Trolley question

  • Thread starter Thread starter mexico
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I disagree with the Pope then if he saw the issue in such simple terms. I can understand if he condemned it after a long, in-depth study of the war and circumstances surrounding it, but to condemn it using the logic of the trolley car case? I hope he didn’t do that.
Click to expand...
“The road to hell is paved with good intentions”

I shouldn’t have to tell you that 😛
 
bschneid said:
Would your answer be different if the question asked “who deserves to live?” instead of “who should you save?”

I wouldn’t describe it as inadvertently. You obvious realize the potential outcome of the situation, if you didn’t why would you flip the switch?

Doesn’t really matter though I think we are just arguing semantics at this point.
Click to expand...
Well, we’re making a judgement on who deserves to live either way. Once we’re put in this situation, it’s already too late.

What I mean is, whether we like it or not we are going to be"responsible" for somebody’s death, because without pulling a switch that we know we can save five people, we knowingly and deliberately condemn five people to die, and let one live.

By pulling the switch, we are not killing that one person-we’re trading five deaths for one. Either way, once you’re in this situation you have a responsibility-somebody is going to die directly as a result of something you do. Not pulling the switch is condemning those five people to die just as much as pulling the switch condemns the one person to die.

So, naturally I choose to save five people rather than one eprson.

Let’s try this scenario-There are two rooms, one with five people in it and one with one person in it. Air is rapidly running out of the rooms; in thrity seconds everybody in both rooms will be dead.

You have two buttons in front of you. One releases air into the room with five people, one with one person. You can only press one button. Which do you press?

Obviously you press the button that gives air to the room with five people, because you are saving five.

BUT-if you say that-you are being inconsistent if you also say you would not pull the switch. In both cases, directly as a result of a choice you make, some people will live and some will die. This second scenario is no different from the first, in the sense that if you save the five people, you have killed one person.

So, I will be consistent. I save five people in both cases.

To be consistent, you need to either save five people in both the scenarios I’ve presented here, or you need to do nothing in both scenarios.

I hold the (admittedly, debateable) position that there is no middle ground.
 
I do nothing, for both questions, it’s incorrect to kill someone to save many wherever the reason was ‘pure’
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top