Should you kill the fat man?

It was interesting. The thing I didn't particularly like about the analysis was that it seemed to give the word "wrong" a lot more freight than it has in my mind--namely, it seemed to think that it was inconsistent to think that a moral person, attempting to act morally, would commit an act that they deemed "wrong". It seems to me that this happens all the time due to a paucity of options. The fact that certain actions may be necessary in certain situations does not mean in my mind mean that the action itself is not still wrong.

Anyway, got me thinking much earlier in the morning than usual...

 

Yes, makes you think... and disagree with yourself It does make you wonder how stable principles are when push comes to shove... for anyone really.

 

Just because torture could be useful in a specific scenario doesnt make it any more or less morally right or wrong. It was an interesting test but the perspective expressed in my results was too black and white for my liking. As if I care whether my actions were morally consistent with my beliefs when I just saved a million lives by violating them. In this case the ends completely justify the means and I fail to see how the contradiction is anything to be ashamed of as my test suggested

 

Sheesh, this did actually make me think a lot and review my own ethics :lol:.

 

"Previous research indicates that most people agree with you that the fat man should not be thrown off the bridge. However, this view seems to be inconsistent with your earlier claim that there is a moral requirement to maximise the happiness of the greatest number of people."

Why of course... there's no guarantee that *I* will get away with having effectively killed the fat man, as such my answer was to "allow the train to continue." No matter how wrong the fat man was, the state would label me a criminal if I had pushed him to death.

Now, if I were able to get away with it, I would have pushed the fat man in all the cases. :rolleyes:

 

Bloody utilitarianism. Funny how the more I think, the less sure I become. I've done this test years ago, and I see no need to do it again.

 

This wasn't very hard. You always save the most lives as possible. Unfortunately, real life isn't this dichotomous. :S

 

"There are no right or wrong answers. Just select the option that most corresponds to your view."

Well... 5 > 1.

 

I got 100 % in the test I decided to throw the fat man on the track saving other peoples lives.does make you think.

 

I feel violated after taking that test LOL!

It must be so hard to be the people in charge of making difficult moral decisions like this!

Even though I thought the fat man should die I would never do it myself!

 

Interesting experiment, I didnt contradict any of my moral views except the torturing one. I found it interesting that so many more people were against throwing the fat man off the bridge than they were turning the trolley, as they are essentially the same scenarios. Also it shocked me that the 86% of the test takers would kill one person to save five but 25% wouldn't torture one to save a million

 

In which Peter Singer investigates a basement flood - Existential Comics

is it morally justifiable? again this is totally depedent on what system of analysis you want to use.

Rawls' theory of justice would not allow you to do this, because you're trying to get the maximum amount of freedom without infringing on another's similar freedom.

For example, you have the right to free speech, but if you use your free speech to shout over someone every time they say "Cow" or something, that isn't allowed.

So in this specific situation, you do not have the right to kill the man because you would be infringing on his right to life.

 

Wow, that made me think!

 

Meh. Found it shallow and disappointing.

How does one define the "sum total of happiness" of a group of humans?

 

Well in this case, the test assumes that living is happiness and the persons involved are willing to live. So, the sum total of happiness in the context would be to guarantee the lives of the largest number of people possible.

//

I find there's a crucial difference between killing and letting die, for which reason the test thought my responses were inconsistent. Even though my views on morality are for the most part utilitarian, I also agree with the second part of Kant's categorical imperative — and with the first part, to a somewhat lesser degree.
The second part claims that one mustn't treat people as means to an end, but as ends themselves. In other words, if I were to sacrifice one person in order to save 5 others, I would be using that person, and that would be wrong.

 

I learned something from this; namely, that I need to re-evaluate my categorical opposition to torture. I now believe that it could be justified under specific circumstances. I'm still extremely weary of it.

Anyway, here's how I answered:

Proposition: Torture, as a matter of principle, is always morally wrong.

Yes

Reasoning: I happen to know that most of the time, torture is used to obtain information about something the intelligence community is not even sure is a hazard. If torture is justified at all, it's only because doing so might minimize suffering. However, suffering can only be minimized if we have a solid reason to believe that we might actually obtain the information. It is impossible for a torture subject to plausibly deny knowledge of something that she does not in fact know. The torturers do not trust her; that's why torture is being applied. Therefore, a torture subject who is wrongly chosen will face the worst possible situation in which she is to be tortured to death or insanity, for no benefit whatsoever. In any event, torture subjects will tell us what they believe we want to hear. That's not the same thing as the truth, which we might require in order to minimize suffering.

Proposition: The morality of an action is determined by whether, compared to the other available options, it maximises the sum total of happiness of all the people affected by it.

No

Reasoning: This question is tantamount to asking "are you a utilitarian or a deontologist?" I am neither. I believe that the morality of an action is determined by whether, compared to the other available options, it minimizes the sum total of suffering of all the people affected by it. That's a big difference. One can make a few suffer grievously for the many, and it may appear that the "sum total of happiness" has increased "on the balance." In my view, nothing constrains this principle from requiring us to impose suffering on others in undue ways. My principle, by contrast, forces us to take specially into account the suffering we cause. It limits us from doing just whatever the hell we want just to make the majority happy.

Proposition: It is always, and everywhere, wrong to cause another person's death - assuming they wish to stay alive - if this outcome is avoidable.

No

Reasoning: Maybe my response here turns on an interpretation of "avoidable." Here I take avoidable to mean that in that moment, or a 100% predictable sequence of events in the future, unaffected by anything else in the intervening time, causing a person's death is not necessary to minimize human suffering. Thus it would be "unavoidable" to kill a person in defense of others or self just as it would be "unavoidable" to flip a switch, diverting a train from a course killing five to a course killing one.

However, I believe that in other circumstances, killing may be justified. For example, killing another person could be justified in a just war, even though there's not a 100% predictable sequence of events in the future leading to an outcome that requires that killing to minimize human suffering.

It is always avoidable to execute a prisoner; however, I believe that there are cases where capital punishment is justified, like premeditated murder. In fact, I believe that sometimes, capital punishment is not simply justified but required: crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and rape come to mind here.

Proposition: If you can save the lives of innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness, and without putting your own life at risk, you are morally obliged to do so.

Yes

Reasoning: I don't agree with the basic moral principle, but in any case, this proposition is self-evidently true. Assuming I agree with the utilitarian principle, this is clearly required. But even on my suffering minimization principle, it's also required, in fact, it is given even more force.