Metanet Forums

Assume this: you're standing next to a railroad track, down which a heavy cart is rolling. A man is tied to the end of the track. You can throw a lever to divert the cart to a different track and save him.

You don't throw the lever, and railroad dude gets sliced into three equal pieces. Did you kill him?

Scenario 2: all of the above, and you tied him to the track.
Scenario 3: all of the above, including #2, and you built the cart as well.

I think that you killed him by making the choice not to save but I don't think that this would be murder so mush as criminal negligence.

This reminds me of the "Trolley Problem".

But yeah, flip the switch seeing that there are no given consequences for saving the guy's life.

No. Did you tie him to the track? Were you responsible for this contraption?

SlappyMcGee wrote:No. Did you tie him to the track? Were you responsible for this contraption?

This. Too bad about the guy dying but if you hadn't happened to show up and watch he would've died just as much.

God killed him. Assuming he died at all. Give more details about the pieces he was split into, please.

Wait, what? If a dude is about to die, and you have the power to save him, you save him. Especially if there are no adverse side effects from doing so!

The fuck is wrong with you guys?

squibbles wrote:Wait, what? If a dude is about to die, and you have the power to save him, you save him. Especially if there are no adverse side effects from doing so!

The fuck is wrong with you guys?

And I would certainly do so. Do not confuse the issue. I would save somebody given the opportunity, however, I am not responsible if I do not. Otherwise, you are responsible for the deaths of hundreds by not giving any leisure money you possess to charities.

SlappyMcGee wrote:No. Did you tie him to the track? Were you responsible for this contraption?

Those were part of my scenario 2 and scenario 3. edited in.

No yes no, respectively.

LittleViking wrote:No yes no

First one makes sense, but no to #3? I don't get it.

By "all of the above" on #3, are we including #2?
If we are, then I'm "no", "yes", "yes".
If scenario #3 only involves building the cart but not tying him to the track, then I'm "no", "yes", "no". I am not responsible for what people do with my cart after it is built.

My first thought after reading incluye's post was that he done such a thing and asking us that if it is wrong.



. . .

On the second hand, you would know that it was not your fault just because it was just going to happen anyway. I'm just going to quote here.

Free will is bullshit.

Well, alright. These weren't quite the answers I expected, but I can see your reasoning. In other words, you can directly save the dude, but you can't directly kill him.

Tunco wrote:

Free will is bullshit.

Well played, Tunco.

incluye wrote:Well, alright. These weren't quite the answers I expected, but I can see your reasoning. In other words, you can directly save the dude, but you can't directly kill him.

Y'know, come to think of it, I'm having difficulty reconciling these two:

• My failure to take constant action to help people isn't immoral. I am not responsible for other people's cruelty.
• If I see an unfortunate situation like this and it's easy for me to interfere to stop it, I'm a colossal dick if I don't.

My intuition is telling me that being an asshole and being immoral are separate axes, but I have no idea as to why that would be. That is, I can see how it's possible to be a moral non-asshole, a moral asshole, an immoral non-asshole, and an immoral asshole, so clearly the two don't mean the same thing, but I don't know why not.

This is purely dependant on context, but I'd save him in all circumstances unless he actually deserves this fate. Where I'd draw the line as to him deserving it is also contextually sensitive..

I'd say saving the dude is the moral thing to do, so I don't understand where the immoral non-asshole option comes in, unless you're talking about throwing some fat guy under the cart to stop it or something.

incluye wrote:I'd say saving the dude is the moral thing to do, so I don't understand where the immoral non-asshole option comes in, unless you're talking about throwing some fat guy under the cart to stop it or something.

I just tried breaking down all four possibilities for this situation, but yeah, I got stuck on "immoral non-asshole". I was thinking in general that someone could be a nice person but simply not care about being a moral person, but in retrospect I think I was imagining an amoral person rather than an immoral person (the distinction being that an amoral person doesn't have a moral compass / is indifferent, whereas an immoral person actively does evil).
"Moral non-asshole", "moral asshole", and "immoral asshole" are obviously distinct in my mind, but I simply can't think of what an immoral non-asshole would be like. :\

Sidetrack: is amorality worse than immorality, or vice-versa?

ghoulash wrote:Sidetrack: is amorality worse than immorality, or vice-versa?

"Worse"?
moral: having a behavioral code which encourages good actions
immoral: having a behavioral code which encourages bad or "evil" actions
amoral: not having a behavioral code

Did any of you remember Batman Begins? When Christian Bale and Liam Neeson are fighting in the train that is about to crash into the water main in order to release the toxin that will make everyone go crazy and kill each other? But because Batman has the rule that he will not murder someone intentionally, he says, "I don't have to kill you, but I don't have to save you either." Then he flies off the train in his Batman suit and leaves Liam Neeson to die in a fiery crash.

Or in season 2 of Breaking Bad? When Walt gives all his drug money to Jesse and his psychotic girlfriend, after which Jesse and girl do heroin to celebrate? Later on Walt breaks into Jesse's house again to tell him that he's sorry about something, only to discover that Jesse and his girlfriend are passed out and high on heroin. Then the girl starts to vomit only she isn't laying on her side so she begins to choke on her own vomit while Walt looks on. Walt could have saved her, but he needed the money that he gave them and he needed his business partner to not be blinded by some schmuck girlfriend who wanted the money to travel and do drugs. Basically Walt solved all his current problems in that episode by letting her die even though he had the means to save her.

There we go. Thank you.

SlappyMcGee wrote:however, I am not responsible if I do not. Otherwise, you are responsible for the deaths of hundreds by not giving any leisure money you possess to charities.

I'm pretty sure thats not how it works in European civil law countries, where there is a duty to rescue.

SkyPanda wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:however, I am not responsible if I do not. Otherwise, you are responsible for the deaths of hundreds by not giving any leisure money you possess to charities.

I'm pretty sure thats not how it works in European civil law countries, where there is a duty to rescue.

Good Samaritan laws, which I presumed was where this topic would end up, are fucking bullshit.