Damn, Another Essay

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-19 06:43pm

5 lives versus 1. Run over the motorist.

Mind you, it's a ridiculously artificial scenario, but most of the arguments forwarded to save the motorist rely on personal guilt complex rather than quality of outcome. In effect, you are making a decision based on how YOU will feel afterwards rather than how many lives are being saved.

Think of the analogy of war: there are times when it may be justified to go to war because as strange as it may seem, killing may occasionally PREVENT even more deaths. But when you kill in war, many of your victims may actually be innocents; certainly, many of them are guilty only of the crime of being born into a society that opposes you.

In effect, the arguments I've seen in this thread all stem from the Hippocratic Oath/conscientious objector mentality which, if applied universally, is the classic "peacenik" argument.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-19 06:46pm

Actually the scenario is fundamentally flawed so that even if it did come up, the outcome of directly saving the 5 actually wouldn't happen.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-19 06:47pm

Darth Wong wrote:5 lives versus 1. Run over the motorist.

Mind you, it's a ridiculously artificial scenario, but most of the arguments forwarded to save the motorist rely on personal guilt complex rather than quality of outcome. In effect, you are making a decision based on how YOU will feel afterwards rather than how many lives are being saved.

Think of the analogy of war: there are times when it may be justified to go to war because as strange as it may seem, killing may occasionally PREVENT even more deaths. But when you kill in war, many of your victims may actually be innocents; certainly, many of them are guilty only of the crime of being born into a society that opposes you.

In effect, the arguments I've seen in this thread all stem from the Hippocratic Oath/conscientious objector mentality which, if applied universally, is the classic "peacenik" argument.

True....though, there is the fact it isnt garunteed you will save the children even if you kill the motorist.....
And as they say, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush....maybe not five....but....

You are very right though that its a stupidly artifical scenario...

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-19 06:47pm

Move the bastard obviously.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-19 06:59pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Move the bastard obviously.

Unfortunately one of the rather stupid parameters is you have to run him over if you want to get to the kids....I suppose otherwise you could simply use common sense and logic to solve it all without any real moral problems cropping up....

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-02-19 07:13pm

That's what I hate about these kinds of moral issues raised in high school social science classes; they're often designed by an idiot who makes the scenario so stupid that it could never possibly work, and then reacts to the first person who comes up with a better solution by simply telling him not to use it.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-19 07:17pm

"Why is there a moral problem?"
"Well we arent allowed to use any solution that does result in a moral problem...."
"Is that a problem?"
"It is for sane logical intelligent people...."
"Well it seems alright to me...."
"As I said, its a problem for sane, logical intelligent people...."

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-19 08:54pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Move the bastard obviously.
Unfortunately one of the rather stupid parameters is you have to run him over if you want to get to the kids....I suppose otherwise you could simply use common sense and logic to solve it all without any real moral problems cropping up....

Actually the common sensical and logical solution is to let the Fire Department do their job and save the five kids, while you do your job and save the motorist.

The scenario was made by a fricking idiot.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-02-19 08:59pm

Keevan_Colton wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Move the bastard obviously.
Unfortunately one of the rather stupid parameters is you have to run him over if you want to get to the kids....I suppose otherwise you could simply use common sense and logic to solve it all without any real moral problems cropping up....

Save the poor bastard. How the fuck am I supposed to help kids in a burning building if I'm a medic? Run into the building and die?

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-19 09:10pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:
Keevan_Colton wrote:
Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:Move the bastard obviously.
Unfortunately one of the rather stupid parameters is you have to run him over if you want to get to the kids....I suppose otherwise you could simply use common sense and logic to solve it all without any real moral problems cropping up....

Save the poor bastard. How the fuck am I supposed to help kids in a burning building if I'm a medic? Run into the building and die?

That's what I've been saying. It is not your job to save the kids. It is the Fire Department's. Let them handle it.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2003-02-19 09:10pm

So we agree on this, The person who design the senario was a fucking idiot?

beyond hope · Post by **beyond hope** » 2003-02-19 09:26pm

It reminds me of one I had in sociology class where the choice boiled down to "do you steal medicine to save the life of the person you care most about?" I hated that one and I don't like this one any better. Surely the teacher could have come up with something less artificial.

Keevan_Colton · Post by **Keevan_Colton** » 2003-02-19 10:06pm

Mr Bean wrote:So we agree on this, The person who design the senario was a fucking idiot?

In a word : Yup.

In several words : Yes, Yeah, Yup, Damn Right, Totally on Target, They obviously have the mental capacity of a turnip.....etc...

Robert Treder · Post by **Robert Treder** » 2003-02-20 06:32am

Darth Wong wrote:That's what I hate about these kinds of moral issues raised in high school social science classes; they're often designed by an idiot who makes the scenario so stupid that it could never possibly work, and then reacts to the first person who comes up with a better solution by simply telling him not to use it.

Precisely. Even worse is this is college.

The scenario has to be the way it is, or the prof won't listen to it...but that removes the applicability of the case, and makes it irrelevant.
If you bring up the "one life for five" idea, the prof goes the deontological route and quotes Kant: "One is never justified in using another being solely as a means." Which I think is bullshit, because a) does "being" only mean "human"? Because it's a little stupid to say it's unjustified to use animals as a means (PETA tries this all the time). And b) this implies that war is never justified, because war certainly makes use of humans as means. And by any practical definition of "justified," war is at least sometimes justified.

I fucking hate philosophy.

DocHorror · Post by **DocHorror** » 2003-02-20 11:04am

This is like the Kobiashi Maru test, except without the klingons...

Is there actually a right or wrong answer?

Personally I sacrifice the motorist to save the children...

the needs of the many & all that jazz...

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-02-20 11:44am

I would help the motorist. I don't believe that I have a right to kill an innocent person to save the live of others, including my own.

This answer isn't based on how I feel aftewards, its based on the reality that:

Right now you could kill one person, donate their organs and save the lives of 2, 3, or 4 people. I don't equate (directly) number of lives saved to being morally right.

The motorist right-to-life doesn't become invalid because 5 other people need help. The motorist is in a fortunate situation where his/her needs are presented first. The potential trajic deaths of the 5 kids is a sad reality, as are those of the 2-4 needy organ patients.

neoolong · Post by **neoolong** » 2003-02-20 01:46pm

DocHorror wrote:This is like the Kobiashi Maru test, except without the klingons...

Is there actually a right or wrong answer?

Personally I sacrifice the motorist to save the children...

the needs of the many & all that jazz...

Actually it is even more similar to the KM test when you consider that both situations have the "enemy" cheat. In the scenario you would never have to face a situation where you have to decide between doing your job, and going to have to do an action that isn't your job and in fact you wouldn't be allowed to do in the first place. Just as in reality there will never be an infinite amount of cheating Klingons.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-02-20 06:32pm

Robert Treder wrote:Precisely. Even worse is this is college.

The scenario has to be the way it is, or the prof won't listen to it...but that removes the applicability of the case, and makes it irrelevant.
If you bring up the "one life for five" idea, the prof goes the deontological route and quotes Kant: "One is never justified in using another being solely as a means." Which I think is bullshit, because a) does "being" only mean "human"? Because it's a little stupid to say it's unjustified to use animals as a means (PETA tries this all the time). And b) this implies that war is never justified, because war certainly makes use of humans as means. And by any practical definition of "justified," war is at least sometimes justified.

I fucking hate philosophy.

Robert, if you dont mind, where are you taking classes? Mission? Santa Clara? SJSU?

So we agree on this, The person who design the senario was a fucking idiot?

Yes, and what is worse, I bet the person who designed the scenario thinks they are really smart.

Frank_Scenario · Post by **Frank_Scenario** » 2003-02-20 07:06pm

Robert Treder wrote:The scenario has to be the way it is, or the prof won't listen to it...but that removes the applicability of the case, and makes it irrelevant.
If you bring up the "one life for five" idea, the prof goes the deontological route and quotes Kant: "One is never justified in using another being solely as a means." Which I think is bullshit, because a) does "being" only mean "human"? Because it's a little stupid to say it's unjustified to use animals as a means (PETA tries this all the time). And b) this implies that war is never justified, because war certainly makes use of humans as means. And by any practical definition of "justified," war is at least sometimes justified.

I fucking hate philosophy.

At least in this scenario, I think your professor is misreading Kant. You're not using the motorist as a means to an end in this scenario; in fact, you're not using him at all (except possibly as a speed bump). Now, in general, Kant's categorical imperative works when dealing with person-to-person relationships. However, it is difficult to determine what to do in cases like this, where you have multiple ethical obligations that cannot all be fulfilled.

As for your two objections: Kantian ethics fails utterly with regards to animals. It simply cannot work. The basic premise of Kant's moral theory is one of universal obligations. However, you cannot apply these same obligations to animals, and therefore Kant's theory cannot account for what is or is not ethical treatment of animals. An illustration: I think it is reasonable to suggest that we are obligated not to be cruel to animals (ie. set a cat on fire); however, if a cat (a big cat) hunted a human and killed him, but played with its victim first, we wouldn't claim the cat was acting immorally. We don't have any (normative) expectations about how animals act.

Objection 2: War can be justified in a Kantian framework. For this, every soldier must know who he is fighting and why, and he makes the choice to go to war with full knowledge of the risks involved. There are going to be other requirements regarding the motive of the individual soldiers and the motives of those who are starting the war. You can't justify a war of aggression or a draft using Kant, but hopefully no one supports starting a war of aggression. As for the draft, I'd imagine that most view it as a necessary evil.

Also, there's a lot of disgust over the unrealistic nature of the scenario. I don't see why. First of all, moral dilemmas do occur in real life, and they don't always have a satisfactory solution. Undoubtedly, this scenario is not realistic, but it's not supposed to be. The same general class of question is standard in many classes - for example, physics 101 and 102. The problems students are given are simplified (at least at first). I remember being asked to determine how far a ball thrown at a certain angle and with a certain velocity will travel; of course, you ignore air resistance, which complicates things.

Another problem with real-life situations is that they are particular. The goal of most ethical theories is to provide universal rules for ethical action. You 'tease out' elements of these theories by using general situations, such as this one, where the question is, do you exhange one life for many?

I'm through defending philosophy for now.