Here we go yo, what's the Scenario?: Pretend you are stranded in the middle of the ocean on a boat containing five people, including you. The boat suddenly starts to sink because it cannot support the weight of all five people. The only way to stop the sinking is to throw a three-hundred pound man over board, thus killing him. So, what do you do in this moral dilemma? Is it ethical to kill one to save four?
It's fucked up, I mean the guy is 300 pounds over-weight and probably wont be any help to the party when we make it to shore. Turns out that the boat is sinking and it's because of this guy weighing way too much. Options in panic mode Throw the man overboard with the help of the 4 other people. OR everyone but him starts to swim and he stays on the boat so we can ALL survive. More realistic, throw him overboard and hope that he can swim, and perhaps we can fix the boat. To answer the ethical question, well ethics must be thrown out the window in a drastic situation like this. If one were to be so against it, then they can throw themselves overboard and be a martyr. It's a do or die situation, 1 to save 4, unfortunately it's got to happen even though it's fucked up.
since youve only given us the only choice to throw the fattest guy overboard.... i mean the fatass should just sacrifice himself for the four of us. We shouldnt have to fight him and throw him overboard if he was a good person. and even if he didnt willfully go, yes its ethical to kill one to save four. If not all 5 lives are lost. 4 is more than 0.
Well, the boat would not "suddenly start to sink" because of the constant weight of five people. It would either sink or float the moment the weight was on it Ignoring that, no it is not ethical or moral to sacrifice one man, perhaps unwillingly, to save others. What makes any life more important than another? If he would do so willingly, then it would be a perfectly moral choice. Anything other than that is murder.
Sure, in this specific situation it seems most likely that the 300 lb man is either going to accept that he is going to be thrown off the boat; thus, choosing to get off willingly. Or, he does not accept and is thrown off by force. Maybe, all 4 people could get off the boat and float by its side and make sure it doesn't sink this way. However, in the manner you frame the scenario only two possible choices exist; either the over-weight individual dies or everyone perishes. This scenario is a special-case as are other situations; similiarities will exist but this does not mean that given other fundamentally different and complex circumstances the same type of action (killing one to save many or killing a few to save many) will take place. All I'm saying is that yeah maybe in this scenario one might have to die in order for more to be saved, but that doesn't mean you can take this relatively "simple" example to prove a bigger point. imo
Moral Dilemma #2--The Madman A madman who has threatened to explode several bombs in crowded areas has been apprehended. Unfortunately, he has already planted the bombs and they are scheduled to go off in a short time. It is possible that hundreds of people may die. The authorities cannot make him divulge the location of the bombs by conventional methods. He refuses to say anything and requests a lawyer to protect his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination. In exasperation, some high level official suggests torture. This would be illegal, of course, but the official thinks that it is nevertheless the right thing to do in this desperate situation. Do you agree? If you do, would it also be morally justifiable to torture the mad bomber’s innocent wife if that is the only way to make him talk? Why?
no, its unethical to torture. That said, what the fuck are ethics? They're concepts. Hundreds of dead bodies are real, not concepts. I would personally oppose the torture because i hold my own ethics, despite recognizing their entire lack of solidity. But from a fair viewpoint torturing his wife may appear less bad.
Thanks for the new scenario! I would rep you, but I gotta spread it around first. Personally, my opinion would be: Torture him. This is a dire strait situation. Seconds count, if the timer is on. So, do anything to find those bombs otherwise precious (and maybe your life) will be lost. His willingness to inflict death upon innocent men, women, and children is should indicate his total disregard for human life; then how much is his life worth? I would not involve the wife into this situation. The guy made the conscious choice of planting that bomb, the wife didn't (I assume).
You've already made a choice for us. I'm curious whether there was any ethical reason to choose who is thrown off the boat for us. Is it even possible to know that is the only choice before throwing people overboard? Sounds kind of like the fatman vs train riddle mixed up with this: R v Dudley and Stephens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Anyway, is it relevant who is chosen? I think it may be relevant because it denies anyone the opportunity to volunteer. tomorrow, a rescue might come. then one person dies for nothing. It is not ethical for him to explode several bombs. It is not ethical for me to torture people. If he's evil, he gives me false information to make me stop (and may have manipulated me into causing a public scandal). If he's mad, there might not even be a bomb. I am under no obligation to prevent people from acting unethically, and I do not own the blame for their behavior if I don't (or can't) prevent it. No one will point the finger at me if I don't torture him, but there will no doubt be people pointing fingers at me if I do (especially if it doesn't change the situation). I also don't think you can take the fifth if you haven't committed a crime yet. Possessing the bomb might not be a crime, and the result of the explosion is presumably yet to cause any crime. The threat might be a crime, but if he was interested in protection he shouldn't have confessed. It is at all times possible that hundreds of people may die. If I threaten an airborne plane, you shouldn't feel free to torture me just because the people on that plane might die. They might die whether there is a bomb or not. They're going to be six miles above the planet for awhile and the airline industry is getting more and more fucked every year. It would be fucked up if I made a false threat on a plane that ended up crashing but stranger things have happened. If there is truth to his willingness to kill people, why should torture change that? Especially on such a short timescale. Most likely you're an interrogator who reports to a superior and that person will probably not allow the torture to continue after the bombs go off, when it would just be to serve spite. If you would torture the mad man, why not his wife? At what point in your calculation did the ends stop justifying the means? The ends justifying the means is how we're justifying the torture in the first place, I presume.