think short answer 2 dilema 3 lots of things bout traveler and other patients would need to be taken into account and alot would need 2 be known bout the situations nd the potential impact, to make a justified decision the surgeon would need alot of power to delve into relations and the lifes of thos ppl involvd directly/indirectly, such power would most like lead to curruption and i think the curruption it could caus awhole far out weigh benefits of case. nly god shud hav that sort of power.
3 like other dilema's in respect of trading life to sav several, in 3 the travelers own morality could be taken into consideration, think if traveler has gd morality nd sensibility would choose 2 die 2 sav ovas nd if not tht cals into question wat sort of life he livin nd sort of person he is, i think it wud b immoral 2 operate witout consultin travelr, think real moral dilema is whethr doc shud hav right to overrule travelers decision which i think violates ethics etc. gods job must b hard lol
If my society was for utilitarianism, then the moral thing to do in all 3 situations would be to save the 5 people, kill the fat guy, and sedate the traveler, or I might be guilty of murder.
If my society was for deontology, where actions are judged as intrinsically good or evil independent of their consequences (like our society), then the only moral thing to do is nothing, otherwise you will get charged for murder.
In other words, there is no moral dilemma here. The responsibility of what I should do (what is moral) is not for me to decide, it's for the mob (aka general public) to pick. I will simply follow the system of morality they acquiesce to and be heralded as a Hero for doing the "right" thing. In our society, most of us are deongologists. It is not a crime to passively let 10's of millions die in Africa, but if we dare interfered and accidentally killed 100 children, we're considered criminals!
3. I would not kill the the traveller to harvest his organs.
4-6. I don't think that that's a useful question because it presupposes that there is a definite right and wrong. I told you what I would do, and given the circumstances, I think that's right.
7. I would be hesitant to actively harm somebody.
1a. Half pull the lever. This should derail and crash the trolley before it hits either target. Also run like hell.
b. Same.
2a. Jump onto the tracks myself aiming to land on one of the rails to derail and crash the trolley. If any article of clothing I had could have the same result, that would be substituted for me.
b. Same.
3a. If I am compatible, try and remove 5 organs between us to the point we both survive if possible. If not, the traveller.
OK, one stranger in each case. Switching the tracks, pushing the fat guy onto the rails and donating the traveller's organs all simply because of the comparison of 1 life to 5. As for thelastholdout's argument that he didn't want to be directly responsible, if I could've done something and didn't I'd still feel guilty. No differences in answers.
nobody will push the fat man because nobody ever saw a fat man stopping a trolley , nobody believes it can happen
niinja2 9 months ago
think short answer 2 dilema 3 lots of things bout traveler and other patients would need to be taken into account and alot would need 2 be known bout the situations nd the potential impact, to make a justified decision the surgeon would need alot of power to delve into relations and the lifes of thos ppl involvd directly/indirectly, such power would most like lead to curruption and i think the curruption it could caus awhole far out weigh benefits of case. nly god shud hav that sort of power.
johnnyw00t 1 year ago
3 like other dilema's in respect of trading life to sav several, in 3 the travelers own morality could be taken into consideration, think if traveler has gd morality nd sensibility would choose 2 die 2 sav ovas nd if not tht cals into question wat sort of life he livin nd sort of person he is, i think it wud b immoral 2 operate witout consultin travelr, think real moral dilema is whethr doc shud hav right to overrule travelers decision which i think violates ethics etc. gods job must b hard lol
johnnyw00t 1 year ago
clever clever clever!
Great questions :]
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
Well my answer was clever too! Look!
-:)
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
It depends on the moral system of my society.
If my society was for utilitarianism, then the moral thing to do in all 3 situations would be to save the 5 people, kill the fat guy, and sedate the traveler, or I might be guilty of murder.
If my society was for deontology, where actions are judged as intrinsically good or evil independent of their consequences (like our society), then the only moral thing to do is nothing, otherwise you will get charged for murder.
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
In other words, there is no moral dilemma here. The responsibility of what I should do (what is moral) is not for me to decide, it's for the mob (aka general public) to pick. I will simply follow the system of morality they acquiesce to and be heralded as a Hero for doing the "right" thing. In our society, most of us are deongologists. It is not a crime to passively let 10's of millions die in Africa, but if we dare interfered and accidentally killed 100 children, we're considered criminals!
Mrmoc7 3 years ago
1:i would save the 5 people
--- because i would rather have the burden of one person dead rather than 5
2:i would save the fat man
---cause i don't think i could actually push someone to their death.
3:i would let her go
---, cause it would be basically murder to take the travelers organs without her consent
---the difference between the type of person, cause most people are stupid and are all "oh lets kill the fat man" alot of people have that mindset.
elphiegreen 3 years ago
"most people are stupid..."
Explain to me how that is a "stupid" mindset.
Obversity 2 years ago
most people would treat an obese man differently because of his weight. most people are stupid and descriminate
elphiegreen 2 years ago
Oh, sorry, I completely misread your proposition. Somehow. I'm not sure how, now that I read it again.
Obversity 2 years ago
That said, I personally would push the fat man (though not on the premise that he's fat).
Obversity 2 years ago
why would you push the fat man though?
elphiegreen 2 years ago
1. I think I would probably pull the lever.
2. I would not push the fat man.
3. I would not kill the the traveller to harvest his organs.
4-6. I don't think that that's a useful question because it presupposes that there is a definite right and wrong. I told you what I would do, and given the circumstances, I think that's right.
7. I would be hesitant to actively harm somebody.
CousinoMacul 3 years ago
1a. Half pull the lever. This should derail and crash the trolley before it hits either target. Also run like hell.
b. Same.
2a. Jump onto the tracks myself aiming to land on one of the rails to derail and crash the trolley. If any article of clothing I had could have the same result, that would be substituted for me.
b. Same.
3a. If I am compatible, try and remove 5 organs between us to the point we both survive if possible. If not, the traveller.
b. Same.
Orygyn 3 years ago
Answers differ out of possibility to have a solution where no-one dies.
Orygyn 3 years ago
Way to weasle yourself out of each situation. Notice how I only gave you two options each time. :-P
Mozza314 3 years ago
Yeh I just thought it was worth a try lol.
Orygyn 3 years ago
Yeah, well, fail. Give me some better answers :-D
Mozza314 3 years ago
OK, one stranger in each case. Switching the tracks, pushing the fat guy onto the rails and donating the traveller's organs all simply because of the comparison of 1 life to 5. As for thelastholdout's argument that he didn't want to be directly responsible, if I could've done something and didn't I'd still feel guilty. No differences in answers.
Orygyn 3 years ago