Most would agree with triage. You have a responsibility to treat patients. You aren't going to shoot one patient and then treat the other 3.
How about a more realistic scenario. You are driving on the freeway and a child suddenly steps out in front of you. You are going too fast to just stop so you swerve out into the next lane where there may or may not be another car. Do you swerve? Of course. Most would swerve (I would). You may cause an accident that may kill more than one person (or you may not). There is a big difference in trying to avoid an accident that may injury/kill someone else and a scenario that will kill someone else. That's why these scenarios are just naval gazing. The little details that real life brings make any argument go one way or the other. That's why they aren't useful. It's similar to gossip. Some people just like to do it and pretend it's helpful or useful but it generally isn't. In real life you are presented with 3 people on a track and you try to avoid them and whatever happens after that you can accept in most cases.
I'd have to flip it. I wouldn't think of it as trading 1 life for 3, as 1 man is going to die no matter what choice I make. By not acting, I would be effectively choosing to allow two deaths I could have prevented.
Fair enough. So that works in my favour. The responsibility is passed to my employer; it is no longer an ethical matter for me; it is a protocol matter. My employer had better have trained me in the appropriate actions for the (generalized) scenario.
Are they though? The point of such debate s not to decide the "correct" answer in a highly contrived scenario, but to feel out the issue and perhaps - as James R says - be more prepared if a similar (though less contrived) situation does crop up. You will already have done some of the hard ethical work.
In this scenario you are self-employed::: "You are drivin the train… an as usual it is programed to turn right at the switchyard… you can see ahead that 3 people on the track will be killed if the train turns right… but if you override the program to turn left only 1 person on that track will die… will you override the program an turn left... or allow the train to follow its program an turn right.???"
What's the point then? You said it was my "duty" to act, but now you remove the reason it was a duty in the first place. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You'll have to change the train to an automobile. Now we've got the classic 'crosswalk with a baby and an old geezer' scenario.
Being employed doesn't change anything. As a train engineer you have a duty to the public. Just like a car driver, if you are behind the wheel you have a duty to the public.
It changes everything. It means the a] option isn't mine to choose, and b] any consequences don't fall on me, because my "duty to the public" is defined by my employer ahead of time. My employer will have protocols in place - not having to wait until the actual hazard to occur - an will to have trained me to deal with scenarios - not specifically, but generally - and what efforts I am to make. Provided I abide by their protocols, they will shield me from culpability.
I disagree. You are relying too much on your employee status. Whether you work for yourself or for an employer, your responsibility in the job is the same. You can't shift that responsibility.
I'm not. My employer is. If my employer thought I was going rogue with a 200kTon locomotive and making my own decisions regardless of their protocol, they'd fire me and possibly prosecute me. Yes. As you said: "in the job". The job/employer is responsible for ensuring that my correct actions are legally and ethically correct - in anticipation of a dangerous situation. Employers are not in the habit of saying "We just trust you'll figure out what the right thing to do at the time. Money is no object to our lawyers ."
There is going to be no page in your training manual for what to do if 3 people are on one track and 1 person is on another track.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/iq-cutoff-for-death-penalty-struck-down-by-supreme-court/ usa law & society defines its moral code ? is the example of moral difference equal to the cultures absolute terms ?
example in the home an adult sneezing(coughing) on & over other people AND their food, not covering their mouth, sticking their fingers in their mouth & touching other peoples food & personal items scratching/touching their genitals & Anus and then touching other peoples food... what would you do ? at home in your home what would you do ? at work in the work place james you need to include the frame of class because you are creating a singular class group by defining all victims as lower working class you need to include the single person as being the president of the usa and another track option with a group of rich celebrity's. maybe a republican convention & the tram being a gas lorry with aviation fuel or a highly compressed liquid toxin maybe like an ethylene like compound that creates cancer int hose it doesnt immediately or quickly kill while causing direct contact burns & fatal fumes & cancer causing fumes ethylene truck crash into a packed republican convention you can actively interact with american moral hypocrisy by creating another track option of a day care centre full of small children & babies & women the action of using a class system to assign a lower class to morally sterilize the person being asked to make a moral decision is not very ethical when the class system of absolutes has already been created as the principal guiding moral influencer (rail way line workers on the job) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! p.s note i LOVE the artistic skill of the use of light & depth in the indians(native/indigenous americans) building the railroad drawing, that is AMAZING talent individual facial expressions depth of field use of light animation quality
That does not mean there won't be general instruction that applies to specific cases. Employers don't simply let engineers loose on 200kT machines without giving them proper training on what to do in emergent situations. The training may not be specific to a detailed circumstance, but certainly isn't going to just tell me to do whatever my whim feels is the right in the moment and sure we've got your my back legally.
RainbowSingularity: Nothing in that is relevant to this thread, as far as I can tell. Start a new thread. Nothing in that is relevant to this one. No. I did not mention the class of the people on the track, or the class of the person flipping the switch. No I don't. The people are strangers to you. It's written into the scenario. That means that if one of the people is the president of the USA, then for whatever reason you don't recognise him/her as such. Same goes for the celebrities. Start your own thread if you want to add in irrelevant complications. Start your own thread if you want to add in irrelevant complications. The scenario in this thread has nothing to do with class. Or, at least, nothing you have made relevant. Are you able to focus on the thread topic?
I think at times, we get caught up in the specifics that aren't being mentioned, instead of just focusing on the scenario at hand. That said, these thought experiments can sometimes over-simplify things, when we know that a real life conundrum would test us differently. If only reality was so ...easy?
As a mod, you may not have the luxury of the Iggy Button. But in his case it inevitably makes the signal-to-noise ratio skyrocket.