• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Trolley Dilemma

NO1 said:
About your last sentence, Im not a fan of this kind of approach (bringing happiness to a great number of people) I just tried to answer this question from utilitarian aspect.
Click to expand...

To be clear I'm not advocating a pure utilitarian approach. I believe it was Jeremy Bentham that came up with Act Utilitarianism and I would agree with you that it has some serious flaws, but that doesn't prevent us from trying to improve upon it.

Having said that, what is wrong with trying to bring happiness to the greatest number of people? I mean, as we both (I think) agree, pain and suffering when contrasted against happiness and pleasure, clearly the former has me "weight" then the latter. This doesn't mean that we ever have to accept harvesting one persons organs to the delight of several others.
 
csbrown28 said:
The answer to your question is, if I had to kill an innocent so that everyone else may live I would do it, but I would accept that my actions were wrong and I would accept whatever punishment that society felt that I should endure. Since I harbored no malice toward the person I killed and I carried out my act as a sacrifice for virtually everyone else, I would hope that society considered those facts when passing judgment.
Click to expand...

So we then agree that such a course of action would be wrong.
 
Paleocon said:
So we then agree that such a course of action would be wrong.
Click to expand...

It would have been wrong for me to kill an innocent, but would society ever ask that virtually everyone die so a single person not be killed?

It's like micro and macro morality.....At the micro level it's wrong, but at the macro level it would be the best course of action if the continuation of the human race is of any value.
 
csbrown28 said:
It would have been wrong for me to kill an innocent, but would society ever ask that virtually everyone die so a single person not be killed?

It's like micro and macro morality.....At the micro level it's wrong, but at the macro level it would be the best course of action if the continuation of the human race is of any value.
Click to expand...

You're ignoring the difference between acts and omissions.
 
csbrown28 said:
Can you be more specific?
Click to expand...

You said something about everyone dying to save a single person. This isn't what the scenario involved. It is not necessary that anyone perform an act to save that single person, it is only necessary that they not deliberately seek his death.
 
Paleocon said:
You said something about everyone dying to save a single person. This isn't what the scenario involved. It is not necessary that anyone perform an act to save that single person, it is only necessary that they not deliberately seek his death.
Click to expand...

I don't remember posing a scenario like that. I think you have it backwards. I asked if you would kill a single person to save everyone, even if you and your family and friends would be spared. The reason for the inclusion of family and friends to to remove the reasonable justification of self defense.
 
csbrown28 said:
I don't remember posing a scenario like that. I think you have it backwards. I asked if you would kill a single person to save everyone, even if you and your family and friends would be spared. The reason for the inclusion of family and friends to to remove the reasonable justification of self defense.
Click to expand...

The way you phrased your statement regarding society, ignored the difference between doing something (murdering someone) versus not doing something (allowing people to die).
 
Paleocon said:
The way you phrased your statement regarding society, ignored the difference between doing something (murdering someone) versus not doing something (allowing people to die).
Click to expand...

Ok I see what your saying now. Not really sure how we got here, but whatever.

Anyway. All of the hypotheticals given involve someone having to do something morally questionable in order to save people.

I don't think you answered your own question, how would you handle your scenario? Would you kill an innocent to save virtually everyone? Does the bible help you answer that question, if so, how?
 
Paleocon said:
I would not.
Click to expand...

So you would allow the human race to perish, that is, to allow almost 7 billion to be murdered because you think it's wrong to murder one innocent person to save everyone?

Am I clear, is that what you are saying?

I was hoping you would include a biblical justification.....
 
csbrown28 said:
So you would allow the human race to perish, that is, to allow almost 7 billion to be murdered because you think it's wrong to murder?

Am I clear, is that what you are saying?
Click to expand...

Yes. Not that I believe that the destruction of the whole human race is possible.
 
Paleocon said:
The whole human race wasn't destroyed.
Click to expand...

*sigh* One family short....Is it really that much of a stretch to Imagine the whole human race being wiped out, when according to what you believe, we came that close at one point?
 
csbrown28 said:
*sigh* One family short....Is it really that much of a stretch to Imagine the whole human race being wiped out, when according to what you believe, we came that close at one point?
Click to expand...

Yes it is. For God has assured that there would not be a repeat.
 
rhinefire said:
You're walking along the track again, you notice the trolley car is out of control, although this time there is no auxiliary track. But there is a man within arm's reach, between you and the track. He's large enough to stop the runaway trolley. You can save the five people on the trolley by pushing him onto the tracks, stopping the out-of-control vehicle, but you'll kill the man by using him to stop the trolley. What do you do?
Click to expand...

Push the man into the trolley and watch all six people die.
 
csbrown28 said:
To be clear I'm not advocating a pure utilitarian approach. I believe it was Jeremy Bentham that came up with Act Utilitarianism and I would agree with you that it has some serious flaws, but that doesn't prevent us from trying to improve upon it.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, some seeing Bentham as one of the liberalism philosophers.
How would you improve it?


Having said that, what is wrong with trying to bring happiness to the greatest number of people? I mean, as we both (I think) agree, pain and suffering when contrasted against happiness and pleasure, clearly the former has me "weight" then the latter. This doesn't mean that we ever have to accept harvesting one persons organs to the delight of several others.
Click to expand...
One of the things is the reason that Utilitarianism\ consequentialism making the whole thing to quantitative issue. In other words I can sacrifice a random person if its bringing happiness to enough people, more than the suffering of the man (in the final calculation the pain has more weight but still the happiness overcome it) as I said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom