would you kill one person to save five?

https://theconversation.com/the-trolley-dilemma-would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-57111

Yep

I would say yes under the first variation of the trolley problem.
The initial trolley problem does not allow for choice.

But a variation of the trolley problem allows you to push an oblivious person from a bridge. Obviously the answer is (for me) nope

Another variation allows for you to leave one very sick person to save five. Obviously a yes
But does not allow us to kill a perfectly healthy person in order to save 5, for example, with transplants

Would I?

Yes.

Could I?

Probably not. And if I could, it would only be in the first variation of the problem.

What always scared me about this flow of questions is that the more physical distance and energy input is between us and an "immoral" action, the more moral it is perceived to be. Every person alive abhors slavery and would feel nauseous at the thought of owning another human being - but most of us are fine with slaves (in almost every sense of the word) producing our phones, clothing, food, and even our granite tombstones. Where is the line at which we have no responsibility and no sense of immorality for actions that obviously harm humans? Wildlife and the planet notwithstanding.

Yes

In every myth and story we share, there is that moment when the principal character or characters are tested. It is my hope that as we seek and grow, our ideas grow too. Do we as Jedi have the INTEGRITY, we say we do?

Me personally- I don't play with trains or near train tracks. I don't. Never will. The idea can be ... What do you do when confronted with a choice. The BIG choice. I wont ever be the one to be in THIS scenario ever. As a Knight and as a Father and Lover and Pastor I make the point to live in the NOW. Now, I will say this, we are living in some strange times. It would seem like some places have reverted back to the old western lawlessness days but thats not the point.

Do you possess the fortitude and courage to be aware enough to make the right decision for your own path?

I personally would never harm some one TODAY. I can throw people still but thats not the point either. When given the choice, what do we choose? What is the value of our relationship or attachment to how we view defense and death?

Would you take a life if war was involved or if it showed up to your PLANET? TODAY? Are you a defender of life or a taker? Be wary Jedi of what we have and attach to is all we recommend. Reflect. What do y'all think?
Pastor Carlos

*edit added after posting

Anagnorisis is the moment of truth or the moment when we find out whats what. I hope this idea helps others see that in every part of the Hero's Journey we WILL be called out. Not to pull a switch but to test our grit.
Why harm one another?
What of others?
Past C.

I think the trolley experiment tries to understand when emotional detachment and logic enters the problem. Flipping a lever offers a level of detachment allowing logic to set in. 5 strangers die versus 1 stranger is simple math. In the next scenario emotions take over because of the close contact with the 1 person you decided to kill in order to save the 5. My default mode in such a scenario would be to not kill anyone but I would try like crazy to find another solution.

Everything is situational, and in this situation I feel like there is an alternative action that could be taken to alert those oblivious workers, either the five or the one allowing me an opportunity to save them all. Situations are rarely so black and white that there is only two possible choices. As a similar situation as to the sacrifice of oneself to sa e the life of others being oppressed. By making the sacrifice you haven't necessarily eliminated the threat against those others and they still could all be made to suffer without you to stand up and defend them after your sacrifice. Often these choices are split second decisions to be made and making a choice is not an easy one.

As a Jedi, I have learned that I must always act how I feel is the right and just way. I may be very wrong in those choices and so too must I accept whatever the consequences of my actions. I like to bring up the movie, "The Incredibles." Mr. Incredible saves a man attempting suicide and is sued for interfering in his willful death. While the concept sounds asinine, the truth is it could happen. Do what you know in your heart is right and accept whatever the outcome.

Pastor Carlos said, "Would you take a life if war was involved or if it showed up to your PLANET? TODAY? Are you a defender of life or a taker?"

I'm not sure whether your second full sentence is referring to the first. In other words, to kill someone, say, in self defense where there is no other way out shouldn't necessarily earn one the title of "life taker." Yes, they took a life, but I don't believe it would define the individual from there on out. In this case, we may be falling into an unfair judgment if we label a person as such.

A personal example: I was once aggressively approached by a man (neighbor) who was about 6'4" while we were having a disagreement. Though we weren't even at the level of yelling at each other, I watched him suddenly become very agitated, and he came at me, phone raised, clearly intending to hit me with it. Because I saw no other alternative given this particular situation, and because I was in a place in which I had no escape, I knocked him out and walked back home.

This man later called the cops on me, and they came to my house. I told them the story as honestly as I could, including the fact that I was acting in self-defense. Because I admitted it (just trying to be truthful!), I spent a night in jail. The man suffered nothing for attacking me, though he did leave me alone from that point.

Fortunately, I don't have a record, as the case was completely dismissed once I got some legal help. But because of this, certain friends of this guy have labeled me as "violent and dangerous." (That reputation has since cleared up, too, thankfully!)

So, I'm just hesitant to label someone who may have done something for a reason we're unaware of. Maybe even a good one(?)

Would it be considered a spoiler were I to tell you that in moral philosophy, there is no one right, moral solution to this ?

I don't know what I would do. As said Tragamite, it is a situational - thus conditional - dilemma. Should all six potential victims be strangers to me, I am as morally sound in doing nothing as I am in switching the track. We cannot let ourselves be beguiled by the consequentialist/utilitarian maxim of 'greatest good for the greatest number' (which translates in this case to 'one death is better than five'). Indeed, that is just stupid and the same reasoning has prolonged some pretty hideous practices by the past.

Barring flagrant negligeance, runaway trains, earthquakes and wild animals do not 'murder' people. This unfortunate situation would be happenstance. My involvement would only make things worse, and by touching that lever, I would undoubtedly and not mistakenly be gulty of manslaughter (the 'consequences' which Antares alluded to) No one loses five lives ; each lose only one life -- which is ephemeral and bound to expire at an uncertain time for an uncertain cause or set of causes anyway.

Suppose one knows some of the five workers and does not want her/his mates to get hurt. Sure, switch the track and let the lone bloke on the other end get squashed. Is there a degree of personal, emotional interest there ? Is it a subjective ? Yep... But we cannot say that it is immoral. Likewise, if it's my best mate working alone at the end of the other track, there's no way I would pull that lever. And If my best mate is one of the five, that lever would be pulled without a second thought. Again, there is no moral incoherence to that decision (manslaughter notwistanding).

When all outcomes are going to be tragic (which is a value judgement - very human, yes, but not at all 'fact') it leaves us on the outside of deonotological (duty) certitudes. We are witnesses to circumstances over which we have no control. The "lever" is merely the illusion of some sort of control, but it isn't - the tragedy is imminent, no matter how that tragedy manifests itself. Certainly, if one person can be saved with no harm to anyone else, we must endeavour to make that happen (Peter Singer and wet expensive shoes...*), but in the case of certain death for one or others, morality just doesn't apply.

Pull the lever, don't pull the lever : the moral value is equal.

* If one is walking through the park and a small child has fallen into a shallow pool, the parents/caretakers are nowhere to be seen, but one is wearing some smart shoes, should we wade in to save the child and thus ruining the shoes ? Only psychopaths would say "no". Yet, for the price of those shoes, had we donated the money to Oxfam or something like that, we could possibly save a hundred children (cf. Peter Singer, 1973). Let's think about that... It's a more real problem than runaway trains, really !

As an afterthought : I've never seen any variation of the trolleycar problem wherein you know everyone involved and have to choose which of your mates get splattered. Since we all share humanity with anyone who could be involved in such an accident, it lays out pretty clearly how disarmed we would be in a situation like this. Indeed, most of us (I feel) would be utterly paralysed in such a plight -- again, morality would not be at the forefront of our minds.

It is a lovely puzzle, this one. It shows us the limits of our reasoning and just how screwed we really are as would-be moral agents. :laugh:

Isn't the trolly car example just a Squid game episode ?

No, Carlos, it is a well-conceived thought experiment by Philippa Foot, an English philosopher, in 1967. :huh:

What the hell is the squid game ?

C'mon... :dry:

So my initial post on this thread was a single word…..yep. Having read all of your comments, my statement stands. It may be the soldier mentality I carry around, or the leader mentality I’ve developed through my experiences in life. But the answer to my mind is both simple and obvious. 5 is more than 1. Math is never wrong. The greater good is always what matters most to me, even if it means I have to live with something terrible on my conscience. The greatest sacrifice always belongs to the one pulling the trigger.

Unless I’m missing something….it’s either 1 person dies or 5 people die. That math is always easy to me.

Zero wrote: So my initial post on this thread was a single word…..yep. Having read all of your comments, my statement stands. It may be the soldier mentality I carry around, or the leader mentality I’ve developed through my experiences in life. But the answer to my mind is both simple and obvious. 5 is more than 1. Math is never wrong. The greater good is always what matters most to me, even if it means I have to live with something terrible on my conscience. The greatest sacrifice always belongs to the one pulling the trigger.

:huh:

The problem with thought experiments like this is the time factor. Here, you get to read the problem, look at it through whatever lens you choose, bounce your morals and ethics off of it, research it, then carefully craft your answer.

As a combat veteran who’s made real word decisions that has resulted in real people living and dying, I can tell you first hand that this isn’t a decision. It’s a reaction. You don’t get an hour to figure it out. You don’t get a friends answer to read first. You don’t get time to proofread your answer. You get seconds to make a decision and a life time to live with the results. Now, do you want to live with the fact that you saved 5 people, or the fact that you let 5 people die?

That's what I was alluding to in the 'afterthought' :

Since we all share humanity with anyone who could be involved in such an accident, it lays out pretty clearly how disarmed we would be in a situation like this. Indeed, most of us (I feel) would be utterly paralysed in such a plight

Indeed, I don't know what I would do as per my initial response, but would lay a month's paycheck on freesing up - the paralysis. Indeed, I'd wager it would be like that for basically everyone who has not been a combat soldier (I have never been, thank the Maker).

Nevertheless, thought experiments and other hypothetical puzzles are not merely mental onanisms. Everything from the pyramids to life-saving surgical techiques and medicines to the Webb telescope - not to mention your smartphones and computers - have begun with hypotheticals. In terms of moral philosophy - otherwise known ad 'Ethics' - they are designed, either well or badly (not all philosophers are bright people either) to give us an idea of whether we 'ought' to do particular stuff. They show us more about how we are than anything else and they sure as hell do not point to concrete solutions to harder concrete problems. More often than not, they show us the fragility of our reasoning and can only inform us remotely.

Anytime we use the words would, could, might, may and even why, we are engaged in a rudimentary form of thought experiment. They are valuable for letting us communicate possibilities. And pondering these possibilities is basic metaphysics.

In Ethics, there are three main avenues : deontology (duty, rules) which, like I said above, keep us from having to think about stuff very much when deciding what to do (in combat situations, there isn't time for that, having to distinguish between friendly or deadly in a microsecond), consequentialist ethics wherein if the outcome is good, it's morally alright, and virtue ethics which is even more hypothetical because it's based on what a virtuous person 'would' do. The trolleycar problem stretches itseof out over all of these at once, which is why it doesn't have any one, right solution. It is even morally sound to freeze up, paralysed by the horror before us - we just wouldn't be given a medal for it. Nor though would we go to prison for manslaughter.

It is not morally sound to kill one to save five, no matter what. But then again, in these situations, morality doesn't apply. It would apply however when deciding whether or not to lay off 5000 people and keep on 1000 to make a shitload of profit, the trolleycar being the economico-political situation of the day (talk about a runaway train ! ) So, let's think of things in along that model....

I would say that the question is too vague, are we talking about one person who is for exemple sick and extremely contagious, so they would be killed to save the five people next to become contaminated. Or is it a demand by someone to have that one person killed otherwise 5 other will be killed in their place, i guess there re countless situation where that one person could be or a danger, or totally innocent, or that one person is an aggressor. Each situation has it's own problems and ethic. To answer YES, is simply deprive of sagacity and this question is not any better.

Leor Hal wrote: I would say that the question is too vague, are we talking about one person who is for exemple sick and extremely contagious, so they would be killed to save the five people next to become contaminated. Or is it a demand by someone to have that one person killed otherwise 5 other will be killed in their place, i guess there re countless situation where that one person could be or a danger, or totally innocent, or that one person is an aggressor. Each situation has it's own problems and ethic. To answer YES, is simply deprive of sagacity and this question is not any better.

Yes

I have always found these types of scenarios unrealistic and overly simplified. That these are used as some kind of thought experiment or “morality gauge” is disgusting. And this is why I think this.

First, except for psychopaths, no one is going to pull a lever or push the person or what ever and just stand by and watch events unfold. Unless the individual freezes they are going to scream, flail their arms and do any number of the imaginable and unimaginable to try and prevent the events from unfolding as initially perceived.

Second, when presented with actual emergency or dramatic situations almost no one reacts the way they thought they would. That is one reason almost every person that reacts to stressful situations trains as much as they do. To program in a response and develop muscle memory so that the response is almost automatic and doesn’t have to be thought about.

But more importantly, as a Jedi I believe all life has intrinsic value. The first line of what Jedi believe is, “In the Force, and in the inherent worth of all life within it.” Thought experiments such as this teaches the individual to assign differing levels of value to and importance to life. That depending on how many, what your skill set is, what your background was, what you could contribute, how old you are…, or any number of factors could be used to determine if one’s life is valuable enough to save of worth sacrificing for the benefit of others. There were other groups of people that thought like this… slave owners, NAZIs and multiple other groups that have been deemed immoral or evil by society and history.

In my opinion, the only reasonable a Jedi should give to a question like this is, “I can not know what I would do until faced with the actual situation.” And if pressed I would inform them that it would be impossible for me to “know” because it hasn’t happened and my beliefs do not align with assigning varying values to different people based on arbitrary factors.