[TurboCretin]

(Original post by Fuzzed_Out)
Thank you very much for the recommendation, the subject does fascinate me. I find it difficult to express how much I enjoy listening to people that are very good at stuff that I'm awful at, so much to learn!

No problem, I'd recommend that series of lectures to anyone. Sandel's been doing it every year for the last two decades and it's the most popular course in Harvard's history. He's also recently published it in book form.

[pink pineapple]

My history teacher in year 8 said that apparently there's a law stating that when you drive, someone must be at the front of the car cvarrying a flag indicating that the car is coming as when cras were first around they made a lot of noise and the person at the front was a warning. I have no idea how I remebered that :P

[bm127]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
Say there's a really, really large person standing on a bridge overlooking the track, between the workers and the hurtling trolley. If you push him off the bridge, he will land on the track and derail the trolley, making a net saving of four lives. Would you do it? Surely this is an even better solution than diverting it onto the other track?

In the hypothetical situation that pushing the person off the bridge would definitely derail the train (without killing more people onboard), and net save 6 lives (if we are sticking with the original 2 people on one track and 5 on the other), then I would.

If it is kept this simple the logical option is obvious, you pick the option that saves the most people. It is when you have to consider the variables such as who the people in each group all are that it gets complicated. For instance if there was a group of 5 murderers who a train was running towards on a track, would you hit a switch to divert it towards 2 law abiding citizens?

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by bm127)
In the hypothetical situation that pushing the person off the bridge would definitely derail the train (without killing more people onboard), and net save 6 lives (if we are sticking with the original 2 people on one track and 5 on the other), then I would.

If it is kept this simple the logical option is obvious, you pick the option that saves the most people. It is when you have to consider the variables such as who the people in each group all are that it gets complicated. For instance if there was a group of 5 murderers who a train was running towards on a track, would you hit a switch to divert it towards 2 law abiding citizens?

Is that what you would actually do, or are you simply saying that for the sake of consistency? And why, with such regard for keeping things simple, do you wish to weigh the individuals' moral characters? You didn't seem to take into account the moral character of the overly large man on the bridge before electing to sacrifice him. And what if one of the murdering workers were swapped for a further law-abiding one, such that we have two law-abiding workers on one track and four murderers and an innocent on the other? Are four murderers' lives worth more or less than one innocent life? How about thirty shoplifting workers vs. one who litters? And how is any of this quantified? Taking the moral characters of those involved appears to offer a convenient escape from the problem, but it simply raises questions of its own when pushed.

Of course if it is kept simple the answer is obvious, because keeping things simple in this case allows us to ignore the problem rather than resolve it.

[muddywaters51]

Britain has pretty terrible firearm laws but so does most of Europe

[bm127]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
Is that what you would actually do, or are you simply saying that for the sake of consistency? And why, with such regard for keeping things simple, do you wish to weigh the individuals' moral characters? You didn't seem to take into account the moral character of the overly large man on the bridge before electing to sacrifice him. And what if one of the murdering workers were swapped for a further law-abiding one, such that we have two law-abiding workers on one track and four murderers and an innocent on the other? Are four murderers' lives worth more or less than one innocent life? How about thirty shoplifting workers vs. one who litters? And how is any of this quantified? Taking the moral characters of those involved appears to offer a convenient escape from the problem, but it simply raises questions of its own when pushed.

Of course if it is kept simple the answer is obvious, because keeping things simple in this case allows us to ignore the problem rather than resolve it.

Obviously I don't know what I would do if it was a real world situation, I was only giving my answer for a hypothetical situation based upon the numerical decision to save more lives. I emphasised the fact I was answering logically and without real world considerations when I gave my answer, hence why I did not consider any factors other than the numbers in my decision; it was not intended to link to the point that followed. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but the only factor I mentioned in my decision was the net number of saved lives.

Contrary to what you appear to think, I completely agree with what you are saying, of course you can't quantify what qualifies someone to die over someone else. I hoped that by asking the question about the moral complexities of the situation I was making the point that the purely hypothetical question is meaningless, but obviously it didn't come across that way.

[TurboCretin]

(Original post by bm127)
Obviously I don't know what I would do if it was a real world situation, I was only giving my answer for a hypothetical situation based upon the numerical decision to save more lives. I emphasised the fact I was answering logically and without real world considerations when I gave my answer, hence why I did not consider any factors other than the numbers in my decision; it was not intended to link to the point that followed. Perhaps I should have been clearer, but the only factor I mentioned in my decision was the net number of saved lives.

Contrary to what you appear to think, I completely agree with what you are saying, of course you can't quantify what qualifies someone to die over someone else. I hoped that by asking the question about the moral complexities of the situation I was making the point that the purely hypothetical question is meaningless, but obviously it didn't come across that way.

It means you missed the point of the hypothetical.

[muddywaters51]

Britain has terrible firearm laws

[bm127]

(Original post by TurboCretin)
It means you missed the point of the hypothetical.

Whatever, I've obviously dug myself into a hole here.