Fun with Morality Questions

[Quath]

I saw the following series of moral questions in Richard Dawkin's latest book. It is very interesting because when you ask people these questions, people across different cultures and beliefs answer very similar. So here are the senarios:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #1 - A train is flying down the track. Right in front of it are 5 people stuck to the track (for whatever reason). However, you can divert the train to another track where there is only 1 person stuck on the track. What do you do?

Analysis - Most people say they would switch the tracks. When asked, "Why?" They usually respond something like "It is better to save 5 people at the loss of one person." Or they say some variant of this. But what is interesting is that this is not the full reason. It is the justification we first come up with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #2 - A train is flying down the tracks. The tracks split apart and then remerge further down. Five people are stuck at the part where the tracks merge. The main path is clear. However, there is a really fat man on the side path. If you divert it to the side path, this really fat man will slow down the train so that the 5 people trapped further down can escape. Do you divert the train to the side path?

Analysis - Most people are against killing the fat man. Logically, it is the same as senario 1. Killing 1 person will save 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #3 - The train is coming down the tracks. A fat man is watching this from next to the tracks. Five people are stuck further down the tracks. You know if you push the fat man in front of the train, the five people will escape. Do you?

Analysis - This is pretty much the same as #2. Less people support killing the fat man than in #2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #4 - Five people need organ transplants or will die that night. A visitor in the waiting room happens to be a good match for all five people. Should this man be forced to give up his organs and die to save 5 people?

Analysis - Very few people think this should be the case. But this case is logically similar to the above cases.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #5 - This is the same as Senario #2. The difference is that on the side track, there is a huge weight that will stop the train. Unfortunately, there is a guy that is happening to be leaning against it. If you divert the train, the weight will stop the train, but the guy will die.

Analysis - Most people are ok with killing the single person. However, this is entirely equivalent to #2. The only difference is whether the weight is attached to the person or not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I thought this stuff was pretty interesting. I know I am logically inconsistent on this, but I am trying to work it out. I wonder if others will have a hard time with these questions?

 

[Rick W]

Same as the Lamb of God being crucified so those who believe may live.

Matthew 26:39 And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

 

[lawhammer]

LOL, Richard Dawkins?????

Now, there's a soul that needs all the prayer he can muster.

Wasn't hard for me at all, Quath, trick is, don't make a moral value judgements. In other words, reacting in any of those scenarios is valuing one life over another, and that's playing God, just as Dawkins does 24/7.

 

[Joudie]

Actually I found all those scenarios really interesting...I'd have a hard time answering something like that. I like these kinds of questions and the answers that people come up with. Morality is indeed a very complicated thing.

It reminds me of a scenario my sister asked me when she was doing a paper on euthanasia.

You come upon a really bad road accident and a man is trapped in his truck. The truck is going to burst into flames soon and the man is going to die because there's no way anyone can get him out. He hands you his gun and tells you to shoot him in the head because he'd rather die quickly than burn to death. Do you?

 

[lawhammer]

You come upon a really bad road accident and a man is trapped in his truck. The truck is going to burst into flames soon and the man is going to die because there's no way anyone can get him out. He hands you his gun and tells you to shoot him in the head because he'd rather die quickly than burn to death. Do you?

No, otherwise, you're playing God again.

But in that scenario, how can "you" get that close to the truck in the first place? A window must be open, tell him unfasten his big government mandate seat belt NOW?

Mercy killing = moral relativism, he ought to shoot himself in the head instead.

 

[Quath]

Wasn't hard for me at all, Quath, trick is, don't make a moral value judgements. In other words, reacting in any of those scenarios is valuing one life over another, and that's playing God, just as Dawkins does 24/7.

It seems you are saying that you will nake no decision at all and go withever default action would have happened if you were not present. Is that correct?

Would it change your answer if thousands of lives were at stake and you could save them by diverting the train to kill one? What about millions?

In a sense these issues come up all the time. If you vote for money to be spent to save Terri Shiavo, you are also in a sense saying that that money will not be used to save hundreds (or thousands) of lives in Africa from immunization.

No, otherwise, you're playing God again.

When do you know if you are playing God? Do doctors play God? If so, should they stop? Is taking medicine playing God?

But in that scenario, how can "you" get that close to the truck in the first place? A window must be open, tell him unfasten his big government mandate seat belt NOW?

You can expand the situation to force the decision. Imagine his hands are trapped or cut off and the gun was tossed free of the truck and is at your feet.

Mercy killing = moral relativism, he ought to shoot himself in the head instead.

Does the Bible say that if someone is terminally suffering that they should be forced to live in agony?

Christians engage in moral relativism all the time. If not, then they should follow the same rules that God promotes in the Old Testament.

He hands you his gun and tells you to shoot him in the head because he'd rather die quickly than burn to death. Do you?

That is a real tough one. One one hand, you can reduce the suffering the man will experience. On the other, you could be arrested for murder.

This kind of situation was played out in the movie Aliens as well.

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

Anyway, I thought this stuff was pretty interesting. I know I am logically inconsistent on this, but I am trying to work it out. I wonder if others will have a hard time with these questions?

The only reason I have a hard time with these questions is that it is a hypothetical scenario meant to judge someone in a non-hypothetical reality. Basically, the question is: is it okay to murder someone if by murdering someone, you could save 5? It would not be murder to fail to save the 5. I suppose in reality, I would try to find another way of trying to save the 5 without having to murder the 1.

What does Richard Dawkins say? Does he even answer the questions? Or does he simply judge those who answer them.

 

[jgredline]

Quath
Actually I rather enjoyed the questions. Frankly, my first thought was How can I stop the train???

On a side note; Congradulatons. I heard rumors that you are now a Pastor.

What is it. Trinity baptist church......

 

[lawhammer]

It seems you are saying that you will nake no decision at all and go withever default action would have happened if you were not present. Is that correct

Yes. Otherwise, it's my moral judgement on who lives and who dies. I'm not qualified to do that.

Would it change your answer if thousands of lives were at stake and you could save them by diverting the train to kill one? What about millions?

Now your scenario is impossibly contorted, reminds me of the Twilight Zone episode when someone tried to go back in time to kill Hitler as a baby. But even if that suceeded, there'd just been another Hitler.

In a sense these issues come up all the time. If you vote for money to be spent to save Terri Shiavo, you are also in a sense saying that that money will not be used to save hundreds (or thousands) of lives in Africa from immunization.

But there you're not making an active decision on who lives or who dies, and money is finite.

When do you know if you are playing God? Do doctors play God? If so, should they stop? Is taking medicine playing God?

Taking medicine isn't playing God, if it's a positive action. If you swallowed arsenic to take your own life, that's playing God to committ suicide.

Abortion doctors and eugenics proponents are playing God if they kill to cure at all.

You can expand the situation to force the decision. Imagine his hands are trapped or cut off and the gun was tossed free of the truck and is at your feet.

Yes, you did that yourself with the millions question. I'd try to drag him out that truck in your scenario - save him, not kill him.

Does the Bible say that if someone is terminally suffering that they should be forced to live in agony?

Not explicitly, there are drugs for terminal pain.

Christians engage in moral relativism all the time. If not, then they should follow the same rules that God promotes in the Old Testament

You really aren't a Christian, are you? There's a difference between the NT and the OT, you might be referring to the Ten Commandments, which are mentioned in both.

"They do it, so it's okay" is a moral relativistic argument.

 

[Lewis]

Quath
Actually I rather enjoyed the questions. Frankly, my first thought was How can I stop the train???

On a side note; Congradulatons. I heard rumors that you are now a Pastor.

What is it. Trinity baptist church......

Yes and Quath is getting ready to be ordained a bishop. Way to go pastor Quath.

 

[GundamZero]

I saw the God Delusion at the book store. To start off, most of his foundations are all off.

As for those situations...hmmmm.

A train driver is barraling down the tracks, he knows that there are people stuck on all the tracks. If he has enough time to receive all that information and act on it, then he has time to stop the train. Second, if there is one person, or fat man on the track, and this train cannot be stopped, then the situation had to have been such that someone relayed this information to the person controlling the train. And likewise, the track controller could divert the track to the one with the fat man, and then summon aid to move the one man, which is easier than moving five, off the track. Similarly, in such extreme cirmcumstances, think out side the box. And seriously, how would a man on the tracks have a weight stuck to him if someone weren't trying ot murder him. We just don't know the details, so we can't be the judge of those situations. But God can, and will, help those who call on him name.

The wonderful thing is, God is excellent at doing impossible things, since nothing is impossible with him. No man is ever forced to sin.

 

[GundamZero]

Morality in general is not something anyone can fully grasp by themselves. And tragedies will happen, without such cogitation time availible in these scenerios. That is why we really need to rely upon God in these situations. We may think one way is right, but without God we can't know. Proverbs says it best. "There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death." And "Trust in the Lord, with all your heart, and lean not in your own understanding. Acknowledge him in all your ways, and he will make your paths straight."

 

[peace4all]

so Lawhammer..

reading your responses here, I just had a quick question.

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?


As for the questions myself, I would do my best to save everyone. and If I couldn't I would look at the situation a little more indepth hopefully.

is it 5 terminally ill 95 year olds, and one 15 year old kid?

 

[lawhammer]

I saw the God Delusion at the book store. To start off, most of his foundations are all off.

I read the thing. Dawkins is an atheist god, apparently.

The whole book was just page after page of bashing ANY religion, especially THAT one. He didn't answer ID well enough for me, but I did find out from him that I was mentally ill, as all religious people are to him.

In the back of the book, he's got an appendix listing resources where I can go to "get help".

so Lawhammer..

reading your responses here, I just had a quick question.

Did you support the invasion of Iraq?

Yes.

But I now think a withdrawl is inevitable, then things will be worse than ever.

As for the questions myself, I would do my best to save everyone. and If I couldn't I would look at the situation a little more indepth hopefully.

is it 5 terminally ill 95 year olds, and one 15 year old kid?

Well, yeah, but I was thinking you'd have to make snap judgements. In doubt, do nothing.

 

[peace4all]

how can you say you can't make the moral judgment on whose life to save, when you can make the moral judgement to on whose life to, possibly, if it actually is a threat, save in iraq?

 

[lawhammer]

how can you say you can't make the moral judgment on whose life to save, when you can make the moral judgement to on whose life to, possibly, if it actually is a threat, save in iraq?

This is difficult. Okay, the US military is all-volunteer, anyone who enlists knows they're at a higher risk to die in combat. They've made the moral decision on their part that it's worth it.

In other words, they made the moral judgement. I would've tried to have Saddam assassinated instead, mass-murderers aren't innocent, his victims were.

 

[lovely]

Hi Quath,

"I saw the following series of moral questions in Richard Dawkin's latest book. It is very interesting because when you ask people these questions, people across different cultures and beliefs answer very similar. So here are the senarios:"

I think for the believer the answer is a question. What is the will of God, and how does He lead me to act in the circumstances?

I am reminded of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who was brought to a place in his life where he considered himself a pacifist...and he considered this a Biblical teaching. Then, with the turning tides of the German nation, or rather the Nazi regime, his ethics were challenged by God Himself it seemed.

He felt he was obligated by God to stand against Hitler by making public declarations that Hitler had no right, or reason, to persecute the Jews. He also felt he had an obligation, as one of the Christian faith, and church, to aid the suffering Jews. And then finally, he felt he had an obligation to do something to thwart Hitler's plans...even if it meant helping others attempt to assassinate him, in order to protect the Jews.

I think the lesson learned is that ethics, for the believer, is not a list of concrete, consistent, rules, but rather a sincere effort to seek the will of God and carry it out in each, and every, situation. Consistency, at least in effort, lies in obeying God's will alone in every moment.

The Lord bless you.

 

[Quath]

The only reason I have a hard time with these questions is that it is a hypothetical scenario meant to judge someone in a non-hypothetical reality. Basically, the question is: is it okay to murder someone if by murdering someone, you could save 5? It would not be murder to fail to save the 5. I suppose in reality, I would try to find another way of trying to save the 5 without having to murder the 1.

I think it helps a person understand their own morality by trying to answer these questions. It shows that many people have the idea that the good of the many outweight the good of the few. After all, that sounds very logical and easy to justify. But deeper down, people seem to feel that if a person is not part of a bad situation, they should not be made part of it. And that belief seems to outweigh helping the majority.

What does Richard Dawkins say? Does he even answer the questions? Or does he simply judge those who answer them.

He was trying to show that this seems to be a common set of ethics that is common across culture and religious belief. Or in other words, he was trying to show that we do not get our morality from religion.

Actually I rather enjoyed the questions. Frankly, my first thought was How can I stop the train???

Yeah, that is a common reaction to a tough question. However, the situation can always be modified to force the choice. In other variations, the train was replaced with crocodiles down a river and you can push a tree down to divert them. There are so many variations of this senario.

On a side note; Congradulatons. I heard rumors that you are now a Pastor.

What is it. Trinity baptist church......

Vicious lies I tell ya.

"They do it, so it's okay" is a moral relativistic argument.

That is just one type of relativism. Other types are saying that slavery is bad today but not in the past. Or saying that resting on Saturday in the past is good but it is not so important today. Or killing homosexuals in the past is good but killing them today is bad. All of that and more is the moral relativism that most Christians have.

If he has enough time to receive all that information and act on it, then he has time to stop the train.

Say the brakes broke or the engine was stuck in full throttle or something.

And seriously, how would a man on the tracks have a weight stuck to him if someone weren't trying ot murder him.

You could say it was a construction worker that was seatbelted rail car or something. With imagination, we can get rid of all the outside the box responses so that the only choice is to diver the train or not.

I read the thing. Dawkins is an atheist god, apparently.

He is an activist, not a deity to be worshiped.

but I did find out from him that I was mentally ill

Well, he is making the point that if a person talks to an imaginary being, he is mentally ill. However, when many people do it, it is called religion. So ignoring Christianity, we could look at worshipers of Zeus in that manner. We know they are talking to an imaginary being and making up stuff he does. If it was just one person, we ould try to get them medical help. When there are many, we treat them as if everything were normal.

I think for the believer the answer is a question. What is the will of God, and how does He lead me to act in the circumstances?

So does that mean you would pray for what to do? Do you think you would be guaranteed a response or just hope for one?

 

[peace4all]

lawhammer. I am not speaking of US soldiers being killed. I am speaking of iraqi's and iraqi civilians being killed.


the scenario is almost the same.


There is a train loaded with bombs, that, MIGHT, be being shipped to NYC.. but, were not sure, we don't know if they are, or if the bombs exist, or if they will ever be shipped, or even when. Now, we can either let that train, that might or might not exist, roll to NYC, OR, we can go and bomb the heck out of it, and kill anyone who might be associated with the train, in order to save the people, that, if the train exists, would die in NYC....


Its the same judgment sort of isn't it?

 

[lovely]

Hi Quath,

So does that mean you would pray for what to do? Do you think you would be guaranteed a response or just hope for one?

I trust God. If there was some sort of break down in communication, I am convinced it would be on my own part. I would pray...but not just at that instant. I would have prayed that morning, prior to the trip, maybe even before an incident occurred if the Spirit led me to. I have an ongoing conversation with God, and He speaks to me on a regular basis, not in an audible manner, but in a manner that is more compelling. The Holy Spirit sometimes gives me action, before I even realize that there was a reason behind it, and God reveals Himself later. If I am prideful, and not listening for His voice, then the communication is broken down because of my self, of which I should have denied. I guess there are many ways God speaks to me, but the question is am I listening to His voice? A set of ethics, or principals, aren't good enough (though they may be a tool to some degree), only the leading of the Holy Spirit will do in such circumstances, actually in any circumstances. I am guaranteed a response, and I also hope for one, and I also pray for one. It's far better not to lean on my own understanding, but appeal to God, in humility, to give an answer for the moment...every moment. He has a view that goes beyond the curves, and it is just stupidity on my part to not seek His counsel when He is the only One who actually knows.

The Lord bless you.