Opinion Ask Janus!

Remove this Banner Ad

Pappagallo said:
This is just a variation of the classic trolley problem. It’s a crafted ethical dilemma and definitely not a psychopath test.
Click to expand...

“The team from Columbia Business School and Cornell Universities gave participants a set of moral dilemmas, and also asked them to complete three personality tests: one for assessing psychopathic traits, one assessing Machiavellian traits, and one assessing whether they believed life was meaningful.”

The problem isn’t the test. It’s just that those who answer it a certain way have a high chance of being psychopathic, because those who answered it that way in the study were also found to be psychopathic by means of a separate personality test.
 
Magpiespower said:
That was almost me, lol.

But the day of my Mum’s funeral I told the fam to keep my sister away from me or I was gonna push her and her wheelchair in front of the bus that went by the funeral home.

Still disappointed she didn’t fake faint when I read the eulogy, tho, that little bet cost me a hundred bucks farken...
Click to expand...

But did you push the fat bloke into the path of the tram or make like a Hare and pretend you weren’t there?

BFE1546B-EFB3-4785-8BBA-B051988A6046.jpeg
 
Janus said:
“The team from Columbia Business School and Cornell Universities gave participants a set of moral dilemmas, and also asked them to complete three personality tests: one for assessing psychopathic traits, one assessing Machiavellian traits, and one assessing whether they believed life was meaningful.”

The problem isn’t the test. It’s just that those who answer it a certain way have a high chance of being psychopathic, because those who answered it that way in the study were also found to be psychopathic by means of a separate personality test.
Click to expand...

What answer is the “certain way” in this particular thought experiment? Watch everyone on the tram die and then push the guy off the bridge for kicks?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Pappagallo said:
What answer is the “certain way” in this particular thought experiment? Watch everyone on the tram die and then push the guy off the bridge for kicks?
Click to expand...

Nah...just pushing him off the bridge. People who believe that the ends justify the means and have no problem in committing murder in order to do so are generally psychopathic. Because even though five people will die, and it will be traumatic...you didn’t kill them.
 
Janus said:
Nah...just pushing him off the bridge. People who believe that the ends justify the means and have no problem in committing murder in order to do so are generally psychopathic. Because even though five people will die, and it will be traumatic...you didn’t kill them.
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculously simplistic analysis.

The whole point of the dilemma is that you have the power over who lives and dies. There is no “clean” way out of it. Even if you don’t push the guy your inaction still dictates what happens to the other five. Your mere presence and ability to influence the outcome means you’re involved.

Let’s take it up a level. Say your wife and four kids are the five people on the tram. Are you a psychopath for sacrificing one stranger in order to save your family?
 
Pappagallo said:
That is a ridiculously simplistic analysis.

The whole point of the dilemma is that you have the power over who lives and dies. There is no “clean” way out of it. Even if you don’t push the guy your inaction still dictates what happens to the other five. Your mere presence and ability to influence the outcome means you’re involved.

Let’s take it up a level. Say your wife and four kids are the five people on the tram. Are you a psychopath for sacrificing one stranger in order to save your family?
Click to expand...

Different story - you have an emotional attachment to the people on the tram.

Psychopathy is displayed by a lack of emotion. And no, you wouldn’t be responsible through your inaction - the people who operate the tram and the company that built it without failsafes would be.

The desire to control outcomes that are out of your control is also a sign of psychopathy. It feeds into their thoughts that the universe revolves around their actions.
 
Pappagallo said:
Let’s take it up a level. Say your wife and four kids are the five people on the tram. Are you a psychopath for sacrificing one stranger in order to save your family?
Click to expand...
And what if the one stranger is Ken Hinkley and if you don’t kill him you might win a premiership?
 
Janus said:
Different story - you have an emotional attachment to the people on the tram.

Psychopathy is displayed by a lack of emotion. And no, you wouldn’t be responsible through your inaction - the people who operate the tram and the company that built it without failsafes would be.

The desire to control outcomes that are out of your control is also a sign of psychopathy. It feeds into their thoughts that the universe revolves around their actions.
Click to expand...

The question is not if you’re legally responsible but whether you have a moral obligation to do something.

The original problem is a tram on the main line is about to kill 5 people on the track, but you have the opportunity to switch it to a siding but that will still kill one person. It has nothing to do with a faulty tram. It simply poses a dilemma - do nothing and five people die, do something and one person dies.

P.S. You can make the decision to kill one person in order to save five AND feel bad about it i.e. emotion ergo not a psychopath.
 
Last edited:
Pappagallo said:
The question is not if you’re legally responsible but whether you have a moral obligation to do something.

The original problem is a tram on the main line is about to kill 5 people on the track, but you have the opportunity to switch it to a siding but that will only kill one person. It has nothing to do with a faulty tram. It simply poses a dilemma - do nothing and five people die, do something and one person dies.

P.S. You can make the decision to kill one person in order to save five AND feel bad about it i.e. emotion ergo not a psychopath.
Click to expand...

Okay, put it this way:

You are a surgeon who specialises in organ transplants. You have five patients who are going to die if they don't each receive an organ: one patient requires a heart, two require one kidney each, one requires a liver and one requires a set of lungs.

By your definition, you would have a moral obligation to kill someone and harvest their organs in order to save the five people who are going to die. Are you telling me it's okay as long as you feel bad about it?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Janus said:
Psychopathy is displayed by a lack of emotion. And no, you wouldn’t be responsible through your inaction - the people who operate the tram and the company that built it without failsafes would be.
Click to expand...
If I were given the option to save 1 life or 4 lives, I would save 0 lives and blame someone else.

PS. I am not a psychopath
 
Janus said:
But if you want a real test, here’s one:

You are standing on a bridge over a tram track. In the distance, you see a tram that has lost control and is going too fast for the bend just beyond the bridge...which would result in the 5 people on board being killed.

The only way to save them is to stop the tram by placing something with enough mass to activate the emergency collision system. You aren’t heavy enough...but you are standing next to a large man who is leaning over the rail of the bridge watching the horror unfold.

Do you push the man onto the tracks, killing him...or do you let 5 people die?
Click to expand...
I first need to know if we're on the Gawler Line or not.
 
Janus said:
Okay, put it this way:

You are a surgeon who specialises in organ transplants. You have five patients who are going to die if they don't each receive an organ: one patient requires a heart, two require one kidney each, one requires a liver and one requires a set of lungs.

By your definition, you would have a moral obligation to kill someone and harvest their organs in order to save the five people who are going to die. Are you telling me it's okay as long as you feel bad about it?
Click to expand...
Deploy the moveable goalposts NOW!
 
Janus said:
Okay, put it this way:

You are a surgeon who specialises in organ transplants. You have five patients who are going to die if they don't each receive an organ: one patient requires a heart, two require one kidney each, one requires a liver and one requires a set of lungs.

By your definition, you would have a moral obligation to kill someone and harvest their organs in order to save the five people who are going to die. Are you telling me it's okay as long as you feel bad about it?
Click to expand...

I didn’t say you have a moral obligation to save the five over the one, that’s up to the individual to decide. That’s the dilemma! But if you did you’re not necessarily a psychopath and many would argue that you in fact did “the right thing” all things considered.

In your scenario the five people are already sick and likely to die of natural causes, whereas the five people on the track are presumably healthy and would be suffering an untimely death. That’s a pretty important ethical variable yeah?
 
Pappagallo said:
In your scenario the five people are already sick and likely to die of natural causes, whereas the five people on the track are presumably healthy and would be suffering an untimely death. That’s a pretty important ethical variable yeah?
Click to expand...
Maybe we were the psychopath test all along
 
Butters Made Me Do It said:
And what if the one stranger is Ken Hinkley and if you don’t kill him you might win a premiership?
Click to expand...

And what if there's no other family and the question is just would you push Ken Hinkley in front of an oncoming train?
 
Pappagallo said:
I didn’t say you have a moral obligation to save the five over the one, that’s up to the individual to decide. That’s the dilemma! But if you did you’re not necessarily a psychopath and many would argue that you in fact did “the right thing” all things considered.

In your scenario the five people are already sick and likely to die of natural causes, whereas the five people on the track are presumably healthy and would be suffering an untimely death. That’s a pretty important ethical variable yeah?
Click to expand...

So your value on life is predicated on whether someone is sick or not? If they get the organs, they will be healthy.

The right thing is subjective. But in one scenario, you murder someone to save five others.

In the other, you watch five people die, sure. But you don’t murder them. People die all the time, you know. Those five people could have cancer, or choke on a hotdog, or drown...all in the space of the next week.

The reason why you think it’s okay to murder someone to save five others is the very reason why the world is the way it is today. A warped sense of morality.

In a moral world, the fat man would jump in front of the tram and there wouldn’t be a dilemma at all.
 
Janus said:
So your value on life is predicated on whether someone is sick or not? If they get the organs, they will be healthy.

The right thing is subjective. But in one scenario, you murder someone to save five others.

In the other, you watch five people die, sure. But you don’t murder them. People die all the time, you know. Those five people could have cancer, or choke on a hotdog, or drown...all in the space of the next week.

The reason why you think it’s okay to murder someone to save five others is the very reason why the world is the way it is today. A warped sense of morality.

In a moral world, the fat man would jump in front of the tram and there wouldn’t be a dilemma at all.
Click to expand...

Stop trying to take the moral high ground on this because there isn’t one by design.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Opinion Ask Janus!

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top