An Ethical Dilemma - What Would You Do?

Discussion in 'Education & Personal Growth' started by Gauri03, Oct 31, 2018.

  1. Amulet

    Amulet IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    3,147
    Likes Received:
    5,088
    Trophy Points:
    408
    Gender:
    Female
    Mark Twain had addressed this issue for the general case... and MIL shows up (not tied to the tracks here, but) dead last in the priorities...

    (Source: Letters from the Earth: New Uncensored Writings By Mark Twain; Image: Mark Twain, courtesy of UKTV.)

    In assisting at a fire in a boarding house, the true gentleman will always save the young ladies first—making no distinction in favor of personal attractions, or social eminence, or pecuniary predominance—but taking them as they come, and firing them out with as much celerity as shall be consistent with decorum. There are exceptions, of course, to all rules; the exceptions to this one are:

    Partiality, in the matter of rescue, to be shown to:

    1. Fiancées.
    2. Persons toward whom the operator feels a tender sentiment, but has not yet declared himself.
    3. Sisters.
    4. Stepsisters.
    5. Nieces.
    6. First cousins.
    7. Cripples.
    8. Second cousins.
    9. Invalids.
    10. Young-lady relations by marriage.
    11. Third cousins, and young-lady friends of the family.
    12. The Unclassified.

    Other material in boarding house is to be rescued in the following order:

    13. Babies.
    14. Children under 10 years of age.
    15. Young widows.
    16. Young married females.
    17. Elderly married ditto.
    18. Elderly widows.
    19. Clergymen.
    20. Boarders in general.
    21. Female domestics.
    22. Male ditto.
    23. Landlady.
    24. Landlord.
    25. Firemen.
    26. Furniture.
    27. Mothers-in-law.
     
    sokanasanah and Gauri03 like this.
  2. GoogleGlass

    GoogleGlass IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    5,711
    Likes Received:
    22,529
    Trophy Points:
    470
    Gender:
    Male
    keeping it just to your trolley situation:

    all could be saved - don't move the lever to the right or left, just keep it midway and chances are that trolley would get stuck or derail...
     
  3. GeetaKashyap

    GeetaKashyap IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    3,921
    Likes Received:
    9,220
    Trophy Points:
    460
    Gender:
    Female
    @Gauri03,

    All these are situations with extreme dilemma. I feel an ideal decision would keep the time, place and the larger interest of the mankind in mind.
     
    Gauri03 likes this.
  4. Gauri03

    Gauri03 Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    13,034
    Trophy Points:
    445
    Gender:
    Female
    Thanks @Amulet. My answer was the same as yours when I first encountered the problem but when you start expanding the scale of the problem or introducing probabilities to the primary scenario the choices become murkier. Not doing anything absolves you of playing a direct role in the taking of a life which one can argue is ethically superior to actively choosing to kill. Would the same rationalization apply if you were flipping the lever in a silo housing a Minuteman III and your inaction would save one life but cause a city like San Francisco or New York to be wiped out? Would it still be justifiable to do nothing? I don't think there is an ethically unambiguous answer to the trolley problem. The point of the exercise is to consider variations of the problem and probe the limits of our ethical intuition.

    I can't think of a better inducement for studying ethical decision-making than a dead MIL showing up once a year to the realm of the living demanding explanations! There's a sweet little animated movie you might enjoy.

     
    Amulet likes this.
  5. Gauri03

    Gauri03 Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    13,034
    Trophy Points:
    445
    Gender:
    Female
    I like your name! I agree. No action is as a much a conscious choice as actively choosing. I would even say it is a selfish choice because it is driven purely by self interest.
     
  6. Gauri03

    Gauri03 Moderator Staff Member IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    6,211
    Likes Received:
    13,034
    Trophy Points:
    445
    Gender:
    Female
    In this particular experiment decisions did vary significantly based on culture and economics. For example in more individualistic societies more people voted to spare the young versus the old. In economically distressed areas people were more likely to forgive those crossing illegally or from a lower social strata. There were no universally accepted outcomes.

    The Rama-Krishna analogy is highly unique and a really good fit for this problem! I had never thought about it in that context. I guess Krishna was the original 'ends justify the means' type of guy. Going by his actions in the Mahabharata he would have pulled the lever. That gives me some comfort. : )
     
    kaniths likes this.
  7. Urmila

    Urmila Silver IL'ite

    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    183
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    My answer is based just at first thinking, on the spot kind of answer. Haven’t thought much or read the articles given for reference here.

    Let’s assume that there is no way to stop the trolley. It’s like a train coming fast. And no time to stop it other than to change the track.

    I would only save the five individuals except in case D where I will save the single mother who is taking care of her three kids. The others being childless, makes me feel that the three young kids need someone to nourish them.

    My reasoning might be wrong but the essential aspect of life is to continue the human race and so save as many lives as possible. That’s my logic which could be wrong as well. Many might question as to why save the criminals but we don’t know the nature of the crimes and there I am just taking to save as many lives as possible. Nice question to keep me thinking a lot.

    Will read the articles later.

    PS: I was wondering if I had no background information and I am just seeing the count of the people I will have only saved all five people. Adding some background information will be when ethical dilemmas come into play.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2018
    Gauri03 and kaniths like this.
  8. kaniths

    kaniths IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    11,612
    Trophy Points:
    445
    Gender:
    Female
    Thanks. In a similar perspective, within the context of the thread discussion - ethical dilemmas and our choices, one of Ursula Guin's science fiction story would seem to be an appropriate fit for such a trolley problem thought experiment (often quoted on the internet forums, not my original #wonderings). You are her fan and may know already, resharing it here anyway... : )
    ...They all know that it has to be there. Some of them understand why, and some do not, but they all understand that their happiness, the beauty of their city, the tenderness of their friendships, the health of their children, the wisdom of their scholars, the skill of their makers, even the abundance of their harvest and the kindly weathers of their skies, depend wholly on this child's abominable misery.

    ...Those are the terms. To exchange all the goodness and grace of every life for that single, small improvement: to throw away the happiness of thousands for the chance of happiness of one: that would be to let guilt within the walls indeed.

    Perfect utopian life with all the goodness one could ever imagine but at what cost? 'Happiness of the many' depended on the suffering of that one child and, knowing about 'it', what would you do? Choose to live on? Or perhaps leave the life behind and, be among the ones who walk away from Omelas? :wink1:

    Most times, I believe, it's our emotions that form the basis of the choices we may make. And, I wonder again... Imagine if you/I/anyone who is in control of the trolley switch is in a bad mood that day? :shocked: Ethics what?! :facepalm:
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2018
    Gauri03 likes this.
  9. SunPa

    SunPa Platinum IL'ite

    Messages:
    1,041
    Likes Received:
    2,413
    Trophy Points:
    283
    Gender:
    Female
    My knee jerk reaction would be move the lever towards the single person - I react with "quick do something" sort of panic.

    But I would feel guilty as hell.
    Simple reason is who am I to judge that one life is worth more than the 5 ? It is not right to play god and decide the lucky one not on the path of the train deserves to die, in order to rescue the 5. Greater good - would it really be to that one victim's family? The only person's life I can take a call on can be mine.

    So if I had to think, I would delibrately not act.

    There coud be more info and even more info.

    For an AI algorithm though , my opinion is, the target should be to save more lives. Irrespective of how important or what role an individual plays. Because that can then be highly misused.
     
    Gauri03 likes this.
  10. kaniths

    kaniths IL Hall of Fame

    Messages:
    5,628
    Likes Received:
    11,612
    Trophy Points:
    445
    Gender:
    Female
    Heyyy! Nice to meet you here! :hello:
    Here, a video I thought you might enjoy! :lol:

     
    Gauri03, Urmila and Amulet like this.

Share This Page