Are you a psychopath?

[kjpetrie]

Actually, there's another reason a 'sane' person shouldn't throw the fat man in front of the train: it would be futile. A railway carriage typically weighs at least ten tons. A ten-coach train weighs at least a hundred tons. Flesh and bone are a lot softer than steel. If the train has a cow-catcher it will throw the man's body out of the way. Otherwise its wheels will go through his body like a pastry cutter. There's no way a man weighing about a tenth of a ton will have any significant effect on the progress of a hundred ton train. It isn't ethical to add a sixth death to the other five.

Most people would have trouble operating the points lever as well, because they become responsible for the one man's death in a way they are not if they don't intervene. If the effect of pulling the lever were that the train went onto a parallel track and therefore only hit one of the same group so four out of the same five lives were saved it would be easier, but choosing to kill someone who would otherwise be safe means the person pulling the lever is deciding who should live and who should die, and most people wouldn't want to do that.

[Just17]

I disagree with his assessment of what is involved in the scenario.

In respect of the 'fat guy' ......  he is in no danger without my action .....  so if I do push him that is a deliberate act on my part that is guaranteed to cause his death.

I am not prepared to commit the murder of an innocent even if it saves others.

On the other hand, if this 'fat guy' was the cause of the situation, ( had interfered with the train or tied the five to the railway line etc) then I would have no compunction in dropping him in front of the train in order to save the five.

....  it is a false test ....


....  of course the above also implies that I would not have changed the course of the train in the first part to kill one innocent in order to save the five ...... 

[Crow]

The example he gives is usually used as an exercise in situational ethics, and is intended to start a discussion about the issues raised. The mere fact he thinks the answer is easy suggests he doesn't understand the issues, either emotionally or ethically. That lack of emotional/ethical understanding is rather worrying, given the subject of his talk!

It is not a test is what kjpetrie says.

We talked a lot about this months ago as a series of talks about ethics were appearing.

[Crow]

Here is the link of those videos, very good by the way.

Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"

PART ONE: THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER
If you had to choose between (1) killing one person to save the lives of five others and (2) doing nothing even though you knew that five people would die right before your eyes if you did nothing—what would you do? What would be the right thing to do? Thats the hypothetical scenario Professor Michael Sandel uses to launch his course on moral reasoning. After the majority of students votes for killing the one person in order to save the lives of five others, Sandel presents three similar moral conundrums—each one artfully designed to make the decision more difficult. As students stand up to defend their conflicting choices, it becomes clear that the assumptions behind our moral reasoning are often contradictory, and the question of what is right and what is wrong is not always black and white.

PART TWO: THE CASE FOR CANNIBALISM

Sandel introduces the principles of utilitarian philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, with a famous nineteenth century legal case involving a shipwrecked crew of four. After nineteen days lost at sea, the captain decides to kill the weakest amongst them, the young cabin boy, so that the rest can feed on his blood and body to survive. The case sets up a classroom debate about the moral validity of utilitarianism—and its doctrine that the right thing to do is whatever produces "the greatest good for the greatest number."

[Tony]

Aint it great to get to know how your fellow Forum members think.

Sure puts a dampener on my idea to suggest a nice train ride as a get together for PCLinuxOS Forum members.  

Nice detective work Bald Brick ( or as I like to call the Great Man - "BB Fin")   

[MGBguy]

G'day there Andy (Waving)

I've heard a simpler kinda version of this, more related to a Maths problem.

Anyway, I believe the Psychopath would just sit and watch the Five people get run down by the train, yeah !   

My thought as well. 

[Just17]

As there was mention of cannibalism in this thread I thought to post this here 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2243169/Two-fishermen-suspected-resorting-cannibalism-getting-lost-trip-Siberia.html

[Bald Brick]

Both Kevin Dutton and Michael Sandel use the same example to make their points. But their points are different.

To Sandel (who is certainly the better speaker) the story just illustrates a moral dilemma. How would you behave? How should you behave?

For Dutton the question is still "how would you behave?" -- or more precisely "how would you behave?" For him it becomes a test question. The answer will tell us something about you, not about ethics.

And the point isn't what might be the right answer. It is that some people behave differently than most of us because of who they are. So the question isn't just a casuistic one; it's become a question of biology. Answer it truthfully and we'll know more about you. But of course it won't give us a solution to the moral dilemma.

 

[weirdwolf]

Ok, here's my question. How fat does a guy have to be to stop a train ? If he's that fat how did he get up there to begin with ? (Inquiring minds and all that )
I don't care if the glass is half empty or half full, I want to know what's in it and whether it's safe for me to drink it.  

Are you a psychopath?

[ppiklapp]

To quote Socrates "I drank what???"