What Would You Do?

[c0de]

Grey + Bob



@ Grey

You are right Grey. I should have worded the question differently. However, if a person knows what should be done, then he is more likely to follow his instincts at the moment of crises. In your scenario, I can only answer by saying what should be done, and hope that if the moment comes, I would follow my instincts and not be dumbstruck and do nothing.

I would tell the person standing next to me to call 9-1-1 while I chase the person down. (Depending on the size of the male, I might pick up any weapon I find on the way.) Once I get within earshot, I would yell at him to get his attention. If he stops chasing the woman and the baby, mission accomplished. The cops are on their way, and the woman and the baby are safe. I would talk him down, trying to keep the situation from escalating. If he keeps chasing them, then I would have to catch up to him, and take action depending on the circumstances as they come up. No point in planning anything beyond this point. This is what I think should be done in that scenario. Of course, only God knows what we would do.



@ Bob

Keep in mind that the allies included the Soviets. Stalin wasn't a big fan of holding trials either. Besides, I am sure if the Axis had won, they would have put on a good show to legitimize their insanity as well.

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by c0de

I just wanted to see how you would react when I said you were.

OK. I still don't get it. LOL My reaction: puzzled.

I wanted to see if there were any arguments that would convince me to consider killing the girl. My thoughts had become clouded and I wanted an outside perspective. Looking back, I guess this thread was a sort of test. (for myself)

Oh. I thought you were just curious about everyone's responses and what it had to do with their religious beliefs.

If I really wanted a debate with you then I would have told you right off the bat that what you just repeated here is a fallacy (dicto simpliciter). Instead I only hinted at it, because I wanted to see what you would say next. Would you have changed your position, or would you have re-stated it... (you re-stated.)

I restated because although you see it as a fallacy, I do not. The statement fits with my observations of life. I've never seen a situation where I didn't have a choice in some way, at least in my own internal reaction to it. And I've been in some very bad situations, including ones with a good deal of physical pain. I still think it's my choice in how I react, how I integrate it into my life- what I do with it.

I am not sure how you stating my observations and conclusion is a fallacy makes it so. Perhaps in philosophy that works; in social science it doesn't, so perhaps we're just operating out of different systems of logic.

Thanks for the story, that was amazing. I disagree with your conclusions yea... but thats ok... agree 2 disagree i guess.

That's what makes the world go 'round, yes? The diversity?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by c0de

I actually hate philosophy....

Western philosophy I assume? (or am I making an ass out of u and me?…)

In that case, you really don’t want to buy this book!


Book: David Gamez - What we Can Never Know.


s.

[Postmaster]

I have voted not taking any action thus the little girl survives. The people in the trian have a chance to jump out.

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

[/i]
Then whomever is being inflexible with the rules when there is a viable alternative available is responsible for any deaths that occur.

No problem. I will be flexible and responsible . I would switch the lever to take out the little girl first, then switch it back to the other track up ahead so it goes off the cliff. No hard feelings that way and I accomplish population control at the same time

[Dream]

It seems some people refrained from posting a vote. That is allowed. It is allowed. I guess I will count them as not having pulled the lever.

[Postmaster]

Yeah it’s not fair to be directly responsible for someone’s death. The little girl would have to watch in horror while someone artificially changes the course of her fate. I know if this was me I'd be extremely annoyed, since when did I say I wanted to sacrifice my life? Would you?. Also if the people in the train knew they were going to fall off a cliff they would im sure make an effort to jump out of it and if they didn’t know at least they don't have to go through the torment of knowing their death is inevitable. To me anyone that pulls the lever is a murderer.

[eponabri]

There is no death, just the ending of a body. The child most likely put herself in that
position as that was part of her destiny.

[Postmaster]

That can also apply for the people on the train as well, it was their destiny to get on the train and there destiny to fall off the cliff. We should respect the rights of the little girl that asked her parents if any trains where going to pass before she went to play. Or manipulate the situation to commit murder.

[c0de]

Path + Snoop


@ Path

I thought you were just curious about everyone's responses and what it had to do with their religious beliefs.

I was... (excuse my mercurial inclinations)

I restated because although you see it as a fallacy, I do not. The statement fits with my observations of life.

I am happy for you... and I hope you never come across a moment which will force you to realize that such moments exist.

I am not sure how you stating my observations and conclusion is a fallacy makes it so. Perhaps in philosophy that works; in social science it doesn't, so perhaps we're just operating out of different systems of logic.

In the social sciences you gather information via interviews, calculating statistics etc. Well, 99% of the choices in life do contain creative possibilities. But sometimes, that 1% pops up... (these figures are approximate ) Most humans (thankfully) will never be faced with that 1%, so your chances of studying this are already very slim. But the trouble for social scientists do not end there. Because the few who have been forced to make such choices will (most likely) never want to be interviewed or studied. This is why a logical fallacy is still applicable to the argument: just because you have not experienced something yourself, or interviewed someone else who has, does not mean such cases do not exist. This, incidentally, is why the "science" in the social sciences can (sometimes) remain an unapproachable ambition... Don't feel too bad though, it's the same with the official "sciences"... (just ask the scientists).


@ Snoop

I guess the "philosophy" which I respect most is Occasionalism, which started in the Islamic Near East.... But I have problems with this approach as well, because occasionalism is a dualist philosophy, and I am a monist/idealist... maybe there is a way to reconcile monism with occasionalism.... I'll ponder on it.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by eponabri

There is no death, just the ending of a body. The child most likely put herself in that position as that was part of her destiny.

But it is my destiny to be at the lever, that is why her fate rests in my hands. It is not straightforward fate if the choices of destruction are observed. Shall I really take destiny into my own hands?

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by c0de

@ Snoop
I guess the only "philosophy" which I respect is Occasionalism.... Maybe because it is a sort of anti-philosophy.

ooh not heard of that so thanks

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/occasionalism/

is it an occasional respect?

if you've got any books on the subject do you keep them on an occasional table?

sorry, just been for a run and I'm a bit mental.

s.

[c0de]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

if you've got any books on the subject do you keep them on an occasional table?

Occasionally, yes (lol).

[path_of_one]

I guess part of my question, which no one has answered, is how is non-action not also action? If, through non-action, we cause death (because we knew a way to do otherwise), how is that different from action itself?

Everyone hesitates to pull the lever because they think that if they do nothing, they really do nothing and "their hands are clean." I think that's false. If you know that by doing nothing, the other 200 die, your non-action is, in fact, action. Now, if you didn't know, or were just guessing, that is a different scenario... but that is not the scenario we are given here.

And, if the girl sees "with horror" you turn the train on her... you'd think she'd get the heck off the track. In fact, why wouldn't she get off the track anyway? I mean, if she's close enough to the train to not have time to go 3 feet... she's close enough that you can warn her to get off the track before pulling the lever. It all makes no sense unless she's tied to the track. I mean- she has as much (actually more) chance to get off the track and survive than the people in the train have to leap from a moving train and survive. The whole thing is non-sensical in its parameters.

Anyhoo...

@ C0de

Of course, science deals in probabilities, but how else to make decisions? Yes, I use intuition but I can't do that in hypothetical situations... You plan for the 99%, not the 1%.

That aside, under what circumstances would a human being not have a choice in their feelings and thoughts? How does another being control one's own feelings, thoughts, and consciousness? Even if one is mentally ill, from my perspective there is some greater choice in that matter- perhaps not one you made recently, but in the scheme of your spiritual life, which is much wider than this brief one here... Nothing in the self is permanent, and yet the self is lasting. Eh, I'm probably getting too much into the weeds for everyone. Everyone wants a nice, easy feel-good answer about saving the girl and allowing 200 to plunge to their death.

I'm really curious, because I have always noted that these were my own choice, no matter the external circumstances. And that is what I mean by creative response.

My body and current life is precious, but it is just a vehicle for the real me. There is a substantial element, to me, that my intent matters behind my action/choice, but whether or the girl or the 200 die... they will continue on into the next life. So it's really about my intent, and not about death, per se.

My point in this whole conversation is that if you have knowledge that would change things, the choice of non-action *is* action. It is the choice that makes it action as opposed to "fate" or whatever, not pulling the lever. If you fail to pull the lever, you just killed 200 people. And while you say "Oh, they can jump off the train" well, so the girl can jump off the tracks (and I would wager, a whole lot easier). Making choices is a form of human action. Passivity does not mean non-action.

[Dream]

Originally Posted by Path of One

My point in this whole conversation is that if you have knowledge that would change things, the choice of non-action *is* action. It is the choice that makes it action as opposed to "fate" or whatever, not pulling the lever. If you fail to pull the lever, you just killed 200 people.

Yes, inaction is an action, however there are some scenarios such as bombing of abortion clinics which make me wonder how useful this reasoning can be. The people who bombed those clinics said they were saving lives, ending murder, & upholding the sanctity of life. We prosecuted them as mass murderers, because they killed or attempted to kill the staff of those clinics. They thought they were doing the right thing. We said they broke the law. To them, the law punished them for pulling the lever and saving the train. To us, there was no lever. The problem is upholding the value of human life, so maybe we ought to say either choice is correct. Otherwise, might we not inadvertently set a price on a life?