On the Trolley Problem: If I flip the switch and kill one person because I think I will be more able to live with myself later and try to avoid being scarred psychologically forever... is that right?
Even though it seems to be the logical reason and the most harm reducing overall to just kill the one, you have to wonder how our motives affect our moral reasoning... I didn't necessarily think about whether it was the "right thing to do," but I was driven by what I thought would benefit me the most in the end.
If we based our decision off of "if we could live with ourselves afterwards"... is that morally correct? Wouldn't we be affecting (and effectively ending) other people's lives as a means for our own eventual ends (keeping our sanity)?
The trolley problem is really complicated because who are we to decide the worth of another human life. I think that regardless of what the decision I could possibly make it will be something that will always hunt me. You could tell me that no matter who I killed I wouldnt be charge that still doesnt change the fact that as a person that is something I could live with.
I think the question Sarah ask is really a good one to think about. I think that either way we look at it there is no way to escape the tourment that is going to come with death. Maybe killing 1 is better than 5 however is that assumption morally correct?
These situations get so messy and really twist your mind around the thought of what is "better" killing one or killing five? Either way someone is going to die, is one life more precious than another? I know that no matter how the situation turned out, I would not be able to live with myself knowing that someone else's life was unintentionally in my hands.
The trolley case was a very interesting one because I really have never heard of an either/or situation where no matter whatever you scenario that you pick somebody is going to die. But if given the opportunity you have to save the lives of many over just one person no matter how wrong it may feel.
The trolley case was really challenging when deciding what was morally right. As matt stated before no matter what decision was made someone had to die. The question was who's life was worth more than someone else. If it was my decision I would choose to kill that one person to save the lives of many.It feels wrong to kill anyone but in that quick second that I have to choose, I would choose one than five.
In the case regarding the trolley driver, it would be very difficult to decide what the right thing to do is. There is really no "right" answer because either way someone is dying. If i were in that situation I probably would choose to save the lives of the 5 people instead of just one. This is not saying that one life means less than 5 lives but choosing the route that kills one person will cause the least amount of damage. Neither option is necessarily better than the other but it just seems to make more sense to end one life as oppose to ending five.
Both cases that Jaime and Brett discussed were hard for me to decided what to do. The trolley case it is so hard to decided who you'll kill without having anytime to think about it. I like so many others would kill the one man, however, it is so hard to think what this killing might do to his loved ones. Looking at through helping the greater good, saving the five men is better for the group as a whole. The second topic they discussed about the men who were out on the ocean and killed the young boy is very hard to handle. The thought of killing and eating a person's body makes me sick and I do not know if I could have ate his body. The men deciding without the boys consent was not fair but it did keep them alive when the boy would probably have died before being rescued.
Being limited by the two choices leads only to sacrifice the one. It has always been human knowledge that the loss of one is better than the loss of many. I think a more realistic example could be used. Maybe one involving a soldier or a drunk driver. Those two groups choose between killing one or five all the time.
The important thing in this case is to remember to keep in mind that you aren't CHOOSING for anyone to die. Someone IS going to die and you just have to minimize the death. It's very different than the doctor case in which the doctor would CHOSE to kill someone in order to save five. Killing and letting die of natural inevitable causes are two very different things. One incurs moral responsibility, while the other does not.
On the Trolley Problem:
ReplyDeleteIf I flip the switch and kill one person because I think I will be more able to live with myself later and try to avoid being scarred psychologically forever... is that right?
Even though it seems to be the logical reason and the most harm reducing overall to just kill the one, you have to wonder how our motives affect our moral reasoning...
I didn't necessarily think about whether it was the "right thing to do," but I was driven by what I thought would benefit me the most in the end.
If we based our decision off of "if we could live with ourselves afterwards"... is that morally correct? Wouldn't we be affecting (and effectively ending) other people's lives as a means for our own eventual ends (keeping our sanity)?
The trolley problem is really complicated because who are we to decide the worth of another human life. I think that regardless of what the decision I could possibly make it will be something that will always hunt me. You could tell me that no matter who I killed I wouldnt be charge that still doesnt change the fact that as a person that is something I could live with.
ReplyDeleteI think the question Sarah ask is really a good one to think about. I think that either way we look at it there is no way to escape the tourment that is going to come with death. Maybe killing 1 is better than 5 however is that assumption morally correct?
These situations get so messy and really twist your mind around the thought of what is "better" killing one or killing five? Either way someone is going to die, is one life more precious than another? I know that no matter how the situation turned out, I would not be able to live with myself knowing that someone else's life was unintentionally in my hands.
ReplyDeleteThe trolley case was a very interesting one because I really have never heard of an either/or situation where no matter whatever you scenario that you pick somebody is going to die. But if given the opportunity you have to save the lives of many over just one person no matter how wrong it may feel.
ReplyDeleteThe trolley case was really challenging when deciding what was morally right. As matt stated before no matter what decision was made someone had to die. The question was who's life was worth more than someone else. If it was my decision I would choose to kill that one person to save the lives of many.It feels wrong to kill anyone but in that quick second that I have to choose, I would choose one than five.
ReplyDeleteIn the case regarding the trolley driver, it would be very difficult to decide what the right thing to do is. There is really no "right" answer because either way someone is dying. If i were in that situation I probably would choose to save the lives of the 5 people instead of just one. This is not saying that one life means less than 5 lives but choosing the route that kills one person will cause the least amount of damage. Neither option is necessarily better than the other but it just seems to make more sense to end one life as oppose to ending five.
ReplyDeleteBoth cases that Jaime and Brett discussed were hard for me to decided what to do. The trolley case it is so hard to decided who you'll kill without having anytime to think about it. I like so many others would kill the one man, however, it is so hard to think what this killing might do to his loved ones. Looking at through helping the greater good, saving the five men is better for the group as a whole. The second topic they discussed about the men who were out on the ocean and killed the young boy is very hard to handle. The thought of killing and eating a person's body makes me sick and I do not know if I could have ate his body. The men deciding without the boys consent was not fair but it did keep them alive when the boy would probably have died before being rescued.
ReplyDeleteBeing limited by the two choices leads only to sacrifice the one. It has always been human knowledge that the loss of one is better than the loss of many. I think a more realistic example could be used. Maybe one involving a soldier or a drunk driver. Those two groups choose between killing one or five all the time.
ReplyDeleteThe important thing in this case is to remember to keep in mind that you aren't CHOOSING for anyone to die. Someone IS going to die and you just have to minimize the death. It's very different than the doctor case in which the doctor would CHOSE to kill someone in order to save five. Killing and letting die of natural inevitable causes are two very different things. One incurs moral responsibility, while the other does not.
ReplyDelete