An option I haven't seen yet:
Hey people on the track, here's the deal [...]. Any preferences real quick? Oh, you five want to live and single guy wants to save you five, thanks oodles.
The train morality problem
Re: The train morality problem
The OP is not a dilemma, because the answer is obvious.
A real dilemma involves making a choice between two unacceptable outcomes. For instance, what if that one person was your sister? Would you save her, and kill five other people you do not know?
There is no perfect answer, of course.
The point of asking a question that puts the listener into a dilemma is to force them to question their intentions. It's a useful device. It gets people thinking.
A real dilemma involves making a choice between two unacceptable outcomes. For instance, what if that one person was your sister? Would you save her, and kill five other people you do not know?
There is no perfect answer, of course.
The point of asking a question that puts the listener into a dilemma is to force them to question their intentions. It's a useful device. It gets people thinking.
Re: The train morality problem
Form a Committee to debate the situation and then make a joint decision by secret voting.
By the way, is it true that in a firing squad, some participants would be given blanks so that they cannot be definitely certain of killing the target?
By the way, is it true that in a firing squad, some participants would be given blanks so that they cannot be definitely certain of killing the target?
Re: The train morality problem
Flip a coin......blame the coin.....
chownah
chownah
Re: The train morality problem
That's very interesting. Maybe they don't wish to participate in the world at all. In that case, I guess their answer would be that no action would be required in any of the scenarios.daverupa wrote:Thanissaro mentions in Buddhist Monastic Code I that a bhikkhu does not incur a penalty if he makes no effort to save a drowning person, even if that person dies as a result. What does this tell us about the Vinaya's response to these dilemmas?
Reference - Page 80:
Inaction. Given the Vibhaṅga's definition of taking life, we can infer that inaction
does not fulfill the factor of effort here, for it does not cut off the life faculty. Thus if
a bhikkhu sits idly when seeing a flood sweep a person downstream, he commits no
offense — regardless of his feelings about the person's death — even if the person
then drowns. Recommending that another person sit idly as well would also not
fulfill the factor of effort here, because the category of command covers only the
act of inciting the listener to do any of the four actions that would fulfill the factor of
effort under this rule.
If I felt I was physically capable of rescuing the person, I wouldn't be able to sit idly by and watch them drown. At the least I would call for help. That's my view based on imagining myself in the other person's position and knowing I would wish to be helped.
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17192
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: The train morality problem
The only surveys I've seen on this all show that most would flip the switch in the OP and a slightly lesser percentage, but still majority would push the fat man to save the five.
I have not seen any survey showing the differences in responses between religious people and non-religious people but I would hypothesize that the more religious a respondent is, the more likely they would not flip the switch. That is because they would be more likely to leave it to fate, "God", or karma and not want to be the one "killing" although arguably doing nothing is an act of omission and quite possibly killing too.
Flipping the switch seems to involve the least killing and the best option, but as always you don't want that to mean you would take it further into a slippery-slope of something like killing a few to save the many when it is only a perceived threat or on weak evidence, such as that done by George Bush and other bad leaders.
Take for example, another variation:
I have not seen any survey showing the differences in responses between religious people and non-religious people but I would hypothesize that the more religious a respondent is, the more likely they would not flip the switch. That is because they would be more likely to leave it to fate, "God", or karma and not want to be the one "killing" although arguably doing nothing is an act of omission and quite possibly killing too.
Flipping the switch seems to involve the least killing and the best option, but as always you don't want that to mean you would take it further into a slippery-slope of something like killing a few to save the many when it is only a perceived threat or on weak evidence, such as that done by George Bush and other bad leaders.
Take for example, another variation:
That to me would definitely be going too far and possibly down the slippery slope.A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
Re: The train morality problem
Yikes, I give up now! I can see why they say inaction is best after all!David N. Snyder wrote:Take for example, another variation:
A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor.
That to me would definitely be going too far and possibly down the slippery slope.
Re: The train morality problem
Slippery slope may be the most used, and least helpful, of all logical arguments. It's almost always invalid.
The two scenarios are not similar in terms of the moral question involved. In one case action is imperative, and the result would be universally seen as a proper, although perhaps difficult choice.
In the second there are many options that could work, including calling around to see if anyone has recently been run over by a train and has a kidney to spare.
I think it is obvious that no sane person would kill an innocent in order to harvest organs--which is why this is not an example of slippery slope, nor a useful thought experiment.
The two scenarios are not similar in terms of the moral question involved. In one case action is imperative, and the result would be universally seen as a proper, although perhaps difficult choice.
In the second there are many options that could work, including calling around to see if anyone has recently been run over by a train and has a kidney to spare.
I think it is obvious that no sane person would kill an innocent in order to harvest organs--which is why this is not an example of slippery slope, nor a useful thought experiment.
Re: The train morality problem
As for Bush, his arguments of imminent threat were B.S. from the beginning. They were meant to scare the gullible. The idea of invading Iraq had been around for years--he used 9/11 to convince others to follow his folly.
Re: The train morality problem
86 the single person on the other track and feel bad about it. 1 person dead instead of 5 is a better deal, but reasoning is never emotionally clean where stuff like that is involved.David N. Snyder wrote: What would you do?
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: The train morality problem
Lets make the problem more interesting. The single person tied to the other track is a beloved spouse.
David N. Snyder wrote:I don't think this has been discussed yet here, so thought I would give it a try here:
The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues)
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?
(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)
What would you do?
What would Buddha do?
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: The train morality problem
J4, good idea--but you might want to read through the topic before posting.
As for the mind not being clear in such situations: that is the point of logical exercises. They force you to clarify your positions.
As for the mind not being clear in such situations: that is the point of logical exercises. They force you to clarify your positions.
Re: The train morality problem
I wasn't writing about having a clear mind and a clear decision, I was writing about having a clean conscience despite having a clear mind as well as a clear decision.
In reading the scriptures, there are two kinds of mistakes:
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
One mistake is to cling to the literal text and miss the inner principles.
The second mistake is to recognize the principles but not apply them to your own mind, so that you waste time and just make them into causes of entanglement.
Re: The train morality problem
alan wrote:In the second there are many options that could work, including calling around to see if anyone has recently been run over by a train and has a kidney to spare.
Re: The train morality problem
It's so pleasing when someone gets the joke!
J4: not a joke. You said "..reasoning is never emotionally clean where stuff like that is involved". But that does not square with your comment.
J4: not a joke. You said "..reasoning is never emotionally clean where stuff like that is involved". But that does not square with your comment.