NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3
rd, 2010 at 2:09pm:
Sappho wrote on Sep 3
rd, 2010 at 1:58pm:
I'm not playing dumb, I am appealing to common sense. Common sense dictates that pushing the fat man in front of the runaway train will not save the five others... rather 6 die as a result of those actions.
Well, then, let's say that by pushing the fat man onto the tracks, the track-bound vehicle would kill the man but be derailed, thus saving the lives of 5 others. However, you must look the fat man in the eye as you push him onto the tracks. How do you feel about being the agent of his death under those circumstances.
Yes, yes... and let's say that the tracks are made of gold studded with diamonds.....
Really Helian, as I said before, reality does not support the idea of a man derailing a train if run over by it. If it did, the news would be full of trains derailed by suicide victims. Do you know how many people die per week from being run over by trains in Melbourne alone?... approx 5 to 14 per week. Yet none of them derail the trains... go figure.
Quote:If you want to engage the person in the morality of the situation, then use the example of the doctor with limited treatments where he must choose who will get those treatments and in so doing who will die for lack of treatment
You said nothing about this even though you demand that the agent of morality look them in the eye. Well the doctor is looking them in the eye when he is deciding who will be saved by the treatment and who will die for lack of treatment.