It's 3:30 in the AM here, and I have an Ethics class at 10:30. I just wrote one essay for the class, but now I have to write another. I got about two-thirds of the way through, getting all the premises of my argument out, when all of the sudden I realize that they don't support the conclusion. I'm gonna tack on a bullshit conclusion and turn it in like that, but I'm interested to see what you guys make out of the topic:
my book wrote:The Ambulance Driver and the Injured Motorist
An ambulance driver with medics was dispatched to provide emergency care for five children in a building on fire. To assist the children, the driver had to cross a narrow bridge. Unfortunately the ambulance's path was obstructed by an injured motorist. The medics faced a stark choice: they could either attend to the injured motorist or proceed to rescue the children. If they decided to attend to the motorist, then the children would burn to death; if they decided to assist the children, then they would have to run over the motorist. The choice facing the medics was either the children would die or the motorist would.
Question: What should the ambulance driver do?
Note that the prof made it very clear to us that neither firefighters, backup paramedics, nor alternate routes fit into the scenario in any way.
To me, it seems there are two duties in conflict: a)the duty to provide aid to others and b) the duty to not cause harm to others. I feel that the obligation to not cause harm to others outweighs the duty to provide aid, but I find myself unable to justify this. Maybe it's just because it's 3:30AM, I don't know.
EDIT: Fixed bold tag.
Last edited by Robert Treder on 2003-02-19 06:55am, edited 1 time in total.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Actually, I just realized that this is more fitting for SLAM. What the hell ever.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Consider it like this....
If they go to the fire they themselves kill the motorist....
If they aid the motorist it is as though they did nothing as regards the children....
In the first it is a deliberate death caused by them....technically murder....
In the other they do save one life and do not actively end any...it is not thier fault the children die.....
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Wow, that's a hard subject. i think I'd have difficulty justifying either argument. But it all comes down to, like was said, which you values more: saving lives or not harming. Because if I chose the life option then I think I'd have to go witht he children for the most logical methods ie. more of them, the motorist may still have a chance (I'm assuming that, unless you were told that one will die0 and the fact that they are children. But I'm afraid that I probably wouldn't be able to leave the motorist there. Interesting assignment. I had to write my term paper The Roots, Actions and Immediate/Lasting Effects of Socialist Revolution and it's development into Communism on Europe and the Third World. And I'm only 14. Bastards.
Morning Star wrote:Wow, that's a hard subject. i think I'd have difficulty justifying either argument. But it all comes down to, like was said, which you values more: saving lives or not harming. Because if I chose the life option then I think I'd have to go witht he children for the most logical methods ie. more of them, the motorist may still have a chance (I'm assuming that, unless you were told that one will die0 and the fact that they are children. But I'm afraid that I probably wouldn't be able to leave the motorist there. Interesting assignment. I had to write my term paper The Roots, Actions and Immediate/Lasting Effects of Socialist Revolution and it's development into Communism on Europe and the Third World. And I'm only 14. Bastards.
The question states they have to run the motorist over.....directly causing him to die....
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
The argument I ended up with I'm actually happier about than I thought I would be. I argued that the two duties were not equally important, because if you fail to comply with the duty to not cause harm, you directly cause harm, but if you fail to comply with the duty to provide aid, you do not directly cause harm (causing harm being assumed to be immoral). Therefore, when presented with the dilemma between the two, I choose the duty to not cause harm. The fact that you then get to provide aid to the motorist is icing on the cake.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Morning Star wrote:Wow, that's a hard subject. i think I'd have difficulty justifying either argument. But it all comes down to, like was said, which you values more: saving lives or not harming. Because if I chose the life option then I think I'd have to go witht he children for the most logical methods ie. more of them, the motorist may still have a chance (I'm assuming that, unless you were told that one will die0 and the fact that they are children. But I'm afraid that I probably wouldn't be able to leave the motorist there. Interesting assignment. I had to write my term paper The Roots, Actions and Immediate/Lasting Effects of Socialist Revolution and it's development into Communism on Europe and the Third World. And I'm only 14. Bastards.
The question states they have to run the motorist over.....directly causing him to die....
Whoops, must've mis-read it, sorry. My opinion remains though, just couldn't leave him there...and run him over.
Robert Treder wrote:The argument I ended up with I'm actually happier about than I thought I would be. I argued that the two duties were not equally important, because if you fail to comply with the duty to not cause harm, you directly cause harm, but if you fail to comply with the duty to provide aid, you do not directly cause harm (causing harm being assumed to be immoral). Therefore, when presented with the dilemma between the two, I choose the duty to not cause harm. The fact that you then get to provide aid to the motorist is icing on the cake.
That's my thinking on it too....to save a life by basically murdering a third party is not really a good situation to be in....
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Of course then I just realized that the question is also designed to present the one life for many sacrifice...oh well (it stipulates five children).
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Well, my paper's printed and it's 4AM. I'm hittin' the hay. I'll check back later to tell you what my prof says about the situation.
And you may ask yourself, 'Where does that highway go to?'
Brotherhood of the Monkey - First Monkey|Justice League - Daredevil|Late Knights of Conan O'Brien - Eisenhower Mug Knight (13 Conan Pts.)|SD.Net Chroniclers|HAB
Robert Treder wrote:The argument I ended up with I'm actually happier about than I thought I would be. I argued that the two duties were not equally important, because if you fail to comply with the duty to not cause harm, you directly cause harm, but if you fail to comply with the duty to provide aid, you do not directly cause harm (causing harm being assumed to be immoral). Therefore, when presented with the dilemma between the two, I choose the duty to not cause harm. The fact that you then get to provide aid to the motorist is icing on the cake.
A feww questions:
1. How is it not directly causing harm when you can act to prevent harm and, with full knowledge, fail to do so? People blame God for allowing evil to happen if He has the power the prevent it; I don't see why these paramedics are any different.
2. From a utilitarian perspective, the fact that it is five children and only one motorist matters. Isn't it better to try to save as many lives as you can? You mentioned this yourself.
3. Likewise, the children have a full life ahead of them, whereas the motorist has already lived a good amount of his; that is, the children have more "potential." Does that matter?
Robert Treder wrote:The argument I ended up with I'm actually happier about than I thought I would be. I argued that the two duties were not equally important, because if you fail to comply with the duty to not cause harm, you directly cause harm, but if you fail to comply with the duty to provide aid, you do not directly cause harm (causing harm being assumed to be immoral). Therefore, when presented with the dilemma between the two, I choose the duty to not cause harm. The fact that you then get to provide aid to the motorist is icing on the cake.
A feww questions:
1. How is it not directly causing harm when you can act to prevent harm and, with full knowledge, fail to do so? People blame God for allowing evil to happen if He has the power the prevent it; I don't see why these paramedics are any different.
2. From a utilitarian perspective, the fact that it is five children and only one motorist matters. Isn't it better to try to save as many lives as you can? You mentioned this yourself.
3. Likewise, the children have a full life ahead of them, whereas the motorist has already lived a good amount of his; that is, the children have more "potential." Does that matter?
It might be different if it was a case of "stop and help or carry on" but its not.....
Its murder one man to save 5 lives.....
To actively end one life in favour of 5 others......
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
This is very easy, and you've got it right Robert.
It is better to risk lives to prevent murder, than it is to commit one murder to save other lives.
(in a RL situation, other ambulances/emergency services would be an option, which makes it better)
"I fight with love, and I laugh with rage, you gotta live light enough to see the humour and long enough to see some change" - Ani DiFranco, Pick Yer Nose
"Life 's not a song, life isn't bliss, life is just this: it's living." - Spike, Once More with Feeling
Is moving the motorist an option. If his injurys are not too sever you could move him out of the way or slap him somewhere in the ambulance. If moving the motorist is out of the question I would rescue the children, 5 children, as was earlier stated, have a lot more potential in life than a said motorist. It is a hard choice to make because no one likes killing people but helping 5 people is much better than helping 1 and letting 5 lives you could potentially save go to waste.
Dark Hellion wrote:Is moving the motorist an option. If his injurys are not too sever you could move him out of the way or slap him somewhere in the ambulance. If moving the motorist is out of the question I would rescue the children, 5 children, as was earlier stated, have a lot more potential in life than a said motorist. It is a hard choice to make because no one likes killing people but helping 5 people is much better than helping 1 and letting 5 lives you could potentially save go to waste.
Deliberate killing to save more lives is one thing.....killing for a chance to save is even lower on my list of ways to do things...
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
Put the injured motorist into the ambulance and call your dispatcher to send another ambulance to the scene of the fire. Operating rules may or may not allow you to proceed to the fire yourself once the motorist is stable and safe. If rules and the condition of the motorist allow, it might be possible to put the motorist in the ambulance and let the medics work on him while the driver continues to the fire scene.
In real-life, this is probably not a decision that the ambulance driver would be expected to make on his own. Either rules already exist to cover such situations, or he would have to call the dispatcher for instructions. Running over the motorist is obviously not an option.
"This is supposed to be a happy occasion... Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who."
-- The King of Swamp Castle, Monty Python and the Holy Grail
"Nothing of consequence happened today. " -- Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776
"This is not bad; this is a conspiracy to remove happiness from existence. It seeks to wrap its hedgehog hand around the still beating heart of the personification of good and squeeze until it is stilled."
-- Chuck Sonnenburg on Voyager's "Elogium"
Simple, Ambuances don't come with one person, Normaly its three to five, let one of the guys off, Motor on to the house and save as many kids as you possible can
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
I would save the guy, and let the Fire Department handle the kids. Why? Because it isn't my job to save people from burning buildings. Even if I got there, the Fire Department wouldn't let me go inside, and they are usually trained in some sort of medical response.
Mr. Bean's idea works too.
It does kind of remind me of the Kobayashi Maru though.
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Why cant they simply pose the question: Is it ethical to kill 1 person to save 5?
The scenario is pretty stupid.
Yes and no. The simpler question would lead more likely to the yes. The full scenario makes it a bit more difficult since you have to weigh the situation a bit differently.
And yes it is stupid.
Though if it was my assignment, to show how stupid it was I would go,
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." Spock and Kirk.
Robert Treder wrote:The argument I ended up with I'm actually happier about than I thought I would be. I argued that the two duties were not equally important, because if you fail to comply with the duty to not cause harm, you directly cause harm, but if you fail to comply with the duty to provide aid, you do not directly cause harm (causing harm being assumed to be immoral). Therefore, when presented with the dilemma between the two, I choose the duty to not cause harm. The fact that you then get to provide aid to the motorist is icing on the cake.
A feww questions:
1. How is it not directly causing harm when you can act to prevent harm and, with full knowledge, fail to do so? People blame God for allowing evil to happen if He has the power the prevent it; I don't see why these paramedics are any different.
2. From a utilitarian perspective, the fact that it is five children and only one motorist matters. Isn't it better to try to save as many lives as you can? You mentioned this yourself.
3. Likewise, the children have a full life ahead of them, whereas the motorist has already lived a good amount of his; that is, the children have more "potential." Does that matter?
Save the motorist. You don't need a huge Vulcan argument, all you need is that "he's the first thing they came across". It's a better guarantee that you'll succeed in saving him, and by the way you can (at least start to) clear the bridge for other emergency vehicles at the same time.
I have being given A's for depleting Dragon ball Z the way it should be.
Deontology? Motorist first. Don't shirk your duty.
Utilitarianism? Run over the motorist and don't look back. Save the kids.
I would choose the former, personally.
And 1500 posts. Yippee.
BoTM / JL / MM / HAB / VRWC / Horseman
I'm studying for the CPA exam. Have a nice summer, and if you're down just sit back and realize that Joe is off somewhere, doing much worse than you are.
