Test your Moral Philosophy

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2005-08-29 12:31pm

3.3 here. And you can tell mr friendly guy is thinking like a physician: To not actively take a life is paramount.

I thought the same way except for the guy with the broken neck, with the caveat that FIVE people isn't enough to shift my moral compass off of "don't kill innocent people". Forty or a hundred would. I'd wager a platinum doughnut that I'd have scored higher if it had been a hundred or a thousand people, especially in the 'move the guy with the broken neck off the oxygen supply' question; I can't think of anyone who wouldn't shove his ass out of the way if he was blocking air for a hundred people. In fact, I came out of that test thinking I'd kick the shit out of the people who designed that aquarium, if that's not too illogical compared to the point of the exercise.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2005-08-29 12:42pm

5.1

But I question the validity of a test where they have to set up the most absurd and obviously artifically contrived scenarios in order to make it a question between the death of one and the death of five.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-29 12:45pm

3.3 here. And you can tell mr friendly guy is thinking like a physician: To not actively take a life is paramount.

I thought the same way except for the guy with the broken neck, with the caveat that FIVE people isn't enough to shift my moral compass off of "don't kill innocent people". Forty or a hundred would. I'd wager a platinum doughnut that I'd have scored higher if it had been a hundred or a thousand people, especially in the 'move the guy with the broken neck off the oxygen supply' question; I can't think of anyone who wouldn't shove his ass out of the way if he was blocking air for a hundred people. In fact, I came out of that test thinking I'd kick the shit out of the people who designed that aquarium, if that's not too illogical compared to the point of the exercise.

you're like me to a T. The oxygen one got me too....I wavered on that one for a while.

But I had to go with don't harm anyone even to save others. It is very likely though if we were talking about a lot more people I would have done it. Felt horrible and guilty for the rest of my life, but I probably would.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-29 12:49pm

But I question the validity of a test where they have to set up the most absurd and obviously artifically contrived scenarios in order to make it a question between the death of one and the death of five.

They HAVE to make them this way so nobody tries to wiggle out of the test by 'excusing' their actions. If they didn't design it this way someone could pull a "WELL, sharks rarely attack humans and with five of them together, it's likely the shark would be put off, so by saving the one I probably will save them all!" *Pats self on back and feels moral*.

The tests are forcing you to choose with NO excuses. That's why they are written as absolutes. There isn't any point doing the damn thing if you're just going to pick apart the sensibility of the scenarios. You're completely missing the point. Pretend it's a movie. Use your 'suspension of disbelief' function as if you're watching Star Wars and you'll get the point.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2005-08-29 02:05pm

2.4

Forum low?

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-08-29 02:31pm

I'm undecided on one thing, though. Half of the scenarios, you have to actively kill someone in order to save the five, which is obviously unappealling, being murder. But are the other scenarios, where you have to neglect your duty leading to someone's death for the salvation of the five, any more morally satisfactory? Even by failing to act, you are effectively killing someone.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2005-08-29 02:34pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:I'm undecided on one thing, though. Half of the scenarios, you have to actively kill someone in order to save the five, which is obviously unappealling, being murder. But are the other scenarios, where you have to neglect your duty leading to someone's death for the salvation of the five, any more morally satisfactory? Even by failing to act, you are effectively killing someone.

In all of those scenarios (already on the way to the hospital saving 5 people when I see one falling mountaineer, already in the boat saving one guy when I see 5 off to the side), I placed the mission I was already on as my responsibility, and the other situation just as a tragic incident I was witnessing.

Guardsman Bass · Post by **Guardsman Bass** » 2005-08-29 02:37pm

Xisiqomelir wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:I'm undecided on one thing, though. Half of the scenarios, you have to actively kill someone in order to save the five, which is obviously unappealling, being murder. But are the other scenarios, where you have to neglect your duty leading to someone's death for the salvation of the five, any more morally satisfactory? Even by failing to act, you are effectively killing someone.
In all of those scenarios (already on the way to the hospital saving 5 people when I see one falling mountaineer, already in the boat saving one guy when I see 5 off to the side), I placed the mission I was already on as my responsibility, and the other situation just as a tragic incident I was witnessing.

That works on the mountain climber on the ledge scenario, but not on, for example, the boat captain one. In that case, it seems more like you have a duty to the passengers in your boat to protect them, and if one of them falls out and drowns because of your actions, it is your fault.

Xisiqomelir · Post by **Xisiqomelir** » 2005-08-29 02:49pm

Guardsman Bass wrote:
Xisiqomelir wrote:
Guardsman Bass wrote:I'm undecided on one thing, though. Half of the scenarios, you have to actively kill someone in order to save the five, which is obviously unappealling, being murder. But are the other scenarios, where you have to neglect your duty leading to someone's death for the salvation of the five, any more morally satisfactory? Even by failing to act, you are effectively killing someone.
In all of those scenarios (already on the way to the hospital saving 5 people when I see one falling mountaineer, already in the boat saving one guy when I see 5 off to the side), I placed the mission I was already on as my responsibility, and the other situation just as a tragic incident I was witnessing.
That works on the mountain climber on the ledge scenario, but not on, for example, the boat captain one. In that case, it seems more like you have a duty to the passengers in your boat to protect them, and if one of them falls out and drowns because of your actions, it is your fault.

I didn't speed up in the "speed up/save5/killpassenger or don'tspeedup/5die/passengerlives". I also didn't go save 5 "stoprescuingthe1youwere/gosave5/1dies or keeprescuingthe1youwere/5die/1issaved"

Dooey Jo · Post by **Dooey Jo** » 2005-08-29 03:34pm

5.3 or something.

I found it quite interesting that music from Cobra Triangle started playing here when I got a motorboat + drowning people scenario. I was almost expecting it to involve evil katamarans too...

Though some questions were totally weird. "Person see drowning people. Speeding up will save them and not kill anyone. Is it wrong to speed up?" WTF? Where's the fucking dilemma there? As well a lever/boxcar scenario that didn't kill anyone unless the person pulled the lever... And that shit with hitting a person with a buring plank to make him jump through a window

Why not just throw the plank through the window?!

But since these were completely hipotheticals (rar), I answered accordingly. In real life I wouldn't assume there would just be two options, because there wouldn't (one shark eating five people? Not bloody likely). So since these aren't even close to real situtations I wonder how good they can be at saying something about people's morals...

SCRawl · Post by **SCRawl** » 2005-08-29 04:02pm

5.9

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Or the one.

Of course, I toned the "right thing to do" choice down a bit when I had to commit an overt act which would kill someone else, but I did draw a distinction between an act of commission and an act of omission.

lazerus · Post by **lazerus** » 2005-08-29 04:20pm

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2005-08-29 04:25pm

Hawkwings wrote:the way I approached these questions was from the point of "what they tell me is absolutely true". Agreed that these situations are rather ridiculous.

Oh yeah, I got a question like "The boxcar is coming, some guy's stuck on the track. You can pull a switch to release him, or you can choose to not pull the switch and let him die."

Where's the 5v1 comparison there?

I got one saying "there are five people drowning, you can hit the gas on your boat and save them, or you can not. Which do you do?" No brainer.

Anyway, 3.2. Though the test itself does ask that we not give our scores to anyone else, so as not to affect the results.

Max · Post by **Max** » 2005-08-29 05:01pm

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-29 06:39pm

I'm undecided on one thing, though. Half of the scenarios, you have to actively kill someone in order to save the five, which is obviously unappealling, being murder. But are the other scenarios, where you have to neglect your duty leading to someone's death for the salvation of the five, any more morally satisfactory? Even by failing to act, you are effectively killing someone.

Now see, this is where I diverge. I never look at it being "my" fault by not performing an action that will kill someone, save someone, etc. The thing is that I'M not the one that created this scenario, and so I'm not in any way responsible or culpable for the outcomes. The only 'duty' would be in my mind.

Now of course being a compassionate individual, I would WANT to help people, but from a purely moral perspective as to what is "right or wrong", I am bot beholden to 'fix' this problem that I had nothing to do with bringing into existence. See?

So that's why I would refuse to pick an action that "saved" others by killing someone.

Nova Andromeda · Post by **Nova Andromeda** » 2005-08-29 07:20pm

--The major problem with this survey is that there is no social contect to help in making your decision. In one society it may be the norm to let 5 people die if you have to actively kill another person. In another it may be the opposite. Until one knows this one is opperating blind. However, one can still make a decision without this knowledge by assuming that the social norm follows whatever is best over the long term.
-Personally, I almost always chose the 5 over the one. This is because I assumed that each of the six people were equally valuable (including the kids since age wasn't specified) and that from a long term perspective it is better to save 5 lives even if it requires killing 1 other. This may not seem self evident, but it becomes clear if one asks the question before one is confronted with the dilema: would one like to have their life saved 5 times at the cost of being killed once or would one like to die five time and not be killed once?
-One should note that their moral dilemas were quite easy to answer since the results of one's action are certain and cannot be questioned. This is almost never the case in real life where personal bias almost always gets in the way as soon as there is even a little wiggle room.
-One should also note that I scored ~6.3 since I opted not to kill the one person in the pond and save 5 from sacrified. This is a case where people are essentially holding others hostage. I won't give in to the hostage takers (they aren't threatening me with sufficient damage to warrent my capitulation).

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2005-08-29 10:13pm

I scored 2.4. Mostly because I did not approve of taking an action to cause someone's death even if that action would save five other person. (The "first do no harm" idea).

Also, while the test specified that the statements are true, IIRC, the test did not specify (nor did most statements imply) that the participants knew what the consequences of their actions would be. And, IMO, you can only judge their actions based on their understanding of the situation. Take this example:

Ed is driving five sick people to the hospital. They are in critical condition and will die if Ed makes any stops along the way. In his hurry to pack them in the car Ed slams the door on a few feet of thick cord that is now dangling beside the car. Ed takes the fastest route to the hospital, which is a narrow, unpaved mountain pass. On his way, Ed sees a rock climber hanging onto the side of the mountain beside the road. The rock climber is safe and in control, but if Ed drives by the thick cord dragging along the side of his car will dislodge the rock climber, causing him to fall to his death. If Ed slows to a stop and waits, the rock climber will be able to reach a stable landing where the cord will not dislodge him, but it will be too late to save the five people. If Ed continues to drive, the one person will fall to his death and the five will be saved.

We know that if Ed stops, the five people will die, but there is no way that Ed can know that those few seconds would be the critical factor leading to their death. To assume that Ed did know what was going to happen would be to add information that was not in the scenario. Hence, in my view, it would be wrong for Ed to knowingly kill someone when he does not know for sure that it will have any impact of the five people that are in the car.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-30 01:34am

Personally, I almost always chose the 5 over the one. This is because I assumed that each of the six people were equally valuable (including the kids since age wasn't specified) and that from a long term perspective it is better to save 5 lives even if it requires killing 1 other.

Ahh...but you defeated your own argument I'm afraid...

If one person's life is as EQUALLY valid as someone else's, then it doesn't matter whatsoever how MANY people are threatened, they would still have to be considered 'equally', and so one life is just as bad as 20. You would have no choice but to ascribe greater importance to the sheer number of equals, over a single equal.

This would therefore, mean that being in a GROUP situation makes you more valuable. Interesting dynamic from that point alone, isn't it?

Boyish-Tigerlilly · Post by **Boyish-Tigerlilly** » 2005-08-30 12:58pm

Ahh...but you defeated your own argument I'm afraid...

If one person's life is as EQUALLY valid as someone else's, then it doesn't matter whatsoever how MANY people are threatened, they would still have to be considered 'equally', and so one life is just as bad as 20. You would have no choice but to ascribe greater importance to the sheer number of equals, over a single equal.

This would therefore, mean that being in a GROUP situation makes you more valuable. Interesting dynamic from that point alone, isn't it? Wink

No. If you say that all people are equally valuable, then you are giving everyone equal consideration. When assuming one man is equal to another, it only wouldn't matter if there were two people, because chooosing one is just the same as choosing the other. If there are more than one, then you need only add up the numbers, and 5 equals outnumber the 1 man who is equal to any other one man. Assuming equality applies when putting a man up against another man. Just because they are all equal in value does not mean that you should let more die.

drachefly · Post by **drachefly** » 2005-08-30 01:19pm

My moral compass includes allowing for the possibility of failure. The quiz told me to accept these 100% as true, and I did to the extent that I would in such a situation where I just KNEW something would work. But morality needs to apply even in situations where you could be 100% wrong. I could KNOW that I could reach those 5 swimmers... and be wrong.

Starting a rupe goldberg machine to rescue 5 people by murdering 1 is a fundamentally immoral proposition no matter how 'certain' it looks.

If this interpretation disqualifies my data from the test, well, they can tell by looking at the explanations. But I'd say how we respond to uncertain situations is a far more important piece of morality than how we respond to certain situations. Consider my answers a protest or wake-up call for them. Research disobedience, as it were.

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-08-30 01:27pm

Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:6.9

If I have to kill one person and live with that for the rest o my life to save 5 others, so be it.

same here

wautd · Post by **wautd** » 2005-08-30 01:28pm

wautd wrote:
Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba wrote:6.9

If I have to kill one person and live with that for the rest o my life to save 5 others, so be it.
same here

addendum: unless I know and like that one person. Than its too bad for the rest

2000AD · Post by **2000AD** » 2005-08-30 01:45pm

I just couldn't take the test seriously due to the "all these are 100% true going to happen!!!"

How can a guy know the cable hanging off the back of his ambulance will knock down that rock climber?
How can those 5 repair men not notice the massive fucking boxcar hurtling towards them?
How can we know that shark will eat all 5 people?

I guess i can't suspend my disbelief that far.

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2005-08-30 02:06pm

2.9 here.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-30 02:16pm

When assuming one man is equal to another, it only wouldn't matter if there were two people, because chooosing one is just the same as choosing the other.

Yes...that seems to support my point..

If there are more than one, then you need only add up the numbers, and 5 equals outnumber the 1 man who is equal to any other one man.

But that is not logical. If everyone is equal, then 5 equals are the same as ONE equal. Do you see what I mean? The only way it would be different is if you did what I said and ascribe MORE importance to people being in a group. In other words you would be saying that 5 people are BETTER than one person. Ouch, this is making my head hurt. lol.

Just because they are all equal in value does not mean that you should let more die.

See the problem here is the word 'should'. It implies that you have a duty to choose an action or inaction that condemns or saves people. You are in effect, playing God to these people. Now naturally we would do something if we could in a situation for whomever we felt needed help, but from a purely semantical moral position, you really AREN'T beholden for any of them because it's fate causing the situation, not you. So it's arguably not "fair" to be forced to choose who to save and who to let die, or as in some scenarios, who to kill to save others.