Death Train

[James_S_Saint]

It should be noted that this is not a question of one versus many, nor of innocent versus guilty. If you are thinking in those directions, you are already off “track”.

The issue is entirely one of which decision will yield the most harmonious tomorrow. This is so, because it is by these decisions that such a situation becomes impossible and thus relieves the need to lose life.

Each time such a situation arises, it had a cause. If one were to always save the baby, would that help prevent the cause of the situation arising again any more so than saving the passengers?

By merely keeping that question in mind, as each event occurs, an answer for each will begin to emerge. Eventually what to look for so as to see clearly which choice to make becomes evident. This is the act of praying.

From such praying, it becomes clear during each event which decision to make, fore each might be a little different. But the final effect of such attention is that the cause of the situation gets exposed to the point that it becomes clear each time as to which choice will lead to the prevention of the cause. This eventually allows for it to be removed even before it comes up.

By thus, you have not merely learned to capture a “fish”, but have provided for an endless source of fish forever more.

Do the best you can to Clarify and Verify the situation, seek the hope and avoid the threat, and aim toward momentous eternal harmony.

That which remains in harmony can never perish. Thus the loss of life ends. And “death shall have no reign”.

 

[Della]

These kinds of questions, like all hypothetical scenarios, are just so much smoke and air. I answered this “dilemma” in post #11, in a logical way that answers the reality of the situation, but I’ve been completely ignored. Whatever happened to common sense? Whatever happened to people knowing that you first help those who are the most helpless and then others who have some degree of responsibility for themselves? Am I the only sane person left in the world–or at least on CAF?

 

[James_S_Saint]

These kinds of questions, like all hypothetical scenarios, are just so much smoke and air. I answered this “dilemma” in post #11, in a logical way that answers the reality of the situation, but I’ve been completely ignored. Whatever happened to common sense? Whatever happened to people knowing that you first help those who are the most helpless and then others who have some degree of responsibility for themselves? Am I the only sane person left in the world–or at least on CAF?

Seems a bit presumptuous. There hasn’t been hardly any discourse between any. What reply were you expecting?

You stated in post 11 that you would save the baby because there is an engineer responsible for the passengers. This seemed to not really be answering the actual intended question.

Now you propose that a particular moral value be the deciding factor, that of “baby first always” and that anyone who does not see that, is “insane”.

I’m not sure you understood the “dilemma”, but I’m pretty sure you don’t understand the one your living.

 

[promethius]

These kinds of questions, like all hypothetical scenarios, are just so much smoke and air. I answered this “dilemma” in post #11, in a logical way that answers the reality of the situation, but I’ve been completely ignored. Whatever happened to common sense? Whatever happened to people knowing that you first help those who are the most helpless and then others who have some degree of responsibility for themselves? Am I the only sane person left in the world–or at least on CAF?

I think you got ignored because you changed the problem from a classical philosophical one to suit your own rules. You’re supposed to be ON the train as the engineer who has to make the choice of which way to go. No one is supposed to be able to save the baby.

You cheated.

 

[Della]

I think you got ignored because you changed the problem from a classical philosophical one to suit your own rules. You’re supposed to be ON the train as the engineer who has to make the choice of which way to go. No one is supposed to be able to save the baby.

You cheated.

That wasn’t clear to me. Thank you for elucidating.

If one is the engineer one could always put on the breaks and hope for the best?

James S Saint, if I am living in a dilemma, that’s my problem, don’t you think? The insanity comes in the form of so-called philosophers sitting around creating artificial situations to solve, IMHO. No one can definitely say what he would do in any given situation since real life situations tend to be fluid, not static, like inane philosophical questions usually are.

If one has a moral base, then one will do what is best according to that moral base. That’s the simple answer, so as I understood the problem (although I was wrong as to what the hypothetical problem was), I was right. I would act as I believed best for all concerned. What more can anyone be asked to do?

 

[James_S_Saint]

What more can anyone be asked to do?

Answering that question is the point of philosophy. Even if you merely relegate the answer to a moral issue, those morals came from somewhere and that becomes the philosophical question at hand.

The question, as it turns out is hardly trivial philosophizing. Very real and deadly situations have come up concerning how the country as a whole is to function. They happen to relate directly to that scenario. That is why philosophers use such simple models. They are what clarifies the policies of entire nations.

 

[Della]

Answering that question is the point of philosophy. Even if you merely relegate the answer to a moral issue, those morals came from somewhere and that becomes the philosophical question at hand.

The question, as it turns out is hardly trivial philosophizing. Very real and deadly situations have come up concerning how the country as a whole is to function. They happen to relate directly to that scenario. That is why philosophers use such simple models. They are what clarifies the policies of entire nations.

I understand. I think the question at hand had more relevancy in the 19th century when trains systems weren’t computerized. But, I know what you’re saying. It’s just that there is such a thing as over-thinking a problem, which has, as I see it, led to the modern notion that everybody is right so no one can be wrong. And that is a much more relevant problem for modern society than deciding which track a train should go down.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If you were on the train of momentous, unceasing life in a nation that was divided by many special interests, races, genders, addictions, preferences, and such, but you could clearly see that by keeping the one virtuous and innocent group healthy and prosperous, you had no choice but to cause the others to perish by their own folly, which would you choose to save? - The one innocent or the many foolish?

 

[Della]

If you were on the train of momentous, unceasing life in a nation that was divided by many special interests, races, genders, addictions, preferences, and such, but you could clearly see that by keeping the one virtuous and innocent group healthy and prosperous, you had no choice but to cause the others to perish by their own folly, which would you choose to save? - The one innocent or the many foolish?

Well, considering I already belong to the one virtuous and innocent group by being a member of the Catholic Church, it is my obligation to try to save those who are choosing to die from their own folly. We want to rescue them, not see them die off.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Your only choices are;

A) Save the one most innocent and lose the others
B) Save the many by virtue of numbers and lose the one
C) Save the one more likely to prevent the situation from reoccurring and lose the other
D) other?



This philosophical question reveals who knows God and who doesn’t and is very relevant to actual current decision making in and behind the governance of the West.

Those on “top” are far more educated yet simple minded than you would think.

 

[s4angel]

My dad asked me a question like this when I was little, Through the years I have often thought on it. You are presenting only two choices here as if it was imposible to make a third choice. First we are assuming distance and time to react to a tragidy but that is not how real life works. Most times in real life there is only a split second to react to the unexpected in the scenerio you give us we are driving a train there is a fork, left or right, to one side we see an infant to the other we see a broken bridge one split second to choose left or right, each way someone dies. To me both are unexceptable decisions so I react accordingly and I wreck the train by jumping the tracks while shouting to the lord to help me, Yes someone may die including me but I have done all I can do to protect all lives intrusted to me including the chance life that i have taken responsibility for. There is no easy answer to this question but I will try with all my might to protect all lives in this scenerio.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I don’t believe that an engineer has the ability to intentionally wreck the train so quickly. In most real scenarios, you are right that time is the more pressing issue, but often disabling the situation is not a real option.

Your only choices are;

A) Save the one most innocent and lose the others
B) Save the many by virtue of numbers and lose the one
C) Save the one more likely to prevent the situation from reoccurring and lose the other
D) other? (wrecking the train in hopes of miraculous intervention?)

 

[Della]

Your only choices are;

A) Save the one most innocent and lose the others

Yes, many will most definitely be lost no matter what. Just who are the innocent isn’t always easy to determine, though. What about the babies on the train? You just can’t save everyone no matter how what you do.

B) Save the many by virtue of numbers and lose the one

That’s certainly an option, all right.

C) Save the one more likely to prevent the situation from reoccurring and lose the other

That would be the person who designed the bridge. If he isn’t on the train, he will live to design more bridges. We can hope he’d get justice if the bridge failed because of his design, but I don’t see how we can save him.

D) other?

Can’t see another option–but there could be one.

This philosophical question reveals who knows God and who doesn’t and is very relevant to actual current decision making in and behind the governance of the West.

Perhaps. It all depends on what you mean by “knows God”. After all, God put his natural law into the human heart, so even those who profess to be atheists may have the common sense God gave them to save the ones they are able to save. Yes?

Those on “top” are far more educated yet simple minded than you would think.

A Chestertonian statement if ever I read one. Have you read G. K. Chesterton?

 

[s4angel]

Ok let me explain a little. First of what speed are we assuming? At forks trains are typicaly going slower because of the switch over. You are giving absolutes that are contrary to the facts given. A fork, left or right? How about niether? You see in this situation you can’t bar the third choice. What tools do I have at my disposal, How have I been trained to react to this situation, What experiance do I have with this train… These are all factors that contribute to the ultimate decision I am going to make. Barring my ability to jump the tracks or force the train to leave the tracks I am going to choose to go to the broken bridge because I should be going slow enough to be able to stop the train in time. How far away is the broken bridge as apposed to the infant on the tracks? You see there are many, many factors that are going to be involved with the decision I make not just the absolutes you have given to me. I am going to be looking for the out that preserves all lives.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

In historical situations with animals, trains were fitted with scraper guards on the front – anything small enough to fit under the grill would also be missed by all the connections and not killed so long as it stayed between the rails.

So, my first question is – why the heck are you worried about the baby?
Is it like tied across a rail or something?

The obvious 1st thing to do is hit the brakes regardless of which way the train goes. This will give more time to think.

Second, depending on the speed – someone can climb out onto the trains front grill and use one of the brooms to either a) knock the child off the track – or b) knock them down flat but off the rail. A few severe bruises and a concussion may result, but there is a chance for survival.

Third, during world war II Russians jumped out of low flying air-planes without parachutes – the fatality rates were astonishingly low. The number of broken arms and legs were, however, high. So telling the passengers, the train is going over a cliff – JUMP NOW and use anything you have, suitcases, pillows, seat cushions to soften the initial blow-- has the possibility of saving everyone, if not a guarantee.
Ps: the trick is to ROLL when you hit…

On the off chance that none of these are optional, because someone wants to make the problem even more perverted – BUT one does know the baby is baptized – by all means, hit the brakes but run the child over. There are more sinners on the train, and it would be better to allow them one more chance at salvation… The kid gets a free ticket to heaven – and you did your best to save it by hitting the brakes.

Oh, and one can put an engine into reverse even when it is moving forward – I don’t know if it would jump the track or not, but with as much power as one of those diesels can put out – it’s a fair bet that the track would be destroyed under maximum strain of full reverse power of the engine. Most USA tracks are truly in HORRIBLE shape which is why most trains only do 50-60MPH across montanna, although they are easily able to run at 80 when the track is good. So, at that point we are back to broken arms and legs, (railroad track) and possibly a dead engineer as the train derails. – but there is still a chance everyone will survive.

Oh, I suppose there is the other alternative too – if everyone on the train is baptized and has gone to confession – by all means go over the cliff. And tell everyone to jump so that it isn’t suicide – those who die get to heaven early.

What is so difficult about this problem that a Kantian calculus must be made ?
It KANT work.

Oh – and one more thing – PRAY, DUMMY. IF you get an answer – go with it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

It seems that many are missing the point. The details of the parable are irrelevant.

The scenario is merely proposed to ask the question;

"Knowing no more than that you had to choose between a baby or a group of adults as to which would live, which would you choose?"

 

[s4angel]

All of them.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, some philosophy does require intellect.

 

[s4angel]

which kind of intelect are you requesting?

You put before us a scenerio, in this scenerio we are in a train, you only gave us two choices but some of us chose a third option that was not presented but you did not say we can’t choose a third option. Very well…

I am going to ask you a question. Who deserves more to live? it is fair as you are asking us to make this choice.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I didn’t put forth the question actually. I was explaining.

So your answer involves, “who more deserves to live”?

How would you determine that?

Your only choices are;

A) Save the one most innocent and lose the others?
B) Save the many by virtue of numbers and lose the one
C) Save the one more likely to prevent the situation from reoccurring and lose the other
D) other?