Smartest person you kn(e)w

[Soupie]

If we can completely and radically change who we are, it begs the question: who is changing who?

This reminds me of the following story:

Two men crossed paths on the street. The first man said to the other: "Wow, you've gotten taller! And changed your hair color. And I like the beard, too. It's great to see you, Allen.

"My name is not Allen!," said the second men.

"Wow, you even changed your name. Good for you!," replied the first man.

 

[Burnt State]

So now the morality of the action hinges on valuing one life over five.

I see it as a moral action to decide to commit murder in order to save people. Chance could also save people and I do not know the full inevitability of the trolley - an act of god could alter the situation and then I would have been responsible for murder of one. I see all actions that kill the one to save the five to be a question about the willingness to kill and not to save. That's how I would differentiate this case from the 7:1 case. That scenario has an end of the world aspect to it that requires drastic measures. This is about chance, outcomes and individual desire. My desires are not to commit murder and allow for chance to perhaps alter its course.

 

[smcder]

I see it as a moral action to decide to commit murder in order to save people. Chance could also save people and I do not know the full inevitability of the trolley - an act of god could alter the situation and then I would have been responsible for murder of one. I see all actions that kill the one to save the five to be a question about the willingness to kill and not to save. That's how I would differentiate this case from the 7:1 case. That scenario has an end of the world aspect to it that requires drastic measures. This is about chance, outcomes and individual desire. My desires are not to commit murder and allow for chance to perhaps alter its course.

But if you alter the car toward the one, by the same argument chance could intervene there too ... from the hypothetical it's certain (and a law prof wouldn't let you off with "chance" he would say one or five WILL die, but I'm no law prof) so from real life, you know it's very very very likely the five would die or the one would die.

I'll see if there is some relevant case law ... some GS laws require action and I'm curious if there is some relevant case law ... you know something like this has actually happened.

 

[Burnt State]

But if you alter the car toward the one, by the same argument chance could intervene there too ... from the hypothetical it's certain (and a law prof wouldn't let you off with "chance" he would say one or five WILL die, but I'm no law prof) so from real life, you know it's very very very likely the five would die or the one would die.

I'll see if there is some relevant case law ... some GS laws require action and I'm curious if there is some relevant case law ... you know something like this has actually happened.

I disagree with chance intervening for the one as an equivalent as the decision turns on action and the action it turns on is if murdering one person is mitigated by the saving of five lives through conscious murder. I think a judge would argue that committing an action that will intentionally cause murder is an intentional act to kill, not one to save more lives - who am I, after all to decide who lives or dies? Whereas deciding not to act and allowing chance to do what chance started is an innocent action and leaves chance open to possibilities. I can't say I shot at someone and harboured a reasonable expectation that superman would jump in and interrupt the bullet, but as tragedy appears to unfold I can hope that chance may intervene without taking responsibility for murder. Does that make sense?

 

[smcder]

Sure, it makes sense ... but so does the moral obligation line of reasoning. Let's see if I can find case law ... it's all about precedent.

 

[smcder]

Five preschoolers have wondered on the tracks ...

also you mentioned knowing the person, family etc how would that affect your decision?

Sorry, you don't have to think about all these things - many people find it morbid and if you've had some similar experience ... but it's fascinating to me, ethics/moral philosophy isn't something I've directly studied in law school it's all tied to a rule of law ...

 

[smcder]

There is an unbelievable amount written on this ... and so many variations ... I do think if there is no reasonable action, it will be hard to have a legal standard.

But something still bugs me about the no action plan ... most people it turns out are utilitarian, 5>1 ... but that doesn't make it right, when you get into the variations "most people" do some weird things.

on the chance theory, though, I'd counter argue that knowing absolutely nothing else, it's conceivable the chances that one person could escape might be greater than that all five could escape -

one outcome is you divert the train and two people escape, the other three get tangled up and now the family says if you had diverted the one guy could easily have escaped ...

if it was a group of school children who had wandered on the tracks, I would divert to the one ... my intent would be to save the children and leave the adult to chance ... if it was another kid ... wow, hard one, but I'd still divert - maybe it's my EMT training

here's another aspect ... you mentioned meeting with the families of the five and the one ... now you have to meet with the one and he is very angry with you because he says he now has survivor's guilt ... and feels he has the lives of five people on his hands ...

good short story material here ...

 

[smcder]

I'm almost positive it's NOT murder which requires malice afore thought - that would be hard to show whether you pull the lever or not ... At the moment you throw the lever your intent is to save five lives - after that you can still worry about what to do for the one

 

[smcder]

You can see the moral obligation I think more clearly in this variant:

You are equidistant from two levers and have time to pull only one - of course one will save five lives and the other will save one ... or you can pull neither.

 

[Burnt State]

Ok, if I feel that the 1 has a chance to escape, which I did not think was part of the hypothetical, then they get the train and my knife that I throw to them. Good luck, I yell over the approaching trolley.

Re: survivor guilt of the 1 - I can't accept the burden of someone else's weak Buddhism

Re: 5 children vs. the adult - the adult perishes and I explain to the adult's family why I valued the young lives over someone who already got to live a couple of decades or more.

Re: my kids or family on the track in the group of five - I kill the 1 and learn to cope with the shame and guilt of my selfishness. My family will help me get over it.

 

[Burnt State]

i don't see any more clarity in the variant and still hold that doing neither eases my moral responsibility of consciously killing someone.

 

[Stagger Lee]

One death after diverting a train bound to kill five would never be considered murder unless you were responsible for the group being ties to the tracks in the first place. If anything, inaction allowing the group of 5 to perish would weigh heavily on ones mind, more so than pulling that lever.

 

[Burnt State]

One death after diverting a train bound to kill five would never be considered murder unless you were responsible for the group being ties to the tracks in the first place. If anything, inaction allowing the group of 5 to perish would weigh heavily on ones mind, more so than pulling that lever.

Hypothetically, what would one say to the family of the person killed by pulling that lever to save the other five, that their single life was not worth as much as those other five?

I'm going to pull a smcder and also ask things like, and in another scenario where you find out that the five were all tied there because they were rapists, or what if the one on the track was your wife? what then?

 

[smcder]

Hypothetically, what would one say to the family of the person killed by pulling that lever to save the other five, that their single life was not worth as much as those other five?

I'm going to pull a smcder and also ask things like, and in another scenario where you find out that the five were all tied there because they were rapists, or what if the one on the track was your wife? what then?

I would say that I pulled the lever to save the five, with no intent to kill the one. I hoped he/she might be able to get out of the way but yes I knew it was likely the one would die but I had no ill will. The death of their loved one would be on my mind the rest of my life.

I might also be able to say either:

1. I would do the same thing again.
2. If I had it to do over, I wouldn't pull the lever.
3. I don't know what I would do if I was in that situation again.

.... depending on how I felt afterward.

What is the purpose of the two hypotheticals you give? Here are my answers:

I would divert if all I knew was that the five were rapists.
I wouldn't divert if all I knew was the one was my wife. (the five might be my children ... )

 

[smcder]

Ok, if I feel that the 1 has a chance to escape, which I did not think was part of the hypothetical, then they get the train and my knife that I throw to them. Good luck, I yell over the approaching trolley.

Re: survivor guilt of the 1 - I can't accept the burden of someone else's weak Buddhism

Re: 5 children vs. the adult - the adult perishes and I explain to the adult's family why I valued the young lives over someone who already got to live a couple of decades or more.

Re: my kids or family on the track in the group of five - I kill the 1 and learn to cope with the shame and guilt of my selfishness. My family will help me get over it.

It wasn't part of the hypothetical, it came in here:

"I see it as a moral action to decide to commit murder in order to save people. Chance could also save people and I do not know the full inevitability of the trolley - an act of god could alter the situation and then I would have been responsible for murder of one. I see all actions that kill the one to save the five to be a question about the willingness to kill and not to save."

What does "the burden of someone else's weak Buddhism?" mean?

 

[smcder]

i don't see any more clarity in the variant and still hold that doing neither eases my moral responsibility of consciously killing someone.

What I mean is that the moral obligation, to me, is clearer in the variation ... it might or might not cast any light on the original ... that's what I'm wanting to find out.

I understand your sense of moral responsibilty in not killing someone. I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm saying that, to me, not pulling the lever is a conscious act that results in the death of five ... not pulling the lever is a type of action, the forced choice, to me, doesn't leave me a choice of "doing nothing" only a choice between two undesirable options ... I don't feel right for doing it, I wouldn't feel wrong for not diverting it ... but it's a different way of framing things and that's what is interesting to me - as I said some of this may be the EMT training/experience.

What would you do in the double lever variant?

 

[smcder]

Like intelligence, personality seems to become relatively stable once one becomes an adult. So, like intelligence, personality (which I'm lumping compassion into) seems to emerge from a complex interaction of gene expression (nature) and environmental influences (nurture). So, again, I would argue that once one reaches adulthood -- mid-twenties -- the core of ones intelligence and personality are established.

However, there is research that indicates nature and nurture can both be trumped, to a certain, but powerful, extent by the mind:

The Social Life of Genes: Shaping Your Molecular Composition - Pacific Standard: The Science of Society

“You can’t change your genes. But if we’re even half right about all this, you can change the way your genes behave—which is almost the same thing. By adjusting your environment you can adjust your gene activity. That’s what we’re doing as we move through life. We’re constantly trying to hunt down that sweet spot between too much challenge and too little.

“That’s a really important part of this: To an extent that immunologists and psychologists rarely appreciate, we are architects of our own experience. Your subjective experience carries more power than your objective situation. If you feel like you’re alone even when you’re in a room filled with the people closest to you, you’re going to have problems. If you feel like you’re well supported even though there’s nobody else in sight; if you carry relationships in your head; if you come at the world with a sense that people care about you, that you’re valuable, that you’re okay; then your body is going to act as if you’re okay—even if you’re wrong about all that.”
​

So the fact that -- as willful entities -- we can cognitively shape our own "environment" is powerful. My only question is whether we can do so to the extent that we can significantly increase our intelligence or change our personality. If we can completely and radically change who we are, it begs the question: who is changing who?

Great question ... awareness ... was just reading a book Human Technology with techniques on anticipating an emotion or thought before it forms and then deciding to have it or not - will try to quote the passage.

Also:


And Jeffrey M Schwartz.

I'm doing a course of clinical hypnosis and I think my experience confirms what you say above.

 

[smcder]

This reminds me of the following story:

Two men crossed paths on the street. The first man said to the other: "Wow, you've gotten taller! And changed your hair color. And I like the beard, too. It's great to see you, Allen.

"My name is not Allen!," said the second men.

"Wow, you even changed your name. Good for you!," replied the first man.

That's hilarious!

Here's something you might be interested in ... combines CBT and mindfulness ...

The New Psychology of Depression | University of Oxford Podcasts - Audio and Video Lectures

 

[Stagger Lee]

The question of the 5 on the track, could only be answered properly if the "lever puller" had the time to think it out- or that time slowed down enough to weigh all options. As mentioned, most would freeze up. Someone familiar with the tracks probably wouldn't hesitate to pull that lever, and hesitation resulting in the death of 5 would surely be a heavy weight to carry. Interesting hypotheticals above.

 

[smcder]

The question of the 5 on the track, could only be answered properly if the "lever puller" had the time to think it out- or that time slowed down enough to weigh all options. As mentioned, most would freeze up. Someone familiar with the tracks probably wouldn't hesitate to pull that lever, and hesitation resulting in the death of 5 would surely be a heavy weight to carry. Interesting hypotheticals above.

The double lever hypothetical to me questions the theory of inaction in the original and gets at our ideas of fate - since either action saves one or five and results in the death of five or one but doing nothing and leaving things to their original course results in all six dying.