These are the classic trolley problems discussed in philosophy. I'm just curious to what people's views are on the topic :)
The [condensed] scenarios goes as follows:
Scenario 1 -- There is a train that is about to hit 5 people who are in the train's path. The train cannot stop. The only option to save these 5 people is to pull a lever that will divert the train to a different path, BUT will inevitably kill 1 bystander in the process who is on the other track. Either way someone will die. Do you pull the lever or not? And why?
Scenario 2 -- Same scenario, train is about to hit 5 people, BUT instead of pulling a lever, there's a very very morbidely obese person you can push off a balcony. The fat man will stop the train and save the 5 people, but will inevitably die in the process. Do you push the man or not? And why?
Hahaha, people. Michelle is trying to discover if there is a psychopat amongst us? :)) That question is used as a test to see if someone is a psychopat. Check this out:
Scenario 1 -- I would not pull the lever, I would say yes but in that moment I would repent (fear to die)
Scenario 2 -- maybe I would do this because will be the life of the fat man.
It is hard to answer for a human being as it is a question for GOD and spiritual beings. No matter which side you choose, you may repent in a sense.
#5 The errant presumption in this Cognitive Science "ethical dilemma" fails to inform the reader that they are accountable "to" any identity as to an "ethical" behavior.
#6 Basically, speculations like this as to "ethics" fail on a continual basis to show that
"ethics" exist as Natural Phenonomena, and that "ethics" exist in a causal relation to any natural
phenomena.
------------
Conclusion:
What remains is that there are confused speculations by confused persons, foisted upon still other persons who will, no doubt, be confused by the unstated premises and omitted data in the
"ethical dilemma".
Of course, as it is presented in college courses concerning Cognitive Science, the students in such classes and outside of such classes are expected not to see more deeply into the problem, because that would make the professors and admistration of the college look... unprepared.
So they offer their confused understanding as though it were some sort of profound dilemma, that few if any people can answer.
The problem, Wiki indicates, originates in 1967.Such dilemmas, for me, are meaningless. The Wiki article includes the fundamental question as to the ethical dilemma which your condensed inquiry omits.
(And by the way, if you are addressing this for the purpose of something like a college class, you can probably never use what I am going to tell you , becuase what I write is a fundamental challenge to the prevailing assumptions as stated in the question.
#1 The inquiry in the 1967 problem is this: "Which is the correct choice?"
ANSWER: There is no "correct" choice. Cognitive Science, which serves for the premises of the Ethical Dilemma, cannot define what a "correct" is.
#2 At a deeper level of inquiry, Cognitive Science, and in fact not scientific data specifically indicates that any living organism operates by "choice". It can be presumed that "choice" exists, but there is no Scientific data indicates that "choice (Free Will) exists as a Natural Phenomena.
#3 The dilemma is not factual. No Trolley departed the tracks. There is no objective data showing that an Ethical Dilemma objectively exists. The dilemma as published is sheer speculation.
There is no objective data showing that I or anyone else is driving the trolley specified in the dilemma.
#4 The condensed form indicates that someone will die, "either way". No objective data has been cited from any source in Cognitive Science showing that death is a meaninful issue for any organism.
No data has been objectively cited that speculations about "death" are logically coherent with the Scientific Theory of Natural Selection.
