Deontology and Utilitarianism

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 06:58 PM

So, back in college, I had an Intro to Ethics professor who broached the topic of Utilitarianism with the "Runaway Trolley Car" problem. I was reading earlier today a comparison between basic Deontology and Utilitarianism which brought more or less that specific problem back up, and then compared it with a "similar" scenario.

The "runaway trolley car," just as a brief recap, poses a scenario in which a trolley car is in imminent danger of hitting and killing five people standing on the trolley tracks. "You" are standing near the switch, and have the ability to switch the train onto another track, but if you do so, an individual standing on that track will surely die. As I understand it, the deontological point of view basically says that "do no harm" has primacy. You cannot engage in an action which would cause the death of one individual, even to save five. The utilitarian view says that there is greater utility in sparing five lives than in sparing one (all other things being equal, one supposes). Without overly complicating the matter with what-if's, I understood that one okay.

What I was reading earlier then said "But what if you have a surgeon who has five patients, each in need of an organ transplant, without which they will die? You could harvest the organs of a colleague, killing him, thereby sparing the five patients, or you could let the five patients die, sparing your colleague."

The text then implied that the two scenarios are fundamentally the same. I'm not at all sure that they are - yes, in terms of your own action against the one being required to save the five (or lack thereof to the benefit of the one), that's true.

On the other hand, it seems to me that in the trolley car example, The One is unfortunate collateral damage as the result of your attempt to save the five, whereas in the case of the transplant patients, he's the deliberate target of your actions; you could, after all, just go down the hall to some other practice to harvest somebody, or grab some random guy off the street. Why make your colleague the specific target of your harvest?

What am I missing here? It seems like in the former case, the choice is between passivity and incidental evil, while in the latter it's passivity and active evil. Is there room in a discussion of utilitarianism for actively evil acts?

JediKooter · 06-04-2010, 07:23 PM

The Trolley Experiment boxes you in with a finite amount of options, which is just not reality. You could find some other way to stop the trolley, you could employ other people to help you, etc...

As you have said, "you could, after all, just go down the hall to some other practice to harvest somebody, or grab some random guy off the street. Why make your colleague the specific target of your harvest?" Or perhaps, there was a patient that just died and you could harvest their organs, thus saving not only the 5 patients, but, also your colleague.

If you are a good person, you are naturally going to try and do your best and not hurt anyone. If you are a person more prone to being evil, you won't give a shit who dies or who lives.

Probably not the response you are looking for, but, what you are missing is...reality. The Trolley Experiment and the Colleague experiment just aren't based in full reality because they give you a super small finite set of options when that's just not going to be the case if that ever happened in real life. So, to me, both scenarios are the same fundamentally.

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

The Trolley Experiment boxes you in with a finite amount of options, which is just not reality. You could find some other way to stop the trolley, you could employ other people to help you, etc...

As you have said, "you could, after all, just go down the hall to some other practice to harvest somebody, or grab some random guy off the street. Why make your colleague the specific target of your harvest?" Or perhaps, there was a patient that just died and you could harvest their organs, thus saving not only the 5 patients, but, also your colleague.

If you are a good person, you are naturally going to try and do your best and not hurt anyone. If you are a person more prone to being evil, you won't give a shit who dies or who lives.

Probably not the response you are looking for, but, what you are missing is...reality. The Trolley Experiment and the Colleague experiment just aren't based in full reality because they give you a super small finite set of options when that's just not going to be the case if that ever happened in real life. So, to me, both scenarios are the same fundamentally.

But are they the same fundamentally to you because of the unrealistic lack of options?

Because, to me, that's different from fundamental similarity or dissimiliarity based on the nature of the actions taken, and it's that aspect that doesn't make sense to me.

JediKooter · 06-04-2010, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

But are they the same fundamentally to you because of the unrealistic lack of options?

Because, to me, that's different from fundamental similarity or dissimiliarity based on the nature of the actions taken, and it's that aspect that doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, to me, that's what makes them the same, the lack of options. Because of those lack of options, you are left with only two choices...more than one person dies or just one person dies. It's the Kobayashi Maru Test from Star Trek. If you are good person, it's a no win situation regardless of what option you choose.

I have to ask, is the reason it doesn't make sense because of religion being a factor and that no matter what action you take, it's already been resolved due to divine providence?

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 08:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Yes, to me, that's what makes them the same, the lack of options. Because of those lack of options, you are left with only two choices...more than one person dies or just one person dies. It's the Kobayashi Maru Test from Star Trek. If you are good person, it's a no win situation regardless of what option you choose.

I have to ask, is the reason it doesn't make sense because of religion being a factor and that no matter what action you take, it's already been resolved due to divine providence?

Nope.

I actually hadn't factored religion into it at all.

It was more that, to me, the death of the One in the Trolley Experiment is more the unfortunate byblow of actively attempting to save the Five, while in the Colleague Experiment, specific action is required to harvest the organs necessary to save the Five.

In the latter case, the One has physical possession of something you need, and you have to take it from him to save the Five.

Or...maybe to put this another way...

You cannot save the Five without killing the One in the Colleague Experiment. You must actively take his life, by your own hand, before you can save the others. It changes the equation from his death being the result of their survival to his death being the instrument of their survival. In the Trolley Experiment, if the One dies, the Five do not. In the Colleague Experiment, more than just the death of the One is required - you must also then harvest his organs. It's not just an action which causes his death, but an action with specific intent. "I will kill him so that I can do this other thing to him, by which action I will THEN save the Five."

I don't see that as being the case in the Trolley Experiment.

dawgfan · 06-04-2010, 08:35 PM

I think that in the strictest sense, the two examples are the same. And as JediKooter notes, they are both giving you a very limited set of options to choose from (two).

What feels weird about the exercise is that, while there might (in reality) other options to consider in the Trolley Car scenario, the two options presented seem plausible as the only realistic options that you'd actually have if you were in that situation.

Whereas with the organ transplant situation, it would be an exceptionally odd situation if there were only two options available. Unless you were stranded somewhere and the only people around were the seven of you (assuming you're a doctor and can do the surgery), it is extremely likely you'd have other options to save the lives of the five needing transplants.

But strictly speaking (for the purposes of this philosophical exercise), I think they are the same. It's just that you're much more likely to confront the limited options of the trolley car than the organ transplant.

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

I think that in the strictest sense, the two examples are the same. And as JediKooter notes, they are both giving you a very limited set of options to choose from (two).

Okay, but again: why are they the same?

I've explained why they don't seem fundamentally all that similar to me, but I haven't seen any explanation, other than JediKooter's "artificially limited choices" distinction for *why* they should be the same.

This is what I'm struggling with. What makes the ethics involved the same?

JediKooter · 06-04-2010, 08:44 PM

I see what you're saying and is definitely a logical way to see it, but, in the end, someone has to die in order to get the result that you want, due to the choice that you make. Your actions between the beginning and the end of each scenario or what steps you have to take are only consequential to how many people die. But, those steps paint you into a corner and force you to take a certain path.

The real world would be, you put the 5 people that need transplants on artificial devices and hope that a matching donor is found before they die and your colleague would never be the wiser that you were eyeballing him to harvest his organs.

EDIT: The 'why' that you are asking, think about it like fractions, break down each scenario to the common denominator and that is, how many people will die from which action you take. The 'how they got there', is just not the important part. To me.

JPhillips · 06-04-2010, 09:07 PM

Would it be easier for you if instead of colleague it simply said a living donor?

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Would it be easier for you if instead of colleague it simply said a living donor?

I think the word 'donor' changes the context of the Colleague Experiment (since 'donor' implies at least some level of willingness), but otherwise, no - whether or not the subject of the organ harvest is someone you know or not doesn't fundamentally change the perceived dissimiliarity between the two thought experiments for me.

JPhillips · 06-04-2010, 09:34 PM

Yeah, donor isn't the right term.

However, for me once you add the element of anonymity the two situations become much more similar. At that point it is a choice between save one or save five just as with the trolley and whether or not there is a killing required to save the other lives doesn't matter much.

Autumn · 06-04-2010, 09:58 PM

To me a difference between these two scenarios is what I imagine to be the reality at the the time of the choice. I imagine the one person in the trolley car scenario will be the victim because he or she happens to be standing in the other track. That person is also, in a sense, in the path of a runaway train and in danger.

With the organ transplant the one person who could have their organ taken away is not in imminent danger from the situation (some people with failing organs). They are not inherently involved in the dilemma and so it feels different to pull them in. It would be more akin to shoving someone in front of the runaway trolley car to stop it. So the issue may be the exact details of the scenario being considered.

SackAttack · 06-04-2010, 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Autumn

To me a difference between these two scenarios is what I imagine to be the reality at the the time of the choice. I imagine the one person in the trolley car scenario will be the victim because he or she happens to be standing in the other track. That person is also, in a sense, in the path of a runaway train and in danger.

With the organ transplant the one person who could have their organ taken away is not in imminent danger from the situation (some people with failing organs). They are not inherently involved in the dilemma and so it feels different to pull them in. It would be more akin to shoving someone in front of the runaway trolley car to stop it. So the issue may be the exact details of the scenario being considered.

I think your second paragraph gets more to the heart of the differences I perceive, yeah. You're involving someone who wasn't even peripherally involved in the impending tragedy in the Colleague Experiment, whereas with the One on the tracks in the Trolley Experiment, he's involved by being on the safety spur.

SteveMax58 · 06-05-2010, 10:40 AM

The problem with both of these situations, to me, is that there are absolutes given that (a) may or may not be true, (b) even if true, how could somebody in these situations be certain of these while the situation is occurring?

I realize they are hypothetical but if one truly accepts these at face value...there is no difference in the 2 situations.

In the runaway trolley scenario you are told that the 5 will die unless you flip the switch and make the trolley kill the one person. That person, again...if you accept the absolute face value...is not in danger until you flip the switch. This is of course ridiculous for one to be so certain that the 1 person is NOT in danger with a runaway trolley, or that they have no feasible option to get out of the way or be saved in some other way.

The second scenario is equally ridiculous as how can we be certain the "donor" is adequately matched to supply organs to these 5 patients, and if we are certain of this, how can we be certain they will all die without an immediate transplant that only this "donor" is available for? But if you accept the face value of the question, and accept the statements as all being true & absolute, then it is the same as the trolley.

To actually answer the question...one needs more background on the world of the runaway trolley or the 5 dying patients. Are we the last 6-7 peaople left in the world? This would matter. Are any of these people (including the "donor" or the single person on the track) related to us? Are they female or male, young or old? How about the 5? We would certainly know such things if we were certain of the face value questions. These would all factor in the decision for most people.

Mac Howard · 06-06-2010, 08:27 PM

I think the problem is that you instinctively feel that there's s difference without being able to define exactly what it is. It's one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" situations.

I feel it's something to do with the status of the one. In the second case he is in no way involved and introduced purely though your choice. You are completely responsible for his death if you choose that option and he has no part in the decision.

In the first, by being on the track and therefore placing himself in some danger even if not specifically in this case, he is contributing to his part in the dilemma. He's not completely innocent and it's not all your choice. He presents himself as an alternative by his own action whereas your colleague doesn't.

I think this a slight variation on the first post when Sackattack says "whereas in the case of the transplant patients, he's the deliberate target of your actions;"

Maybe this is a better way of putting it:

In the case of the colleague, you're choosing him from a number of possibilities whereas the man on the track is presented as the only alternative. So, you're making two detrimental decisions for your colleague whereas the guy on the track is selected for you. You are not only making the utilitarian decision but also choosing your colleague (presumably against his will) as the alternative victim.

To bring the two situation closer the colleague has to be the only option available.

Perhaps that's a better explanation.

SackAttack · 06-06-2010, 08:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I think the problem is that you instinctively feel that there's s difference without being able to define exactly what it is. It's one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" situations.

I feel it's something to do with the status of the one. In the second case he is in no way involved and introduced purely though your choice. You are completely responsible for his death if you choose that option.

In the first, by being on the track and therefore placing himself in some danger even if not specifically in this case, he is contributing to his part in the dilemma. He's not completely innocent and it's not all your choice. He presents himself as an alternative by his own action whereas your colleague doesn't.

I think this a slight variation on the first post when he says "whereas in the case of the transplant patients, he's the deliberate target of your actions;"

Pretty good summary, I think.

Whatever the reasoning behind getting on the trolley tracks in the first place, he made the choice to place himself in that position knowing that at least a nominal risk was involved. It isn't like you grabbed him, threw him on the tracks, and then threw the switch for some kind of karmic balance...which is how the Colleague Experiment feels.

Mac Howard · 06-06-2010, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SackAttack

Pretty good summary, I think.

Whatever the reasoning behind getting on the trolley tracks in the first place, he made the choice to place himself in that position knowing that at least a nominal risk was involved. It isn't like you grabbed him, threw him on the tracks, and then threw the switch for some kind of karmic balance...which is how the Colleague Experiment feels.

Taking it further. In the first case you're presented with the dilemma - it is in no way any of your manuafacture. In the second case the dilemma is not obvious. It's created by you. The idea that there is an alternative - kill your colleague - is your idea. You have some responsibility for the dilemma as well as the decision made to resolve it.

Mac Howard · 06-06-2010, 08:52 PM

Which leads on to:

In the first case the method of death is the same and you are no part of the manner of the death. In the second case the colleague will die as a result of an action you take - it's not simply the victim that has changed. The colleague will die by your hand.

SteveMax58 · 06-07-2010, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Which leads on to:

In the first case the method of death is the same and you are no part of the manner of the death. In the second case the colleague will die as a result of an action you take - it's not simply the victim that has changed. The colleague will die by your hand.

I respectfully disagree with this as you are given a scenario & in both scenarios you are told some details which one has to accept as absolute truths. They are dying by your decision/indecision in both scenarios...and the solo option people are not in danger based on the absolutes you are given. You aren't necessarily told that you are the "killing" mechanism in the case of the 5 patients and you are definitely not the mechanism in the trolley scenario(i.e. nobody said you are the surgeon so the 2 killing mechanisms could be the trolley & the surgeon...neither of which are "you", technically).

Why do you have to accept the absolutes given? Because if you don't accept them then responses can easily lead you to saving all 6 people with far-fetched (or realistic) alternatives...which is not the intent of the exercise.

JonInMiddleGA · 06-07-2010, 09:17 AM

Was I the only person surprised to find out that Primetime's thoughts about ethics were being studied?

By someone other than the NCAA I mean.

Warhammer · 06-07-2010, 03:09 PM

Both scenarios, however they are crafted are about sacrificing one life for five.

If you answer that you would switch the trolley in the first one, depending on your ethical focus, you should have no qualms killing the your associate for the organs to save 5 other people's lives.

dawgfan · 06-07-2010, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Both scenarios, however they are crafted are about sacrificing one life for five.

If you answer that you would switch the trolley in the first one, depending on your ethical focus, you should have no qualms killing the your associate for the organs to save 5 other people's lives.

Only if those are literally the only options available in each case.

As I said before, it's a lot easier to imagine that the only realistic options in the first scenario are the two presented to you, while in the second scenario it's very hard to imagine those being your only two options...

JediKooter · 06-07-2010, 03:35 PM

That's the problem with these two scenarios though and why I hate them. They aren't fully connected to reality. So given that, then yes, they are both the same...either save one person or save more than one person. The details of the scenarios (other than how many people live) are irrelevant because they are 'testing' the ethics of the person making the decision based on how many people are saved, not what method they chose.

It's a lose/lose situation and any normal person, in the real world, would try and save everybody.

SackAttack · 06-07-2010, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Both scenarios, however they are crafted are about sacrificing one life for five.

If you answer that you would switch the trolley in the first one, depending on your ethical focus, you should have no qualms killing the your associate for the organs to save 5 other people's lives.

I guess from a utilitarian perspective the scenarios are the same, phrased that way. Because the morality of the action isn't the key - it's whether or not you view the five lives as more valuable than the one (or vice versa, if he's valuable in a way none of the others are).

But from a deontological perspective, I still don't think they're remotely similar.

Warhammer · 06-07-2010, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dawgfan

Only if those are literally the only options available in each case.

As I said before, it's a lot easier to imagine that the only realistic options in the first scenario are the two presented to you, while in the second scenario it's very hard to imagine those being your only two options...

But that is the point of the exercise is to limit the options. It is an exercise designed to make you think about the repercussions of your moral compass. It's not a right or wrong decision, it is what you base your decision on that is important.

dawgfan · 06-07-2010, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warhammer

But that is the point of the exercise is to limit the options. It is an exercise designed to make you think about the repercussions of your moral compass. It's not a right or wrong decision, it is what you base your decision on that is important.

Sure, I agree. And what makes this particular exercise so difficult for some to deal with is the difference in reality between the two.

GrantDawg · 06-07-2010, 04:37 PM

Actually religous ethics makes this easier. First, you must form a commitee of say 8, in which only one will actually do anything and the person that gives the most money will make all the decisions. By the time an actual decision is made, and the one doing all the work is forced to act on it, then the 5 are dead, the other one is dead from natural causes, and probably a couple of the comitee members are as well.

See, pretty straight forward.

JediKooter · 06-07-2010, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

Actually religous ethics makes this easier. First, you must form a commitee of say 8, in which only one will actually do anything and the person that gives the most money will make all the decisions. By the time an actual decision is made, and the one doing all the work is forced to act on it, then the 5 are dead, the other one is dead from natural causes, and probably a couple of the comitee members are as well.

See, pretty straight forward.

That sounds very mormon like.

GrantDawg · 06-07-2010, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JediKooter

That sounds very mormon like.

I have a feeling a Muslim would read that and say, "yup."

JediKooter · 06-07-2010, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

I have a feeling a Muslim would read that and say, "yup."

Of course if it was mormons, there would be 12 instead of 8.

06-04-2010, 07:23 PM	#2
JediKooter Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego	The Trolley Experiment boxes you in with a finite amount of options, which is just not reality. You could find some other way to stop the trolley, you could employ other people to help you, etc... As you have said, "you could, after all, just go down the hall to some other practice to harvest somebody, or grab some random guy off the street. Why make your colleague the specific target of your harvest?" Or perhaps, there was a patient that just died and you could harvest their organs, thus saving not only the 5 patients, but, also your colleague. If you are a good person, you are naturally going to try and do your best and not hurt anyone. If you are a person more prone to being evil, you won't give a shit who dies or who lives. Probably not the response you are looking for, but, what you are missing is...reality. The Trolley Experiment and the Colleague experiment just aren't based in full reality because they give you a super small finite set of options when that's just not going to be the case if that ever happened in real life. So, to me, both scenarios are the same fundamentally. __________________ I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4

06-04-2010, 08:44 PM	#8
JediKooter Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego	I see what you're saying and is definitely a logical way to see it, but, in the end, someone has to die in order to get the result that you want, due to the choice that you make. Your actions between the beginning and the end of each scenario or what steps you have to take are only consequential to how many people die. But, those steps paint you into a corner and force you to take a certain path. The real world would be, you put the 5 people that need transplants on artificial devices and hope that a matching donor is found before they die and your colleague would never be the wiser that you were eyeballing him to harvest his organs. EDIT: The 'why' that you are asking, think about it like fractions, break down each scenario to the common denominator and that is, how many people will die from which action you take. The 'how they got there', is just not the important part. To me. __________________ I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 Last edited by JediKooter : 06-04-2010 at 08:49 PM.

06-04-2010, 09:07 PM	#9
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Would it be easier for you if instead of colleague it simply said a living donor? __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

06-04-2010, 09:34 PM	#11
JPhillips Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Newburgh, NY	Yeah, donor isn't the right term. However, for me once you add the element of anonymity the two situations become much more similar. At that point it is a choice between save one or save five just as with the trolley and whether or not there is a killing required to save the other lives doesn't matter much. __________________ To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.. - Mr. Rogers

06-06-2010, 08:27 PM	#15
Mac Howard Sick as a Parrot Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Surfers Paradise, Australia	I think the problem is that you instinctively feel that there's s difference without being able to define exactly what it is. It's one of those "I can't define it but I know it when I see it" situations. I feel it's something to do with the status of the one. In the second case he is in no way involved and introduced purely though your choice. You are completely responsible for his death if you choose that option and he has no part in the decision. In the first, by being on the track and therefore placing himself in some danger even if not specifically in this case, he is contributing to his part in the dilemma. He's not completely innocent and it's not all your choice. He presents himself as an alternative by his own action whereas your colleague doesn't. I think this a slight variation on the first post when Sackattack says "whereas in the case of the transplant patients, he's the deliberate target of your actions;" Maybe this is a better way of putting it: In the case of the colleague, you're choosing him from a number of possibilities whereas the man on the track is presented as the only alternative. So, you're making two detrimental decisions for your colleague whereas the guy on the track is selected for you. You are not only making the utilitarian decision but also choosing your colleague (presumably against his will) as the alternative victim. To bring the two situation closer the colleague has to be the only option available. Perhaps that's a better explanation. __________________ Mac Howard - a Pom in Paradise Last edited by Mac Howard : 06-06-2010 at 08:40 PM.

06-04-2010, 08:35 PM	#6
dawgfan Grizzled Veteran Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Seattle	I think that in the strictest sense, the two examples are the same. And as JediKooter notes, they are both giving you a very limited set of options to choose from (two). What feels weird about the exercise is that, while there might (in reality) other options to consider in the Trolley Car scenario, the two options presented seem plausible as the only realistic options that you'd actually have if you were in that situation. Whereas with the organ transplant situation, it would be an exceptionally odd situation if there were only two options available. Unless you were stranded somewhere and the only people around were the seven of you (assuming you're a doctor and can do the surgery), it is extremely likely you'd have other options to save the lives of the five needing transplants. But strictly speaking (for the purposes of this philosophical exercise), I think they are the same. It's just that you're much more likely to confront the limited options of the trolley car than the organ transplant.

06-04-2010, 09:58 PM	#12
Autumn Head Coach Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Bath, ME	To me a difference between these two scenarios is what I imagine to be the reality at the the time of the choice. I imagine the one person in the trolley car scenario will be the victim because he or she happens to be standing in the other track. That person is also, in a sense, in the path of a runaway train and in danger. With the organ transplant the one person who could have their organ taken away is not in imminent danger from the situation (some people with failing organs). They are not inherently involved in the dilemma and so it feels different to pull them in. It would be more akin to shoving someone in front of the runaway trolley car to stop it. So the issue may be the exact details of the scenario being considered.

06-05-2010, 10:40 AM	#14
SteveMax58 College Starter Join Date: Dec 2006	The problem with both of these situations, to me, is that there are absolutes given that (a) may or may not be true, (b) even if true, how could somebody in these situations be certain of these while the situation is occurring? I realize they are hypothetical but if one truly accepts these at face value...there is no difference in the 2 situations. In the runaway trolley scenario you are told that the 5 will die unless you flip the switch and make the trolley kill the one person. That person, again...if you accept the absolute face value...is not in danger until you flip the switch. This is of course ridiculous for one to be so certain that the 1 person is NOT in danger with a runaway trolley, or that they have no feasible option to get out of the way or be saved in some other way. The second scenario is equally ridiculous as how can we be certain the "donor" is adequately matched to supply organs to these 5 patients, and if we are certain of this, how can we be certain they will all die without an immediate transplant that only this "donor" is available for? But if you accept the face value of the question, and accept the statements as all being true & absolute, then it is the same as the trolley. To actually answer the question...one needs more background on the world of the runaway trolley or the 5 dying patients. Are we the last 6-7 peaople left in the world? This would matter. Are any of these people (including the "donor" or the single person on the track) related to us? Are they female or male, young or old? How about the 5? We would certainly know such things if we were certain of the face value questions. These would all factor in the decision for most people.

06-06-2010, 08:52 PM	#18
Mac Howard Sick as a Parrot Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Surfers Paradise, Australia	Which leads on to: In the first case the method of death is the same and you are no part of the manner of the death. In the second case the colleague will die as a result of an action you take - it's not simply the victim that has changed. The colleague will die by your hand. __________________ Mac Howard - a Pom in Paradise Last edited by Mac Howard : 06-06-2010 at 08:54 PM.

06-07-2010, 09:17 AM	#20
JonInMiddleGA Hall Of Famer Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Behind Enemy Lines in Athens, GA	Was I the only person surprised to find out that Primetime's thoughts about ethics were being studied? By someone other than the NCAA I mean. __________________ "I lit another cigarette. Unless I specifically inform you to the contrary, I am always lighting another cigarette." - from a novel by Martin Amis Last edited by JonInMiddleGA : 06-07-2010 at 09:17 AM.

06-07-2010, 03:09 PM	#21
Warhammer Pro Starter Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Dayton, OH	Both scenarios, however they are crafted are about sacrificing one life for five. If you answer that you would switch the trolley in the first one, depending on your ethical focus, you should have no qualms killing the your associate for the organs to save 5 other people's lives.

06-07-2010, 03:35 PM	#23
JediKooter Coordinator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: San Diego via Sausalito via San Jose via San Diego	That's the problem with these two scenarios though and why I hate them. They aren't fully connected to reality. So given that, then yes, they are both the same...either save one person or save more than one person. The details of the scenarios (other than how many people live) are irrelevant because they are 'testing' the ethics of the person making the decision based on how many people are saved, not what method they chose. It's a lose/lose situation and any normal person, in the real world, would try and save everybody. __________________ I'm no longer a Chargers fan, they are dead to me Coming this summer to a movie theater near you: The Adventures of Jedikooter: Part 4 Last edited by JediKooter : 06-07-2010 at 03:36 PM.

06-07-2010, 04:37 PM	#27
GrantDawg World Champion Mis-speller Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Covington, Ga.	Actually religous ethics makes this easier. First, you must form a commitee of say 8, in which only one will actually do anything and the person that gives the most money will make all the decisions. By the time an actual decision is made, and the one doing all the work is forced to act on it, then the 5 are dead, the other one is dead from natural causes, and probably a couple of the comitee members are as well. See, pretty straight forward.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)