Morals vs logic

[Porman]

Just a little thing I like to get people thinking about.

Ok, scenario. There's a train track that divides into two tracks, one with ten people tied to the rails, and the other with one. There is a train heading towards the intersection between the two and you can control which track the train follows. Which track would you send the train down?
In theory, logic would say one death is a much better outcome then ten.

Now, lets say the one person was a loved one, Would this change your answer? Would you sacrifice ten people that also have loved ones, for your loved one?

How about this one.

There's a train heading towards two people and the only way to save them is to push someone in front of the tracks. Would you push them onto the tracks and kill them, to save two? In theory the right thing would be to push that person onto the tracks, But would you? Would it be moral to kill them to save others? How many would it take for it to be moral to kill someone?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't want stupid answers or what if's, just pick one of the two options.

 

[GHOSTNYOURMIST]

This is probably a "stupid" answer but if it only took one body to stop the train, it would be mine. It wouldn't be logical or moral, just my first reaction and without thought.


But if you want me to pick, my morals are stronger than my logic, I'd pick the loved one. The other 10 shouldn't have gotten their sorry asses tied to the tracks to start with.

 

[Bluey]

Just a little thing I like to get people thinking about.

Ok, scenario. There's a train track that divides into two tracks, one with ten people tied to the rails, and the other with one. There is a train heading towards the intersection between the two and you can control which track the train follows. Which track would you send the train down?
In theory, logic would say one death is a much better outcome then ten.

Now, lets say the one person was a loved one, Would this change your answer? Would you sacrifice ten people that also have loved ones, for your loved one?

No I would not. I am afraid that the one I loved would die in order to save the other 10. Of course if it where possible I would have my self sacrificed instead.

How about this one.

There's a train heading towards two people and the only way to save them is to push someone in front of the tracks. Would you push them onto the tracks and kill them, to save two? In theory the right thing would be to push that person onto the tracks, But would you? Would it be moral to kill them to save others? How many would it take for it to be moral to kill someone?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't want stupid answers or what if's, just pick one of the two options.

Ye I would push them. Again just has GHOSTNYOURMIST said. It would be me if I could. But if not it would be the one to save the two.

I Guss am a logical person. Course if it ever come down to it then I might decide I could not do it.

 

[Unacceptance]

Before I give my logical answer, you have to understand I would get a morbid joy out of the most amount of death.

However, I am not inclined to necessarily be the savior of said people, morally it is not my duty to extend myself into potential danger to save strangers. This is only in an extreme case of utilitarianism. For all I know they are tied there because they are a gang of child rapists and this is their way of being executed. Also I am not fully sure of the extent of my actions, how do I know that by my changing the track, the train won't derail? I have now spared 10 potential child molesters, killed my loved one and all 55 passengers on board the train.

In the case of the two for one, I have not caused the two to be killed, but my hand will be the one who murders the one I throw to save them. Therefore, I would rather let the blood of two be on the hands of someone else, than take the blood of one on my own. I would be tried for murder, I would suffer the consequence of a situation I did not set forth in motion.

 

[jales]

okay

1st question
I would not determine which track it went on. I would just remain very still

2nd question
I would like to think that i would give me own life but in reality I might just let the two people die. Unless it was my kids.. in wish case I would give my life

 

[Porman]

okay

1st question
I would not determine which track it went on. I would just remain very still

So if you had the power to save ten peoples lives at the cost of one, you would do nothing? How many lives would need to be lost for you to do something?

2nd question
I would like to think that i would give me own life but in reality I might just let the two people die. Unless it was my kids.. in wish case I would give my life

Giving your life wasnt an option.

 

[jales]

But it's not just one life.. it's the life of someone I love. So I imagine I wouldnt be able to do anything. I this situation I would freeze.

The second question
If I cant give mine.. I will let the two people dies unless they were my kids or husband or mother. If they were my kids or husband or mother I would want to push someone.

These are good questions.
What would you do Porman?

okay

1st question
I would not determine which track it went on. I would just remain very still

So if you had the power to save ten peoples lives at the cost of one, you would do nothing? How many lives would need to be lost for you to do something?

2nd question
I would like to think that i would give me own life but in reality I might just let the two people die. Unless it was my kids.. in wish case I would give my life

Giving your life wasnt an option.

 

[Porman]

What I would do... well first off I would save the ten people, Unless it was a loved one, In which case the ten people would die. I know that seams selfish but I couldnt live with myself knowing I killed a loved one, and I dont know the 10 others.

For the second one, I dont think I could bring myself to killing someone to save others. So Id let the 2 people die.

 

[Ithought]

My morals and logic said save the loved one.

 

[An archist]

These kinds of questions are used as criticism against the utiltarian view of morality--the greatest good principal. So, from that point of view, it's the obviously right decision to let the train squash the one dude for the sake of the ten. Yet whoever was put in this position probably wouldn't be very comforted by that fact and have many a sleepless night over the decison. I'd probably let the train go over the one guy to save the others but don't ask me to feel good about it.

I think you've made an assumption here in the title of this thread: morality vs. logic. Firstly, I'm certain that people are quite irrational, and I'm also a lukewarm subscriber to Sartre's idea that reason is a made up idea entirely. So, to say that it's irrational to let the train go over the ten people to save a family member isn't really saying much. More importantly though: who ever said that morality was based on logic? Philosophers have been trying to show since time immemorial that morality has some sort of objective basis and never really came up with much to show for it. On the flip side of that coin, I think it's a poppy cock cop-out to say that morality is an übersubjective matter. In short, who the fresia knows about these things?

 

[NeverMore]

Morality is relative to the individual, what one considers moral would seem like exceedingly immoral to someone else answers to both questions are subjective and will be different for everyone which makes it a very cool question to ask

In situation 1, I would kill the 10 people and be haunted by that decision every day of my life, I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one

In situation 2, I would never push anyone in front of the train even if the number of people saved was highly increased to 100, I would never turn an innocent bystander into cannon fodder, just couldn't do it.

edit:morality is not relative

 

[Unacceptance]

Morality is relative to the individual, what one considers moral would seem like exceedingly immoral to someone else answers to both questions are subjective and will be different for everyone which makes it a very cool question to ask

In situation 1, I would kill the 10 people and be haunted by that decision every day of my life, I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one

In situation 2, I would never push anyone in front of the train even if the number of people saved was highly increased to 100, I would never turn an innocent bystander into cannon fodder, just couldn't do it.

Moral relativism is debunked

 

[NeverMore]

Morality is relative to the individual, what one considers moral would seem like exceedingly immoral to someone else answers to both questions are subjective and will be different for everyone which makes it a very cool question to ask

In situation 1, I would kill the 10 people and be haunted by that decision every day of my life, I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one

In situation 2, I would never push anyone in front of the train even if the number of people saved was highly increased to 100, I would never turn an innocent bystander into cannon fodder, just couldn't do it.

Moral relativism is debunked

Your right, wow I shouldn't write things on a Friday night what was I thinking....

Let me at least say that any actions in both of these situations can never be considered to be entirely moral or entirely immoral in a way the situations are lose lose in a moral sense

 

[Unacceptance]

Morality is relative to the individual, what one considers moral would seem like exceedingly immoral to someone else answers to both questions are subjective and will be different for everyone which makes it a very cool question to ask

In situation 1, I would kill the 10 people and be haunted by that decision every day of my life, I couldn't bring myself to kill a loved one

In situation 2, I would never push anyone in front of the train even if the number of people saved was highly increased to 100, I would never turn an innocent bystander into cannon fodder, just couldn't do it.

Moral relativism is debunked

Your right, wow I shouldn't write things on a Friday night what was I thinking....

Let me at least say that any actions in both of these situations can never be considered to be entirely moral or entirely immoral in a way the situations are lose lose in a moral sense

Bettar

I do see what you are saying, it's more a matter of semantics.

>: D

 

[Lonesome Crow]

Lmao....Okay, it's a good thing I'm not god to be making life and death decisions for anyone.
Hell, i have a hard enough time making decisions in my own life.

To stay within the parameter of the limited chioces of answers to the questions.
And the lack of more detailed informations.
A rock or a hard place ?
It's a coin toss.
Logically it removes the moral responsibilities from my decision making process.

However...i wouldn't loose a night of sleep to bannish 10 murderers to death
to save the one I love.
Obviousely..if I can banish 10, I can bannish 1.lol

A chioce between my ex-gf and Scarlett Johnnasson.
Obviousely...Scarlett better say she wants my baby.lmao
Screw guilt...

 

[NakitaKita]

hm hard one would hope i wouldn't have to ever be in that situation. But i would have to say the ten would be more important. Nope... Nope ... not going to elaborate on this anymore quite disturbing to me...

 

[Sanal]

I r nawt undeerstandeeing aneeting

 

[SilentThinker]

There are so many views about morality.

These are all the moral framework.
Egoistic View
Altruistic View
Utilitarian View
Egalitarian View
Meritocratic View
Nihilist View

I tink I would save my loved one,to be honest.

 

[frey12]

Now in the extremely rare event that someone got me to love them it wouldn't really matter how many people were on the tracks all those people would die, and frankly I wouldn't feel bad after. Because 6 billion + people to replace them.

As for pushing that person in front to save two people. Why would i care enough to save two people. I could go to jail for murder when i could let all three people die and have no consequence what so ever.