File: 1573419104869.gif (214.32 KB, 900x600, 3:2, b7fca859-8535-4a0c-aa2c-04….gif) ImgOps Google
We all know the trolley dilemma, but let's add a bit of a twist to it.
Let's assume that the track leading to multiple people, has people that are strangers on it. You have never met these people before and know nothing about them.
The track that is leading to a single person, you do know. Infact, this person is one of your very dear friends, perhaps even your best friend.
Now, just a few weeks before you come to find yourself in front of this lever, you and this friend have, ironically, had a talk about sacrifices. During this talk, your friend told you that they would rather sacrifice themselves, rather than let other people die.
Now, having this information about your friend clearly in your mind, can you pull the lever to switch the track to hit your friend, instead of the strangers?
I know I'm suppose to look past it, but if I change something, and someone gets killed because of it, I would be at fault. If I do nothing and people die, liability would lie with the people who were responsible for the trolley system death trap. So I don't go around switching levers on train tracks, to be clear.
Now I know I'm suppose to pretend that's not the case, doing that I'd probably preference the friend. As Captain Picard said, "I refuse to let arithmetic decide questions like that," so I guess I'm going with friendship instead. Now I know, the friend wants to make the sacrifice, but wanting to die, no matter how noble the result is forbidden (mostly), so that can be rendered moot. I suppose I can come up with other answers, but this is the first that came to mind.
File: 1573520783911.jpg (31.17 KB, 600x374, 300:187, 7f4.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>4063>Yes, if I'd have to ... trespass to save a life, I don't think I can be faulted for letting people die.
You can't be faulted legally, but ethically, I think it would be desirable (at least in clear situations) to save someone's life even if you have to trespass to do so.
Yeah, I guess the trolley problem can be seen to intersect with authorities. I would have to be assured an authority is not using a trolley to execute humans. If I interfered with that, I would be bad, humans need their justice. But if the authority really didn't want people to die, maybe I'd be forgiven for breaking the rules. No, that's not my prerogative, don't put yourself in a position to have to ask forgiveness, with the presumption it will be given. So, no there will be no saving lives, it's not right, I would be a bad pony.
File: 1573528514756.png (256.01 KB, 650x923, 50:71, 1472344810508.png) ImgOps Google
>>4065> But if the authority really didn't want people to die, maybe I'd be forgiven for breaking the rules. ... So, no there will be no saving lives, it's not right, I would be a bad pony.
It's not even really breaking rules. There's the doctrine of necessity  that justifies what would otherwise be tort or a minor misdemeanor if necessary to achieve a much greater good such as a saving a life.
File: 1573535892241.png (308.03 KB, 750x850, 15:17, 1560561527004.png) ImgOps Google
The cops aren't going to arrest you for simple trespass if you save the lives of some of your fellow citizens. If anything, you'd get official praise for saving those people.
I would not pull the lever, and i actually think there's a decent argument for it. This person is very dear to me, and they have demonstrated they are a selfless person. This is a person who will make the world a better place, barring any glaring personality flaws that have not been mentioned. I don't know these strangers, their value is only that of generic lives, which, while being good to save, is also not as valuable to me as a confirmed good person. One might be a boss that gropes their subordinates, one might beat their pets, one might be emotionally abusive. I certainly don't know that this is the case, but i haven't personally verified that these are people worth saving. I have done that with my friend.
While I get the point you are trying to make here, I must disagree with it. It kind of hurts me to think that those peoples lives are worth less, somehow, than a friend, just because they may have done some bad thing. I have to take a quote from Trigun here and say the future is always open. Someone always has the opportunity to change.
But I suppose this doesn't matter, as the question was
about if you would pull the lever, and if that is your answer, well then that's that.
File: 1573836094531.jpg (135.55 KB, 750x1000, 3:4, poster,840x830,f8f8f8-pad,….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>4098> a confirmed good person.
Most people aren't completely good or completely bad. Most are a shade of gray. I guess you could try to measure whether someone is a net contributer to society or a net burden on society.>One might be a boss that gropes their subordinates, ... i haven't personally verified that these are people worth saving
Just because someone gropes his subordinates doesn't mean that he isn't "worth saving". I'd rather have a competent boss who gropes me but also advances my career than an incompetent boss who causes my projects to fail.>>4103>It kind of hurts me to think that those peoples lives are worth less, somehow, than a friend, just because they may have done some bad thing.
Well, for me, a friend's life is worth more than a stranger's. Like, if I read a random obituary in the newspaper, I wouldn't really feel much sense of loss that some stranger died. But if a friend died, I would feel a strong sense of loss.
File: 1573864704126.jpg (57.31 KB, 698x667, 698:667, Gardevoir thought id contr….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>4113>Isn't it kind of self-centered
I am evaluating their worth from my perspective. So of course that could be considered "self-centered". Like, if I really like chocolate ice cream and hate strawberry ice cream, then chocolate ice cream would be worth more to me than strawberry ice cream.>>4113>and unempathetic
I am not sure how empathy is supposed to come into play here. And I am fairly certain that a vast majority of peoole would value a friend's life over the life of a random stranger.
File: 1573875582550.jpg (84.22 KB, 573x693, 191:231, *:?.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>4115>That's kind of why this moral question exists. If people agreed to just save their friend, it wouldn't be a moral conundrum.
Oh, I thought the only thing that would make it difficult was the "your friend told you that they would rather sacrifice themselves, rather than let other people die" part.>>4115> I don't assign one person's life more value over another's just because I am familiar with that person.
Friendship is more than just familiarity.
File: 1573876246865.jpg (4.01 KB, 158x251, 158:251, _.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
And I doubt that you actually value a friend's life no more than a stranger's. Let's consider another trolley-type example. A good friend of yours is tied to the railway tracks, and so is a stranger. You only have time to save one before the trolley comes and runs them over. If your friend is begging you to save him, would you reject his plea and save the stranger's life instead?
No, this issue is also the fact that you are weighing 5 lives against one.
It's more than familiarity, but you are still giving one live more value than another based on your own perspective. Nothing gives your friend's live more inherent value over the strangers except for your friendship. Your friend could be a drug addict while the "stranger" a famous surgeon. It's a selfish way to decide who lives and dies. I do not take the fact that lives have been put in my hands lightly. >>4120
I'd imagine they would both be begging me to save them, so that's irrelevant. Not knowing anything about the stranger or who he is or what he does, I'd have to weigh which friend it is on that track versus what I can deduce at a glance about the stranger. this will result in a bias toward the friend, since I know them more intimately, but the decision is not based on their friendship with me. It's what I know about person A being weighed against what I know about person B. Person A just has the advantage because I know them better.
File: 1573885085109.jpg (36.13 KB, 516x820, 129:205, 0f558a9bd5967905b2018b9a71….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>4125>No, this issue is also the fact that you are weighing 5 lives against one.
Oh yeah, that too. I'm sure there is some number n
such that I'd choose to save n
random strangers over a friend.> Nothing gives your friend's live more inherent value over the strangers except for your friendship.
What is "inherent value"? I was talking about the friend's value to me
. I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about value apart from someone who is doing the valuing. People say things like "gold has inherent value" and "Bitcoin has no inherent value", but that really just means that gold has some value to many people other
than its acceptance as a medium of trade and that Bitcoin has no value to most people other
than its acceptance as a medium of trade.>Your friend could be a drug addict while the "stranger" a famous surgeon.
Yeah, I'd save the surgeon in that case. I doubt a drug addict would remain a friend of mine for long anyway.>>4125>but the decision is not based on their friendship with me.
How do you see the nature of friendship? Aren't friends supposed to treat each other specially and have some loyalty to each other?
While I don't mind the conversation turning naturally, as it has, I would like to focus a bit again on the question that was the op. And I kind of thought about editing, but at this point I'm not sure that's a good idea.
But knowing that your friend would be -ok- with giving their life, and this being the major focus of the dilemma, could you pull the lever and, basically, sacrifice your friend to save these other five people? Does knowing the one person, in this scenario, and knowing their wishes, make it any less hard to pull the lever?
Someone's value to you shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether they live or die. That's kind of a terrible way of thinking. There are millions and millions of people with absolutely no "value" to me. I still do not wish them to die, nor would I sacrifice their lives. >I doubt a drug addict would remain a friend of mine for long anyway.
That's completely missing the point. Your friend could be an unemployed gamer or whatever. The point is, your friend may not benefit society as much as the "stranger" does, and your friend may not have as many people who would mourn their lose as the "stranger" does. There's other factors to weigh besides "who does more for me." >Aren't friends supposed to treat each other specially and have some loyalty to each other?
That doesn't mean that their lives are worth more. I am being put in a position where I choose who lives and who dies. I'm not going to arbitrarily choose my friend because they are my friend. And if my friend is OK with self-sacrifice, they would understand that idea. That sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. That's not to say I'd NEVER choose my friend, and indeed, my friend has an unfair advantage if it's him versus one person. But him versus 5 people? Yeah, that's not a decision I would just make lightly.
File: 1573939093764.png (424.55 KB, 1700x1517, 1700:1517, 1487079583319.png) ImgOps Google
>>4131>But knowing that your friend would be -ok- with giving their life, and this being the major focus of the dilemma, could you pull the lever and, basically, sacrifice your friend to save these other five people?
Probably not, unless I was a railroad employee responsible for switch. As a mere bystander, I would have a hard time taking responsibility for altering fate like that.>Does knowing the one person, in this scenario, and knowing their wishes, make it any less hard to pull the lever?
Yes. But not enough though that I would do it if I was just a random bystander.>>4136>Someone's value to you shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether they live or die.
Well, what if I have to take an action to save anybody (e.g., if there was a burning building and I could either save a friend or a random stranger)? If I choose a random stranger instead of my friend, then I wouldn't be a very good friend, would I? A parent should choose to save their own children instead of a random stranger's children. In fact, if they don't, they could even be punished by the law!>That's kind of a terrible way of thinking.
Why do you say that my way of thinking is terrible?>There are millions and millions of people with absolutely no "value" to me.
Really? You don't value their lives at all? There are some people to whom I would assign zero or negative value (e.g., active violent criminals) but most people I would value positively at least somewhat.>>4136>There's other factors to weigh besides "who does more for me."
I don't value people only for what they can do for me. It's possible that I could value a particularly talented stranger more than a friend. But neither do I put zero value on a friend's friendship with me.>>4136>That doesn't mean that their lives are worth more.
But it is another reason for choosing to save your friend over choosing to save a random stranger.