This isn't really a dilemma - open and shut case as far as I'm concerned. We all know the only right answer is save 7, sacrifice 1. The problem isn't figuring out what's right - under those extreme circumstances we know what's right. The problem is that individual will understandably be unable to do it. He should kill his loved one, but he can't. I'm not sure I could either - but that doesn't mean I'm right. In short, the subjectivity is irrelevant, when objectively defining morals.
Well the reason that comparison's not fair is that that's the equivalent of saying 'Are 7 paedophiles worth 1 Cathol' - no wait - 'worth 1 little boy'
You've added extra data. But here, we don't know anything about these other individuals.
On the given information, and with this level of sacrifice, I think most would feel the maths of the greater good is justifiable. And just try to reverse the equation. Here, people ARE going to die, so you can't seriously kill 7 to save 1.
With the analogy, if no one's seen an Uwe Boll film, I'm sorry to say they'd have to go based on quantity, i.e.; Boll has 7 chances to satisfy his audience as much as, say, The Iron Giant - and sadly we ain't got no test screening.
Also, we should be working towards universal moral standards, the way a government has to legislate for society as a whole, at the expense of individual's interest, as it's 7 times more likely any of us know one of the anonymous few, than it be our sister.
I'd say the real moral maze lies when you increase the level of sacrifice or close the gap, to war like proportions. Is killing 1000 worth saving 7000? Or killing 250 to save 300?
Here I feel you can't write off collateral damage to maths, as there's no clean way to decide what 'too much', or 'too close' is. But 7 against 1 should be abundantly clear to all of us.
Well, first off, you already know that the one person is worth quite a bit to you, so it becomes an issue of an individual vs. an undefined collective. Secondly, you have to remember that if you don't pull the lever to switch the track you have not affected the outcome of the situation, therefore responsibility for the deaths of those individuals still rests with the villain who set it up.
These questions are always asking what is right, and I would have to say that the dilemma should be resolved in one rule for everyone.
So since it can really only be one sister at any given time, and it's always going to be - someone's - sister, can you really say, "Well of course I'd save the seven everytime, um, unless it's the one time where it's my family, in which case I'd let all the others die." Why should that inequality exist? Why give special treatment to that person?
Now would you actually be able to go through with killing your own sister? Well maybe not, but that's irrelevant. The question is asking what is right, and that's best interpreted as what is best for everyone, or the most number of people.
Plus, while I agree the person unable to pull the switch has no direct responsibility, unlike the perpetrator, if a person can help and they don't, they may not be legally accountable, but it's still immoral, like someone not phoning an ambulance.
But phoning an ambulance doesn't get anyone else killed. See, even if it were one person who I didn't know I still wouldn't pull that lever. I'm not going to kill one victim for seven others. The question here is: under what circumstances is it morally correct for you to kill someone? You come from the quantitative school of morality, whereas I'm a strict individualist. It's why I don't view government as a valid concept and why I think taxation is immoral.
Though I should just stress once again, I don't believe you can put MOST moral matters down to a simple head count. You know I'd never willingly advocate the death of 100 people to save 101 - unless, God forbid, everyone's out of ideas.
I'm reminded of the delicious Joker's dilemma, at the end of The Dark Knight. That would give me pause for thought alright, and fits in with your point before about how you weigh life.
Lol, nothing against you for having a quantitative mindset, by the way. :)
And I know that you wouldn't, don't worry, dude.
And I actually did think of an answer to the Joker's dilemma, which I have on my own video profile. Mind you, I'm not pimping my video, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It WAS a great moral dilemma, especially if there was no husky voiced Bale to save us. :)
nice to see a great new member. I might be joining as well. I did a video on this on my channel a while ago, dont know if I deleted it in the mean while. But it is a great experiment to portrait how life is valued, quantity and quality wise. I hope I can do a video response this wednesday to it!
Oh and I voted 5* because it was on 3* and that is not good! :D
I think I'd save the 7 people because there's more lives. Problem with answering this is that it's not actually happening. If it were actually happening. I don't know if I could make that decision or not. It's a hard decision to make.
This isn't really a dilemma - open and shut case as far as I'm concerned. We all know the only right answer is save 7, sacrifice 1. The problem isn't figuring out what's right - under those extreme circumstances we know what's right. The problem is that individual will understandably be unable to do it. He should kill his loved one, but he can't. I'm not sure I could either - but that doesn't mean I'm right. In short, the subjectivity is irrelevant, when objectively defining morals.
PurushaDesa 3 years ago
But 7 lives aren't necessarily more valuable than one life, objectively speaking.
Are 7 Uwe Boll movies better than one Brad Bird movie?
thelastholdout 2 years ago
(1/3)
Well the reason that comparison's not fair is that that's the equivalent of saying 'Are 7 paedophiles worth 1 Cathol' - no wait - 'worth 1 little boy'
You've added extra data. But here, we don't know anything about these other individuals.
On the given information, and with this level of sacrifice, I think most would feel the maths of the greater good is justifiable. And just try to reverse the equation. Here, people ARE going to die, so you can't seriously kill 7 to save 1.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
(2/3)
With the analogy, if no one's seen an Uwe Boll film, I'm sorry to say they'd have to go based on quantity, i.e.; Boll has 7 chances to satisfy his audience as much as, say, The Iron Giant - and sadly we ain't got no test screening.
Also, we should be working towards universal moral standards, the way a government has to legislate for society as a whole, at the expense of individual's interest, as it's 7 times more likely any of us know one of the anonymous few, than it be our sister.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
(3/3)
I'd say the real moral maze lies when you increase the level of sacrifice or close the gap, to war like proportions. Is killing 1000 worth saving 7000? Or killing 250 to save 300?
Here I feel you can't write off collateral damage to maths, as there's no clean way to decide what 'too much', or 'too close' is. But 7 against 1 should be abundantly clear to all of us.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
Well, first off, you already know that the one person is worth quite a bit to you, so it becomes an issue of an individual vs. an undefined collective. Secondly, you have to remember that if you don't pull the lever to switch the track you have not affected the outcome of the situation, therefore responsibility for the deaths of those individuals still rests with the villain who set it up.
thelastholdout 2 years ago
(1/2)
These questions are always asking what is right, and I would have to say that the dilemma should be resolved in one rule for everyone.
So since it can really only be one sister at any given time, and it's always going to be - someone's - sister, can you really say, "Well of course I'd save the seven everytime, um, unless it's the one time where it's my family, in which case I'd let all the others die." Why should that inequality exist? Why give special treatment to that person?
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
(2/2)
Now would you actually be able to go through with killing your own sister? Well maybe not, but that's irrelevant. The question is asking what is right, and that's best interpreted as what is best for everyone, or the most number of people.
Plus, while I agree the person unable to pull the switch has no direct responsibility, unlike the perpetrator, if a person can help and they don't, they may not be legally accountable, but it's still immoral, like someone not phoning an ambulance.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
But phoning an ambulance doesn't get anyone else killed. See, even if it were one person who I didn't know I still wouldn't pull that lever. I'm not going to kill one victim for seven others. The question here is: under what circumstances is it morally correct for you to kill someone? You come from the quantitative school of morality, whereas I'm a strict individualist. It's why I don't view government as a valid concept and why I think taxation is immoral.
thelastholdout 2 years ago
"I'm a strict individualist"
LOL> :) Well we'll just leave it at that then.
Though I should just stress once again, I don't believe you can put MOST moral matters down to a simple head count. You know I'd never willingly advocate the death of 100 people to save 101 - unless, God forbid, everyone's out of ideas.
I'm reminded of the delicious Joker's dilemma, at the end of The Dark Knight. That would give me pause for thought alright, and fits in with your point before about how you weigh life.
PurushaDesa 2 years ago
Lol, nothing against you for having a quantitative mindset, by the way. :)
And I know that you wouldn't, don't worry, dude.
And I actually did think of an answer to the Joker's dilemma, which I have on my own video profile. Mind you, I'm not pimping my video, but I thought it was worth mentioning. It WAS a great moral dilemma, especially if there was no husky voiced Bale to save us. :)
thelastholdout 2 years ago
nice to see a great new member. I might be joining as well. I did a video on this on my channel a while ago, dont know if I deleted it in the mean while. But it is a great experiment to portrait how life is valued, quantity and quality wise. I hope I can do a video response this wednesday to it!
Oh and I voted 5* because it was on 3* and that is not good! :D
Braindiscovering 3 years ago
I think I'd save the 7 people because there's more lives. Problem with answering this is that it's not actually happening. If it were actually happening. I don't know if I could make that decision or not. It's a hard decision to make.
somechick73 3 years ago
Ah, this is very similar to the trolley problem. Look it up. :-P
Mozza314 3 years ago