Quote:
Originally Posted by tapu
I haven't been able to address this in strict terms of morality. I guess if I were operating from a Utilitarian viewpoint, I would save the 5, regardless of the extra condition(s) we are playing with.
It's a different thing to say "This is what I would want to do," than it is to answer the question of what is the moral thing to do. Sure, the two approaches bear on each other but you need a moral argument that can hold as a general principal for the latter, such as "creates the greatest good for the most people."
It may be impossible or at least very difficult and subjective to decide how to measure the greatest good, but regardless, internally you would be following a defined moral principle.
(I know: thread killer.)
|
I realized after I posted that instead of referring to an anonymous bystander, I subconsciously substituted myself in that roll and answered from the first person "what *I* would do"
Because that is how I process these type of questions; I can not have an expectation of someone else (whether hypothetical or not) that I would not place on myself. So to examine the ethics of a question, I filter it first through my experience and beliefs (morality).
My answer remains the same, however, regardless whether tis I or an anonymous bystander; because my answer is not based on an emotional response to "who" the people are (or aren't) - it is about the ethical obligation we have as human beings to act rather than to stand by and let things happen.
I think an interesting side discussion would be the distinction between ethics and morals - because while they appear interchangeable as synonyms there are key differences that impact how we view and respond to this train scenario.
Interesting thread, Nat, thanks!
Not a thread killer, Tapu.
