|
Post by nils on Feb 22, 2009 13:10:27 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
- 2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
best wishes from Sweden nils
|
|
|
Post by wrench on Feb 22, 2009 13:54:44 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
- 2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
best wishes from Sweden nils what ever jane does, or doesn't do, she'll be doing the correct thing.
|
|
|
Post by D.E.E. on Feb 22, 2009 15:38:43 GMT -6
Not a real question, so no answer. If I had to make the decision then I would be there in the moment and would make a decision at that time. If she had time to switch the tracks why did she not have time to yell or in some way gain attention of one of the two groups.
|
|
|
Post by Elric of Melnibone on Feb 22, 2009 15:42:39 GMT -6
Jane walks over to both groups and points out the train. Both groups leave the track. Jane does a good deed for the day.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 22, 2009 16:16:39 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
- 2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
best wishes from Sweden nils why is this a moral dilemma of any proportion?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 16:25:56 GMT -6
1) I think Jane should do nothing, if Jane did nothing, 5 innocent people may die, but it is not at her hand, if she intervenes one will die, but it is because of her actions.
2) Of course not
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 16:36:23 GMT -6
Pick the group that has no liberals.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 22, 2009 16:40:35 GMT -6
Jane walks over to both groups and points out the train. Both groups leave the track. Jane does a good deed for the day. So simple
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Feb 22, 2009 16:43:57 GMT -6
Can we have the color of the conductor's hat, please?
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 18:15:17 GMT -6
1) I think Jane should do nothing, if Jane did nothing, 5 innocent people may die, but it is not at her hand, if she intervenes one will die, but it is because of her actions. 2) Of course not Agree
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 18:20:24 GMT -6
^ I agree too. If Jane could not save all the people, she should not be the one to choose who is to die
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 18:26:52 GMT -6
^ I agree too. If Jane could not save all the people, she should not be the one to choose who is to die Then why do you support execution, because many pros claim that exact reason for being proponents of the death penalty?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 18:32:48 GMT -6
I don't see the connection between executing murderers and not deciding which innocent person will die in an accident
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 18:50:00 GMT -6
I don't see the connection between executing murderers and not deciding which innocent person will die in an accident Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making?
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 22, 2009 18:51:22 GMT -6
Thats just like who do you give the organ too, or the seven people in a burning building situation..who do you save?
I'm with Kita on this.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 22, 2009 18:53:08 GMT -6
I don't see the connection between executing murderers and not deciding which innocent person will die in an accident Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making? ooh zinger. My answer: they chose that situation. If they don't want the dp don't kill anyone. If you don't want to get hit by a train don't play on traintracks. Unless someone wants to die....
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 18:59:09 GMT -6
I don't see the connection between executing murderers and not deciding which innocent person will die in an accident Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making? I don't see the death penalty as doing that. I see the death penalty as punishment for a specific aggravated murder. I am not basing my stance on what might happen in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel on Feb 22, 2009 19:01:04 GMT -6
Of course it's a totally ridiculous situation.
I agree with Missy.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:01:39 GMT -6
Many pros claim that the only way to insure that a murderer will not kill more innocent people is execution. You execute one person to save others, isn't that the choice that Jane is making? I don't see the death penalty as doing that. I see the death penalty as punishment for a specific aggravated murder. I am not basing my stance on what might happen in the future. So purely retributive, an eye for an eye, right?
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:05:32 GMT -6
Of course it's a totally ridiculous situation. I agree with Missy. Of course you do, why am I not surprised
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:06:42 GMT -6
Not necessarily
I agree with the DP in aggravated murder. Not all murders meet that standard
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:08:08 GMT -6
Not necessarily I agree with the DP in aggravated murder. Not all murders meet that standard We're talking about murders that are death penalty eligible, in that case you see the death penalty as purely retributive, right?
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 22, 2009 19:08:05 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
I believe most people take the latter, as would I. [/li][li]2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it? [/li][/ul] [/quote] ... and here most people let the five die. The former is detached, clinical, the latter a more direct confrontation with cause and effect. Although the end result is the same, the second scenario carries (for most people) a much closer sense of personal responsibility - a more direct engagement with killing. But there are problems here when we enlarge the dilemma out into (say) a for-against argument for the DP - which is your point. Personal responsibility here is hard because we are dealing with actors who are equal in status. The DP, all punishment, does not. For example, ask the above questions and replace 'man' with 'convicted murderer' and most people will chose to save the five innocents. Some won't, some will still balk, but most will. And they will do so regardless of the intervention of some sort of mechanic 'other' - in this case the 'state'. So, essentially, change the players and you have a pretty good argument for both deterrent and protection. After all, wouldn't you kill (execute) a murderer if you KNEW (as above) that it would save five innocents? There are other problems, but lets start here Nils.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:08:42 GMT -6
Of course it's a totally ridiculous situation. I agree with Missy. Of course you do, why am I not surprised That has been Linda's position for a long time now.
|
|
|
Post by Grey on Feb 22, 2009 19:11:17 GMT -6
I don't see the death penalty as doing that. I see the death penalty as punishment for a specific aggravated murder. I am not basing my stance on what might happen in the future. So purely retributive, an eye for an eye, right? no point in denying it. A life for a life. But, I question that because it is only for certain murders...so its only an eye for an eye if you fall under a certain category. Unless second degree murder can also be an eligable? Then I take back my previous statement.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:15:58 GMT -6
Not necessarily I agree with the DP in aggravated murder. Not all murders meet that standard We're talking about murders that are death penalty eligible, in that case you see the death penalty as purely retributive, right? I have faith in the criminal justice system and in the men and women who sacrifice their time to sit on juries. If their decision is LWOP, I respect their verdict
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:17:39 GMT -6
We're talking about murders that are death penalty eligible, in that case you see the death penalty as purely retributive, right? I have faith in the criminal justice system and in the men and women who sacrifice their time to sit on juries. If their decision is LWOP, I respect their verdict Good, non answer, Missy.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:19:03 GMT -6
Well Kay..I have not been in death penalty discussions for a long time and I don't view it that way or in that terms. Sorry to disappoint you.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 19:21:03 GMT -6
Well Kay..I have not been in death penalty discussions for a long time and I don't view it that way or in that terms. Sorry to disappoint you. Please explain to me how you view it then? I'd be interested to know. I mean obviously Linda understood your position, since she said she supported it, and you replied that has always been her position. So exactly what is the position that she agreed with you about?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 22, 2009 19:24:16 GMT -6
To me, the death penalty is appropriate punishment for aggravated murders. However, I am content with a LWOP sentence as long as it is true LWOP..in some cases but not all.
|
|