sorry, by this I meant no details regarding the scenario, such as is the millionaire a crook, is the money dirty, why is the man tied to the tracks etc

The point you are asking about is whether money outweighs morality, right? Not whether or not 100 million dollars can do enough good to outweigh the persons life? In other words, is the scenario about measuring the moral good of the two actions or is it about pitting the selfish act (money) against the moral one (saving a life)?

both

It is not true that my views are "anti-human", I'm guessing your answer shows what you think the correct answer is.

Money isn't just some abstraction that should be demonised by those who don't have it. You're willing to give up the status, power and the litany of benefits that come with such an amount of money. Any dreams or goals you have, any friend or family member you'd want to help, any place you'd like to visit, anything you wish you could have. Give it all up when it's literally handed to you for nothing. For what? Because you're too much of a saint to NOT help someone? Are you giving up the money to save the person or to save your conscience?

Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped.

Perhaps if in the actual moment you were emotional and decided you had to save the person on the tracks, you might. Then spend the rest of your life regretting it and beating yourself up about your choice, that strikes me as realistic for the average person. Saying you're above being bought, you would never, ever value money over someone's life, that's the reasonable position for you? I'm just being edgy by disagreeing? lmao.

At this point, there's no compromise between personal gain and morality for you, you'd give up $100 million to save up a stranger. You look alien compared to the world you live in, people don't give a dollar to a person in need but you'll give up $100 million for a stranger. People will sell drugs to get by, businesses will exploit people to make a buck but you won't give up a single person for $100 million. Okay, such a saint, I'm sure the way you live your life completely reflects your devotion to saving people.

why dont you just say you're miserable and you have trust issues? save time

I don't expect kindness from someone I'm mocking but you made a thread about a moral question and your answer is that you're an incorruptible saint. You're a selfless hero. Did you think you wouldn't need to defend this position? You just started this thread as a way to virtue signal? Lmao.

Just scrolling through your other threads, it's pretty much always the same thing with you actually.

Your thinking is just too convenient, too one-sided, from start to finish. Any kid can complain about the issues they think society has, most people graduate that and develop more nuanced opinions but not everyone, clearly.

If so many are so charitable, why does this man have a shack and rice in the first place? — Lif3r

Why, indeed? Because we are not that charitable. Billions are not overly enthusiastic about changing their lifestyles to save the planet, never mind the people tied to railroad tracks.

In the real world, the way the deal works is pretty much the way you set it up, except that a) I and the man with the bag of cash are a long ways from the guy tied to the railroad track; b) the guy on the track is definitely going to get run over; and c) I'm definitely not getting the cash.

Within the moral system to which many subscribe, exchanging any amount of money to prevent arbitrary killing is unacceptable. Promising to later distribute the money in beneficence is merely covering an immoral act with rose petals. Within that same moral system, there is an obligation to assist others in need. Exactly how far one should go isn't specified (should one impoverish one's self?). Many people do, actually, attempt to fulfill this obligation.

Speaking of people about to be liquidated for cash, here's a song about their salvation in the person of the tall, thin, long, lean, lanky. slow-walkin, slow-talkin fellow named Jones.

I will take the 100 million. Easy choice.

Notice the scenario: Buddy is tied to the tracks, not lying across them unconscious; presumably he has been tied there because someone, more familiar with him than I, felt that being runover by a train was a fitting end for his behaviour. Who am I to gainsay that and undo their efforts?

Also, those who say "that is murder"...clearly have never killed anything. Killing isn't a passive act, neither is rescuing. Either way involves getting in there and engaging. Both require taking a stand. I am not for, or against the guy on the tracks, I haven't enough information to be anything but ambivalent to his fate. I am not ambivalent about the money, I could use it.

Sure I'll just ignore the difficulties society faces and pretend they don't exist. I'll stop searching for resolution just because you are under the impression that I give a flying fuck what you think of me. Ok buddy. :lol:

At least I give it an effort while you wallow in piss and shit

you're awesome lol. I agree with what you've said and it's sad but hilarious

I don’t think you can answer the question. What you say and what you do are two different things. What you think about what you believe is one thing, but how you act proves what you really believe.

You virtue signal and that's all, even now, you're focused on demonstrating the superiority you think you have and that's about it. Next Lif3r thread:

"Wealth drives the world but haven't people realised that our pursuit of profits is destroying the environment and causing wealth inequality? Why can't people figure out that we need to work together and that there's more to life than profits? It infuriates me that people can't figure out the most basic shit omg!"

or

"Global warming is bad and is destroying the planet and we need to do something about it!!! It's unreal to me that people are still asleep on this topic, have people forgotten their obligation to biology?? Wake up people! Stop doing things to cause global warming right now!"

I finally remember now, our interaction which I had forgotten about, I read one of your stupid threads and trolled you. I don't treat every thread trying to solve societal issues like that, only dumb ones like yours. :lol:

I'm done with you Judaka.

Sure there might be a difference between the two, but at the same time the answers here give you an idea of the reasoning behind why one might choose one or the other.

Like in Jaduka's case where he's obviously just a piece of shit. :up:

there isn't a clear cut moral answer that we would all agree on, — Lif3r

Yes there is. We all know what the right thing to do is. If we didn't you couldn't pose the problem. We probably wouldn't do the right thing in those circumstances, but we'd know what we ought to do, morally speaking. It's implied by the question.

not quite. As you can see different people have different views

Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped. — Judaka

Is this really comparable though? There's a different level of agency where I'll jump in the water to save someone but I don't donate to lifeguard training.

Is there a valid answer to this question?

If not, the correct answer depends on morality of the questioner.
If you don't know the answer, on what basis are you going to judge us?

I havent judged anyone aside from the person being an asshole for the sake of it

Which would you choose, and why? — Lif3r

I think that if you look at the state of the world, what most people would do is the opposite of what they say they would do. Show me the money!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc

not quite. As you can see different people have different views — Lif3r

Right, people have different answers, but everyone recognises that there is a moral dilemma. If there weren't a moral dilemma posed by taking the money and leaving someone you could save to die, it wouldn't be the subject of a question. That moral dilemma exists, and everyone knows it - and then they think about it, and bring various other perceptions emotions and values into consideration to arrive at different opinions. And that, incidentally, is why Popper is wrong, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, that recognising science as truth would become a dictatorship of truth. Hume was wrong to object to rhetoric adducing facts to imply values. Morality is within us. We cannot but look at a list of facts, or a dilemma like this without 1) recognising there's moral implication, and then 2) prioritizing the facts in terms of individually formed, uniquely nuanced set of values, to arrive at different opinions as to what the facts imply.

With regard to that dilemma, would I have time to ask the man with the briefcase why he was trying to implicate me, after the fact, in what appears to be a murder?

I would ask this politely, of course because that's a lot of money - and surely, an answer would explain who the person is tied to the tracks, what their relationship to me is, and why the man with the briefcase is trying to implicate me, after the fact - in a murder.

Were there no time for questions, I'd have to assume the guy is tied to the tracks to cover up theft of the money, and that I now know about the murder and the money - and that, rather than waltzing off into the sunset with a zillion dollars and an oh so slightly troubled conscience, I'll be the next guy tied to the tracks! What if it just goes on and on forever, until someone declines the gold and saves the life?

Yes, they're comparable because our lifestyles already reflect our priorities when it comes to saving people we don't know.

If Lif3r's reasoning was that he is too much of a saint to not help someone like I said then what I said stands. If I Lif3r said "no, my reasoning is that now that this 1 guy is within close proximity to me and I'm the only one available to help him so I gotta save him" or "I won't sacrifice my cash to save others but I won't sacrifice others to make money" then yeah, I'd need to rethink my response.

Has anyone actually done this experiment, or is there any anecdotal evidence of how actual people have acted in such situation? — baker

I think they did try this experiment. Forgot the name, but it's well documented. Where the subject was supposed to deliver a painful electric shock to a third person, unseen, if he gave the wrong answer. High, high voltages were driven through the people who gave the wrong answers, many times the lethal dose. Yet people did this, despite their better judgment.

Whether you let the man die for 100 million dollars, or you save him from certain death, is not a moral question. It is a stupid, ill-thought up question.

OP, you should put up your money and try this question on, let's say, 1000 people, to make it statistically significant. Talking about "What would you do if...", makes everyone speak like a seventeen-year-old contestant on a beauty pageant. We are all innocent, nice, and our shit don't smell. That includes myself, of course.

This sort of experiment is for the birds. "If you had a chance to push a button that would blow up the word, would you do it?" Well, gimme the REAL button and we'll see.

Talk is cheap.

Your answer surprises me. If I jump in the water to save someone, my saving him is a conditio sine quo non for the person not drowning. My not giving money to lifeguards cannot be appropriately identified as costing lives. I'm at that point not contributing but I'm also not causing a death by not giving money. In the drowning example I'm the cause of death by choosing not to intervene. Seems a big difference to me.

Your example makes things unnecessarily complicated, what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. I would deal with your example very differently than I'd deal with OPs. Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene.

I'm not approaching this topic from a moral perspective, I think the moral answer is clear. It's really a matter of values. If materialistic desires or the value of money pales in comparison to the value of human life and that's your stance then live and act in accordance with those beliefs and don't be a hypocrite, that's all I'm saying. Don't just tell me the answer that looks good on paper and continue to live as though you're ignorant about what the world's like and live without even thinking to choose between buying nice things for yourself and using that money to help others, because it's not your problem.

My point isn't that things shouldn't be like that, I think it's fine, my point is saying "I wouldn't choose not to help someone for $100m" is really stupid because of this reality. I already choose not to help people all the time. If you want to say, well, it's different because based on whether you laid eyes on the person or because you don't have someone else who you can pretend might help this time, okay? You can list some differences but do they actually matter? Bottom line is that most of us prioritise ourselves and then there's just how honest you are about it.

what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. — Judaka

That's not in the OP though; you just choose the cash and a lot of people are claiming to use the money to save other lives but this isn't a requirement in this experiment. I would agree though that if the option was 100 million that is guaranteed to be spent on saving other people's lives, I would go for the money assuming I would have enough time to deliberate on the decision.

Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene. — Judaka

Why not? If but for your intervention the person would die, then choosing not to act is murder in my book. How is this different from a doctor refusing treatment? His refusal doesn't cause the patient to die? Or do you think their duty to treat people only stems from the Hypocratic oath? Or me failing to brake means I'm not to blame for the car accident? How does this work exactly?

What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated.

Why not? — Benkei

Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient.

What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated. — Judaka

How is money less complex here? What is my dollar spent on? The coffee machine? The coffee? Actual instruction? Which instruction? What instruction is most effective in preventing deaths? etc. etc.

Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient. — Judaka

It always does depend on circumstances. Nobody is required to put themselves in harm's way, that usually excuses a person from doing what other people can do without risk.

I'm not sure in what sense it's insufficient. What do you mean? I'm trying to explain why I think there's a moral difference between contributing by giving cash, where there's no causal link between the cash given and a life saved but there is where I'm confronted with a situation where my actions can prevent a death and where failing to do so would be morally condemnable. My failing to give cash doesn't cause a death and is therefore not morally condemnable, my failing to intervene when someone's drowning does. Giving to charity is commendable but saving a person is morally obligatory in my view. I realise that view doesn't necessarily have to be shared by others but I do think it's consistent.