Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Is it morally Just?

 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PMPosted: 2 years agoIs it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...
 Posts: 5,857 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 4:00:31 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 4:07:10 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 4:00:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org...Perhaps you could apply the ethical framework to the question rather than just posting the link.
 Posts: 176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 4:47:37 PMPosted: 2 years agoGiven there are only two choices -Seagull,Yes.
 Posts: 176 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 4:49:06 PMPosted: 2 years agoInnocent men keep away from railway tracks.
 Posts: 5,857 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 4:50:17 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 4:07:10 PM, Seagull wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:00:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org...Perhaps you could apply the ethical framework to the question rather than just posting the link.The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.Either acting or not acting can be seen as a preservation of life which is a morally good action.The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.In neither condition the saving of people is not directly caused by the death of the other(s).The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.You are not saving one/some for the purpose of killing the other(s).The proportionality condition. The bad effect must not be disproportionate to the good effect.In both cases you are saving life. Now is saving one life at the expense of 5 justifiable? Considering that it involves non-action it might be justifiable.So in the trolley problem, either doing or not doing is morally acceptable.
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 5:06:05 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 4:50:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:07:10 PM, Seagull wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:00:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org...Perhaps you could apply the ethical framework to the question rather than just posting the link.The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.Either acting or not acting can be seen as a preservation of life which is a morally good action.The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.In neither condition the saving of people is not directly caused by the death of the other(s).The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.You are not saving one/some for the purpose of killing the other(s).The proportionality condition. The bad effect must not be disproportionate to the good effect.In both cases you are saving life. Now is saving one life at the expense of 5 justifiable? Considering that it involves non-action it might be justifiable.So in the trolley problem, either doing or not doing is morally acceptable.Interesting. This draws an important distinction between a great moral good and being morally acceptable.
 Posts: 5,857 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 5:08:08 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 5:06:05 PM, Seagull wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:50:17 PM, Geogeer wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:07:10 PM, Seagull wrote:At 3/30/2016 4:00:31 PM, Geogeer wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org...Perhaps you could apply the ethical framework to the question rather than just posting the link.The nature-of-the-act condition. The action must be either morally good or indifferent.Either acting or not acting can be seen as a preservation of life which is a morally good action.The means-end condition. The bad effect must not be the means by which one achieves the good effect.In neither condition the saving of people is not directly caused by the death of the other(s).The right-intention condition. The intention must be the achieving of only the good effect, with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect.You are not saving one/some for the purpose of killing the other(s).The proportionality condition. The bad effect must not be disproportionate to the good effect.In both cases you are saving life. Now is saving one life at the expense of 5 justifiable? Considering that it involves non-action it might be justifiable.So in the trolley problem, either doing or not doing is morally acceptable.Interesting. This draws an important distinction between a great moral good and being morally acceptable.Basically it is about the means being moral in order to achieve the ends.
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/30/2016 9:18:48 PMPosted: 2 years agoI just started a debate with N7 on a related topic.http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/31/2016 12:16:44 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 4:49:06 PM, UUU wrote:Innocent men keep away from railway tracks.You have broken the thought experiment haha.
 Posts: 1,124 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 3/31/2016 4:02:46 PMPosted: 2 years agoThe one man shouldn"t die for the circumstances of the many if the decision is made by those who are trying to save their own skins. The man should die if it"s his decision to offer himself voluntarily to save the skins of others. Therefore, there is no ethical choice in killing the man who is no threat to you to save your own skins.Unless that decision has been made by law to justify the decision to kill the man to save the many. The group in the trolley after the event will have to answer for their decision to those who are authorized by the law to do the same to them. As in take their lives away.The souls in the trolley may agree to killing the guy using the justification of some concept like one and more than one. What if the trolley is full of murders and the man is a good man by all sense of the word? What if, what if, and that effort is to justify what everyone knows from the get go, would be unethical to force someone else pay to for their own circumstances.
 Posts: 2,691 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/3/2016 1:54:22 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?Jump off the trolley. The engineers who didn't design a redundant breaking system are to blame. The track engineers who didn't designed a runaway trolley breaking default are the responsible party(s). The people who didn't design an early warning system for people on the tracks are also to blame. Simply being put into a position doesn't mean you're responsible for what happens if you do or don't react in every case.(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...
 Posts: 3,932 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/3/2016 3:30:58 PMPosted: 2 years ago1. Morality is not justice. Justice means "fairness," it is a social measure as to whether or not our practices, as a people, promote certain people over others. Morality is an individual's ability to resist their innate urge to favor themselves over others. Morality and justice could be roughly equivocated by saying that morality is the measure of an individual and justice is the measure of the state (I define the state as Plato does, being simply a group of individuals, not necessarily the government).2. The Trolley Problem is absolutely worthless as a moral inquiry. It does not address morality, it does not measure morality, it is entirely amoral. Morality is derived from one's natural propensity for pride; selfishness. You don't measure such things by suddenly planting somebody in a catch-22 and seeing how they react. Your moral state dictates what your scenario is, your scenario doesn't dictate what your moral state is.AKA Rob1billion Rob1_Billion Caramel Lasagna
 Posts: 5,282 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/4/2016 7:48:16 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...Where I draw the distinction here is your motive for pulling/not pulling the lever. If you believe that the greater good has a better chance in lying in the 5 people and you pull the lever, then you have made a moral decision, that will haunt you.If you believe the 1 man is an esteemed doctor, who has the chance of saving the 5, and you leave the lever, you are making a moral decision, that will probably haunt you.If your decision is indecision, then you were not willing to save any of the people and here I see an issue.
 Posts: 88 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/4/2016 8:49:55 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/4/2016 7:48:16 PM, Quadrunner wrote:At 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...Where I draw the distinction here is your motive for pulling/not pulling the lever. If you believe that the greater good has a better chance in lying in the 5 people and you pull the lever, then you have made a moral decision, that will haunt you.Does motive impact morality?"He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."(1)(1) http://www.utilitarianism.com...
 Posts: 5,282 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/4/2016 9:25:34 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/4/2016 8:49:55 PM, Seagull wrote:At 4/4/2016 7:48:16 PM, Quadrunner wrote:At 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...Where I draw the distinction here is your motive for pulling/not pulling the lever. If you believe that the greater good has a better chance in lying in the 5 people and you pull the lever, then you have made a moral decision, that will haunt you.Does motive impact morality?"He who saves a fellow creature from drowning does what is morally right, whether his motive be duty, or the hope of being paid for his trouble."(1)(1) http://www.utilitarianism.com...The person saying that quote is the only one who has the morals to save the drowning creature. Without his morals, the duty would be to something amoral, and without his money, the paid man would do nothing. Either way, without the correct motive from the leader, there is no is no guarantee of right doing. Those men in the quote are just like the lever in the original post. The lever is nothing if you cannot bring yourself to touch it. Indecision is amoral, or possibly immoral in this case. You must try.Motive has everything to do with morals, because while the outcome might not be right, your actions should always be right if they are always connected to the right morals, such as the man giving orders in the quote. Although he didn't save the drowning man, he pulled the lever (the paid man) that saved him, because it was morally right. The paid man is still amoral. He is not even proven to be on the map of morality at this point. Without the motive, good things are called luck.
 Posts: 5,282 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/4/2016 9:48:34 PMPosted: 2 years agoI guess I'm just agreeing with rob1billion that your moral state determines your outcome, not the other way around.If people die, which they do constantly, that is not because you are immorally allowing them to die. They are just dying. The outcome is amoral. Your inability to save them is amoral. You not caring is immoral.
 Posts: 777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/5/2016 12:35:55 PMPosted: 2 years agoAt 3/30/2016 3:50:19 PM, Seagull wrote:Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person to save the lives of more innocent people?If you have ever formally studied ethics, you have likely heard of the so called "Trolley Problem." This problem illustrates an example as implied by the question."There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?" (1)I am curious to here peoples thoughts. What do you think?(1)https://en.wikipedia.org...Savzz moar!
 Posts: 7,069 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 4/6/2016 11:56:50 AMPosted: 2 years agoAt 4/3/2016 3:30:58 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:2. The Trolley Problem is absolutely worthless as a moral inquiry. It does not address morality, it does not measure morality, it is entirely amoral. Morality is derived from one's natural propensity for pride; selfishness. You don't measure such things by suddenly planting somebody in a catch-22 and seeing how they react. Your moral state dictates what your scenario is, your scenario doesn't dictate what your moral state is.It seems that Rob wants to define the problem away to avoid answering it! It may be that trolley problems are not 'moral' issues (as R defines the terms), but there is an certainly an important issue there. In real life we are often in a position were what do do for the best is not clear and all we can hope to do is the 'lesser of two evils'. R has shied away from that.One issue is whether morality (or other word defined to suit this context) does reduce to simple arithmetic - is saving a large number of people at the expense of smaller number automatically good? For example, does the sort of person involved matter? If not then sacrificing a sober, loving man with a wife and 2 young kids to save two murderers and rapists would be the right thing to do, which I am not sure is true. Unfortunately, that makes deciding what is right and wrong (or choosing the lesser of two evils) more difficult than comparing numbers!A variation on classic trolly problems is that of a crowded room into which a grenade is thrown. Someone diving on the grenade to smother it would save everybody else, but no-one seems keen to do that. So Abel suddenly throws Baker on top of the grenade, thus saving everyone - except of course poor old Baker! If there were 12 people in the room, Abel's action saved 11 of them. In a trolley problem saving 11 for the price of 1 would be a good result, yet it is harder to say if Abel did an unequivocally good thing.