Created by Mr_Incognito, 1 y 11 mo 21 d ago.
Post an ethical dilemma and see how others respond.
You need to be logged in to post comments..
Created by Mr_Incognito, 1 y 11 mo 21 d ago.
Post an ethical dilemma and see how others respond.
Trolley Problem part 2
A trolley is about to hit 2 people. You are standing on a building above it, looking down on the scene. Next to you stands a fat man. You can push the man of the building, and he will be enough to stop the trolley and only he dies. Nothing else will stop the trolley, so if you don't push the man the other two people will die. Do you push the man?
The destiny of those two below me has come, but the man next to me, no.
@Memeguy @Cw6334 @Supersomebody @Savage @Alien_X @Tyrannus @Aaronzeki
𝓘'𝓶 𝓼𝓸𝓻𝓻𝔂 𝓵𝓸𝓿𝓮𝓭 𝓸𝓷𝓮
press the button and everyone dies but u get their money
do u press it?
You already know the answer lol
I've noticed that all these questions are virtually the same thing. Let's just simplify it to philosophers terms. The trolley problem.
For those of you who haven't studied philosophy, here's the problem. You're controlling a trolley about to hit two people. You can move the trolley to the other track, with only one person on it. No matter what someone dies. Do you move the trolley or no?
I'm mainly interested in your answer @Tyrannus.
With the other one, your friends life is in your hands. Whoever got infected and may die isn't your responsibility however. You didn't give them the disease so whether they die or not isn't your fault. Your friend dying will be.
That's like saying all the people who died on earth is Superman's fault because he didn't save them.
With the trolley, people had to die. With the quicksand, by saving your friend and not the cure, technically no one's died.
I would stop the asteroid because that's about to kill us all. By that point there'd be no point saving your friend
Do you grab the hose?
@ThorMathews @Tyrannus @Dhruv @Savage @Noc @Akhilpdx @Alien_X @Deandinosaur6 @AaronZeki @Supersomebody
Do you remove the person from the entrance, killing them in the process?
Either way the person must be pushed out the way. As unfortunate as this outcome is, they jeopardised everyone else's life so having to be removed isn't so devastating.
(assuming it's kill the man or watch the city burn)
@Savage @Alien_X @Noc @Sspidergwen
A: You disappear forever & family never sees you again
B: You disappear forever & family gets some version of you.
I'd give my fam the clone
1. The Child's weight shouldn't be a problem as he's the lowest weight on the air ballon. Throwing the child out first just means you're actually pathetic.
2. You can already infer that they are married in matrimony because they have a child in conflict. If it had to be someone it would have to be the Man. Despite the injury the man should do it.
More Notes: Now look here's how it goes in real life. When you fall in love with a Woman. The woman doesn't come to them first. The man comes to them first. Now when you think about it like that. That's one of the reasons why the man drops first. I don't know if this is a good example but it just shows you who does the action first.
I'm assuming for argument's sake they all weight the same.
I would also like to reference superheros, since this is after all a superhero sight. I have thought a lot about philosophy through superheros, and it's always intrigued me. What would Captain America do for instance? Would he save the test tube, knowing it would save lives? Or would he save his friend, knowing that if he didn't, he would take a life. I think Steve would go for his friend. But what about Wolverine? Unlike Steve, Logan doesn't hesitate to weigh lives. He would understand that millions if lives will always outweigh the one, and go for the test tube.
Another thing that's important to consider here is what it means to take a life. By not saving the friend, would I be killing them? In short, yes. I'm a utilitarian (type of ethical philosophy), so I see not saving the friend as killing them. But at the same time, not taking the test tube is killing millions. One may not think they're killing, since they are not the cause of death, but anytime a life could be saved and isn't, is a murder by the bystander. Which of course brings of to the amazing Spider-Man.
What would Peter Parker do? Surely he would see it as killing someone either way. He's truly a mix of wolverine's philosophies (general consequentialism), and Captain America's philosophy's (Borderline kantianism at times). So for Peter, I do not know.
This is the type of situation that makes me dislike Batman. Batman is the complete opposite of Logan, and his understanding of ethics is even more riddled with kantianism than Steve. Bruce is clearly a deontologist. He wouldn't hesitate to save the friend. He may think what he's doing is just, but in the end, Logan kills a life and saves millions, Bruce kills millions to save one person. As with most ethical questions, it boils down to consequentialism vs deontology. (in theory both Steve and Peter actually follow more Aristotle style virtue ethics, but that's just dumb if you ask me).
Side note (in case you don't know a lot about philosophy): Deontology is a type of ethical philosophy, the general opposite of consequentialism. Consequentialism believes that all actions can be justified, it will always depend on the scenario. Deontology believes that you should do the right action no matter what. Kantianism is a form of extreme deontology, named for philosopher Immanual Kant. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism that believes any action can be justified based on how it benefits the entire population's general well-being and happiness.
If you look at this practically, you either lose something (that may scar you for the rest of your life) or you gain something. By saving the friend you've lost nothing and the world isn't any worse off.
The analogy gave by @Savage was excellent but this is why I'll always admire Batman. As hard as the consequences may be, the Joker must live.
Why is one life ever more important than millions? By not taking the vile aren't you murdering many more?
Thinking of causation in that way doesn't work. Cause and affect just looks at the outcomes. Either one person dies, or millions do. It matters not if you "killed" them, by not saving them you are causing their deaths. Like the trolley problem, one way or another you would be a murderer, to avoid it is futile, it's more logical to accept that trading lives in a necessity.
If everyone (with sufficient funds obviously) donated money to charity, most of these problems would have been solved by now. Are the people who don't donate to charity responsible for all the world's problems?
Batman gets blamed for Joker's killings but he didn't make Joker commit those crimes. What he does if (or when) he breaks out of Arkham is a problem for the future which can also be solved.
This is where is differs from the trolley problem because you have to let someone die where as in this situation you don't have to let your friend die.
@25braydens @Savage @Akhilpdx @Atemporal @Alien_X @Superguy251 @Deandinosaur6 @Tyrannus @Tigerking2020 @Pedrof @Aaronzeki @Joemama
Here, we are presented with two scenarios.
In one we defy nature without any struggle. We conquer all illness. We would live, as a society, in a state of peace, but at what cost? Human exploration is over, as is struggle, and what is life without exploration and struggle? What would it mean to be human? Overpopulation would soon become a major issue, with no end it sight. An overpopulated world where society doesn't advance is not a world I would ever want to live in. The desire to create and advance as humans and as a society is greater than any amount of lives.
In the second scenario all would continue as is. This again brings us to faith in humanity. Will we improve as a society? Will technology better us? Will society advance? These are the questions that we ponder. I have thought many times about this, and in the end I realize that no matter what the answers may be, we most hope. It is beyond question. As a people, humans most have faith, faith in themselves. If we do not believe that we will advance and improve, then we have nothing to live for.
Honestly being immune to everything without any tech would just be good because then we would have become more educated by then. Take a look at social media platforms and video games how they affect people's mind. You know what I mean? We'd be better off without tech. I'd like to live in a world where I could just go outside everyday in my neighborhood. I never wanted to play games, use Facebook, any of that stuff. I like nature better than tech.
We'd cure diseases but lose so much more.
Many people take "technology" as video games and stuff, but we're really talking about all human advancement here.
Look if we keep on going with tech. I think the world is going to keep on getting negative. Pressing the button just means that we can always have a happy life without any mental illnesses, diseases, or any genetic things you're born with.
But Tyrannus I get that technology helps us learn new things, it improves life but it's going to destroy us eventually get what I mean? Do you not know how much people suffer with mental illnesses? Like people with severe autism. Do you know how much their mother has to take care of them for the rest of their lives? Who would want to do that? Another example would be. Don't you want to end cancer? There are thousands of people dying from it and half are in hospitals barely alive. If we discontinue with technology there would be less conflict in the world. What do you mean we won't survive? Everyone would just become a hunter who brings food back to their homes. There would still be democracy but there would be less religion/political views in the world. Hey we would even be able to get better at socializing. Nobody would be autistic everyone would get to know each other very well. We would still have schools and even colleges to learn from each other and I'm fine writing on pencil and paper again let's go. Doesn't matter if we don't have technology anymore we could just build new things because we still have education to evolve from.
The problems caused by technology are dwarfed by the good it causes. And technology can provide the cure to all these problems.
I'm not saying everyone won't survive but technology is responsible to several lives being saved. And then it provides us with a better state of living.
Its not as simple as just hunting for food and bring it back for everyone else. All of a sudden the other problems come in like extreme weathers, predation, accessibility to people with knowledge/skill etc.