My spin on this is a little different. In my scenario the two people on Track A BOTH have a 50% of going on to lead a bad life and kill someone, whilst the person on Track B has a 75% of the same.
What do you do? — I like sushi
Then when you say they "both have a 50%" of killing someone, do you mean there's 50% chance one person dies because of the two of them and 50% chance no one dies, or that there is 25% 0 die, 50% 1 dies and 25% 2 die? — leo
Just work through it and see what you come up with and why you make the decision you make. — I like sushi
They BOTH have a 50% chance of killing one person NOT a 50% chance between them. So the later. — I like sushi
I think there is something wrong with you then. — I like sushi
you might want to look for the guy who tied these people to the tracks so he doesn't do it again. — leo
I bet it was that guy from the other thread killing a billion people to save humanity. — Unenlightened
But in real life you don't know how the lives of people are going to turn out. If you have two 90 years old on track A and one baby on track B what do you do? Then you might want to look for the guy who tied these people to the tracks so he doesn't do it again.
It’s meant to be 25% chance to go bad and kill one person for the single person ans 50% chance each for the two people! Sorry about that — I like sushi
Clearly you don’t value life. — I like sushi
Your point being? — I like sushi
I suggest you go and bother someone else with your nonsense. — I like sushi
Come back when you’ve found someone who agrees with you. — I like sushi
You ought not indulge your need for rationality to this extent, because as I just pointed out and you dismissed, we know it leads to the worst of human depravity. And this is widely instantiated in, for instance, the ethics of human experimentation. The potential for saving many lives does not justify inhumane treatment of a few. — Unenlightened
Are you saying you’d let the human race die to preserve human “morality”? Don’t quite see how that works. — I like sushi
The next point was that he contradicted himself by saying he cares about a man in fire in the street yet doesn’t see any difference between one person dying and a billion.
Are you SURE you agree with this? If so explain. — I like sushi
I'm not a utilitarian. I don't 'deduce' that killing is wrong by some kind of calculus, it just feels wrong. It feels wrong to kill one man, it feels wrong to kill a million. Its ethical value, not maths. — Isaac
Your point being? — I like sushi
I assume that people generally want to live and having to do something horrific in order to allow people to live seems like a worthy price to pay. — I like sushi
Should the Jew, with the aid of his Marxist creed, triumph over the people of this world, his Crown will be the funeral wreath of mankind, and this planet will once again follow its orbit through ether, without any human life on its surface, as it did millions of years ago.
And so I believe to-day that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. In standing guard against the Jew I am defending the handiwork of the Lord.
The point is that, in your hypotheticals you can say things such as "such person has X% chance of killing someone" or "if you don't kill a billion people everyone dies" with certainty, but how that translates to real life is the problem, and attempting to connect your hypotheticals with real life can indeed be dangerous. — leo
I assume that people generally want to live and having to do something horrific in order to allow people to live seems like a worthy price to pay. — I like sushi
I assume these people matter and want to live — I like sushi
You appear to believe your sense of morality is superior and so everyone must die? Of course I am probing here because I want to see if you can give me a better idea of what you’re thinking is. — I like sushi
Does it feel wrong to allow someone to die when you could have saved them? — Michael
That presumes a preference for continued existence above all else which the rampant suicide rate immediately proves to be erroneous.
Continued existence is simply not the highest preference on most people's list and having that existence at the expense of a horrific act of genocide is something most people would not want. Have you heard of 'survivor guilt'? — Isaac
All actions have consequences, and the further into the future we look, the more complex calculating the consequences becomes until, much like predicting the weather, we rapidly end up with little better than a wild guess. — Isaac
Suicide is certainly not the norm nor is it “rampant”. — I like sushi
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.