Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?

[Z Buck McFate]

Also:

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

From this Scientific American article.

If you answered in the affirmative to these questions, then you might be a utilitarian, the moral system founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and encapsulated in the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Modern utilitarianism is instantiated in the famous trolley thought experiment: You are standing next to a fork in a trolley track and a switch to divert a trolley car that is about to kill five workers unless you throw the switch and divert the trolley down a side track where it will kill one worker. Most people say that they would throw the switch—kill one to save five. The problem with utilitarianism is evidenced in another thought experiment: You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? If you answered yes, you might be a psychopathic murderer.​

Seemed like it might be good conversation fodder. Answer the questions. Or comment on the above paragraph. Whatever. I'm not the boss of you.


***

My own answers:

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life? It depends on what kind of day I'm having, and even moreso who the person is. My son? A solid yes. Betsy Devos? Not a fucking chance. Not even on a good day.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people? If I'm honest: I'd probably want to, but I don't know if I could. Maybe with a drill (or something in which I could cause pain/horror while looking the other way and going to my 'happy place'), but I'd need someone else to do the grilling/asking because I'd be going mental.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry? Eh.....pfft. I really don't know. Depends on so many things.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? Is the one healthy person Betsy Devos?...

 

[á´…eparted]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?

No. This is because I could not (mentally) survive physically disabled. I would rather not be alive. I also fear pain immensely and it would be impossible for me to do even if I wanted.


Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

This I need context. First, I would need A LOT of certainty torture would actually work; false confessions are a thing and I would expect that, and not a legitimate response. As a result, odds are no. If I knew it would work with no question, and the individual was the causitive agent? Yes, no hesitation. If the individual wasn't, only if the other party was extremely insistent and willing/ok that I do it, and the methods didn't cause long term damage (including psychological).


Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

This also needs context. Depends on the oppression, if so, I lean to yes, but only if they were properly repaid following it, and/or got the majority blessing.


You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five?

And this needs context too. Only with consent.

 

[Jaguar]

There was a time in this country of mine where many thought hanging black people from trees and setting them on fire was for "the greater good."
I wouldn't torture anyone, for any reason. I'm not wired for that nonsense.

 

[Snow as White]

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

No. What I think and what is reality aren't always the same, so just because I think the info would help, doesn't mean it will.

One person, in the flesh, versus an abstract amount of people elsewhere.

I hate watching visceral torture scenes in tv shows. I can't imagine the hell being in that moment would be.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

No. Because that's just like my opinion, man. Also, again too subjective.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five?

Do no harm. No.

(And then the terrible side of me pipes up to point out that if these patients are dying of organ failure and this is caused by genetic reasons, then I'm sorry that they drew the bad genetic lottery number, but it isn't in the best interests of the whole to kill the one with good genes to prop the others up.)

 

[rav3n]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?

Nope but I might run into a burning building to save a loved one.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

Nope since the information from torture is suspect.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

Depends on how you perceive the blowing open of society to ensure for a reasonable level of equality. Bigots might consider this oppression since they're not freely allowed to express and act on their bigotry. But if you notice, this is game playing by them since it sets up a game they can't lose because people aren't allowed to combat bigotry.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? Is the one healthy person Betsy Devos?...

LMAO, so many yeses for Devos!!! But seriously, not without the healthy person's consent.

 

[Population: 1]

I posted this a while back in another thread about utilitarianism. One of my favorite characters sums up my feelings on the philosophy.

It’s a marvelous outlook as long as you or someone you care about isn’t being sacrificed for the ‘greater good’. Especially if the sacrifice is dealt with in abstracts say as numbers or percentages.

I believe it’s the reason the Bush Administration became so upset when CNN decided to air a special in 2003-2004 showing the faces and a brief description of the first 1000 or 2000 Americans killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. 2,000 KIA is a number, a statistic of shadow people. It’s easier to psychologically digest as long as the casualties weren’t friends or family. However giving an identity to those numbers has a real impact on the public. Utilitarianism can be a very dangerous belief. Depending on where you fit in the equation makes a big difference as to whether you’re a proponent or not.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

There was a time in this country of mine where many thought hanging black people from trees and setting them on fire was for "the greater good."

This is exactly what came to mind for me as well. "The greater good" is a dangerous expression.

 

[SD45T-2]

 

[Qlip]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?
Only for somebody close to me.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?
If I was sure they planted it, yes. If they didn't, no. I know torture provides questionable answers, but it's worth a try in certain cases.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?
No, but this is precisely the type of situation that makes me avoid being in charge of anything.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five?
No.

Been watching The Good Place lately or is Moral Philosophy just in the air?

 

[Tellenbach]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?

No, we all have to die sometime.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

Absolutely not, but I'm fine with enhanced interrogation like waterboarding.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

Depends on the nature of the oppression, the object of the oppression, and the nature of the well-being.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? Is the one healthy person Betsy Devos?...

No, that's too much work. I'd rather take a nap.

 

[rav3n]

The first question is a bit spiked, in that not everyone is willing to live one-legged. Depends on how greatly you value motility, relative to the quality of life.

 

[Lark]

Been watching The Good Place lately or is Moral Philosophy just in the air?

I thought that too while reading the thread.

My own responses to these questions, which are the sort of thing I spend a lot of time thinking about, tend to be really personal. Like I would only sacrifice a limb for to save the life of family, probably, I'm not sure about friends, I dont think acquaintances would get a look in, even if they were more than casual acquaintances, and strangers definitely not. I have only a few people that I'd regard as friends, being regular company or someone I like to spend time with doesnt even automatically qualify someone as a friend. Although those few are like family and I would make sacrifices for them and have done in the past.

I dont think I'd be any good as a torturer, even the people I think deserve to be the subject of any wrath I'm sure I'd be swift about it. So someone else would be more qualified for that than me, whether hundreds were in the balance or not.

The question about political oppression, I'd need to know what that meant, equally I'd need to know how or why it would increase the overall well-being of the citizenry. The example Jaguar gave of the lynchings or murder being considered for the "greater good" is not a bad example. The thing about the trolley problem that I do think is interesting is that if you closely examine a great deal of recent normative struggles the very best case rationale that you could give to them is precisely this one. Objectively every last one of them has, in some way, involved racing that trolley right over the group of five workers in the hope the one worker will be better off. Even by the morally dubious lights of the utilitarian "greatest happiness of the greatest number" all those campaigns of righteous indignation hopelessly fail.

As to the physician, no, absolutely not, I pretty much find those sorts of games of moral calculus to be pretty despicable.

To take another slant on utilitarianism you could simply ask do you really believe in the "too big to fail" explanation of the bankers crisis? If you are a utilitarian you've got to accept that failing to keep those responsible in the manner to which they have become accustomed, ie austerity for everyone else, will result in a scenario in which an even greater number may suffer. However, whether that will prevent similar or greater crisis occurring once again remains an open question.

 

[Lark]

The first question is a bit spiked, in that not everyone is willing to live one-legged. Depends on how greatly you value motility, relative to the quality of life.

I think its a practical example of being willing to sacrifice something of on going significance but you make a good point, perhaps there are people for whom its unlikely to be significant, I'd say for most people it would be.

 

[rav3n]

I think its a practical example of being willing to sacrifice something of on going significance but you make a good point, perhaps there are people for whom its unlikely to be significant, I'd say for most people it would be.

I'd give up my life first, over a leg.

 

[ceecee]

Also:

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

From this Scientific American article.

If you answered in the affirmative to these questions, then you might be a utilitarian, the moral system founded by English philosopher Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) and encapsulated in the principle of “the greatest good for the greatest number.”

Modern utilitarianism is instantiated in the famous trolley thought experiment: You are standing next to a fork in a trolley track and a switch to divert a trolley car that is about to kill five workers unless you throw the switch and divert the trolley down a side track where it will kill one worker. Most people say that they would throw the switch—kill one to save five. The problem with utilitarianism is evidenced in another thought experiment: You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? If you answered yes, you might be a psychopathic murderer.​

Seemed like it might be good conversation fodder. Answer the questions. Or comment on the above paragraph. Whatever. I'm not the boss of you.


***

My own answers:

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life? It depends on what kind of day I'm having, and even moreso who the person is. My son? A solid yes. Betsy Devos? Not a fucking chance. Not even on a good day.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people? If I'm honest: I'd probably want to, but I don't know if I could. Maybe with a drill (or something in which I could cause pain/horror while looking the other way and going to my 'happy place'), but I'd need someone else to do the grilling/asking because I'd be going mental.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry? Eh.....pfft. I really don't know. Depends on so many things.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? Is the one healthy person Betsy Devos?...

I LOLed at Betsy DeVos. Would I cut off my own leg if it was my babies/grandbabies/husband? Yes. Anyone else, probably not. Hard no for Betsy DeVos. The rest need context.

 

[Bush]

I'd definitely sacrifice it for my wife or kid, but probably not for anyone else. I've heard good things about prosthetics too.

I wouldn't torture based on what "I thought." If I knew, which is impossible, I'd do it if the tortured person was involved but wouldn't if they weren't.

I'd oppress people and stuff for the greater good for all including for those oppressed people, but it'd have to be a very good good. I mean, that sort of happened with the US Civil War. We suspended habeas corpus for a while, and then eventually we didn't have widespread slavery.

I wouldn't sacrifice a healthy person for five. We may as well kill half of our population to provide food for starving people all over the world.

 

[Avocado]

I'd definitely sacrifice it for my wife or kid, but probably not for anyone else. I've heard good things about prosthetics too.

I wouldn't torture based on what "I thought." If I knew, which is impossible, I'd do it if the tortured person was involved but wouldn't if they weren't.

I'd oppress people and stuff for the greater good for all including for those oppressed people, but it'd have to be a very good good. I mean, that sort of happened with the US Civil War. We suspended habeas corpus for a while, and then eventually we didn't have widespread slavery.

I wouldn't sacrifice a healthy person for five. We may as well kill half of our population to provide food for starving people all over the world.

Thanos from infinity war killed half the universe so there could be more food for the other half.

 

[ducks]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life? Probably not ever. It's my leg and unless I REALLY care about someone for whatever reason, it's staying attached to me.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people? Depends which one I like and which one I don't. I could be ambivalent about this or conflicted on which one to choose.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry? No. A child is not free, if it depends on its parents.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five? No. I don't believe in numerically valuing human life. Or at least I don't think it's that philosophically simple.

 

[Neal Caffreynated]

Would you cut off your own leg if it was the only way to save another person's life?

Well I guess it’d depend on the person - I definitely wouldn’t cut off my leg for someone I didn’t care about So it would have to be someone I like a lot, and then this person won’t be able refuse me anything, or I’d be like ”hey, I gave up a leg for ya”.

Would you torture someone if you thought it would result in information that would prevent a bomb from exploding and killing hundreds of people?

Of course not, I’m much too bright to resort to violence like that. I’d find where the bomb is myself (thanks to my brain), save the hundreds of people and I won’t need to torture anyone. If the guy planted the bomb I might knock him down though, but nothing too gory.

Would you politically oppress a people for a limited time if it increased the overall well-being of the citizenry?

No never, I just really don’t think oppressing people ever helped the well-being of the citizenry. Freedom matters too much.

You are a physician with five dying patients and one healthy person in the waiting room. Would you harvest the organs of the one to save the five?

Of course not, I’d made artificial organs to save the five dying patients I might also ask the healthy guy what's he doing here if he’s healthy btw.

 

[Abcdenfp]

I'd give up my life first, over a leg.

i am relieved to know im not the only person who feels this way.
amd im not sure why that is but im not prepared to lose a limb id rather just die