Questions of Ethics

[Semantics]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

But isn't that as much a choice as flipping the switch? Barring some change in the laws of physics, *someone* is going to die. The question is whether we would choose for five people to die or one person to die. No matter what choice we make, someone dies though. So flipping the switch is a choice to take a positive action resulting in the death of one person and not flipping the switch is a choice to take a negative (i.e. a null action) action resulting in the deaths of five people.

Unless, of course, I'm missing something.

Cheers
Aj

You didn't miss anything. It is as much of a choice as flipping the switch but one I feel I could live with and one I could not. Unless I was the person who would be killed I could not flip the switch and cause the death of a person even to save five other people.

This isn't the first time I've had a similar scenario posed to me, and I can't make a different decision and feel comfortable with it. I have to reject utilitarianism in this situation. Sometimes good intentions lead to horrible consequences. In that outlined scenario we have a basic amount of information and it's not enough for me. We know that by the numbers there will be less death, but do we really know if this means the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people?

I understand where my position breaks from the most popular and seemingly logical position, and I also understand the arguments against my response.

Originally Posted by tapu

RE: Semantics/Dreadgeek posts

This is leading us to the question in the Jesus and the boats joke. How much does the person consider themselves to be an "agent"? Which really gets at self-determination vs. God's plan. If God's plan is that you act, and save 5 while sacrificing 1, then you act. If the plan is that you don't, you don't.

If that is a person's stance, then morality becomes a fiction.

I'm not sure why you addressed me here because I said nothing of factoring in God's plan.

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

Yes, I agree with you AJ that using someone as an "instrument" isn't a morally defensible act. Another way to talk about this is to put it in terms of means and ends. The end is the outcome, the means is the way to get to the outcome. My belief is that human beings are ends in themselves, i.e. have value apart from what they can be used for in terms of actualizing a particular end result. So it can be said that it is not morally defensible to treat a person as a purely a means to some other end, and not an end in her/himself.

Is sacrificing a person using them as a means to an end?

The person standing near the switch had nothing to do with causing anyone to be on the tracks. They are all there of their own free will. The fact that a larger quantity of life would be saved doesn't take away the fact that I am now responsible for ending one life, even if in terms of numbers the human race comes out ahead.