The End Justifies The Means In This Hypothetical

[dairygirl4u2c]

1. a train is hurting out of control at five people tied to the tracks. if you pull a lever, the train will be diverted to a track with one person, someone with highly developed cancer and two weeks left to live. there appears to be no other way to stop the train in time... your only choice is to pull the lever or not.

five lives trumps one life who will end in two weeks. proportionalism.... the ends justify the means here, because of the overwhelming favorable interests involved v small negative interests.

 

2.similar situation, only this time the train loops around and comes back in the opposite direction. also, the train is hurtiling towards five people who will be killed and then will loop to a fat person who will derail the train all ending in death. the thing in this situation is you could pull a lever and the fat person would be hit first, killing him but also derailing the train and saving the others. 

Edited May 10, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[CatholicsAreKewl]

"The end never justifies the means, because there is no end, there are only means." Penn Jillette

[CatholicsAreKewl]

1. a train is hurting out of control at five people tied to the tracks. if you pull a lever, the train will be diverted to a track with one person, someone with highly developed cancer and two weeks left to live. there appears to be no other way to stop the train in time... your only choice is to pull the lever or not.

five lives trumps one life who will end in two weeks. proportionalism.... the ends justify the means here, because of the overwhelming favorable interests involved v small negative interests.

 

2.similar situation, only this time the train loops around and comes back in the opposite direction. also, the train is hurtiling towards five people who will be killed and then will loop to a fat person who will derail the train all ending in death. the thing in this situation is you could pull a lever and the fat person would be hit first, killing him but also derailing the train and saving the others. 

This sounds like the psychopath test. Interesting question, though. I have no idea. 

[Papist]

Yes. as long as it ends with me drinking beer.

[4588686]

"The end never justifies the means, because there is no end, there are only means." Penn Jillette

Does Penn know that in this context an 'end' means 'goal'?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Does Penn know that in this context an 'end' means 'goal'?

I know your religious devotion makes it hard to view things outside of a Christian context but please make an effort to understand the other side as well. 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

He meant that we live in the means. The ends don't really matter because they're also means to an end... but that's not completely true. I just like to hear him say things. 

Edited May 10, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Ice_nine]

penn's a cool bro

 

dairy is cray cray.

 

I'm really tired :(

[CatholicsAreKewl]

penn's a cool bro

 

dairy is cray cray.

 

I'm really tired :(

 

Why is that?

[PhuturePriest]

The ends never justify the means. If I could cure all ills and stop everything that is wrong in the world by killing an innocent baby, I couldn't do it. However, I will play your game.

 

You could in fact change the lanes to the one person. However, you would be obligated to fully intend and try to save that person. The reason you could change lanes to this person rather than the five is taking one person off the track is quicker than taking off five. So yes, you can change the lanes to the person with cancer, so long as you intended to save them. In fact, I believe you would almost be obligated to do this, so long as you figured this out in time.

 

Logic is refreshing, isn't it?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

You could in fact change the lanes to the one person. However, you would be obligated to fully intend and try to save that person. The reason you could change lanes to this person rather than the five is taking one person off the track is quicker than taking off five. So yes, you can change the lanes to the person with cancer, so long as you intended to save them. In fact, I believe you would almost be obligated to do this, so long as you figured this out in time.

I thought it was a given that you could not jump off the train and save that one person, but let's assume that it's implied. What would your answer be in this case?

Would saving those five people pass Aquinas' principle of double effect if you could not realistically attempt to save the one you would end up killing?

Edited May 11, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[PhuturePriest]

I thought it was a given that you could not jump off the train and save that one person, but let's assume that it's implied. What would your answer be in this case?

Would saving those five people pass Aquinas' principle of double effect if you could not realistically attempt to save the one you would end up killing?

 

Realistically speaking, this is not even a question. You can always jump on the tracks. Why wouldn't you be able to? Is someone holding a gun up to you saying you can't? If so, you have more immediate problems than the people on the train tracks, as disarming the man with the gun would be the best immediate option.

 

And don't say "Well, of course you can do this realistically speaking, but what about figuratively?". The Church doesn't meddle with theology for things that can't even happen, so the answer in this case might as well be to put on your robe and pointy wizard hat, grab your wand and magically get everyone off the train tracks altogether.

[Ice_nine]

FP the purpose of these tests is to make one choose between one course of action and another with a very specific set of parameters so that you can isolate all other variables. That's why their hypothetical. If they weren't I'd simply just let them all die for being stupid enough to chill out on an active train track (kidding). It's like a multiple choice test, you may not like any of the answers but you pick the best one.

 

 

It's also interesting to note that when faced between pushing a fat guy off of a footbridge above the train track, so his body will stop the train from killing the five people on the track and come to a horribly bloody end, most people would say it's not ok to push the man off. Presumably it's based upon how people think they will feel about commiting the act (pushing someone is more personal than flipping a switch)

 

So same exact means (causing the death of one person) to achieve the same end (preventing the deaths of five people) but people consider it immoral. The people who tend to say "I'd kill the fat guy" tend to have frontal lobe damage blah blah blah sh8t I learned in college.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Realistically speaking, this is not even a question. You can always jump on the tracks. Why wouldn't you be able to? Is someone holding a gun up to you saying you can't? If so, you have more immediate problems than the people on the train tracks, as disarming the man with the gun would be the best immediate option.

 

And don't say "Well, of course you can do this realistically speaking, but what about figuratively?". The Church doesn't meddle with theology for things that can't even happen, so the answer in this case might as well be to put on your robe and pointy wizard hat, grab your wand and magically get everyone off the train tracks altogether.

 

Let's imagine the train can't stop or slow down in time. You notice the people before you're able to do anything.  It's going too fast for you to jump on the tracks without simply killing yourself. It's not that implausible. 

[PhuturePriest]

Let's imagine the train can't stop or slow down in time. You notice the people before you're able to do anything.  It's going too fast for you to jump on the tracks without simply killing yourself. It's not that implausible. 

 

As I said in the first post, switch the tracks to the one person and then try to save him. That's all you can really do in this situation.