ETHICS?? YOU'VE GOT TO BE KIDDING!
It has come to my attention that some of my readers who are in college have found themselves in classes that, for some unknown and bizarre reason known only to the gods, purport to teach, get this, ethics. And, being naturally desirous of knowing my great wisdom on the matter, have asked me about a couple of problems that they are presented.
The first is a new one, something no one had the humor to come up with when I was a student back in the stone age, largely because railroads had not yet been invented. In this problem, there is a train coming very fast, too fast to stop. If it is allowed to go on the track that it is running on, it will squish five people. If it is diverted to the other track it will kill only one person. The question to the student is what to do, to let it stay on its course or kill the one. The answer, of course, to any thinking person, is to let it stay on the track it is on.
Why is this?
Let us make a fundamental assumption about the problem. Let us assume that all the prospective targets are unknown to the person making the decision. If a loved one is involved it is a no-brainer. You save the person you love no matter what the consequences to anyone else. In this case they are total strangers and it does not really matter to the person if they live or die. In that case, given the choice between killing five people and killing only one, he obviously lets the five die. It is always more entertaining to kill five rather than only to kill one and one must always choose the course that is more entertaining.
The second one is the famous "black box problem." This actually has its roots in a science fiction story written in 1964 and essentially a person is offered a small sum of money to push a button or throw a switch on an otherwise plain, black box. When the button is pushed, someone in some other part of the world will die and there is no possible connection between that person and the person pushing the button. There are no consequences. Does the person take the money and push the button or not?
The answer to that is obvious. Of course he pushes the button! What the hell do you think psionics is about? Healing people?? Given the opportunity to kill people and get away with it one should do so.
Now the key to all this is the presupposition on the part of the instructor that human life has separate, distinct and special value. If you reject that presupposition in your answer, the question becomes, well, pretty silly. It is sort of like when I was a student and abortion was still being argued, rather than screamed, about and I was in favor of abortion--not choice--abortion. I do not believe that certain classes in society should have a choice. Anyway, another student asked me if I believed that abortion was taking human life. I responded, "Of course it is, but have you ever known me to object to that?"
I hope this answers your questions and I can only wish that I could see the look on the instructor's face when she hears them coming from you.
It has come to my attention that some of my readers who are in college have found themselves in classes that, for some unknown and bizarre reason known only to the gods, purport to teach, get this, ethics. And, being naturally desirous of knowing my great wisdom on the matter, have asked me about a couple of problems that they are presented.
The first is a new one, something no one had the humor to come up with when I was a student back in the stone age, largely because railroads had not yet been invented. In this problem, there is a train coming very fast, too fast to stop. If it is allowed to go on the track that it is running on, it will squish five people. If it is diverted to the other track it will kill only one person. The question to the student is what to do, to let it stay on its course or kill the one. The answer, of course, to any thinking person, is to let it stay on the track it is on.
Why is this?
Let us make a fundamental assumption about the problem. Let us assume that all the prospective targets are unknown to the person making the decision. If a loved one is involved it is a no-brainer. You save the person you love no matter what the consequences to anyone else. In this case they are total strangers and it does not really matter to the person if they live or die. In that case, given the choice between killing five people and killing only one, he obviously lets the five die. It is always more entertaining to kill five rather than only to kill one and one must always choose the course that is more entertaining.
The second one is the famous "black box problem." This actually has its roots in a science fiction story written in 1964 and essentially a person is offered a small sum of money to push a button or throw a switch on an otherwise plain, black box. When the button is pushed, someone in some other part of the world will die and there is no possible connection between that person and the person pushing the button. There are no consequences. Does the person take the money and push the button or not?
The answer to that is obvious. Of course he pushes the button! What the hell do you think psionics is about? Healing people?? Given the opportunity to kill people and get away with it one should do so.
Now the key to all this is the presupposition on the part of the instructor that human life has separate, distinct and special value. If you reject that presupposition in your answer, the question becomes, well, pretty silly. It is sort of like when I was a student and abortion was still being argued, rather than screamed, about and I was in favor of abortion--not choice--abortion. I do not believe that certain classes in society should have a choice. Anyway, another student asked me if I believed that abortion was taking human life. I responded, "Of course it is, but have you ever known me to object to that?"
I hope this answers your questions and I can only wish that I could see the look on the instructor's face when she hears them coming from you.