Discussion Would you kill 10 people to save 1000?

[brimstonenfire_rain]

Title.

Please, explain your answer

 

[gggy]

this just another variation of the Trolley problem

 

[tabletop]

I'd rather kill 1000 to save 10.

 

[DeletedAccount0864]

No. That would make me a murderer. I would not be the cause of the death of the 1000.

 

[dinosavr]

No, and the 1000 people should be grateful for that :')

 

[tabletop]

This reminds me of the ''eat the rich'' sentiment that has gotten a lot of traction as of late.

What are that potential factors it may depend on? Is this a reference to the mentality of taking out hedge funds like in the netflix documentary? That shit had me cracking up laughing lol

 

[Andrews]

Umm this reminds me of the covid vaccine. Their answer was obvious. Only that the people saved weren't at risk of anything.

 

[sserafim]

Depends on who the people are. Ideally I wouldn't take any action because then it would make me complicit.

 

[Widdershins]

For those who enjoy such questions, here's a link with more.
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

How is this in Recovery?

 

[Lostandlooking]

You can view this as the trolley problem but also as the organ transplant problem. Both point out flaws in utilitarianism as a guide to solve ethical problems.

In short: it's seen as desirable to pull the lever and killing only one person instead of three. But it's seen as undesirable to kill one unwilling organ donor to save three lives.

In the trolley problem we have a choice to pull a lever. Not pulling the lever would kill 1000 people and save 10 people. We would not act on our duty to rescue the larger amount of people. But we wouldn't have to actively pull the lever and feel like we are responsible for the death of 10 people.

Pulling the lever would save 1000 people and kill 10. But we would also be committing an act of murder. Since we decided to take action.

There's no solution here without breaking some moral societal rule. But it's more acceptable to pull the lever in this case because even though you have to live with the fact that you decided to pull the lever, the amount of lives saved is worth it. The act of practically committing murder is excused in some way.

In the organ transplant problem you have an unwilling person who could save three persons with their organs. But it would kill the donor in the process. (Or perhaps 10 people who could save 1000 people if that's even possible) Should a doctor kill the organ donor to save the lives of three people?

Killing the organ donor would be murder just like pulling the lever would be. But this decision has a wider range of consequences for society as a whole. It would undermine the justice and healthcare system in a major way. This is why it's seen as unethical and not desired at all.

There are all kinds of tweaks you could make that would change your perspective and the best outcome. What if the doctor was never found out? What if the three persons on the track are already old and close to death?

It all depends on the circumstances in my opinion. There are no easy or clear cut answers to this question.

 

[brimstonenfire_rain]

You can view this as the trolley problem but also as the organ transplant problem. Both point out flaws in utilitarianism as a guide to solve ethical problems.

In short: it's seen as desirable to pull the lever and killing only one person instead of three. But it's seen as undesirable to kill one unwilling organ donor to save three lives.

In the trolley problem we have a choice to pull a lever. Not pulling the lever would kill 1000 people and save 10 people. We would not act on our duty to rescue the larger amount of people. But we wouldn't have to actively pull the lever and feel like we are responsible for the death of 10 people.

Pulling the lever would save 1000 people and kill 10. But we would also be committing an act of murder. Since we decided to take action.

There's no solution here without breaking some moral societal rule. But it's more acceptable to pull the lever in this case because even though you have to live with the fact that you decided to pull the lever, the amount of lives saved is worth it. The act of practically committing murder is excused in some way.

In the organ transplant problem you have an unwilling person who could save three persons with their organs. But it would kill the donor in the process. (Or perhaps 10 people who could save 1000 people if that's even possible) Should a doctor kill the organ donor to save the lives of three people?

Killing the organ donor would be murder just like pulling the lever would be. But this decision has a wider range of consequences for society as a whole. It would undermine the justice and healthcare system in a major way. This is why it's seen as unethical and not desired at all.

There are all kinds of tweaks you could make that would change your perspective and the best outcome. What if the doctor was never found out? What if the three persons on the track are already old and close to death?

It all depends on the circumstances in my opinion. There are no easy or clear cut answers to this question.

Depends on who the people are. Ideally I wouldn't take any action because then it would make me complicit.

The fact is, ideally the problem is based on the lack of knowledge about the lives we would be saving or ending. It's entirely random; among the two sides, there could be people you know or have no idea who they are, of any age or gender, social status, and level of education. But I think the point is when each of us is faced with such a choice, we wonder who the people on each side could be, and then I wonder, what value can we attribute to a life, based on what? I was taking notes to write a thread with a title like this, but I think I've lost them :(

 

[Arihman]

Yes. You would have to make the number far lower to give me pause. Because then I would ask myself who these people are. If the majority consists of people who severely harm others (e.g. psychopaths), which is very unlikely when it comes to higher numbers, and the minority is relatively innocent, I wouldn't pull the lever. This is further complicated by the fact that we all necessarily harm other beings just by existing, so you could argue that, in killing the majority, even if it's innocent people vs innocent people, you would erase their blood footprint, as in there would be less people doing harm in the world.

The question partially changes when it comes to torture, however. Then I'd say the majority wins, unless they're psychopaths, or just more harmful to the world, and less torture is better than more torture.

 

[mortuarymary]

Depends on the 10 people.

If it was very old people to save 1000 children, then yes

 

[cryone]

i would. also to kill someone can save a suicidal person from suffering. so, maybe both sides experience a win win.

 

[brimstonenfire_rain]

This is further complicated by the fact that we all necessarily harm other beings just by existing

Here, this is something I firmly believe. Someone might say 'Your freedom ends where mine begins,' but I see it more as 'Simply by existing, you indirectly cause harm to other existing individuals,' whether we like it or not, I don't think that's debatable.

 

[Mirrory Me]

... or to kill a thousand to save a million, or a million to save a billion... even killing myself would save at least 10 people....

 

[Argo]

The real problem with ethics riddles is the fact that they try to make ethics into a narrow script or formula. But ethics isn't like that, so the analysis of these riddles is always unsatisfying. It makes it seem like it's just about body count, or just about some single moral value, when it's not. It's about context, nuance, intention, consequences, exceptions, lots of different ways of describing details. And you will never, ever, reach that level of nuance, when you just go "Okay x die, or y live-- what do you pick?" The moment we approach ethics this way, we become robotic about it in an effort to try to come up with some "formula" for right/wrong answers. And often the very struggle of being unable to come up with a satisfying formula, or multiple competing formulas, is given as evidence that there must be no truly right/wrong answers-- which is also confused.

 

[exiled]

no

 

[CTBKnight]

Yeah probably, 1000 > 10. Some people enjoy life and I don't want to take that away from them but it definitely isn't for everyone.

 

[Bianka]

I would kill 10 people if there weren't any consequences
No I'm just kidding....... or am I?

 

[SexyIncél]

It all depends on the circumstances in my opinion. There are no easy or clear cut answers to this question.

Interesting, I wonder if that's the point: it's a skeleton you add details to

For example, in present society, the 1% — the top 10 out of 1000 — feed off the 99%. Like "a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity". Destroying the elites' structure of domination would save everyone

 

[ijustwishtodie]

I'll just do a coin toss and let that decide for me instead

 

[CuriosityAndCat]

You can view this as the trolley problem but also as the organ transplant problem. Both point out flaws in utilitarianism as a guide to solve ethical problems.

In short: it's seen as desirable to pull the lever and killing only one person instead of three. But it's seen as undesirable to kill one unwilling organ donor to save three lives.

In the trolley problem we have a choice to pull a lever. Not pulling the lever would kill 1000 people and save 10 people. We would not act on our duty to rescue the larger amount of people. But we wouldn't have to actively pull the lever and feel like we are responsible for the death of 10 people.

Pulling the lever would save 1000 people and kill 10. But we would also be committing an act of murder. Since we decided to take action.

There's no solution here without breaking some moral societal rule. But it's more acceptable to pull the lever in this case because even though you have to live with the fact that you decided to pull the lever, the amount of lives saved is worth it. The act of practically committing murder is excused in some way.

In the organ transplant problem you have an unwilling person who could save three persons with their organs. But it would kill the donor in the process. (Or perhaps 10 people who could save 1000 people if that's even possible) Should a doctor kill the organ donor to save the lives of three people?

Killing the organ donor would be murder just like pulling the lever would be. But this decision has a wider range of consequences for society as a whole. It would undermine the justice and healthcare system in a major way. This is why it's seen as unethical and not desired at all.

There are all kinds of tweaks you could make that would change your perspective and the best outcome. What if the doctor was never found out? What if the three persons on the track are already old and close to death?

It all depends on the circumstances in my opinion. There are no easy or clear cut answers to this question.

You explained the flaw really well.

 

[BlessedBeTheFlame]

Listen, all I'm saying is if we kill 10 billionaires, then we can get more than 1000 out of it.