To flip or not to flip?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by James R, Feb 26, 2021.

?

Read the opening post first. Do you flip the switch, or not?

  1. I believe in a god or gods and I would flip the switch.

  2. I believe in a god or gods and I would not flip the switch.

  3. I do not believe in any gods and I would flip the switch.

  4. I do not believe in any gods and I would not flip the switch.

  5. I don't want to answer the poll. Just show me what other people have said.

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,891
    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.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,891
    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.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,212
    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.
     
    foghorn likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
  9. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,619
    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.???"
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,891
    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.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
  13. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,891
    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.
     
  14. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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 ."
     
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  15. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,891
    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.
     
  16. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030

    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 ?
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,030
    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
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
  18. cluelusshusbund + Public Dilemma + Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,619
    No i didnt say that... carry on

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2021
  20. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    All right then, we roll back to my question in post 59, which you did not answer:

     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,782
    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?
     
  22. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,576
    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?
     
  23. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,398
    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.
     
    foghorn likes this.

Share This Page