Morality

[SGOS]

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

You must not push anyone in front of the train (Thou shalt not kill).  The only clear option is to do nothing.  Jesus will stop the train and save the 5 people.  Or if he doesn't, it's because we do not understand God's plan.  We are mortals and cannot understand God's perfection, because he is almighty.

[Mike Cl]

You must not push anyone in front of the train (Thou shalt not kill).  The only clear option is to do nothing.  Jesus will stop the train and save the 5 people.  Or if he doesn't, it's because we do not understand God's plan.  We are mortals and cannot understand God's perfection, because he is almighty.

Damn, Sgos, you have just displayed priestly abilities and judgement.  You will now be addressed as Holy Sgos.  I bow to your saintlyness. 

[SGOS]

Damn, Sgos, you have just displayed priestly abilities and judgement. 

I'm just practicing because I plan to start a new church.  I figure that's where the easy money is, and I'm sick of paying taxes.

[Sal1981]

Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

I would choose 3, making up ridiculous hypotheticals to further display my ignorance & lack of understanding Harm and Pain to move goal-posts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voJmOYyI-T0

[Shiranu]

Just a quick question for atheists out there.  Also, I am confident that many of you have faced this question before, so I expect to hear a lot of replies.   For the atheist, where does one get their morals from?  If something is truly wrong, then why is it truly wrong?  Thanks

I am far too lazy to browse the 10 pages of responses at 8:00 in the morning (since I have been up over 21 hours now), but for me I "get" my morality from a desire to not harm others. I don't need someone or something to tell me that's what I find moral, that simply is how I feel. That said, I do find that "religions" like Buddhism do help make better arguments than just "this is how I feel", and I am a fan of some of the philosophy that came from German writers like Hesse and Nietzsche.

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

I would rather jump down infront of the train myself and motion as furiously as I could for it to slow down and jump out of the way at the last second. The size of the man is irrelevant; a train driver is going to slow down be it a 300 lb man or a 10 year old little girl. The "large man" part of it, to me anyways, feels like a cheap way of implying that his life is less important. I think it says far more about the person who would create such a question than the answerer.

[Mike Cl]

I would not push the big man in front of the train because he is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer.  And the 5 guys in the car on the tracks were trying to make a getaway from bombing an elementary school.

[Qchan]

I would choose 3, making up ridiculous hypotheticals to further display my ignorance & lack of understanding Harm and Pain to move goal-posts.

There is no "3". The idea of the question is to show you the fact that morality clearly has shades of grey that cannot be quantified.

[doorknob]

The problem with your statement qchan is that there is always a 3rd 4rth 5th and so on options IRL. It's out side of the box thinking that can save all the lives not limited thinking which most likely will not stop the train and kill an additional innocent man.

[Qchan]

I am far too lazy to browse the 10 pages of responses at 8:00 in the morning (since I have been up over 21 hours now), but for me I "get" my morality from a desire to not harm others. I don't need someone or something to tell me that's what I find moral, that simply is how I feel. That said, I do find that "religions" like Buddhism do help make better arguments than just "this is how I feel", and I am a fan of some of the philosophy that came from German writers like Hesse and Nietzsche.

I would rather jump down infront of the train myself and motion as furiously as I could for it to slow down and jump out of the way at the last second. The size of the man is irrelevant; a train driver is going to slow down be it a 300 lb man or a 10 year old little girl. The "large man" part of it, to me anyways, feels like a cheap way of implying that his life is less important. I think it says far more about the person who would create such a question than the answerer.

Actually, this was a previous study created by psychologists in order to understand the morality of a psychopath.  Most psychopaths would simply push the man in front of the train if that meant saving the 5 people up the rail. Most people who are not psychopathic, however, would not push the man. In fact, they would do nothing and would let the 5 people die. Now, the real question is "why?"

Scientists say that psychopaths lack that emotional connection in their brains. Therefore, their actions do not invoke an emotional response. However, most people _do_ have that emotional connection, but even if they had the choice to save the 5 people, they refuse to directly involve themselves in the death of _any_ person. Of course, that realization invokes another "why?"

What is it inside a human being that prevents them from saving 5 people at the expense of 1 person? Why would pushing a person to their death invoke such an emotional response that they'd risk the death of even more people? This is what science cannot explain... However, many people here can.

So, here's my question, I suppose. Could you explain this?

[TrueStory]

Harm is quantifiable? Let me ask this question then, so I can _measure_ where your morals lie...

A train is speeding down a track. Further up the track, there are 5 people stuck on the rail and cannot get free. However, several hundred feet between the train and the people, you and a very large man are standing on a platform above the rail. Here are your choices.

1) Push the man in front of the train, forcing it to slow down or stop, and thus saving the 5 people.
2) Do nothing and let the train kill the 5 people.

Those are the only choices. Which one would you choose?

How does this measure morality?

[Solomon Zorn]

It doesn't measure a thing. It's the fucking kobayashi maru from Star Trek II. A no-win scenario. Is that the best we can do for a moral dilemma?

I don't think we need outlandish hypothetical situations, to show that "harm'" is difficult to quantify sometimes.

"Do taxes harm the rich?" is a dilemma that comes up a lot.

[Qchan]

It doesn't measure a thing. It's the fucking kobayashi maru from Star Trek II. A no-win scenario. Is that the best we can do for a moral dilemma?

I don't think we need outlandish hypothetical situations, to show that "harm'" is difficult to quantify sometimes.

"Do taxes harm the rich?" is a dilemma that comes up a lot.

I find it interesting that you refuse to dispute my claims, but rather, refute the phrase altogether.

Lets look at it this way. If morality is quantifiable, then that would mean morality is objective; meaning that the basic level of morality is agreed upon with everyone. Is this correct?

[missingnocchi]

Man, if you guys didn't outnumber Qchan then it would be obvious to anyone with a brain that the ones 'moving the goalposts' and honestly getting an embarrassing beatdown are you guys. Really? We can quantify harm? What's the unit, microhiroshimas?

[Solomon Zorn]

I find it interesting that you refuse to dispute my claims, but rather, refute the phrase altogether.

Lets look at it this way. If morality is quantifiable, then that would mean morality is objective; meaning that the basic level of morality is agreed upon with everyone. Is this correct?

I think you misunderstand me. Harm is not easily quantifiable, but we don't need ridiculous hypothetical situations to prove it. I suggest using a more mundane illustration.

[Qchan]

I think you misunderstand me. Harm is not easily quantifiable, but we don't need ridiculous hypothetical situations to prove it. I suggest using a more mundane illustration.

Oh, so you just disagree with my example. Why make such a big fuss if you agree with my premise?