• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

My version of the Trolley Problem

If you were a consequentialist/utilitarian then you could argue it would be moral to let five people die. If you subscribe to virtue ethics, then it would depend on the scientists relationship to yourself as well as the other 5 people on the track. From a deontological or rights-based perspective you would have to kill the scientist.

This is about as basic as ethics gets, whilst I strongly appreciate philosophical discussion, it seems like you have a tendency to make a new thread several times per day at this point.
 
drug_mentor said:
If you were a consequentialist/utilitarian then you could argue it would be moral to let five people die. If you subscribe to virtue ethics, then it would depend on the scientists relationship to yourself as well as the other 5 people on the track. From a deontological or rights-based perspective you would have to kill the scientist.

This is about as basic as ethics gets, whilst I strongly appreciate philosophical discussion, it seems like you have a tendency to make a new thread several times per day at this point.
Click to expand...

It could also be argued from a utilitarian standpoint to save the scientist. His actions could save more people, and by letting the five people die, you could end up saving hundreds. If this scientist is intelligent enough to cure a disease.

As for the frequency of my threads, it's a result of boredom.
 
I was saying that a utilitarian would want to save the scientist. There is a lot more utility in saving a brilliant doctor than in saving five homeless people.
 
The fact that I probably wouldn't be able to find the lever in time let alone figure out how to operate it pretty much saves me from any moral decision making.
 
nuttynutskin said:
The fact that I probably wouldn't be able to find the lever in time let alone figure out how to operate it pretty much saves me from any moral decision making.
Click to expand...

Whether or not you actually reached the lever wouldn't stop you making a decision though, you would still have to choose either to try or not to try.
 
No, it would be immoral. The value of a human life is not a measure of their economic productivity and social desirability (Hitler would disagree with that last one).

The intrinsic worth of the self is not a derivative of the extent to which one stimulates the economy and keeps the cogs of the corporate machine greased and operational (i.e., the rate at which one fuels the destruction of the biosphere, furthers environmental degradation, and quickens the depletion of natural resources, all for the sake of conforming to the inane conventions of a dangerously demented and depraved culture drunk off its own narcissism and for the sake of indulging the insatiable esurience and reckless rapacity of plutocratic fat cats).

Show me five homeless guys and I'll show you five people who don't deserve to be publicly flayed, hanged, drawn, and quartered for ruining our ozone and rapidly turning the globe into Atlantis by melting ice sheets and raising the sea level.
 
Last edited:
Nom de Plume said:
No, it would be immoral. The value of a human life is not a measure of their economic productivity and social desirability (Hitler would disagree with that last one).

The intrinsic worth of the self is not a derivative of the extent to which one stimulates the economy and keeps the cogs of the corporate machine greased and operational (i.e., the rate at which one fuels the destruction of the biosphere, furthers environmental degradation, and quickens the depletion of natural resources, all for the sake of conforming to the inane conventions of a dangerously demented and depraved culture drunk off its own narcissism and for the sake of indulging the insatiable esurience and reckless rapacity of plutocratic fat cats).

Show me five homeless guys and I'll show you five people who don't deserve to be publicly flayed, hanged, drawn, and quartered for ruining our ozone and rapidly turning the globe into Atlantis by melting ice sheets and raising the sea level.
Click to expand...
'

What you're saying would make sense if I was talking about a CEO. But a scientist/doctor isn't valuable because they stimulate the economy. They'be valuable because they can save more lives than 5 homeless people can.
 
An interesting question, and one I hope I never have to make. I think in this case I'd go with the utilitarian view and save the scientist/doctor/etc, if it was a person who actually brings great value to the world. Then again, who's to say one or more of those homeless guys isn't a brilliant individual who is destined to do something great? My main problem with this scenario is that it sort of inadvertently demonizes homeless people. If the question was posed that you could save a brilliant and impactful scientist/etc, or 5 people who you somehow knew were going to be part of the machine and not contribute anything significant to humanity, it would be an easier choice.

Of course, in reality, were I to encounter this situation, it would be a much harder decision than when we're talking about it hypothetically.

One thing I can say for sure though, is that if the choice were between 5 random people and someone I love very much, or even this scientist or someone I love very much, I would choose the person I love. I don't think I could live with myself if I didn't. It's totally subjective but I don't think I could get past my feelings in this case.
 
psychedelicsoul said:
'

What you're saying would make sense if I was talking about a CEO. But a scientist/doctor isn't valuable because they stimulate the economy. They'be valuable because they can save more lives than 5 homeless people can.
Click to expand...


1.) You missed the point.

2.) The whole reason you chose 5 homeless men, rather than, say, 5 ordinary people (ordinary people don't save lives as a normal part of their day, either. In fact, ordinary people are more likely to harm than help you) is because you are tacitly arguing that the lives of homeless people are valueless or at least less valuable than the lives of anybody else.

3.) The only basis for such an argument that homeless people are less valuable than other people is productivism. There is no other possible perspective from which such an egregious and morally reprehensible position could be supported.

4.) A CEO stimulates the economy less than a factory worker does. In fact, a CEO is simply an overpaid psychopathic sinecure in a pinstripe suit and fancy office, who is much more likely to ruin an economy (they have the power to catapult entire nations into recession, which has happened and will inevitably happen again) than repair it (the reparation comes not from the corporate office, but the executive office of the Whitehouse in the USA in the form of bailouts, courtesy of the taxpayer. The CEO, after destroying everything, usually just glides away from the scene of the crime with a multi-million dollar golden parachute). If you think people like Al 'Chainsaw' Dunlap stimulate the economy, then you don't know shit from shinola.

But while deranged sociopaths like Mr. Beaucoup Bills or Al Dunlap can destroy economies, they're still regarded as the most valuable citizens because the wealthy are held as idols to be obsequiously worshipped by daft plebeians and proud peasants.

5.) A doctor and scientist does stimulate the economy. They keep bovine consumers and passive wage slaves from an early death; they prolong the lives of consumers and wage slaves; they discover new things for profiteers to profit from; thsy make a hell of a lot of money (well, the doctor does, anyway) with which to buy and consume things; etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top