The problem is, Javi, the way you phrase the question, there is no other outcome. In real life, you know you could also be rescued, however remote that possibility is, you know other people want to do that.

I'd kill the fat man and escape, and live with a troubled conscience. — counterpunch

They literally did this.

well thats pretty much what 2nd-amendment nuts say, as do people conscripted to fight in wars. I refuse to fight, and you have no moral right to say Im wrong. Now pester someone else.

Understandable but I wanted to phrase it in that way just to point out the extreme situation they randomly ended up

They literally did this. — javi2541997

Then it's moral.

Then it's moral. — counterpunch

I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be

I am one of the hikers; I am also the fat man's doctor. I have been telling this guy for years that being as fat as he is eventually is going to kill him. So...

Fat people are useful in these kinds of forced-choice situations. In the much discussed Trolley Situation, throwing a fat man off the bridge derails the trolley and saves 5 other people.

Suppose the person stuck was actually a gorgeous woman to whom at least several of the hikers were extremely attracted. Would a 'beautiful, sexy she' make the situation more difficult than a 'repulsively fat he'?

Would a 'beautiful, sexy she' make the situation more difficult than a 'repulsively fat he'? — Bitter Crank

Good question! I think not. I guess it doesn’t depend about appearance. In extreme circumstances you do whatever just survive and if you have to sacrifice someone, the mass or the group will sacrifice the stuck person anyways. So, I guess is just secondary all the characteristics. The issue here is that someone is get stuck and somehow would sacrifice himself for others.
It is interesting because the website where I found this humorous dilemma asked: What would you think if were a pregnant woman instead? hmm...

What would you think if... — javi2541997

...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?

"Oh no, not again!"

...you were a bit overweight and happened to get in the way of a dynamite philosopher?

"Oh no, not again!"
5 minutes ago — unenlightened

:100: :rofl:

In what seems to be a less pressing situation, millions of people vote against the plug in the outlet (the fat man, in your example). Lots of people opt to minimally fuel efficient cars in favor of gas guzzlers; millions of people opt to fly to distant vacation sites; millions of people opt for luxury (of one sort or another) over the common good. The consequences for those who pay the greatest price for global warming are not immediately visible (to us), but are none the less real and are becoming more severe over time.

People who are very cognizant of global warming and its consequences still opt for the high-carbon output for their cars, lifestyles, agriculture, and so on. So do I -- I'm not a vegetarian, for instance.

In real life most of us seem to be willing to sacrifice people who are "in our way" especially if the sacrifice is at a distance.

There were 14,000 homicides in the US in 2018 -- situations where someone decided (with little to no deliberation) that someone else was expendable.

The point is, in real life--as opposed to forced-choice moral games--a significant number of people do decide "to kill the fat man" over stakes that are trivial. Collectively, billions of people toss the stick of dynamite.

Are so many people (billions) morally depraved? Maybe a bit dull, not depraved. Most of us will never have to make a forced-choice moral decision of a Trolley or Fat Man Plugging the Exit situation. Our capacity for empathy at a distance is cognitively limited--not absent, just limited.

Ignoring the limited imagination through which the question has been posited, I would say that sacrifice is always a choice. Human consciousness/conscience (collective/societal) has already answered that question in so very many ways (in every way possible).

We always (and I mean ALWAYS) sacrifice the few (or one) for the sake of the many. The modern way is to give the few (or one) a chance to volunteer so they can earn the appreciation. Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. It is part of nature's intelligent design.

Are so many people (billions) morally depraved? Maybe a bit dull, not depraved. Most of us will never have to make a forced-choice moral decision of a Trolley or Fat Man Plugging the Exit situation. Our capacity for empathy at a distance is cognitively limited--not absent, just limited. — Bitter Crank

Agreed. Good expression. :100:

Either way, if and when necessary, that sacrifice must happen. — BrianW

Sure, the sacrifice always be there because as you explained, it is a natural selection. Nevertheless, I is interesting how the humans create masses to fight against the circumstances. I guess this could be an emphasis against individualism.

I thought it more than moral, in a survival aspect. Somehow the masses will fight to survive. Doesn’t matter the sacrifice for the the fat man. I guess this is morality to them. It is interesting because we can clearly see how changeful the concept of morality could be — javi2541997

In the trolley problem, instinctively, I'd pull the lever, kill one and save five. In this case, instinctively, I'd kill the fat man and escape - but as a doctor I wouldn't therefore butcher a healthy individual for organs to save five. Logically, it's the same thing - but morally it's completely different, and in my view, this is because morality is an ingrained sense - like humour or aesthetics, from which moral rules are derived in different ways:

Utilitarianism: A Theory of Consequences. ...
Deontology: A Duty-Based Moral Philosophy. ...
Relativism: A Theory Based on Experiences. ...
Divine Command Theory: A Higher Power. ...
Virtue Ethics: Always Improve Yourself. ...

The first two approaches are particularly germane. The trolley problem and the fat man imply utilitarianism, but the medical dilemma - while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. The moral sense understands this instinctively - which is why I asked, "What did they do?"

while logically identical, implies a deontological approach because of the doctors duty to individual patients to do them no harm. It would be unethical for the doctor to think in utilitarian terms with regard to the interests of an individual patient. — counterpunch

Interesting point of view. So you defend that it could depends on the awareness in every individual in this dilemma. If a doctor is there, for him, the dilemma is even worse because as you explained one of his principles is not harm others. But sadly he has to. I am agree it could be unethical for the doctor thinking the sacrifice itself instead of preserving the life.

What did they do?" — counterpunch

I don’t know now how to answer because your example made me feel a lot of intriguing questions. I guess it is not possible at all that the group of hikers would have voted blowing the fat man up. It could be the possibility of being someone against utilitarianism.

Give the dynamite to the fat man and let him decide.

Nah, just as for his consent. Giving him the dynamite only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink:

True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks

only risks sabotage if he makes the wrong decision. :wink: — DingoJones

:100: :up:

True but he could act selfish in two ways: not deciding killing himself because he doesn’t want to or probably he could torch the dynamite and then kill the folks — javi2541997

And if he does the latter, who can blame him? He’s trying to survive after all.

Yep; you'd have to trust him.

Were's your courage now?

What courage are you referring to?
Also, Its not cowardice to not trust someone in fatmans position. He has good reasons to sabotage if he is the type to sacrifice a bunch of other people to save himself.

well, not considering the hope for rescue makes a fun discussion, but its also made at least one person write rather trite utilitarian arguments as to why one should murder, lol.

Yep; you'd have to trust him.

Were's your courage now? — Banno

I can some courage and trust in him but I only have 50 % of chances. This situation, the attitude of the fat man, could be like a Russian roulette.

at least one person write rather artificial utilitarian arguments as to why one should murder, lol. — ernest meyer

Agree lol. But this what happens in spiral dilemmas like this one. There are infinite answers and I guess this is why so interesting and I like all of your responses :up:

,

Now there's a real moral problem - lack of trust.

Now there's a real moral problem - lack of trust. — Banno

Another dilemma inside the dilemma! I like it. Yes it is. Completely because now we have to consider if we are sufficient brave of give the fat man the dynamite. I guess most of them don’t want give the dynamite because as survive instinct they would think: If we give him the dynamite he would cheat us because this is literally we are doing now. We guess he would try to revenge.

I was actually asking which courage you were referring, not being sarcastic or snide if that mattered in you decision to ignore the question.
Anyway, Can you elaborate on why lack of trust is a real moral problem? I don’t think of trust as a moral/ethic, so I’m curious.