FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > The trolley problem
The trolley problem
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " I would pull the lever so one person dies. In my mind, inaction and action have Equal moral responsibility. | |||
| |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? I would pull the lever so one person dies. In my mind, inaction and action have Equal moral responsibility. " Fair enough 
| |||
" What if you knew/loved the one person.." There are lot more follow up questions for any answer to the trolley problem to test how strong they feel about it. One example is "if we replace the lever situation with a very fat person standing next to you, who you have to push in front of the tram to stop it, would you do it?" | |||
| |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " Can you just clarify if the 5 people and the one person tied to the tracks are strangers or are any family please. | |||
| |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? Can you just clarify if the 5 people and the one person tied to the tracks are strangers or are any family please. " The question always starts assuming they are strangers and then follows up with questions like what if one of them is your family? What if some are young and some are old? What if some are criminals? For now, let's just stick to they are all strangers. | |||
"Logically I would just pull the brake lever and shut the tram off. If the Tram had no brakes and can't be shutdown and travelling at a high rate of speed. Pulling the rerouting lever might cause a derailing causing more of a catastrophe. So it's a moral obligation to take out the 5 in that situation than it is to losing hundreds in a derailing." Given that this is a hypothetical, we don't have to think about those issues. Let's assume that you have only two choices - Do nothing about it and 5 people get killed or do something so that someone else gets killed. You can't escape the situation  | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? Can you just clarify if the 5 people and the one person tied to the tracks are strangers or are any family please. The question always starts assuming they are strangers and then follows up with questions like what if one of them is your family? What if some are young and some are old? What if some are criminals? For now, let's just stick to they are all strangers." Ok so if all strangers then I would opt to change tracks, heading for the single person. Either way it's bad but sadly I guess that's the option I would take | |||
"Logically I would just pull the brake lever and shut the tram off. If the Tram had no brakes and can't be shutdown and travelling at a high rate of speed. Pulling the rerouting lever might cause a derailing causing more of a catastrophe. So it's a moral obligation to take out the 5 in that situation than it is to losing hundreds in a derailing. Given that this is a hypothetical, we don't have to think about those issues. Let's assume that you have only two choices - Do nothing about it and 5 people get killed or do something so that someone else gets killed. You can't escape the situation "am I the only one on the Tram? If so the 1. If I am not the only one on it . The 5. | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? Can you just clarify if the 5 people and the one person tied to the tracks are strangers or are any family please. The question always starts assuming they are strangers and then follows up with questions like what if one of them is your family? What if some are young and some are old? What if some are criminals? For now, let's just stick to they are all strangers. Ok so if all strangers then I would opt to change tracks, heading for the single person. Either way it's bad but sadly I guess that's the option I would take" Fair | |||
"Logically I would just pull the brake lever and shut the tram off. If the Tram had no brakes and can't be shutdown and travelling at a high rate of speed. Pulling the rerouting lever might cause a derailing causing more of a catastrophe. So it's a moral obligation to take out the 5 in that situation than it is to losing hundreds in a derailing. Given that this is a hypothetical, we don't have to think about those issues. Let's assume that you have only two choices - Do nothing about it and 5 people get killed or do something so that someone else gets killed. You can't escape the situation am I the only one on the Tram? If so the 1. If I am not the only one on it . The 5."Sorry I didn't mention it clearly. You are not on the tram. You are on the side of the track with a lever that redirects the tram. | |||
| |||
" What if you knew/loved the one person.. There are lot more follow up questions for any answer to the trolley problem to test how strong they feel about it. One example is "if we replace the lever situation with a very fat person standing next to you, who you have to push in front of the tram to stop it, would you do it?"" It's morally wrong to push the fat person. I struggle to answer the initial question. I'd probably pull the lever but I'm not certain. | |||
"Logically I would just pull the brake lever and shut the tram off. If the Tram had no brakes and can't be shutdown and travelling at a high rate of speed. Pulling the rerouting lever might cause a derailing causing more of a catastrophe. So it's a moral obligation to take out the 5 in that situation than it is to losing hundreds in a derailing. Given that this is a hypothetical, we don't have to think about those issues. Let's assume that you have only two choices - Do nothing about it and 5 people get killed or do something so that someone else gets killed. You can't escape the situation am I the only one on the Tram? If so the 1. If I am not the only one on it . The 5.
Sorry I didn't mention it clearly. You are not on the tram. You are on the side of the track with a lever that redirects the tram. "Lol again the variables come into play in my mind. Can the tram derail? Why can't I signal the Tram.If the tram is loaded with people and the chances are that it can derail. The 5 got to go. If it can't by me judging it's speed as it approaches. The one goes. Unless I am able to untie all 6 and the Team can be on it's merry way. Hypothetically of course. | |||
" What if you knew/loved the one person.. There are lot more follow up questions for any answer to the trolley problem to test how strong they feel about it. One example is "if we replace the lever situation with a very fat person standing next to you, who you have to push in front of the tram to stop it, would you do it?" It's morally wrong to push the fat person. I struggle to answer the initial question. I'd probably pull the lever but I'm not certain." Nice. The idea of pushing the person is to see if people consider that the direct act of pushing someone to death is same as changing a lever which also results in someone's death. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time"  Please  Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned "Lol I can't think that way. It's not in my nature  | |||
| |||
"Logically I would just pull the brake lever and shut the tram off. If the Tram had no brakes and can't be shutdown and travelling at a high rate of speed. Pulling the rerouting lever might cause a derailing causing more of a catastrophe. So it's a moral obligation to take out the 5 in that situation than it is to losing hundreds in a derailing. Given that this is a hypothetical, we don't have to think about those issues. Let's assume that you have only two choices - Do nothing about it and 5 people get killed or do something so that someone else gets killed. You can't escape the situation am I the only one on the Tram? If so the 1. If I am not the only one on it . The 5.
Sorry I didn't mention it clearly. You are not on the tram. You are on the side of the track with a lever that redirects the tram. Lol again the variables come into play in my mind. Can the tram derail? Why can't I signal the Tram.If the tram is loaded with people and the chances are that it can derail. The 5 got to go. If it can't by me judging it's speed as it approaches. The one goes. Unless I am able to untie all 6 and the Team can be on it's merry way. Hypothetically of course." The tram does not have passengers. Just a driver who died of heart attack. You don't have time to do anything else. Just a lever in your hand that can change its track. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned Lol I can't think that way. It's not in my nature "I can see that | |||
"Can I drift it to take everybody out? " No, we aren't talking fast and furious here | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned "I don't only have 2 choices though... I have multiple choices, do nothing, pull lever 1, pull lever 2 or pull both. Each choice as you point out is an ethical choice. Pulling lever 1 or 2, is choosing who lives and who dies, pulling no lever is removing you from the decision making and pulling both would I guess leave it to chance, you made an action but can't be held responsible. However, I would feel the right thing to do is to sacrifice the 1 life for 5. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned
I don't only have 2 choices though...
I have multiple choices, do nothing, pull lever 1, pull lever 2 or pull both.
Each choice as you point out is an ethical choice.
Pulling lever 1 or 2, is choosing who lives and who dies, pulling no lever is removing you from the decision making and pulling both would I guess leave it to chance, you made an action but can't be held responsible.
However, I would feel the right thing to do is to sacrifice the 1 life for 5. "Where did the second lever come from, and what does it do? | |||
" What if you knew/loved the one person.. There are lot more follow up questions for any answer to the trolley problem to test how strong they feel about it. One example is "if we replace the lever situation with a very fat person standing next to you, who you have to push in front of the tram to stop it, would you do it?" It's morally wrong to push the fat person. I struggle to answer the initial question. I'd probably pull the lever but I'm not certain. Nice. The idea of pushing the person is to see if people consider that the direct act of pushing someone to death is same as changing a lever which also results in someone's death." It's not the same thing but I was involved in an explosion in Balham in 1987 where two people died. I was unhurt, had two young kids at home and had no idea if there'd be a secondary explosion. Yet I felt I had a moral obligation to help the injured. Other people ran away, I don't think they were morally wrong. I'm not sure there is a correct answer | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned
I don't only have 2 choices though...
I have multiple choices, do nothing, pull lever 1, pull lever 2 or pull both.
Each choice as you point out is an ethical choice.
Pulling lever 1 or 2, is choosing who lives and who dies, pulling no lever is removing you from the decision making and pulling both would I guess leave it to chance, you made an action but can't be held responsible.
However, I would feel the right thing to do is to sacrifice the 1 life for 5.
Where did the second lever come from, and what does it do?"Good observation
I thought about this in the wrong way! I read the scenario and imagined it was 2 choices and applied 2 levers to the choices when it was only 1...
My decision still the same sacrifice 1 for 5, rather than do nothing. | |||
| |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge." That is an interesting view. You see the act of pulling the lever as murder, not saving life. | |||
" That is an interesting view. You see the act of pulling the lever as murder, not saving life. " I do indeed, and that is my first thought. "Touching that lever will make me a murderer, irrespective of who I save and who I do not. I have to live with that decision, regardless of how I attempt to justify it." | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. That is an interesting view. You see the act of pulling the lever as murder, not saving life. " People's reasoning is interesting. It's a balance of what's the better outcome with what you feel like your involvement or lack of involvement would feel like afterwards. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned
I don't only have 2 choices though...
I have multiple choices, do nothing, pull lever 1, pull lever 2 or pull both.
Each choice as you point out is an ethical choice.
Pulling lever 1 or 2, is choosing who lives and who dies, pulling no lever is removing you from the decision making and pulling both would I guess leave it to chance, you made an action but can't be held responsible.
However, I would feel the right thing to do is to sacrifice the 1 life for 5. "You don't have a lever 2. If you do nothing, the tram goes on to hit the 5 people. If you pull the lever, it hits 1 person | |||
" What if you knew/loved the one person.. There are lot more follow up questions for any answer to the trolley problem to test how strong they feel about it. One example is "if we replace the lever situation with a very fat person standing next to you, who you have to push in front of the tram to stop it, would you do it?" It's morally wrong to push the fat person. I struggle to answer the initial question. I'd probably pull the lever but I'm not certain. Nice. The idea of pushing the person is to see if people consider that the direct act of pushing someone to death is same as changing a lever which also results in someone's death. It's not the same thing but I was involved in an explosion in Balham in 1987 where two people died. I was unhurt, had two young kids at home and had no idea if there'd be a secondary explosion. Yet I felt I had a moral obligation to help the injured. Other people ran away, I don't think they were morally wrong. I'm not sure there is a correct answer" Agreed... There isn't a correct answer for these questions. Different people justify different answers based on their moral framework | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned
I don't only have 2 choices though...
I have multiple choices, do nothing, pull lever 1, pull lever 2 or pull both.
Each choice as you point out is an ethical choice.
Pulling lever 1 or 2, is choosing who lives and who dies, pulling no lever is removing you from the decision making and pulling both would I guess leave it to chance, you made an action but can't be held responsible.
However, I would feel the right thing to do is to sacrifice the 1 life for 5.
Where did the second lever come from, and what does it do?
Good observation
I thought about this in the wrong way! I read the scenario and imagined it was 2 choices and applied 2 levers to the choices when it was only 1...
My decision still the same sacrifice 1 for 5, rather than do nothing."Just saw this | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge." You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here."Do you consider inaction a lesser involvement in deciding who lives and dies? I'm not saying it's wrong. There's no right answer. In my opinion. I'm just interested. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
Do you consider inaction a lesser involvement in deciding who lives and dies?
I'm not saying it's wrong. There's no right answer. In my opinion. I'm just interested."The situation is a terrible one that resulted in the action of other people. Someone else made the decision on who lives and dies. I am just not interfering with it because I don't have enough information to make a choice and I don't think 5 lives are automatically more important than 1 life. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here."I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others. I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing. Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever."On a lighter note, the tram was speeding the tram driver did it. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever."That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life. The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest? | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
Do you consider inaction a lesser involvement in deciding who lives and dies?
I'm not saying it's wrong. There's no right answer. In my opinion. I'm just interested.
The situation is a terrible one that resulted in the action of other people. Someone else made the decision on who lives and dies. I am just not interfering with it because I don't have enough information to make a choice and I don't think 5 lives are automatically more important than 1 life." | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?"Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts. However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something. Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked. If you were on the track what would you think? | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
"If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved"You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track? If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned "It’s interesting how many people have tried to logic, or hypothetical, over complicate, or find some other way to get themselves out of just answering the question as asked. However that then takes my brain down the path of what does that indecision say about them vs does it actually just make the people that can dive in with an answer sociopaths that don’t care as much for the hypothetical lives. For what its worth i an one of the sociopaths … i would pull the level no questions asked | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge." What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved
You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track?
If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful.
"I would not expect the person to act either way. The trolley problem does not have a solution that can be proven to be morally correct. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved
You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track?
If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful.
I would not expect the person to act either way. The trolley problem does not have a solution that can be proven to be morally correct. "I understand that there is no solution, it is a philosophical wet dream. The decision you take when presented a problem is of interest to me, it shows me those who are willing to make choice and those who aren’t. | |||
"What is the outcome if the levers are pulled at the same time Please Just assume you only have the two choices I mentioned
It’s interesting how many people have tried to logic, or hypothetical, over complicate, or find some other way to get themselves out of just answering the question as asked.
However that then takes my brain down the path of what does that indecision say about them vs does it actually just make the people that can dive in with an answer sociopaths that don’t care as much for the hypothetical lives.
For what its worth i an one of the sociopaths … i would pull the level no questions asked "My decision is to not pull the lever. It does tell something about the person's values. But it's neither good nor bad. As I said above, many people who say they will pull the lever will not do the same if you were supposed to push someone on the track to save the 5. There are multiple feelings which come into play here. Morality isn't rational. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder " Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved
You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track?
If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful.
I would not expect the person to act either way. The trolley problem does not have a solution that can be proven to be morally correct.
I understand that there is no solution, it is a philosophical wet dream. The decision you take when presented a problem is of interest to me, it shows me those who are willing to make choice and those who aren’t.
"Believe it or not, it's not just a philosophical wet dream. We make these kind of decisions often, especially when it comes to healthcare and war. We just avoid getting into the moral intricacies because it's hurtful. Doing something for the sake of doing something doesn't make a person any better. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone." Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved
You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track?
If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful.
I would not expect the person to act either way. The trolley problem does not have a solution that can be proven to be morally correct.
I understand that there is no solution, it is a philosophical wet dream. The decision you take when presented a problem is of interest to me, it shows me those who are willing to make choice and those who aren’t.
Believe it or not, it's not just a philosophical wet dream. We make these kind of decisions often, especially when it comes to healthcare and war. We just avoid getting into the moral intricacies because it's hurtful. Doing something for the sake of doing something doesn't make a person any better."The situation presented is a philosophical and philosophers wet dream. It puts the decision of choice firmly into the realms of continuing debate with no end point. As I mentioned it interests me. The ability to make a decision presented a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, shows a measure of intellect and decision making that is unique to many different roles, dependant on those views. | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. You are the first person to take this option. That will be my choice too. If I can save everyone, I will do it. If it's one life vs five lives, I am not going to play the judge deciding whose lives matter here.
I think this choice could be seen as a selfish choice, it is how you feel rather than others.
I would rather make a decision and take action even if it turned out to be wrong, than do nothing.
Knowing I did nothing, would be a burden on me forever.
That's a fair argument. But if I have enough information about the people involved, I will try to make a choice. But without that, I wouldn't be able to. I don't believe five lives are automatically more important than one life.
The selfishness argument could be turned on you too. You just said that if you don't do anything, it would be a burden on you forever. Isn't that your own interest?
Of course my decision is selfish as is yours, there are no selfless acts.
However your selfish decision leads to inaction based on fear of getting it wrong and mine is based on action through fear of not doing something.
Which decision you take is obviously a personal one, but if I was on the track, I would rather someone make a decision than let events unfold unchecked.
If you were on the track what would you think?
If I were on the track, I would blame whatever/whoever caused the situation. I would understand the dilemma of the person next to the lever. I know it's not a straightforward choice. While I would be grateful if it results in my life being saved, I wouldn't blame him if it's not saved
You would except my decision to pull the lever and save 5 people over you, if you were the single person on the track?
If was the single person on the track and you did nothing, I wouldn’t necessarily understand why you did nothing, but of course I would be grateful.
I would not expect the person to act either way. The trolley problem does not have a solution that can be proven to be morally correct.
I understand that there is no solution, it is a philosophical wet dream. The decision you take when presented a problem is of interest to me, it shows me those who are willing to make choice and those who aren’t.
Believe it or not, it's not just a philosophical wet dream. We make these kind of decisions often, especially when it comes to healthcare and war. We just avoid getting into the moral intricacies because it's hurtful. Doing something for the sake of doing something doesn't make a person any better.
The situation presented is a philosophical and philosophers wet dream.
It puts the decision of choice firmly into the realms of continuing debate with no end point.
As I mentioned it interests me.
The ability to make a decision presented a damned if you do, damned if you don’t, shows a measure of intellect and decision making that is unique to many different roles, dependant on those views. " | |||
"The second you touch the lever, you have made a conscious decision to become a murderer of either 1 or 5 people. If you do not touch the lever, 5 people will die, but not directly or because of your involvement. They were going to die anyway if you had not been there to interact with the lever. If you walk away and do nothing, then whilst you may have been able to prevent their deaths, you would have had to murder someone else to achieve it. That makes you complicit in 1 murder. If you walk away and don't touch the lever, you are not complicit in murder. Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die " Fair point. | |||
"Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die Fair point." I think its an interesting twist to it because sure it becomes 5 or 1 or none. But it also becomes save rather than kill. So it would hopefully alleviate some of that decision paralysis on is the 1 or 5 more worthy of life by removing the responsibility for death. For me pulling the lever isnt about worthyness. I dont have the information or time to assess what has gone before. Nobody knows what the future holds and what bad or good those people could put out into the world if they survive. So i just decided on probability… that i have 5 chances instead of 1 that i made the right decision. And 4 less lives lost with the ripple outward of the people in those lives that it affects. | |||
"Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die Fair point. I think its an interesting twist to it because sure it becomes 5 or 1 or none. But it also becomes save rather than kill. So it would hopefully alleviate some of that decision paralysis on is the 1 or 5 more worthy of life by removing the responsibility for death. For me pulling the lever isnt about worthyness. I dont have the information or time to assess what has gone before. Nobody knows what the future holds and what bad or good those people could put out into the world if they survive. So i just decided on probability… that i have 5 chances instead of 1 that i made the right decision. And 4 less lives lost with the ripple outward of the people in those lives that it affects. " Yes probability is one way to look at it, which is what utilitarianism is about. If I never heard it f this problem and I was put in the situation without any time to think, I think my choice would also be to save those 5 people. | |||
"Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die Fair point. I think its an interesting twist to it because sure it becomes 5 or 1 or none. But it also becomes save rather than kill. So it would hopefully alleviate some of that decision paralysis on is the 1 or 5 more worthy of life by removing the responsibility for death. For me pulling the lever isnt about worthyness. I dont have the information or time to assess what has gone before. Nobody knows what the future holds and what bad or good those people could put out into the world if they survive. So i just decided on probability… that i have 5 chances instead of 1 that i made the right decision. And 4 less lives lost with the ripple outward of the people in those lives that it affects. Yes probability is one way to look at it, which is what utilitarianism is about. If I never heard it f this problem and I was put in the situation without any time to think, I think my choice would also be to save those 5 people." in the true nature of your hypothesis. It would never happen. So your experiment is redundant. | |||
"Complicit in not saving life through inactivity perhaps, but that's a different charge. What if you flip it on its head. And there is a house on fire . On 1 side there is 1 man. On the other there are 5. You only have enough time to smash 1 window to let people escape before the burning roof falls in on them. Again inaction leads to death, again you would be choosing who lives and dies if you act , but this time there is no murder Not the same situation though. You have three options here. Saving someone is better than the third option of not saving anyone. Completely, but some people have said they are not the person to judge if those 5 are worth more than the 1 … in this scenario you would still have to decide that or let everyone die Fair point. I think its an interesting twist to it because sure it becomes 5 or 1 or none. But it also becomes save rather than kill. So it would hopefully alleviate some of that decision paralysis on is the 1 or 5 more worthy of life by removing the responsibility for death. For me pulling the lever isnt about worthyness. I dont have the information or time to assess what has gone before. Nobody knows what the future holds and what bad or good those people could put out into the world if they survive. So i just decided on probability… that i have 5 chances instead of 1 that i made the right decision. And 4 less lives lost with the ripple outward of the people in those lives that it affects. Yes probability is one way to look at it, which is what utilitarianism is about. If I never heard it f this problem and I was put in the situation without any time to think, I think my choice would also be to save those 5 people. in the true nature of your hypothesis. It would never happen. So your experiment is redundant. " The entire trolley problem is never going to happen. It doesn’t mean thinking about moral philosophy and what your motivates your decision making is redundant. | |||
| |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " At a basic level you'd pulled the lever. But the variables on many things often would change that. E.g if it was 5 80s year old and a 1 year old child I'd leave the 80 year old to perish. | |||
"Also these decisions can be manifested in real life scenarios and someone somewhere is making the decisions. You only have to look at war - are some casualties ok to protect others ? Or a natural disaster - where do you direct limited first responders, which lives are more worth saving Even on a smaller scale if there is a car pile up - people on the scene need to decide there and then what to do" Yup. Pretty sure it happened in many poor countries during the peak of covid. They were forced to pick and choose who to give hospital beds. | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? At a basic level you'd pulled the lever. But the variables on many things often would change that. E.g if it was 5 80s year old and a 1 year old child I'd leave the 80 year old to perish." | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? At a basic level you'd pulled the lever. But the variables on many things often would change that. E.g if it was 5 80s year old and a 1 year old child I'd leave the 80 year old to perish." Yep it matters who the 5 are vs the 1. If that info was not available and we had to make a split second decision between saving 5 vs 1 most people would save the 5. Imagine how you/we/I would feel afterwards to find that the 5 were all kiddie fiddlers and the 1 was a kid! | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " Depends on who the people were? | |||
| |||
"Again, the decision has to be made, do you want to murder 5 people, or 1 person ? The third way is to murder none by not touching the lever at all. Fate decided to kill people that day. Or more likely a set of tragic circumstances (likely to have another human's root cause behind them). Let them "own" that mistake. The second you touch the lever, you compound the mistake and become a murderer. " That's certainly the way that the law sees it. If you touch that lever, you have decided to intervene, and are then responsible for the deaths that follow. | |||
"Again, the decision has to be made, do you want to murder 5 people, or 1 person ? The third way is to murder none by not touching the lever at all. Fate decided to kill people that day. Or more likely a set of tragic circumstances (likely to have another human's root cause behind them). Let them "own" that mistake. The second you touch the lever, you compound the mistake and become a murderer. That's certainly the way that the law sees it. If you touch that lever, you have decided to intervene, and are then responsible for the deaths that follow." What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved. | |||
"Again, the decision has to be made, do you want to murder 5 people, or 1 person ? The third way is to murder none by not touching the lever at all. Fate decided to kill people that day. Or more likely a set of tragic circumstances (likely to have another human's root cause behind them). Let them "own" that mistake. The second you touch the lever, you compound the mistake and become a murderer. That's certainly the way that the law sees it. If you touch that lever, you have decided to intervene, and are then responsible for the deaths that follow. What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved." MrDiscretion seems more clued up on this than me, but I would say when it comes to the action/inaction of an individual the law says nothing. However, if pulling the lever was a known corporate responsibility that resulted in inaction, there may be a case for Corporate Manslaughter. | |||
"What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved." The law says nothing. There is no duty on any person to save the life of someone else, unless you are 'a special person'. For instance, if you see someone drowning, and you are a lifeguard, you are expected to save the person. If you're not trained in water rescue, you have no legal obligation to do anything. The law is designed to punish those that decide to be involved in a crime. If you weren't involved in initiating the events, then the accident would have happened whether you were there or not. You can be punished for doing a bad thing, you can't be punished for failing to do a good thing. | |||
"I would say when it comes to the action/inaction of an individual the law says nothing. However, if pulling the lever was a known corporate responsibility that resulted in inaction, there may be a case for Corporate Manslaughter." Yes, if you were the switch operator, and your job was to ensure the safety of all people on the tracks, then you would be held responsible if you did nothing at all. But you'd be charged with causing death through negligence. A random bystander who pulled the lever would be charged with murder. | |||
"What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved. The law says nothing. There is no duty on any person to save the life of someone else, unless you are 'a special person'. For instance, if you see someone drowning, and you are a lifeguard, you are expected to save the person. If you're not trained in water rescue, you have no legal obligation to do anything. The law is designed to punish those that decide to be involved in a crime. If you weren't involved in initiating the events, then the accident would have happened whether you were there or not. You can be punished for doing a bad thing, you can't be punished for failing to do a good thing." https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish. If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent. The cps interpretation is I am possibly guilty by inaction by allowing the death to occur though I could act. There's also this the suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present; I do believe there were cases whereby family.membwr were prosecuted knowing a nother had taken excess amounts of drugs and did not call ambulances? | |||
"What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved. The law says nothing. There is no duty on any person to save the life of someone else, unless you are 'a special person'. For instance, if you see someone drowning, and you are a lifeguard, you are expected to save the person. If you're not trained in water rescue, you have no legal obligation to do anything. The law is designed to punish those that decide to be involved in a crime. If you weren't involved in initiating the events, then the accident would have happened whether you were there or not. You can be punished for doing a bad thing, you can't be punished for failing to do a good thing. https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish. If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent. The cps interpretation is I am possibly guilty by inaction by allowing the death to occur though I could act. There's also this the suspect was aware that the victim intended to commit suicide in a public place where it was reasonable to think that members of the public may be present; I do believe there were cases whereby family.membwr were prosecuted knowing a nother had taken excess amounts of drugs and did not call ambulances? " https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/crime/scarborough-mum-jailed-for-not-calling-ambulance-as-daughter-lays-dying-from-heroin-overdose-1822856 | |||
| |||
| |||
"Ironically in LBC this afternoon one of the topics was a story about a man who was drowning and several bystanders just watched and did nothing. Well not nothing, they failed to throw him a life ring that was nearby (actually there were two) and some actually pulled out their mobiles and filmed the man drowning. They fucking filmed him and did not try to help him! WTAF!" I actually think something like this. Based on the above is prosecuteable. Inaction shouldn't lead to death. Itsncalled the bystander effect with large groups. You expect some 1 else to jump in. So no 1 jumps to actions. | |||
"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish." The important words being "does an act". Inaction is not doing an act, and you can't be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of cases of people attempting suicide, and suing the person that rescued them. That is a person 'doing an act' and then being held responsible for their actions. Had that person not rescued them, the person would not have been prosecutable. "If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent." If it's suicide, correct. Unless you incited the suicide, or 'assisted' in any way, or had a duty of care for the person. If you come across an attempted murder victim, then you could be considered an accessory if you did nothing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, like you not realising that they weren't dead yet, or being scared that the criminals might still be about. In the case of the Scarborough woman, she had a duty of care for her daughter, and she was found to have facilitated the drug taking by proving a 'safe' space for her daughter to take drugs. The law gets complex as soon as you start to look into edge cases. But the starting point for the trolley problem is very simple. You don't know anyone, you aren't involved, but you did choose to pull the lever, meaning that one person that would have lived is now dead because of your action. If you hadn't touched the lever, the law could not blame you for causing any deaths. | |||
"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish. The important words being "does an act". Inaction is not doing an act, and you can't be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of cases of people attempting suicide, and suing the person that rescued them. That is a person 'doing an act' and then being held responsible for their actions. Had that person not rescued them, the person would not have been prosecutable. If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent. If it's suicide, correct. Unless you incited the suicide, or 'assisted' in any way, or had a duty of care for the person. If you come across an attempted murder victim, then you could be considered an accessory if you did nothing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, like you not realising that they weren't dead yet, or being scared that the criminals might still be about. In the case of the Scarborough woman, she had a duty of care for her daughter, and she was found to have facilitated the drug taking by proving a 'safe' space for her daughter to take drugs. The law gets complex as soon as you start to look into edge cases. But the starting point for the trolley problem is very simple. You don't know anyone, you aren't involved, but you did choose to pull the lever, meaning that one person that would have lived is now dead because of your action. If you hadn't touched the lever, the law could not blame you for causing any deaths." The act would be ot acting. By doing no act in calling paramedics etc they are infsct acting This is precisely the point of the heroin case. | |||
"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish. The important words being "does an act". Inaction is not doing an act, and you can't be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of cases of people attempting suicide, and suing the person that rescued them. That is a person 'doing an act' and then being held responsible for their actions. Had that person not rescued them, the person would not have been prosecutable. If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent. If it's suicide, correct. Unless you incited the suicide, or 'assisted' in any way, or had a duty of care for the person. If you come across an attempted murder victim, then you could be considered an accessory if you did nothing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, like you not realising that they weren't dead yet, or being scared that the criminals might still be about. In the case of the Scarborough woman, she had a duty of care for her daughter, and she was found to have facilitated the drug taking by proving a 'safe' space for her daughter to take drugs. The law gets complex as soon as you start to look into edge cases. But the starting point for the trolley problem is very simple. You don't know anyone, you aren't involved, but you did choose to pull the lever, meaning that one person that would have lived is now dead because of your action. If you hadn't touched the lever, the law could not blame you for causing any deaths." Your point was black and white. I was merely proving failure to act can also still be seen as criminal in gross negligence cases. Which wasn't quite your representation of the law. We would have to trawl through every gross negligence case. I can't see a person not being investigste dlerosnally if you come across a car crash and make no attempt to save a life though. | |||
"The act would be ot acting. By doing no act in calling paramedics etc they are infsct acting This is precisely the point of the heroin case." This is just nonsense. The law is very clear on what constitutes an act, and what doesn't. That's why we have manslaughter (the result of an action), and 'causing death by negligence' (the result of no act). The point of the heroin case is that the woman was judged to have a duty of care for the person that died. If you have a duty of care, you must act. BTW: I'm amazed that the forum filters allow the word 'heroin'. Given all the ridiculous words that are banned, I can't believe that 'heroin' is allowed | |||
"https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/suicide-policy-prosecutors-respect-cases-encouraging-or-assisting-suicide So, for example, if a victim attempts to commit suicide but succeeds only in making him or herself unconscious, a person commits murder or manslaughter if he or she then does an act that causes the death of the victim, even if he or she believes that he or she is simply carrying out the victim's express wish. The important words being "does an act". Inaction is not doing an act, and you can't be prosecuted for it. There are plenty of cases of people attempting suicide, and suing the person that rescued them. That is a person 'doing an act' and then being held responsible for their actions. Had that person not rescued them, the person would not have been prosecutable. If I am reading this right. If I find a person hanging. And don't act Your interpretation of law is I am innocent. If it's suicide, correct. Unless you incited the suicide, or 'assisted' in any way, or had a duty of care for the person. If you come across an attempted murder victim, then you could be considered an accessory if you did nothing. Unless there are mitigating circumstances, like you not realising that they weren't dead yet, or being scared that the criminals might still be about. In the case of the Scarborough woman, she had a duty of care for her daughter, and she was found to have facilitated the drug taking by proving a 'safe' space for her daughter to take drugs. The law gets complex as soon as you start to look into edge cases. But the starting point for the trolley problem is very simple. You don't know anyone, you aren't involved, but you did choose to pull the lever, meaning that one person that would have lived is now dead because of your action. If you hadn't touched the lever, the law could not blame you for causing any deaths." This is all really interesting so i don’t say this as a slight. But its all law talk. Is the trolley problem not about where your morals land and the motivation for your morals rather than what the law tells us to do? I guess for some people law = morality. But for many they don’t always align, or at least not across all topics | |||
"The act would be ot acting. By doing no act in calling paramedics etc they are infsct acting This is precisely the point of the heroin case. This is just nonsense. The law is very clear on what constitutes an act, and what doesn't. That's why we have manslaughter (the result of an action), and 'causing death by negligence' (the result of no act). The point of the heroin case is that the woman was judged to have a duty of care for the person that died. If you have a duty of care, you must act. BTW: I'm amazed that the forum filters allow the word 'heroin'. Given all the ridiculous words that are banned, I can't believe that 'heroin' is allowed " There is no duty on any person to save the life of someone else, unless you are 'a special person' You then mentioned about a life guard. I agree in general there isn't a general.duty of care. You seemed to imply it was to do with a job. My point was that inaction was not necessarily to do with jobs. "If you're not trained in water rescue, you have no legal obligation to do anything. But now we know it's not just water rescue training. As you say you can delve into it. And as per the suicide case. I would have to look into it. I dont think there would be a duty of care for me to.call you an ambulance if I saw you in a car crash. But if I walked in and saw my my friend about the hang themselves and sat and watched it happen. I'm not so sure the legal reading there based on the above. | |||
"What does the law say about inaction? If you could pull the lever and save four lives (net). But you decide not to get involved. The law says nothing. There is no duty on any person to save the life of someone else, unless you are 'a special person'. For instance, if you see someone drowning, and you are a lifeguard, you are expected to save the person. If you're not trained in water rescue, you have no legal obligation to do anything. The law is designed to punish those that decide to be involved in a crime. If you weren't involved in initiating the events, then the accident would have happened whether you were there or not. You can be punished for doing a bad thing, you can't be punished for failing to do a good thing." Interesting. Thank you. I hadn't considered legalities when I answered the question. I had only considered morals. | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " Do nothing as the planet is over populated so why get involved. | |||
| |||
"Ever watched the Netflix series called Utopia? Thought it was horrible until the last episode when it went into the effects of massive overpopulation on the world! I found myself agreeing with the ethics behind it - right or wrong- it made sense to me! Just saying! Everyone is entitled to an opinion! X" This is going off track pun intended. No butvi did watch a documentary on population growth that it predicted around 9 billion as the max for the world. Before water would be in short supply. Every one looks at global warming but wi might run out of water first. | |||
"Ever watched the Netflix series called Utopia? Thought it was horrible until the last episode when it went into the effects of massive overpopulation on the world! I found myself agreeing with the ethics behind it - right or wrong- it made sense to me! Just saying! Everyone is entitled to an opinion! X" We cull animals and insects should humans be any different? | |||
"This is all really interesting so i don’t say this as a slight. But its all law talk. Is the trolley problem not about where your morals land and the motivation for your morals rather than what the law tells us to do?" You're right, the trolley problem is all about moral dilemma, and when it's taught in classes, the circumstances keep changing to change the moral balance. I just mentioned the law to back up the thinking of another poster. I'll stop now and let you all get back to moralising. | |||
"This is all really interesting so i don’t say this as a slight. But its all law talk. Is the trolley problem not about where your morals land and the motivation for your morals rather than what the law tells us to do? You're right, the trolley problem is all about moral dilemma, and when it's taught in classes, the circumstances keep changing to change the moral balance. I just mentioned the law to back up the thinking of another poster. I'll stop now and let you all get back to moralising. " Thanks for sharing the legal aspects though. It was interesting to read | |||
"This is all really interesting so i don’t say this as a slight. But its all law talk. Is the trolley problem not about where your morals land and the motivation for your morals rather than what the law tells us to do? You're right, the trolley problem is all about moral dilemma, and when it's taught in classes, the circumstances keep changing to change the moral balance. I just mentioned the law to back up the thinking of another poster. I'll stop now and let you all get back to moralising. Thanks for sharing the legal aspects though. It was interesting to read " agreed sorry i didnt mean to stop posting. I was just wondering if some people just directly align their morals with what the law tells them to do. I guess it would take the quandry element out of it | |||
"Ironically in LBC this afternoon one of the topics was a story about a man who was drowning and several bystanders just watched and did nothing. Well not nothing, they failed to throw him a life ring that was nearby (actually there were two) and some actually pulled out their mobiles and filmed the man drowning. They fucking filmed him and did not try to help him! WTAF! I actually think something like this. Based on the above is prosecuteable. Inaction shouldn't lead to death. Itsncalled the bystander effect with large groups. You expect some 1 else to jump in. So no 1 jumps to actions. " Yeah LBC phone in talked about the “bystander effect” and I can see how that happens. But to pull out your phones! That is not inaction, that is clearly taking action but with a view to what? Create content? Fucking weird world we live in. Where I think the moral/law question does come in is whether someone should/can intervene when one person(s) is a attacking another? The elderly poppy seller being punched in the face comes to mind. I’d like to think I would intervene (I guess my mind would do a quick risk appraisal, how many of them, are they armed, can I take them, I’m not as young and handy as I used to be etc). But if in protecting the elderly poppy seller I punched out the attacker, then I get done for assault right? | |||
"Ironically in LBC this afternoon one of the topics was a story about a man who was drowning and several bystanders just watched and did nothing. Well not nothing, they failed to throw him a life ring that was nearby (actually there were two) and some actually pulled out their mobiles and filmed the man drowning. They fucking filmed him and did not try to help him! WTAF! I actually think something like this. Based on the above is prosecuteable. Inaction shouldn't lead to death. Itsncalled the bystander effect with large groups. You expect some 1 else to jump in. So no 1 jumps to actions. Yeah LBC phone in talked about the “bystander effect” and I can see how that happens. But to pull out your phones! That is not inaction, that is clearly taking action but with a view to what? Create content? Fucking weird world we live in. Where I think the moral/law question does come in is whether someone should/can intervene when one person(s) is a attacking another? The elderly poppy seller being punched in the face comes to mind. I’d like to think I would intervene (I guess my mind would do a quick risk appraisal, how many of them, are they armed, can I take them, I’m not as young and handy as I used to be etc). But if in protecting the elderly poppy seller I punched out the attacker, then I get done for assault right?" Most likely yes as the cps will push for excessive use of force. | |||
"sorry i didnt mean to stop posting." I was too curt in my reply. I was just stopping because this thread is about the moral dimension, and I didn't want to take it over with legal stuff. No offence taken. "I was just wondering if some people just directly align their morals with what the law tells them to do." That is an interesting thought, which hadn't occurred to me. I suspect that most people just follow what feels right, and then they justify it later by claiming a moral or legal reasoning. Humans are quite poor at understanding their own thinking. | |||
" That is an interesting thought, which hadn't occurred to me. I suspect that most people just follow what feels right, and then they justify it later by claiming a moral or legal reasoning. Humans are quite poor at understanding their own thinking." Agreed. Many act on impulse, which in and of itself is quite irrational and emotive. That's where folks can come unstuck because of frameworks around them which they choose to ignore, or are ignorant of. The trolley problem is emotional for some. But not for all. | |||
"Ironically in LBC this afternoon one of the topics was a story about a man who was drowning and several bystanders just watched and did nothing. Well not nothing, they failed to throw him a life ring that was nearby (actually there were two) and some actually pulled out their mobiles and filmed the man drowning. They fucking filmed him and did not try to help him! WTAF! I actually think something like this. Based on the above is prosecuteable. Inaction shouldn't lead to death. Itsncalled the bystander effect with large groups. You expect some 1 else to jump in. So no 1 jumps to actions. Yeah LBC phone in talked about the “bystander effect” and I can see how that happens. But to pull out your phones! That is not inaction, that is clearly taking action but with a view to what? Create content? Fucking weird world we live in. Where I think the moral/law question does come in is whether someone should/can intervene when one person(s) is a attacking another? The elderly poppy seller being punched in the face comes to mind. I’d like to think I would intervene (I guess my mind would do a quick risk appraisal, how many of them, are they armed, can I take them, I’m not as young and handy as I used to be etc). But if in protecting the elderly poppy seller I punched out the attacker, then I get done for assault right?" No if you punch them out cold and they bang there head going down, and die from the heag band then your going down for man sluter at best. As you made a posertive action to hit/punch someone. | |||
"I believe most people's political views are based on their moral philosophy - Absolute morality vs moral relativism, consequentialism vs deontology vs virtue ethics, individualism vs collectivism. Moral philosophy is a complex topic as most people including myself tend to hold conflicting views. So just wanted to start a thread with a simple well known moral problem and see where people stand. For the people who don't know, the trolley problem asks you how you would react in this situation - A tram is on a track speeding towards 5 people who are tied to the track and will kill them if you do nothing. But you have a lever next to you, pulling which you can redirect the tram to another track which only has one person tied to it. Would you pull the lever so that only one person dies instead of multiple people? " What about running away and not even saying you were anywhere near? | |||
"Where I think the moral/law question does come in is whether someone should/can intervene when one person(s) is a attacking another? The elderly poppy seller being punched in the face comes to mind. I’d like to think I would intervene (I guess my mind would do a quick risk appraisal, how many of them, are they armed, can I take them, I’m not as young and handy as I used to be etc). But if in protecting the elderly poppy seller I punched out the attacker, then I get done for assault right?" "No if you punch them out cold and they bang there head going down, and die from the heag band then your going down for man sluter at best. As you made a posertive action to hit/punch someone." As with all of these things, it depends on the mitigating circumstances. If you are the aggressor and you punch someone and they die, then yes, you're going to be put away for manslaughter. But if you only acted after seeing a thug raise a first against the poppy seller, and your actions were entirely to protect the poppy seller and prevent a crime, then you could walk away scot-free. | |||
"Where I think the moral/law question does come in is whether someone should/can intervene when one person(s) is a attacking another? The elderly poppy seller being punched in the face comes to mind. I’d like to think I would intervene (I guess my mind would do a quick risk appraisal, how many of them, are they armed, can I take them, I’m not as young and handy as I used to be etc). But if in protecting the elderly poppy seller I punched out the attacker, then I get done for assault right? No if you punch them out cold and they bang there head going down, and die from the heag band then your going down for man sluter at best. As you made a posertive action to hit/punch someone. As with all of these things, it depends on the mitigating circumstances. If you are the aggressor and you punch someone and they die, then yes, you're going to be put away for manslaughter. But if you only acted after seeing a thug raise a first against the poppy seller, and your actions were entirely to protect the poppy seller and prevent a crime, then you could walk away scot-free." I think it is the ambiguity (real or perceived) that leads to many people choosing the path of inaction. | |||
