Myself, I am not a utilitarian, but a deontologist. I would flip the switch, because I have been given the choice to choose between two different losses, inescapably, and I would try to minimize this loss. As for pushing someone else in front of the trolley, I could not abide someone doing that to me or a loved one, throwing us from relative safety into absolute disaster. So I would not do it to another. It is not my sacrifice to make.
As for throwing myself in front of the trolley…
I would want to. In the calm state I am in right now, I would do it. In the moment, there is a more than probable chance that fear will take hold and I would not sacrifice myself for five others. But in this scenario, I would probably be too stressed to think to throw another person into a train, let alone myself. So if we are taking the effects of stress out of my cognitive calculations, I will take the effects of stress out of my moral calculations.
I could not abide someone doing that to me or a loved one, throwing us from relative safety into absolute disaster. So I would not do it to another. It is not my sacrifice to make.
I could not abide myself or a loved one being killed on the track. What makes their lives so much less important.
But would you approve of someone else doing the same thing? Again to you or a love one?
But I am starting to see the problem with fighting the hypothetical. It leads to arguments and borrowed offense, thus allowing the argument to lead into perpetuity. I can hypotectical be able to endure or not endure anything hypotectically, but this doesn’t increase my rationality or utility.
This will conclude my posting on this page. Mayby OphanWilde’s discussion will be a more appropriate topic than the Unselfish Trolley Problem.
Myself, I am not a utilitarian, but a deontologist. I would flip the switch, because I have been given the choice to choose between two different losses, inescapably, and I would try to minimize this loss. As for pushing someone else in front of the trolley, I could not abide someone doing that to me or a loved one, throwing us from relative safety into absolute disaster. So I would not do it to another. It is not my sacrifice to make.
As for throwing myself in front of the trolley…
I would want to. In the calm state I am in right now, I would do it. In the moment, there is a more than probable chance that fear will take hold and I would not sacrifice myself for five others. But in this scenario, I would probably be too stressed to think to throw another person into a train, let alone myself. So if we are taking the effects of stress out of my cognitive calculations, I will take the effects of stress out of my moral calculations.
I would do it.
I could not abide myself or a loved one being killed on the track. What makes their lives so much less important.
But would you approve of someone else doing the same thing? Again to you or a love one?
But I am starting to see the problem with fighting the hypothetical. It leads to arguments and borrowed offense, thus allowing the argument to lead into perpetuity. I can hypotectical be able to endure or not endure anything hypotectically, but this doesn’t increase my rationality or utility.
This will conclude my posting on this page. Mayby OphanWilde’s discussion will be a more appropriate topic than the Unselfish Trolley Problem.