Trolley Problem (sf WW 1/2)

[Ian Murray]

WW2 was a terrible waste of life which all sides of the conflicts must bare responsibility.
The USA and Russia both should not have fought the Germans, they should have stood up for peace and not killing by refusing to fight.

The Trolley Problem: Is sacrificing one life to save the lives of many others the best possible outcome?

[Scott Colliver]

Ian please explain to me how your post has anything to do with WW2

[Ian Murray]

Ian please explain to me how your post has anything to do with WW2

It is pertinent to your eschewing of killing at war

[Scott Colliver]

It is pertinent to your eschewing of killing at war

So nothing directly to do with WW2

[b.nancarrow]

So nothing directly to do with WW2

It's the principle.

[Ian Murray]

So nothing directly to do with WW2

Minor thread drift has always been permissible. Refer to Mod if you need direction

[Ian Murray]

It's the principle.

Quite

[Scott Colliver]

If a fat man can stop the train then I am a fat man so I should jump off the bridge and stop the train.

[Ian Murray]

If a fat man can stop the train then I am a fat man so I should jump off the bridge and stop the train.

That is not an option. You must face the moral dilemma - do you sacrifice one life to save five, or not? There is no right or wrong answer - open choice question.

[Patrick Byrom]

It is pertinent to your eschewing of killing at war

Is it worth killing one German soldier to save the lives of a thousand people in a concentration camp, for example?

[Ian Murray]

Is it worth killing one German soldier to save the lives of a thousand people in a concentration camp, for example?

The Trolley Dilemma, writ large. The dilemma has occupied philosophers for decades. One the one hand, obviously saving 1000 seems the greater good. But does the observer have the right to take a life, any life?

[Scott Colliver]

The trolley problem and other scenarios mentioned in this thread try to justify killing by weighing it against a number of lives saved.

However I do not think that anything justifies killing no matter how many lives are wieghed against it. You could put the whole population of the earth against killing and the killing would still be wrong. The end, saving lives, just does not justify the means, killing.

[Ian Murray]

The trolley problem and other scenarios mentioned in this thread try to justify killing by weighing it against a number of lives saved.

However I do not think that anything justifies killing no matter how many lives are wieghed against it. You could put the whole population of the earth against killing and the killing would still be wrong. The end, saving lives, just does not justify the means, killing.

Nonsense. You (the observer in the Trolley Problem) don't have to kill anyone; you can do nothing and let fate take its course. The five workers will die, but you didn't kill them.

It's a thought experiment which has occupied philosophers for over 50 years, e.g.

The trolley problem problem
Could There Be A Solution To The Trolley Problem?

[Scott Colliver]

Nonsense. You (the observer in the Trolley Problem) don't have to kill anyone; you can do nothing and let fate take its course. The five workers will die, but you didn't kill them.

It's a thought experiment which has occupied philosophers for over 50 years, e.g.

The trolley problem problem
Could There Be A Solution To The Trolley Problem?

You mentioned the trolley problem to try and get me to change my mind about killing people. That is what I meant.

[antichrist]

You mentioned the trolley problem to try and get me to change my mind about killing people. That is what I meant.

You or anyone could kill some one just by driving - so should we all stop driving? Because of environmental problems i don't mind motor vehicles being phased out.