Should you kill the fat man?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SilentPanda, Jan 31, 2013.

  1. Moderator emeritus

    SilentPanda

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2002
    Location:
    The Bamboo Forest
    #1
    I'm bored of gun control threads. Maybe nobody will like this thread. That's okay.

    So here is a philosophy quiz. Yes it deals with absolutes which can seem frustrating. But that's the point of the exercise. While these situations likely would not happen, I'd be interested in your thoughts if they did. So... if you feel compelled, post your results and we can discuss. It's not terribly long. I'll post mine after a bit if there is interest in the topic. If there's not interest, I'll just continue about my business.... :p
     
  2. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #2
    I killed and tortured the fat man.
     

    Attached Files:

  3. AhmedFaisal, Jan 31, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 16, 2013

    Guest

    #3
    <snip>
     
  4. macrumors 68000

    robanga

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Location:
    Oregon
    #4
    I indicated i would not kill the innocent fat man to save the five.

    I would drop him on the tracks if i knew he was a saboteur of the Train.

    I would torture him to find the device.
     
  5. Guest

    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    #5
    I disliked the opening questions as they seemed to ask for ones idealized/ in a perfect world view rather than ones practical/ realistic view.

     
  6. macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #6
    92%. Anyone else Batman?
     

    Attached Files:

  7. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #7
    Well. I did not interfere with any of the actions. So millions had a 75% chance of dying. But not by any action of mine.

    This philosophy dude needs to study up some more. Too many black and white scenarios . That's not very philosophical .
     
  8. macrumors P6

    dukebound85

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Location:
    5045 feet above sea level
    #8
    Doesn't one choose to kill 5 if they do nothing? It claims I opt for greater happiness by diverting the train and am insonsistent with my answers. However, I view choosing to kill 5 by choosing to do nothing is worse than diverting and choosing to kill 1


    This is difference to me than if a bystander could hit a switch where by doing nothing, 5 die as opposed to going out of the way and dooming one to death
     
  9. macrumors demi-god

    Hugh

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2003
    Location:
    Erie, PA
    #9
    I couldn't answer the second question and beyond. Who am I to say who lives and who dies, if you throw the fat man on the tracks you are committing murder. At least that's how you would look like in court of law.

    What I got from this is 'The needs for the many out weigh the needs for the one'. :/

    Hugh
     
  10. macrumors 601

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #10
    Is torture always wrong? No

    Is morality about maximising total happiness? No

    Is it always wrong to cause another person's death? No

    Should you always save the lives of innocent people? No

    Should Casey Jones divert the train? Yes

    Should the fat man be pushed onto the track? No

    Should the saboteur be pushed onto the track? Yes

    Should the fat man be tortured? Yes

    Your moral consistency score is 100%
     
  11. citizenzen, Jan 31, 2013
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2013

    macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #11
    Yes. Torture is always wrong.

    The few "what if" scenarios that could justify torture only exist in hypotheticals ... not in real life.

    You have something against "total happiness"?

    Dang. You're a tough person to please.

    Edit: I read your response before going through the OP's philosophy quiz. And I have to agree with you. Morality is not about maximizing the sum total of all people's happiness. As if that sum total could ever be measured in the first place.

    :rolleyes:
     
  12. macrumors 6502

    duneriderltr450

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2012
    Location:
    Oregon
    #12

    Same.
     
  13. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #13
    In the opinion of the program, I failed the consistency test because I first answered that it is always wrong to .... and then proceeded to do some instance. There is a lot of realism in these kinds of choices-- not the extreme ones in the test-- but, in real life, we often have to choose between two unhappy outcomes. Torture is always wrong, but, so is letting a million people die. What I didn't like about the torture question is the 77% or whatever chance of the success of the torture. According to the FBI, torture is not very effective.

    You need to learn more about Utilitarianism. You don't understand it very well.
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #14
    I think he's right about Utilitarianism. The standard form of it is the consideration in a lot of political and business decisions. 'Could this money be better spent elsewhere' for example. [Close Hospital]

    To the people saying that torture is always wrong. Did you not instantly think of torturing a kidnapper of your child or wife? Have you never seen the film Taken?
     
  15. iStudentUK, Feb 1, 2013
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2013

    macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #15
    What someone would do is not the same as what is right or wrong. I believe torture is wrong, even if its use would lead to saving innocent people (query how likely that is, but that's not the point now). Whether or not you or I would actually to torture someone to save our family is a seperate question.


    100% :D
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #16
    It's the same question if I ask it.

    Is torturing a kidnapper of your child [to save your child] right or wrong?
     
  17. macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #17
    Is it wrong? Yes. Would I do it? Good chance. Should I be arrested and imprisoned for doing so? Yes.

    Like I said - whether something is right and wrong is not the same as whether someone would do it.
     
  18. macrumors 68020

    niuniu

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2009
    Location:
    A man of the people. The right sort of people.
    #18
    Sometimes it is, and sometimes it's not. That's the point of it!

    That's why you get scored on consistency ;)

    Don't confuse the issue with law (the arrest remark). That's going to introduce a completely different dimension. This is about morality, not law.

    As a moral relativist, I don't have any sincere belief in moral standards. Which is why I can score a high rate of consistency (my 92% is actually 100%, but they downgraded me because there's no way to explain in the test why I would torture, but not murder).

    So to me, what you would do is morality. Everything else is a brain fart.
     
  19. macrumors 603

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #19
    They also treated the whole exercise like a bunch of black/white scenarios, which is ultimately false.

    Here's how I answered:

     
  20. macrumors 65816

    iStudentUK

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    London
    #20
    I'm not confusing what is legal with what is moral (as a lawyer I know that more than most!). I'm saying in that specific situation the law complies with morality, in other cases is does not.

    I don't believe in objective morality. However, I think saying what someone does is moral is far too simplistic. I recognise that humans do things at times of high stress/fear/anger that they would not usually do, and after the event look back on with guilt - sometimes people do things that they know are wrong, sometimes with hindsight they realise they were wrong. A discussion of morality required a degree of 'brain fart' to come to reasoned conclusions.
     
  21. macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #21
    fatman.jpg .
     
  22. macrumors 65816

    citizenzen

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #22
    Agreed.

    I found the whole test pretty absurd. For instances ...

    The three train scenarios are really the same question: would you sacrifice 1 person to save 5 people. In all cases I said, "yes."

    The most difficult choice is Scenario #2, where the fat man is an innocent bystander who you have to choose to push off the bridge, into the train to divert away from killing the five people. But the absurdity of the question makes it too easy and obvious an answer: Marty (the pusher) somehow has been granted the knowledge that the fat man would divert the train and is the only solution to saving five other people. There's no uncertainty ... no nuance.

    Likewise the scenario regarding torturing the fat man. We know there's a live nuke planted in the city. We know he knows the location of it. We know a million people will be blown up if it's not defused. We know there's a 77% chance that torture will get him to reveal the location and we know there's no other way he'll reveal the information.

    So the question boils down to, would I torture a man for a 77% chance to to save a million people? OMG. Of course I would.

    So what does that prove?

    IMO, nothing.
     
  23. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #23
    If you kill the fat man who would be Jake's partner?
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #24
    I could not answer yes to the torture question because I cannot accept any claim about its efficacy. The 23% chance that it would fail (far lower than I believe it to really be in most cases) is not worth the psychological damage it would do to the torturers.

    The fat man, though, he ought to take better care of his health, he will be a drag on the system, so he is expendable.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2011
    #25
    I answered that torture is always wrong, but I would have tortured the fat man. I think the question was bad to be honest; of course you can make someone answer "yes" by taking something to such an extreme. Besides, even if torture was the "right" choice in THAT CASE, it doesn't mean that I believe torture is ever MORALLY RIGHT. In this case, we did something fundamentally wrong because millions of people may have died otherwise.

    I've heard the fat man question before and I think it's a bit silly. Maybe if they used a scenario that was more likely to happen in real life they would have gotten more accurate responses.
     

Share This Page