[Herra Tohtori]

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.

Yep, they are overly simplified scenarios, I can agree to that. And that's why I think they fail to do what they should (to collect information about ethic decision making in theoretical situations), because they are thoretica lsituations badly hooked to real world. By tho poll results I think it's safe to say that almost all who come across this problem first think it like that - through possibilities, trying to automatically find holes out of the horrendous situation.

In this example I said it cannot be known that the trolley will hit the group of five, or the single man. And there is no way a person could actually have full knowledge of the consequences during the decision. And, as people tend to link imaginary situations to real life, they handle the thinking test that way, too. Most people automatically realize that by turning the switch they reduce a possibility of accident and also reduce the worst possible outcome. They (like I) also find it very disturbing idea to personally push the fat man to the tracks to stop the five men from dying. That is also because they automatically understand that if they push the man down, he is certainly dead, but there might yet be a possibility that the five men hear the trolley and get out of the way.

A better example would be like this (nothing personal, Carl - you just happened to snag my lunch yesterday ) :

Carl, our resident Shivan, has in his mingled mind made a plot to measure the ethic build of human race. He has emprisoned all HLP forumites in a Sathanas - exept for you and [a random HLP forumite]. He explains to you through ETAK that you can easily save all other HLP forumites - but you must personally kill [a random HLP forumite].

What do you do? If you refuse to kill [a random HLP forumite], Carl the Shivan sets the Sathanas off to a nearby sun, destroying all the HLP forumites exept yourself and [a random HLP forumite], leaving you vulnerable to vicious n00b attacks asking about FS3 and with endless questions about getting some mission or a model to work... (well, there's always karajorma's faq so it wouldn't be so bad, but still).

On the other hand, if you do Carl the Shivan's bidding and kill [a random HLP forumite], all other forumites are saved from the Sathanas and are able to return to forums. You know Carl the Shivan does not lie to you, because he has no need to.

EDIT(for audience's request): You have been almost totally paralyzed by a Shivan drug (their version of spacecrack) and you can only move your right index finger to press button A that kills [random HLP forumite] and B that sets him free and causes the death of everyone else on HLP.

(did you really think Carl would be that easy an opponent? Really, "attack a shivan", we saw that in Hallfight.  Also, the captured HLP forumites are under the influence of the same Shivan drug so they too can't do a thing (except wave their index fingers and occasionally middle fingers, too).


What is your fateful decision?  

[aldo_14]

Yep, they are overly simplified scenarios, I can agree to that. And that's why I think they fail to do what they should (to collect information about ethic decision making in theoretical situations), because they are thoretica lsituations badly hooked to real world. By tho poll results I think it's safe to say that almost all who come across this problem first think it like that - through possibilities, trying to automatically find holes out of the horrendous situation.

In this example I said it cannot be known that the trolley will hit the group of five, or the single man. And there is no way a person could actually have full knowledge of the consequences during the decision. And, as people tend to link imaginary situations to real life, they handle the thinking test that way, too. Most people automatically realize that by turning the switch they reduce a possibility of accident and also reduce the worst possible outcome. They (like I) also find it very disturbing idea to personally push the fat man to the tracks to stop the five men from dying. That is also because they automatically understand that if they push the man down, he is certainly dead, but there might yet be a possibility that the five men hear the trolley and get out of the way.

You're citing a problem with people not properly reading the test, though.  The whole purpose of the scenarios is to avoid the sort of clouded 'what if' type thinking.  Whether or not the human mind is capable of reading direct scenarios as direct is arguable part of the cognition process; in any case the test is intended to expose (not so much a test, just handy terminology) your weighting of known consequences against personal contribution.  It's directly targeting how we view the difference between direct action and inaction (i.e. killing a fat bloke directly, or pulling a switch) and weight that against our responsibility for the conesquences.  By introducing any uncertainty as the description, you are actually subverting that purpose of the test; although your description is exactly the same as the fat-man test, you've just put it in an outlandish context that obscures the seriousness of such a scenario and thus the direct comprehension.

[Herra Tohtori]

I actually remember reading an article about the exactly same test (effectively) a few years back.

It was cited that most people would indeed without hesitation flip the switch, but also that most wouldn't push the fat man unfer the trolley. This was interpreted that the people haven't got so much difficulties with causing a death indirectly by switching the track of the trolley, but are very disturbed by pushing the man onto death personally. But I think it's actually more like that people identify themselves in the situation and automatically analyze it along real-life standards. And this leads in most cases to seen end result - most people choosing to flip the switch but not to push the man.

I don't think it's conscious or intentional. I didn't realize how I decided that way until I started debating about it. Perhaps the researchers have made the example too close to real life, so that people automatically have the ability to consider the hidden possibilities in the scene, even though the actual example doesn't state them existing.

Nice little abstract thingsies might be much better suited for this, but of course they wouldn't be so emotion-inducing.

[MicroPsycho]

1. no, I shouldn't be obligated to stay, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't, provided there was something in it for me

2. I said no, however the question is should you push switch, not would you flip it, which present different dilemnas. No, you shouldn't condemn one person to death to save 5 people, but that's not to say I wouldn't

3. No, again, similar to number 2, only this time playing a more active role in killing the one person.

4. Yes, if you are dumb enough to send the fattest guy up first and he gets stuck, blast his ass out of there.

[Mefustae]

Personally, I put a very low value on human life, so i'd not only leave the violinist to die, i'd steal his violin. Not only would I not flip the switch, and i'd push the fat guy only after the tram had passed, and then i'd pick the valuables off the corpses. Regarding the guy in the cave, well, i'd shove that dynamite right up his arse if it meant saving my own.

[karajorma]

What is your fateful decision? 

That this question is even worse than the original one. What if you attack the Shivan? What if you evacuate. What if you sieze control of the Sathanas.

[Grug]

#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.

It's scary that you approach the problems this way. Are you a lawyer or an American?

ROFL @ Mefustae. You dirty bastard, I'd hate to have my life resting in your hands!

[Herra Tohtori]

#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.

It's scary that you approach the problems this way. Are you a lawyer or an American?

Are you referring to the fact I view the problem from the point of arithmancy or that I was kinda responding to the claim that flipping the switch would be intentional murder? 

Actually I'm neither American or a lawyer, but if needed I can think like one. Not that I do it often, it tends to expose one to mental illness, as demonstrated by current US establishment, many of whom are both... 

[EDIT: Clarification: I'm not really concerned about getting my ass sued about what I'd do or do not. I wouldn't probably hold myself responsible for any death occurring - be it five or one - as I would have had no part in getting the trolley loose in the first place. So if I did all I could to minimize damage (that is, in my point of view, to flip the switch) I think I shouldn't blame myself for the one death that occurred instead of five.

However I can't know a. what I would really do in a situation like that and b. what I would feel like afterwards. I would definitely feel bad for the one dead, but I shouldn't blame myself for his/her death. Note, shouldn't. I still might, but I can't know that before I get into situation like that.

This is actually what I meant by my comment of flipping the switch not being an intentional murder. I don't see it even as a manslaughter, but I just stated that it could at most be viewed as such, from certain point of view. Most of all I see choosing to revert the trolley as choosing the lesser bad out of two.]

[Grug]

Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of racist slam America with the obvious lawyer - usa connection.

I find it frightening that you jumped to a kind of "how would I be sued / liable" rather than "how will I live with myself / how can I accept this action".

[castor]

I think that this kind of "tests" don't have much of value.
One can "theorize" how he/she would act, but at the instant of a real situation the choice could be very different. And the ethics is all about acting, not about thinking.

Edit: though I admit such tests can have value on personal level, as tools of introspection

[karajorma]

That's the thing. If you try to decide how you would act beforehand there is a good chance that given a split second to decide you will act the way you decided to act previously.

[SadisticSid]

Voted no for each one. Non-interference deprives you of any responsibility should, say, the 5 men who escape the train track then fall off a bridge and die, while the man you choose to sacrifice would have otherwise implemented world peace the next day. Or the fickle violinist starts a nuclear holocaust because of a few bad reviews. In other words, best not to **** with destiny - on the off chance that there is one.

[Deepblue]

Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.

If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?

[Mefustae]

Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.

IMO, the difference is once it exits the mother and draws its first breath. I also believe that's the legal standing as well... or I may be thinking of something else. Anyway, it's a fluid line to draw.

If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?

Very easily. There is massive development in a short period of a foetus and soforth, and the difference between 2 and 8 months is considerably large. Hell, the Bible defines life as starting at around 18 days [the whole Leviticus-blood-thing for those of you uninformed], so there are many schools of thought on the subject, thus leaving it open to interpretation. In what hands should we put that interpretation? None other than the mother's, as who are we to tell them what they can and cannot do while it's still technically a part of them?

Personally, i'm in support of termination up to about 16 years. That way, you know damn well the kid will work his arse off at school and doing chores, with his mum actively threatening to 'abort' him if he doesn't.

[Herra Tohtori]

Medically speaken, a potential child is an embryo at early stages of development, then becomes a fetus and remains so until birth, but I think many doctors even talk about a baby from quite early on.

I think a common point of view is that an abortion is not feasible when the fetus reaches stage where it can possibly survive outside mother with medical treatment.

Other possibility to define the transitional time is when higher brain functions begin.

From quite early on, the heartbeat of a fetus is controlled by brain stem. Some time from that, small brain starts to send random signals to developing muscles. It takes yet more time before something else also begins to move in baby's head. For example, active cerebral cortex is a requirement to feel, say, pain, or actually anything else.

In short, when the cerebral cortex of a fetus becomes active, he or she then has a reality matrix of one kind, and that just keeps developing until death. From that point I think abortion should only be made if the life of mother is endangered.

[ilya]

Here's a stance: Pro-Life, with a choice.

I'm not for aborting babies, no-one is, but taking away the choice??

[Deepblue]

Here's a radical idea? Why can't people be responsible and not have sex if they don't want babies?

I understand the possibility of an abortion in rape/incest cases, and even then, adoption would be a better option.

[Grug]

Personally, i'm in support of termination up to about 16 years. That way, you know damn well the kid will work his arse off at school and doing chores, with his mum actively threatening to 'abort' him if he doesn't.

Seconded.

[aldo_14]

Can someone explain to me when a fetus becomes a baby? 8 months? 7 months? 6 months? etc. and so forth.

If you're against abortions on 8 month old children, how can you make the judgement call to terminate at 2 months?

My (and the legal/medical) definition is when that foetus gains the capacity to feel, think, and act; i.e. the cognitive qualities that (from our perspective at least) set humans seperate from animals and hence worthy of protection.  This secondly relates to our definition of death, namely the absence of regular brain EEGs, and I don't see why we should have double standards for life and death.

Offhand, I believe that takes place at about 20 weeks (I'll need to check this), when the brain cells form to connect the spine to the brain and make it possible for the foetus to feel sensory impulses.

Here's a radical idea? Why can't people be responsible and not have sex if they don't want babies?

I understand the possibility of an abortion in rape/incest cases, and even then, adoption would be a better option.

Sex is a natural part of human courtship; it's an effective method for determining mate fitness prior to the actual reproductive act.  So it's very much part of our wired behaviour to have sex without reproductive intent.

[TrashMan]

Examples are stupid at best..

They are incredibly far fetched and stupid, not to mention they FORCE you to take one of only tow decission - and there's NEVER just two.

But for arguments sake, let's see...


1. I was kidnaped, so I do not fele no obligation whatsoever. If they asked me nicely it would be a differnt thing. It's hard to answer it tough, as I really can't tell if I would leave the man or not.

2. Don't know. I don't really have the right to sacrifice another - numbers are irrelevant.

3. A Definate no.

4. If I really did something THAT stupid, then I deserve to die.. Alltough hard to belive that anyone would survive a dynamite blast in such a small, closed space...