Case-F: Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed.
Case-G: Similar to case-A except that the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril. Should you push the villain to death?
F - I believe that framing the innocent man would probably be wrong for the same reason as I believe killing the innocent man in Case D would probably be wrong. Those two stories are really exactly the same at the bare bones; an innocent man being killed because doing so *might* save a larger number of people. Giving the rioters what they want would increase the likelihood of them rioting or threatening rioting in the future, leading eventually to a mob rule situation.
G - Yes.
As a secondary point, the reason why I believe D would set such a precedent as I mentioned above and A, B, C and E would not is because the doctor is an authority figure in a position of power as opposed to a civilian. The doctor's situation is also probably a lot more frequent that the case of the runaway trolley, so there's a greater risk.
How can you be pro- pushing innocent people in front of a train, and pro- pushing guilty fat man into a train yet be anti- capital punishment and anti- legal gun ownership? I'm just curious.
Because I don't believe free gun ownership and capital punishment work to reduce deaths (in anything other than the immediate short-term, anyway), whereas I do believe (in this hypothetical world where fat people can derail trains) that pushing fat people in front of trains on course to kill people reduces deaths.
Morality doesn't exist in reality.
← View full post
Extra-Note:
Case-F: Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed.
Case-G: Similar to case-A except that the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril. Should you push the villain to death?
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
F - I believe that framing the innocent man would probably be wrong for the same reason as I believe killing the innocent man in Case D would probably be wrong. Those two stories are really exactly the same at the bare bones; an innocent man being killed because doing so *might* save a larger number of people. Giving the rioters what they want would increase the likelihood of them rioting or threatening rioting in the future, leading eventually to a mob rule situation.
G - Yes.
As a secondary point, the reason why I believe D would set such a precedent as I mentioned above and A, B, C and E would not is because the doctor is an authority figure in a position of power as opposed to a civilian. The doctor's situation is also probably a lot more frequent that the case of the runaway trolley, so there's a greater risk.
--
wigsplitz
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
How can you be pro- pushing innocent people in front of a train, and pro- pushing guilty fat man into a train yet be anti- capital punishment and anti- legal gun ownership? I'm just curious.
--
dom180
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Because I don't believe free gun ownership and capital punishment work to reduce deaths (in anything other than the immediate short-term, anyway), whereas I do believe (in this hypothetical world where fat people can derail trains) that pushing fat people in front of trains on course to kill people reduces deaths.