Moral Sense and Perspective

[Alex_G]

Based on some research being conducted at Harvard University, i wanted to ask the forum a couple of moral questions out of curiosity.

2 scenarios will be presented below, and i would like you to answer the 2 questions that follow each. Please try and answer as honestly as u can.



1. Six workmen have just finished repairing the train tracks inside a narrow, glass tunnel. Five workmen are nearing the exit of the tunnel, but one workman, Steve, is still packing up his tools and is lagging behind. Suddenly, they notice a train is entering the tunnel and heading straight for them. There is not time for any of the workmen to escape through the end of the tunnel, but Steve is standing right by a small exit door and he has time to escape. Paul, a bystander, happens to be watching the events unfold from outside the tunnel. He realizes that the only way to save the five workmen nearing the end of the tunnel is to use Steve’s large body to slow down the train, giving the five workmen time to escape. If Steve escapes through the side door, the other five workmen will be killed by the train. Paul decides that he should help the five workmen.

Steve pushes on the door to open it and escape, but Paul pushes back in order to keep him trapped inside the tunnel. Both men push on the door with equal force, and the door remains shut.



Qa. Does it feel more natural to say the train is approaching from the left or the right?
Qb. How morally wrong do you think it is for Paul to to keep the door shut? (Scale of 1-10 with 1 being not wrong at all and 10 being very wrong).




2. A ship has just collided with a jagged rock, and one of the rooms is quickly taking on water. Jack is currently in the room that is filling with water. Bill and five others are in an adjacent room separated from Jack’s room by a heavy waterproof door. The only way for Jack to escape the room is to push open the door and enter Bill’s room. However, Bill knows that if the seal to the door is broken, it will be very difficult to reseal and everyone might die. Bill decides that he must ensure the safety of the five others.

Jack pushes on the door to open it, but Bill pushes back against the door to keep it sealed. Both men push on the door with equal force, and the door remains shut.

Qa. Does it feel more natural to say the ocean is to the left or the right of the rooms?
Qb. How morally wrong do you think it is for Bill to keep the door shut? (Scale of 1-10 with 1 being not wrong at all and 10 being very wrong).




I think alot of how we act, and what underpins our moral sensibilities lie in our capacity to empathise with others. To connect on a very real level, by means of mirror neurones, we do in part share the experiences, pains and pleasures of those around us.
Now not to say that this empathetic drive is all the guidance and justification needed, as evident by our unfortunate lack of empathy when the problems are far away from us, out of sight and out of mind, such as troubles in 3rd world countries.

However i think this little test is quite clever in trying to elicit who you are empathising with in each scenario by asking a question of spatial orientation, and subsequently how your moral sense of the given scenario might vary accordingly.

(ps. sorry for the frack loads of text, and yes i am currently watching Battlestar Galactica)

Alex

(Source moral.wjh.harvard.edu/)

 

[bobhikes]

Question 1
Qa Left
Qb Paul is definately 10

Question 2
Qa Neither (thinking Up and Down)
Qb Bill is a 10 also

The problem I have with both questions is that they are judgement calls I don't believe in either one that by killing the one person I can save the 5 people. If it is a judgement call and not a fact then it is morally wrong in my book. I'm left handed.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

1.a neither - it is clearly coming from the top - I empathise with neither of the parties nor place themselves in their shoes.
1.b about a 7; though on an intellectually wrong scale it is a 10

2.a I am inclined to say it is to the right, though that is an admittedly weak position due to my (somewhat limited) empathy for bill
2.b about a 3; though the intellectually wrong scale is indeterminable due to the lack of exits

 

[Badran]

Thank you for posting these questions Alex, they made me think quite a lot, because i always review my stance regarding such scenarios, since i think its quite important.

1) Qa- Neither.

Qb- At first i was going to say 10, because i think its completely wrong. However i put in consideration what people think when they're acting, and the fact that the death of the five others is certain in this case (which is what i understood), so with putting in mind that Paul honestly thought he was doing the right thing in these circumstances (the certainty of the death), i would say 7 or 8.

I think this is very wrong because Paul didn't create this situation, so while there is certainty in the death of someone, he still shouldn't have made this kind of decision, as i don't think this kind of authority or assumed responsibility is good for the person making it, or society as a whole, and i also think its unfair, or at least questionable, since i don't think making the decision of saying that five lives are worth more than one is very good, healthy or accurate. I think a certain level of compassion and impracticality so to speak is needed for us to strive, and this kind of decision is totally far from that level, in my view.

However, just to clarify, if say the scenario was that either the six die for certain, or only one, all with absolute certainty, it would have been different. Since then you wouldn't have denied the one who was about to escape with his life, you have just saved five, since it doesn't make sense to let them all die. In other words they were all dead for sure, you just saved five.

2) Qa- Both, at one point while reading i imagined it on the right, then when imagining bill pushing the door i imagined it on the left (the ocean that is, meaning that in the second part i imagined Bill being in the room on the right).

Qb- 9 or 10.

Two reasons, one, what i said above applies here too, even though i realize that the life of the person making the decision is also at stake in this scenario. I don't think that makes any difference because none of those involved are responsible for this happening (let alone that i would require it to be actually willingly responsible for that decision to ever be understandable), and so making such decision would be in my view unfair and assuming too much responsibility. The second reason i think this is so wrong for is because i don't think such decisions should be made with any percent of uncertainty. If there is the slightest possibility to save all those involved, then i think we should all aim at saving the one trapped, even if it means risking all our lives. There is an emotional aspect to it, but not all of it. The emotional aspect is simply that i'm disgusted by the idea of a world where people would be so practical and much more oriented on the 'we' than the 'i'. Or the society as a whole against the individual.

I think when we know there's a chance, we should seek it, because we simply don't know. We can save everyone involved, and so i should focus my effort on that rather than getting practical and taking the safer rout. Its best in my view because i think both individuals and society as a whole get more with this mentality. We get to save everyone in some cases, and we get to value each and everyone of us, even when we fail in such scenarios, since we know that those people did not 'die in vain', neither would they consider their death to be in vain assuming they have this mentality.

Society as a whole including the individuals in it would be as compassionate with this mentality as we need to be in my view, and as i feel towards it, to strive. This is also based on the fact that when i think of strive, or success, i think of a life well spent, rather than one longly spent. One that is spent according to the things we feel and think is right for everybody, rather than those we think are in our best interests in only certain terms, that fail to see what i perceive as greater things in life.

 

[Reptillian]

I looked at it from all points of view in both scenarios, but initially from the the workers perspective and from Jack's. I think both were wrong 10 because their reasoning was flawed in each case. In the first one, there is no way a guy's body is going to slow down a train...I mean how fat would you have to be to stop a train by having it run into you? It sounds like the premise to a "yo mamma's so fat" joke. Paul doomed all the guys in the tunnel. Similarly, in the second one...if one guy can push back and keep it closed, then all of them should be able to let the other fellow into the safe room and they should be able to work together to push it closed easily.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Remember that the number scale was referring to their morality, not to their stupidity (such as thinking a fat guy will slow down a train or that five people would survive in an enclosed space underwater for any significant length of time even if it was water tight)

 

[Reptillian]

Remember that the number scale was referring to their morality, not to their stupidity (such as thinking a fat guy will slow down a train or that five people would survive in an enclosed space underwater for any significant length of time even if it was water tight)

Ah, but I think that knowledge and morality go hand in hand. I think we all have a moral obligation to educate ourselves. Some philosophers go so far as to say that ignorance is the root most evil...people want to do good, but don't know what the good thing to do is.

 

[Badran]

I think and i may be wrong, that the first scenario is intended to mean "assuming" there is certainty of death, and assuming certainty of saving the lives of the five men. And in the second that this certainty is not there, at least regarding the possibility of their survival even with allowing the door to be open.

Like i said though, i could be wrong.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Ah, but I think that knowledge and morality go hand in hand. I think we all have a moral obligation to educate ourselves. Some philosophers go so far as to say that ignorance is the root most evil...people want to do good, but don't know what the good thing to do is.

I see, my apologies then - I misunderstood your scoring to represent a misunderstanding (lol) as opposed to the result of your philosophical position on morality.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Some philosophers go so far as to say that ignorance is the root most evil...people want to do good, but don't know what the good thing to do is.

Other than Plato's depiction of Socrates, whon are you referring to?

 

[Reptillian]

I see, my apologies then - I misunderstood your scoring to represent a misunderstanding (lol) as opposed to the result of your philosophical position on morality.

No worries.

In the first scenario, assuming that throwing a body in front of the train would slow it down, the guy is still wrong to hold it closed and decide that the one guy should die. He should pull the one fellow through the door and cast himself in front of the train.

In the second scenario, the guy should see what the others in the room want to do, see if they're willing to risk their lives to save the trapped man. If the water was rising fast and there was a whole ship full of people to keep safe, then he'd be right to keep the door sealed. It would be wrong to risk the lives of others without their consent.

In both cases a big problem for me is that one man is taking away the choices of others and setting himself up as the arbiter of right and wrong...choosing who lives and dies.

Other than Plato's depiction of Socrates, whon are you referring to?

I was mainly thinking of Plato. I think Kant's ethical philosophy was somewhat similar if I remember correctly. He thought of good as being dependent on reasoning. For example, animals act out of stimulus/response and don't set out to do good, but rational beings can analyze situations and make ethical choices. Evil for Kant has its roots in a kind of irrationality or illogic.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

He thought of good as being dependent on reasoning.

There is a difference, I think, in proposing that "the good" may be determined through reason, and that evil is the result of people who

people want to do good, but don't know what the good thing to do is.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

1a - Left
1b - 9 out of 10

2a - Left
2b - 2 out of 10

 

[Orias]

Question 1A: Left
Question 1B: 5

Question 2A: Left
Question 2B: 5

I don't see morality playing any role in this at all. In both scenarios people will die, so I guess its subject to who likes who better or who is easier to save.

I think the best test to try and understand human morality would be to have someone think (or actually do) that they actually killed someone and record their reaction.

Of course, this notion in itself can be considered "immoral". Thats just the way things work though, to find out what is moral you find out what "isn't".

If you vomit after killing someone, maybe your moral or just a puss. If you deprive a world of resources, then your just downright immoral.

In the end, killing and death will never be justified and are weak variables to plug into the "moral" equation.