Supposing the train will hit 5 grannies unless you divert it off to kill 4 children? What to do?
Which would you do? Either? Neither? Both?
by onacruse 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
nilfun
LoL Mr. Ben... there's this one guy who used the seat cushions to stop a runaway trolley...why use a human as a braking mechanism when some other inanimate object will do...lol...
-
Satanus
Ideally, i would save five by killing one. Unfortunately, the law would not see that as the ideal action for me, and would likely find me guilty of murder or something. So, i would let five die.
SS
-
Mr Ben
Ok, what if there were 4 innocent children that were going to die, would you direct the train to 4 retards? I was only wondering, 'cos there are a few children in the BRI waiting for transplants and there are a few spare retards up at the mental hospital...
-
stillajwexelder
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one -- Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan
-
onacruse
Interesting responses, and thank you! Why do I get a feeling that throwing myself (or me being thrown) into the path of the trolley is the preferable choice? LOL
The point of this TE is to demonstrate the struggle between two of the most powerful theories of moral reasoning:
1) Immanuel Kant believed that pure reason alone could lead us to moral truths. Based on his own pure reasoning, he declared that it was wrong to use someone for your own ends and that it was right to act only according to principles that everyone could follow.
2) John Stuart Mill argued that the rules of right and wrong should above all else achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people, even though particular individuals might be worse off as a result. (This became known as "utilitarianism," based on the "utility" of a moral rule.)
In other words, Kant puts what's right before what's good...Mill puts what's good before what's right.
As I've pondered this TE today, I was surprised that I would even hesitate between the 2 options (as given): either case--1 life vs. 5 lives...supposedly a no-brainer???
At first: Option A, I could immediately live with...option B, I would have a hard time.
As much as I enjoy Kant's tightly-reasoned philosophy, I'm beginning to think that I may in fact now be more of a JSM kinda guy.
There are parallels between JW-exJW mentality that can be elucidated here.
PS: This little ditty is drawn, in part, from my own studies of these philosophers, but I've also leaned heavily on an article in the 4/04 Discover magazine (Whose Life Would You Save?)