Now that I think about it, i'd kill if someone was in a position to kill me, maim me, or inflict irreparable harm upon my interests (such as setting my house on fire) with little if any hesitation. If I manage not to kill them, then lucky them. Otherwise, I sure as hell ain't losing sleep over 'em.
Maine law, last I checked, says that killing someone is permissable if you reaonably believe that you or another person is in immediate danger of murder, rape, or kidnapping. I think that's pretty reasonable.
So wait, if I go to court and prove I believed it, even if it wasn't even close to being true, then it's ok?
That's what I was trying to get across on the "Lies" thread. The belief has to be reasonable. That is, it's judged by an objective rather than a subjective standard. You won't get very far in your defense of self defense if you just say you really, really believed in the immediate danger if your idea of immediate danger is an imminent invasion by pod people. You might really, really believe that, but it won't be enough to allow you to use the defense. The reasonableness aspect requires the fact finder to decide whether a reasonable person, placed in your position, would have believed the same thing.
New York has a similar law, but I believe there also has to have actually been a credible threat to your safety, or the judge would have to perceive it to be reasonable that you could have seen the situation as life-threatening.
Like, if somebody pulls a knife and tells you they're going to cut you so bad that you'll wish they didn't cut you so bad, that is a credible threat to your life.
This is the correct analysis. In the "Lies" thread, I was trying to get people to decide whether the idea that "it's not a lie if you believe it to be true" should require a reasonableness standard.
Imagine you're on a bridge watching two trains on separate tracks. One train is hurtling out of control and the many passengers aboard are going to die when the train inevitably crashes. You have the power to switch tracks from a junction box on the bridge. You know that, if you use the junction box to switch tracks on the out-of-control train, that train will regain control and the passengers will live.
However, changing tracks means that the other train will be redirected onto an unfinished bridge. The train will then fall from a great height, killing all aboard. You don't know how many are aboard.
I'd leave it be. That way, only some passengers from the out-of-control train die and the ones on the other train live.
Mathematically, it's the obvious solution. Doing the other option will result in the deaths of 100% of a train's passengers while leaving it alone will not.
I suppose if I knew where the trains were coming from, it may affect my choice because then I would be able to estimate the size of the trains' loads.
Mr. Sin, as I said, you know that there are many passengers on the first train. You know they are going to die. You don't know how many are on the second train. It might be empty.
See, this is a difficult thing. I can't imagine ever killing anyone, but I suppose that if it were truly necessary to defend myself, my family, or a large number of people, I would do all I could.
My funny answer is: bad grammar and willful stupidity.
Mr. Sin, as I said, you know that there are many passengers on the first train. You know they are going to die. You don't know how many are on the second train. It might be empty.
That would be Ms, and I am aware that you said that. I am merely stating that knowing the trains' origins could have been a factor.
Mathematically, it's the obvious solution. Doing the other option will result in the deaths of 100% of a train's passengers while leaving it alone will not.
I suppose if I knew where the trains were coming from, it may affect my choice because then I would be able to estimate the size of the trains' loads.
My apologies, Ms. Sin. I suspected that you might be a "Ms.", but I chose to use "Mr." in the same manner Saavik was called "Mr. Saavik" in The Wrath of Khan.
However, I don't think you were aware of what I said. I said that there were many passengers on the first train. I said that you don't know how many are on the second train. I also said that all of the first train's passengers would die if it crashes. Your post does not reflect that you were aware of that in any way.
If it helps, imagine that there are one hundred people on the first train. Once again, they will all die if the train crashes. You still don't know how many are on the second train. It may be a cargo train coming from Nevada filled to bursting with copies of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial for the Atari 2600 or it might be a passenger train coming from New York City with one thousand passengers.
First, I'd like to note how the "many" in your first post somehow changed to "all".
But I suppose if I must be as uninformed as you say, I'd still leave it be. If info on the number of people is so uncertain, then any action I take would be made on an incomplete perspective. Thus, I'd be creating a problem for myself if I turned the switch. Now, instead of a tragic accident, whatever happens would be on my head (legally speaking).
Why can't I just hit the switch, then hit the switch again? Also, if both trains are passing through the same switch, can't I stop the second train from falling off the bridge by having it hit the other train. Then only about a few cars worth of people will die. It's all about what will mathematically kill the least people. Of course, we don't know how many are on the second train. It could be 0 or a million. However, It can't possibly be more than can fit in a train.
Because the second train is going to fall off the bridge after I save the first train, I would most likely pull the switch. That would save one train of people. Then I would have some time working out a plan to save the second train. Perhaps I could jump onto the train as it comes and tell the conductor to hit the brakes, or I could pull the switch again after I save the first train.
You can't give someone like me these hypothetical moral dilemma puzzles without covering every single possible base.
For anyone really interested in this topic other than just for casual discussion I'd suggest 2 things. First go take a conceal/carry class at your local gun range. There you will learn all of your local laws regarding lethal force. Very little time is actually spent on the range. Second, read 'In the Gravest Extreme Role of the Fire Arm in Personal Protection.' Massad Ayoob is a fantastic author. He has a very good grasp of common sense and has a huge amount of experience. He is one of those guys that people read along with Sun Tzu. Most military and police types will recommend one of his books. It discusses not just how, when, and why but also the psychological aspect of self-defense.
Ms. Sin, please read it again. I haven't changed anything.
. . . and the many passengers aboard are going to die when the train inevitably crashes.
I did not write " . . . many of the passengers aboard are going to die". That would indeed be different from "all". Instead, I wrote " . . . the many passengers aboard are going to die", meaning all of the many passengers aboard will die. You're not uninformed, you just didn't read it properly.
Because the second train is going to fall off the bridge after I save the first train, I would most likely pull the switch.
What if you knew for certain that the second train was a cargo train and the only person aboard was the conductor? Would your answer change? What if you knew the conductor personally?
Forget about the train, already! Do you know how long it took my minions to rig that situation? Then comes along some good Samaritan and screws it all up? Just leave off and go about your business! Nothing to see here.
What if you knew for certain that the second train was a cargo train and the only person aboard was the conductor?
Wait, so my choice is to save many people at the expense of one? I would probably do it if there was no other information available to me. When you don't have all the information you want available to you, and you must make a decision, you can only base that decision on what you do indeed know. When so much information is unknown, your decision approaches being completely arbitrary. When forced to make a largely arbitrary decision, you can't be faulted if you make the wrong decision.
For example. Let's say I know that one train has at least one person on it. I also know that another train has at least 5 people on it. I also know that it is impossible to prevent one of these trains from crashing in a way that all passengers aboard will die. I also know that I am the only person with the power to make a decision as to which train will survive and which will not. Also, if I fail to make any decision, both trains will crash. Obviously I would choose to save the train with at least 5 people on it.
Sure, maybe the at least 1 person train actually had a million people. Sure, maybe the at least 5 people train has Hitler on it. Sure, maybe the at least 1 person train was also carrying the universal panacea and the secrets of the universe. If it does, that sucks, but there was no way for me to know that. My decision was effectively almost arbitrary. Based on the meager information I had, I chose a course of action with better odds, as far as I knew, of making things better.
The lesson here is this. You can only make decisions based on information you know. When you don't know information, your decisions are arbitrary. Sometimes arbitrary decisions turn out to be wrong. That's just a fact of life you have to learn to deal with. Nobody is omniscient. As long as you make the best decision based upon what you know, you can't be morally at fault if it turns out to be the wrong decision. Of course, then you can start talking about situations where someone doesn't know something that they should have known, like they didn't read an obvious warning sign, but that's an issue for another time.
One last twist: Forget about the second train. Forget about the junction switch. Imagine that the first train is about to pass directly under the bridge. Imagine that you're watching it with someone else. Further, imagine that you know that the train has a device that can detect the presence of a person on the tracks. If the device detects a person on the tracks, the train will immediately and safely come to a stop, regardless of whether the person it detects on the tracks is dead or alive. The device requires a sustained presence, so it won't work to bungee jump to the tracks and even if it did, you don't have the time to set up a bungee jump.
You know that, if one of you were to jump onto the tracks, the fall would be fatal to the jumper but the passengers on the train would be saved. Do you throw the other person off? Do you jump yourself? Would it matter if you knew the other person? What if the other person had the same knowledge of the detection device and attempted to throw you off?
You really have to stop doing this. You need to provide more information. With the information you have provided, I have no idea how many people are on the train. I don't know what kind of train it is. I don't know if there are other possible ways of saving the train. How do I even know that the train is headed for certain doom? How do I know that this safety system will work, what are the odds of it failing? Without information like this, my decision is pretty arbitrary, and I'd probably just do nothing.
You know that there are may people on the train, many being a number arbitrarily larger than ten. The number of passengers is the only thing you're even vaguely unsure about. You know with absolute certainty that they will all die if you do nothing. You know with absolute certainty that the failure rate of the safety system is essentially nil. You know with absolute certainty that one of you throwing the other off the bridge will definitely result in the salvation of everyone aboard the train.
You were able to consign the conductor to his doom in order to save the first train. Are you willing to look another person in the eyes and throw them over the bridge in order to save the train? What if you decided not to throw the other person off but the other person, having the same knowledge as you, comes to a different conclusion and tries to throw you off?
Now that it's no longer so arbitrary, it all comes down to personal philosphy. The best way to consider what I would do is to consider what I would think if I was someone else reading about myself in the newspaper.
Dude throws his friend onto the tracks to save train - Somehow I don't think this guy would get much respect. While he saved a bunch of people, myself and many other people would view him as a coward. He'd probably go to jail.
Dude throws himself onto tracks and dies to save train - Well, I think that myself, and others, would view this person as a brave hero.
Two guys watch as train crashes, they could have sacrificed themselves to save it - Obviously these guys had a chance to be heros, but I don't think anyone will blame them for not giving their lives up. Nobody will praise them, but nobody will hate on them either.
In the end, depending on how I felt about the rest of my life I would either jump on the tracks or not. Depending on the day, time, my feelings, my attitude, and mostly my age, I might just jump. Right now, I probably wouldn't. Also, in no situation would I throw the other person off, friend or not. Unless of course I knew for sure they were a terrible worthless human being that nobody would miss.
Now before you get started, there is a very big difference between not sacrificing the person next to me and being perfectly willing to sacrifice the conductor. The difference is this. All of the people on all of the trains have had a run of bad luck. Their ability to determine their own destinies has been lost. Their fates will be decided by outside forces. Altering those forces to create what is more likely to be a better situation for all, is the right way to go.
When it comes to the person standing next to me, it is different. A person standing next to me still has their fate in their own hands. They are not without the ability to decide their own destiny. I can not take that away from a person. It would be no different than putting more people on the death train.
If the hypothetical situation was just to get us to discuss a 'greater-good' version of the original post, can we just drop the trains and continue on that line of thought?
Now before you get started, there is a very big difference between not sacrificing the person next to me and being perfectly willing to sacrifice the conductor. The difference is this. All of the people on all of the trains have had a run of bad luck. Their ability to determine their own destinies has been lost. Their fates will be decided by outside forces. Altering those forces to create what is more likely to be a better situation for all, is the right way to go.
When it comes to the person standing next to me, it is different. A person standing next to me still has their fate in their own hands. They are not without the ability to decide their own destiny. I can not take that away from a person. It would be no different than putting more people on the death train.
Until you make the determination to toggle the switch, the conductor of the second train will be fine. You seal his fate by toggling the switch. Just as you hold his fate in your hands, so do you hold the fate of your colleague on the bridge in your hands. The difference between the conductor and your colleague is that he is more of an abstract concept. You might know he's there, but you don't see him. It's easier to deal with sacrificing him in order to save the others because you won't feel the loss so much and you won't have to work so hard at it.
You're bolted to a steel chair with solid steel leg irons, arm restraints, neck restraint, etc... The steel is most definitely too much for you to break or even bend. You are alone in the room. No one can hear you. No one has a chance of finding you. No one has a chance of intervening in either this or the train situations. One finger on one hand is free. Before that finger are two buttons.
You see the train situation. Button one makes scenario X happen, while button Y makes the alternate scenario happen. (Fill them in as you wish). Do you choose one? ^_~
Until you make the determination to toggle the switch, the conductor of the second train will be fine. You seal his fate by toggling the switch. Just as you hold his fate in your hands, so do you hold the fate of your colleague on the bridge in your hands. The difference between the conductor and your colleague is that he is more of an abstract concept. You might know he's there, but you don't see him. It's easier to deal with sacrificing him in order to save the others because you won't feel the loss so much and you won't have to work so hard at it.
I know this is what you were aiming for. I saw it coming a mile away. While it is true after a fashion, it is not part of my personal decision making process.
While the conductor's life will be saved in the case where no outside forces take action, his fate is still tied to those of the people aboard the "death train". If he lives, they die and vice versa. In your scenario, neither the conductor nor the passengers of either train has any ability to alter their fates. As such, your scenario inherently dehumanizes them and assumes them to effectively be objects to be toyed with by outside forces. The people on the bridge in your scenario still have free will and uncertain destinies, and thus are still human.
In real life, the conductor and all the passengers would not have their fates sealed, because such a scenario is quite impossible. I would be able to throw the switch saving the first train, then board the second train and tell the conductor to hit the brakes. I would be able to call the train dispatcher and have them contact the conductors of both trains and have them stop.
When people play these moral dilemma games, it is the game itself that dehumanizes, and not the people playing the game. The hypothetical scenario itself removes any semblance of free will or indeterminate destiny from the people in the deadly situation, thus effectively turning them into pawns. You then have someone play the game and you attempt to tell them they are somehow immoral for treating your pawns as pawns. Just because you call a pawn in your game a human being doesn't make it one. Give the train conductor the powers of a human being in your scenario, rather than a mere pawn, and you will see how the situation quickly brakes down.
The reality of the world is that only human beings are human beings. Implausible moral dilemmas like those you have described can not come to be. That is not to say that there are no difficult moral quandaries in the world, quite the opposite. However, because the vast majority of people involved in those quandaries still have wills of their own and unknown destinies. Thus there will always be better and more complex answers than "kill one instead of 100" or "push your friend off the bridge".
To use your train scenario again. It makes assumptions that I definitely know information that there is no way of knowing. How can I possibly know that every single person aboard the train will die? It also assumes that I do not know information I could probably figure out, like some way to hot-wire the safety system without anyone dying. It yet again assumes that options normally available are not available, like getting the train engineer to hit the brakes. It is only able to make these assumptions by assuming those aboard the trains have no free will, and are effectively not human, or at least already dead.
Try to come up with a moral dilemma in which the following are are all true
a) All humans involved have wills and their destinies are not pre-determined. b) Nobody knows any information that they realistically would not be able to know. c) Everyone is able to know information that they would reasonably be able to know. d) People are free to take any action realistically possible with no arbitrary limitations outside of those imposed by our physical reality.
When you create a scenario within these restrictions you will find that there are very few situations where it is not possible to come up with a course of action that is quite good, if not perfect. The longer you have to think and the smarter you are, the closer you will come to finding the best possible solution.
I tried to make the point in many different ways. Did you get it? Your scenario takes the humanity from the "people" involved and then attempts to transfer the blame. It is not a clever way of telling people they are selfish and uncaring for others. All it does is tell people what they already know. People without free will aren't people.
You make your point very well. Of course the hypo is simplistic and divorced from reality. It's merely an exercise, but It's been fun for a few hours.
. . . there will always be better and more complex answers than "kill one instead of 100" or "push your friend off the bridge".
You should tell that to the Jack Bauer acolytes/wannabees who are currently making real world foreign policy to try to deal with the "ticking time-bomb"/torture scenario.
Comments
However, changing tracks means that the other train will be redirected onto an unfinished bridge. The train will then fall from a great height, killing all aboard. You don't know how many are aboard.
What do you do?
Mathematically, it's the obvious solution. Doing the other option will result in the deaths of 100% of a train's passengers while leaving it alone will not.
I suppose if I knew where the trains were coming from, it may affect my choice because then I would be able to estimate the size of the trains' loads.
My funny answer is: bad grammar and willful stupidity.
Oh, right I forgot there are no girls in teh internez :P
However, I don't think you were aware of what I said. I said that there were many passengers on the first train. I said that you don't know how many are on the second train. I also said that all of the first train's passengers would die if it crashes. Your post does not reflect that you were aware of that in any way.
If it helps, imagine that there are one hundred people on the first train. Once again, they will all die if the train crashes. You still don't know how many are on the second train. It may be a cargo train coming from Nevada filled to bursting with copies of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial for the Atari 2600 or it might be a passenger train coming from New York City with one thousand passengers.
But I suppose if I must be as uninformed as you say, I'd still leave it be. If info on the number of people is so uncertain, then any action I take would be made on an incomplete perspective. Thus, I'd be creating a problem for myself if I turned the switch. Now, instead of a tragic accident, whatever happens would be on my head (legally speaking).
Because the second train is going to fall off the bridge after I save the first train, I would most likely pull the switch. That would save one train of people. Then I would have some time working out a plan to save the second train. Perhaps I could jump onto the train as it comes and tell the conductor to hit the brakes, or I could pull the switch again after I save the first train.
You can't give someone like me these hypothetical moral dilemma puzzles without covering every single possible base.
In the Gravest Extreme
For example. Let's say I know that one train has at least one person on it. I also know that another train has at least 5 people on it. I also know that it is impossible to prevent one of these trains from crashing in a way that all passengers aboard will die. I also know that I am the only person with the power to make a decision as to which train will survive and which will not. Also, if I fail to make any decision, both trains will crash. Obviously I would choose to save the train with at least 5 people on it.
Sure, maybe the at least 1 person train actually had a million people. Sure, maybe the at least 5 people train has Hitler on it. Sure, maybe the at least 1 person train was also carrying the universal panacea and the secrets of the universe. If it does, that sucks, but there was no way for me to know that. My decision was effectively almost arbitrary. Based on the meager information I had, I chose a course of action with better odds, as far as I knew, of making things better.
The lesson here is this. You can only make decisions based on information you know. When you don't know information, your decisions are arbitrary. Sometimes arbitrary decisions turn out to be wrong. That's just a fact of life you have to learn to deal with. Nobody is omniscient. As long as you make the best decision based upon what you know, you can't be morally at fault if it turns out to be the wrong decision. Of course, then you can start talking about situations where someone doesn't know something that they should have known, like they didn't read an obvious warning sign, but that's an issue for another time.
You know that, if one of you were to jump onto the tracks, the fall would be fatal to the jumper but the passengers on the train would be saved. Do you throw the other person off? Do you jump yourself? Would it matter if you knew the other person? What if the other person had the same knowledge of the detection device and attempted to throw you off?
You were able to consign the conductor to his doom in order to save the first train. Are you willing to look another person in the eyes and throw them over the bridge in order to save the train? What if you decided not to throw the other person off but the other person, having the same knowledge as you, comes to a different conclusion and tries to throw you off?
Dude throws his friend onto the tracks to save train - Somehow I don't think this guy would get much respect. While he saved a bunch of people, myself and many other people would view him as a coward. He'd probably go to jail.
Dude throws himself onto tracks and dies to save train - Well, I think that myself, and others, would view this person as a brave hero.
Two guys watch as train crashes, they could have sacrificed themselves to save it - Obviously these guys had a chance to be heros, but I don't think anyone will blame them for not giving their lives up. Nobody will praise them, but nobody will hate on them either.
In the end, depending on how I felt about the rest of my life I would either jump on the tracks or not. Depending on the day, time, my feelings, my attitude, and mostly my age, I might just jump. Right now, I probably wouldn't. Also, in no situation would I throw the other person off, friend or not. Unless of course I knew for sure they were a terrible worthless human being that nobody would miss.
Now before you get started, there is a very big difference between not sacrificing the person next to me and being perfectly willing to sacrifice the conductor. The difference is this. All of the people on all of the trains have had a run of bad luck. Their ability to determine their own destinies has been lost. Their fates will be decided by outside forces. Altering those forces to create what is more likely to be a better situation for all, is the right way to go.
When it comes to the person standing next to me, it is different. A person standing next to me still has their fate in their own hands. They are not without the ability to decide their own destiny. I can not take that away from a person. It would be no different than putting more people on the death train.
You're bolted to a steel chair with solid steel leg irons, arm restraints, neck restraint, etc... The steel is most definitely too much for you to break or even bend. You are alone in the room. No one can hear you. No one has a chance of finding you. No one has a chance of intervening in either this or the train situations. One finger on one hand is free. Before that finger are two buttons.
You see the train situation. Button one makes scenario X happen, while button Y makes the alternate scenario happen. (Fill them in as you wish). Do you choose one? ^_~
While the conductor's life will be saved in the case where no outside forces take action, his fate is still tied to those of the people aboard the "death train". If he lives, they die and vice versa. In your scenario, neither the conductor nor the passengers of either train has any ability to alter their fates. As such, your scenario inherently dehumanizes them and assumes them to effectively be objects to be toyed with by outside forces. The people on the bridge in your scenario still have free will and uncertain destinies, and thus are still human.
In real life, the conductor and all the passengers would not have their fates sealed, because such a scenario is quite impossible. I would be able to throw the switch saving the first train, then board the second train and tell the conductor to hit the brakes. I would be able to call the train dispatcher and have them contact the conductors of both trains and have them stop.
When people play these moral dilemma games, it is the game itself that dehumanizes, and not the people playing the game. The hypothetical scenario itself removes any semblance of free will or indeterminate destiny from the people in the deadly situation, thus effectively turning them into pawns. You then have someone play the game and you attempt to tell them they are somehow immoral for treating your pawns as pawns. Just because you call a pawn in your game a human being doesn't make it one. Give the train conductor the powers of a human being in your scenario, rather than a mere pawn, and you will see how the situation quickly brakes down.
The reality of the world is that only human beings are human beings. Implausible moral dilemmas like those you have described can not come to be. That is not to say that there are no difficult moral quandaries in the world, quite the opposite. However, because the vast majority of people involved in those quandaries still have wills of their own and unknown destinies. Thus there will always be better and more complex answers than "kill one instead of 100" or "push your friend off the bridge".
To use your train scenario again. It makes assumptions that I definitely know information that there is no way of knowing. How can I possibly know that every single person aboard the train will die? It also assumes that I do not know information I could probably figure out, like some way to hot-wire the safety system without anyone dying. It yet again assumes that options normally available are not available, like getting the train engineer to hit the brakes. It is only able to make these assumptions by assuming those aboard the trains have no free will, and are effectively not human, or at least already dead.
Try to come up with a moral dilemma in which the following are are all true
a) All humans involved have wills and their destinies are not pre-determined.
b) Nobody knows any information that they realistically would not be able to know.
c) Everyone is able to know information that they would reasonably be able to know.
d) People are free to take any action realistically possible with no arbitrary limitations outside of those imposed by our physical reality.
When you create a scenario within these restrictions you will find that there are very few situations where it is not possible to come up with a course of action that is quite good, if not perfect. The longer you have to think and the smarter you are, the closer you will come to finding the best possible solution.
I tried to make the point in many different ways. Did you get it? Your scenario takes the humanity from the "people" involved and then attempts to transfer the blame. It is not a clever way of telling people they are selfish and uncaring for others. All it does is tell people what they already know. People without free will aren't people.
Die Die Die