The End Justifies The Means In This Hypothetical

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.

 

FP, please don't ignore the question. It's okay to say "I don't know". I personally have no idea what the correct answer is.

Lets say you're right here traveling 60 mph:  | :spike: |   
You fall asleep while riding:                                                   | :pinch: |
You wake up and noticing a fork and you have to decide between saving the 5 or the 1:    | :eek: |                   :noevil: :unsure:  :pinch:

 

                                                                                                                                                                                       :spike: 

You're have 10 seconds to make a decision. At least one body awaits you AS SOON as you choose your path.  Unless God gives you supernatural speed, you have no hope of jumping in front of the train to save anyone. What is your decision? Do the ends justify the means? How does this pass under the principle of double effect?

Edited May 11, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

If that's not convincing enough, imagine you're going 100 mph and you have 5 seconds to make a decision.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

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.

Ah, I apologize if I misunderstood your post. Do you believe it's okay to make this decision in a case which there's absolutely no hope of saving him? In that case, would the ends justify the means? Does this pass the principle of double effect?

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think future priest is primarily trying to finding a way to get around any ends means dilemma, to the point of ridiculousness. ie, you can save tons of lives if you shoot the baby in the head. okay then, future priest says... we'll pull the trigger then try to swipe away the bullet!  i could go on and on with examples, that one was more extreme 

 

also, the reason it couldnt and shouldnt be applied to "try to save person" etc, is cause it's so unrealistic that you cant take it seriously. effectively, for all intents and purposes, the person is goingto die because of you. 

 

yes logic is refreshing

Edited May 11, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

something i find interesting is in debates like this people who are often so hard line about so much stuff aren't here... in that. instead of just coming out and saying 'the people should die. the ends dont just jusityf the means", they try to contort themselves into all kinds of bizarre ways beoynnd rationality

[CatholicsAreKewl]

something i find interesting is in debates like this people who are often so hard line about so much stuff aren't here... in that. instead of just coming out and saying 'the people should die. the ends dont just jusityf the means", they try to contort themselves into all kinds of bizarre ways beoynnd rationality

It's human nature to try to explain things we don't fully understand. I still think there is a good explanation for choosing to kill one to save five. I'm hoping someone would provide it. 

[Ice_nine]

I don't know what I WOULD do, but I hope I would not kill a man to say five, unless that man was trying to kill other people it's not right for me to sacrifice him for others. I don't embrace utilitarianism, but in a panic situation I might choose that. Doesn't make it right tho.