perhaps dozens of bystanders waiting for their turn to decide the Fat Man's fate.

#4. No caver could possibly be that stupid. Not only do they have a possibility to go through beginning from the smallest one, they also have the means of making the hole bigger from the very beginning.

What a bunch of morons, really. Thus I'd hope that they detonate that fricking dynamite and get buried alive when the roof collapses. What they should've done is to send those who fit through away first, then use the TNT to expand the hole and wish it wouldn't collapse the whole cave system upon them.

All in all, these situations are actually only relevant as they are - they are almost impossible to connect to real life situations.

[Kie99]

I voted yes on all of them, the one with the Fat Man is exactly the same as the one preceding it in my view.

[Herra Tohtori]

Could you be more elaborate?

Why do you think the #2 and #3 are effectively the same? I don't think they are. It's all about possibilities IMO. On #2 you have two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and a chance of 1 person dying. A chance of 1 person dying would be less bad than chance of 5 people dying; therefore flipping the swithc would be a "right" choice.

However, on #3 you have also two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and certainty of one death. I wouldn't push the Fat Man because there would be a slight chance that the five people would notice the trolley and get off the track in time to prevent the accident. Of course that just shows that these thought test are just that, and very weakly (if at all) applicable to reality.

So, I'd not dare to doom the Fat Man to certain death under the trolley, even if it would reduce the chances of the five people dying. Because a chance of death is not a certain death, pushing the man under the trolley is not analogous with flipping the switch. I challenge you to counter this logics.

[Flipside]

I look at it that, in the case of the Fat Man, you have no right to make those decisions for other people. I'd rather throw myself in front of it and just buy those people time than premeditate the concept of pushing someone else to their certain death. Remember, if the people don't die, there's no way of proving that they might have (Much like people who save the world never get enough recognition, because, obviously, there's still a world, so who says it was really in that much danger?)

Even then, I'd probably chicken out, but there you go.

[Ghostavo]

Voted no in everyone. If life is priceless, five times priceless is still priceless. So in that twisted kind of logic 1=5.

People should decide their own fates, not that of other people.

[Kie99]

Could you be more elaborate?

Why do you think the #2 and #3 are effectively the same? I don't think they are. It's all about possibilities IMO. On #2 you have two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and a chance of 1 person dying. A chance of 1 person dying would be less bad than chance of 5 people dying; therefore flipping the swithc would be a "right" choice.

However, on #3 you have also two choices: a chance of 5 people dying and certainty of one death. I wouldn't push the Fat Man because there would be a slight chance that the five people would notice the trolley and get off the track in time to prevent the accident. Of course that just shows that these thought test are just that, and very weakly (if at all) applicable to reality.

So, I'd not dare to doom the Fat Man to certain death under the trolley, even if it would reduce the chances of the five people dying. Because a chance of death is not a certain death, pushing the man under the trolley is not analogous with flipping the switch. I challenge you to counter this logics.

He would certainly block the trolley

[Rictor]

Well they presented a simple scenario. You don't have to wonder whether the Fat Man would stop the trolley, he would. And you don't have to wonder whether you could - you couldn't. In that case, it's only a matter of people being averse to doing the dirty work themselves, since almost everyone answers Yes to Question 2. Flip a switch or push a Fat Man, the result is the same, only your promixity to the deed is different.

Voted no in everyone. If life is priceless, five times priceless is still priceless. So in that twisted kind of logic 1=5.

Actually, I came up with the opposite conclusion some time ago. Let's say that you hear 1000 people have died in an earthquake in India. You are certainly distressed and mourn the loss of life. Now let's say that you hear 1001 people have been killed. Is you mourning any greater because of that one person? Likely not. So that person is worthless. And if his value is 0, then everyone else's value is 0, and human life is valueless. In that case, 1000=1001, and the only way that equation can be equal is by putting 0 on both sides.

Not necessarily something I agree with, but it's an interesting thought.

[Flipside]

Exactly, simply shouting 'Look out!!' might have saved everyone. It does tend to present the options in such a way as to suggest that these are the only choices you have. There is no 'Correct or Incorrect' answer.

Most legal systems, in fact, would demand that you did nothing. By doing nothing, 5 people may get killed in a horrible accident, if you flip the switch, you have murdered one person and would be prosecuted for it.

[Carl]

The Violinist analogy is too flawed.

1. It plays on your emotions by saying that you were kidnapped, and therefore makes you dislike the Music Appreciation Society, and makes you want to go against their wishes in order to spite them.

2. AFAIK, you do not need to spend your entire pregnancy in a bed at a hospital hooked up to a machine. This imagery put forth by the story is horrifying, and makes you want to leave the situation more.

The story pushes you in the direction that the writer wants you to go.

[Herra Tohtori]

Ah, let's be mathematic-philosophical then.

I think we can consider human consciense as restricted entity, yes? So, this in itself defines a maximum value of "priceless", thus making it smaller than mathematical constant known as "infinity".

Thus, if we mark "priceless" as "p", we end up with following unequation:

1*p < 5*p | (...) / p

note that becuse we just defined "priceless" being "non-infinite" due to limitations of human mind, "p"s contract off and the equation shows us that

1<5

which is, frankly, true.


Even if we want to view "priceless" as "infinity", we can take on the concept of Limes, which helps to understand this kind of things.

Let us say that a value of life closes the infinity without limits. Thus, a value of life is

V = Lim x
      x->Infinity

Thus, comparision can be made:

1 V < 5 V

Lim x       < 5*Lim x
x->Infinity      x->Infinity

Here we can see that whereas x does get closer and closer to infinity, the comparision can still be made because regardless of how high the curve gets, 5 times almost infinity is more than almost infinity. Thus, five lifes is more valuable, even if a value of a single life would close infinity without bounds.


If, however, we take a position of a hypothetical God observing the situation and for some reason feeling intereted enough to compare the values of five lifes to a single life, he'd probably take one glance, define the value of human life from His viewpoint as infinitely small, closing to zero, and form a following equation:

V = Lim 1/x
      x->Infinity

Lim  1/x    < 5 *Lim 1/x
x->Infinity        x->Infinity

Even at this case, we notice that even when the value of a life observed from God's viewpoint closes zero without limits, at certain given value five times the value is still greater than the value itself.

So, mathematically and philosophically it is insufficient to say that 5 times infinite is infinite, because human mind doesn't comprehend infinities well enough to handle them properly without help of Limes, the magical thing that enagbles the differential equations to work and other nice stuff like that. Nice little thing it is.

Anyway, 5 lifes > 1 life, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 


Kie: The Fat Man would certainly block the trolley (what kinda crap light trolley is that? How would I ever manage to heave a fat enough man to stop a frickin' trolley to the track in the first place?), but there can not be certainty about the five people dying. Except in a think test.

[Ghostavo]

Ah, let's be mathematic-philosophical then.

I think we can consider human consciense as restricted entity, yes? So, this in itself defines a maximum value of "priceless", thus making it smaller than mathematical constant known as "infinity".

Thus, if we mark "priceless" as "p", we end up with following unequation:

1*p < 5*p | (...) / p

note that becuse we just defined "priceless" being "non-infinite" due to limitations of human mind, "p"s contract off and the equation shows us that

1<5

which is, frankly, true.


Even if we want to view "priceless" as "infinity", we can take on the concept of Limes, which helps to understand this kind of things.

Let us say that a value of life closes the infinity without limits. Thus, a value of life is

V = Lim x
      x->Infinity

Thus, comparision can be made:

1 V < 5 V

Lim x       < 5*Lim x
x->Infinity      x->Infinity

Here we can see that whereas x does get closer and closer to infinity, the comparision can still be made because regardless of how high the curve gets, 5 times almost infinity is more than almost infinity. Thus, five lifes is more valuable, even if a value of a single life would close infinity without bounds.


If, however, we take a position of a hypothetical God observing the situation and for some reason feeling intereted enough to compare the values of five lifes to a single life, he'd probably take one glance, define the value of human life from His viewpoint as infinitely small, closing to zero, and form a following equation:

V = Lim 1/x
      x->Infinity

Lim  1/x    < 5 *Lim 1/x
x->Infinity        x->Infinity

Even at this case, we notice that even when the value of a life observed from God's viewpoint closes zero without limits, at certain given value five times the value is still greater than the value itself.

So, mathematically and philosophically it is insufficient to say that 5 times infinite is infinite, because human mind doesn't comprehend infinities well enough to handle them properly without help of Limes, the magical thing that enagbles the differential equations to work and other nice stuff like that. Nice little thing it is.

Anyway, 5 lifes > 1 life, Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

 


Kie: The Fat Man would certainly block the trolley (what kinda crap light trolley is that? How would I ever manage to heave a fat enough man to stop a frickin' trolley to the track in the first place?), but there can not be certainty about the five people dying. Except in a think test.

Limit towards infinite != value in infinite

(Yes, I'm being an ass)

[aldo_14]

The Violinist analogy is too flawed.

1. It plays on your emotions by saying that you were kidnapped, and therefore makes you dislike the Music Appreciation Society, and makes you want to go against their wishes in order to spite them.

2. AFAIK, you do not need to spend your entire pregnancy in a bed at a hospital hooked up to a machine. This imagery put forth by the story is horrifying, and makes you want to leave the situation more.

The story pushes you in the direction that the writer wants you to go.

Well, it is an analogy.  I'd imagine point 1 relates the the issue of an unwanted pregnancy, and point 2 attempts to address the fact that pregnancy has long term physical effects.  I think the sentience/cogniscence issue Herra Tohtori mentioned is the most important one, though.

[Herra Tohtori]

Ghostavo: Limit towards infinite != value in infinite

Yes, I know, but it doesn't change the fact that if you start tracking two curves - y=x and y=5x, x being a value of single life, you notice that y=5x is always higher than y=x, and the real problem is that you never get to infinity, so substituting infinite value as a value of human life is not really feasible, as I already said in first example.

Be it very big, but value of life cannot be infinite by definition of the universe itself, and boundaries of our conscience. Priceless it may be, but again, we define priceless inside our own limitations.

Oh, and don't bother being an ass. It's good for other people's circulation.  


Be the human value anything whatsoever, it doesn't change the fundamental difference between the "flip switch" and "fat man" situations.

On "flip switch" I save five lifes and put one life in a similar risk as those five people used to be, by choosing to act.

On "fat man" scenario I save five lifes, but doom one life onto certain death or at least serious injury by choosing to act. In my opinion, there is a certain difference between the situations. After-wisdom doesn't help; I cannot know for sure will the five people be on the tracks when the trolley gets there. Neither can I know will the lonely person still be standing there when the turned trolley would get there. But I can know for sure that the trolley will hit the fat man if i manage to dump him off the platform. Don't forget that he must be quite heavy to be able to block a train trolley.

On neither of these scenarios can I surely know that the trolley does any damage in the end. And that is the more important point than  whether human life has a value of zero, infinite or somewhere between.

[aldo_14]

On neither of these scenarios can I surely know that the trolley does any damage in the end. And that is the more important point than  whether human life has a value of zero, infinite or somewhere between.

The point of the scenarios RE: the tram is knowing - or trying to know - how you would react in that exact scenario if you had exact knowledge & certainty of the consequences.  It is not intended to be realistic in the sense of uncertainty about outcomes, it is a test of how you value those outcomes given the actions required for each and the consequential responsibility you would feel you held.

[CP5670]

Limit towards infinite != value in infinite

Actually values of functions at "infinity" are almost always simply defined as just that.

[Ghostavo]

Limit towards infinite != value in infinite

Actually values of functions at "infinity" are almost always simply defined as just that.

Gah... this is the last time I mix a philosophical issue with math.

Anyway my point is since since both values are too high (IMO) to be regarded as real values (no joke ), they can be considered equal for all pratical purposes

Damn you people and your fancy limits and derivatives