Exactly so. For me, this became absurd as soon as we were required to accept as FACT that torture had a 75% success rate.
I felt the same way. Analogy: "If you won a billion dollars in the lottery, would you ever play the lottery again?" "No, I'm rich." "But what if you had a 99% chance of winning again in one try, are you sure you don't want to reconsider your blanket statement?" "Why didn't you include the statement I consider to be absurd in the original question?" "..."
What I find missing on this site is a distinction between several related, but different, categories: * Whether an action is morally acceptable. * Whether an action is morally optimal. * Whether an action is morally required. * Whether an action is ethically acceptable. * Whether an action is ethically required. * Whether an action is what you would do if you had time to think. * Whether an action is what you think you would do if you had to act quickly. * Whether an action is actually what you would do if you had to act quickly. (Note, in this list I have deliberately left out some possible wordings, such as "ethicially optimal", which I believe don't exist.)
Honestly, we should metaphorically kill the fat man. Because to me, morality is not maximizing happiness - it's minimizing pain and misery. And that's where the difference lie. Maximizing happiness, you let the fat man be. And according to morality, you don't act until his health is compromised by his weight which renders him unhappy. He most likely dies an early death. Minimizing pain? Actions are taken, the fat man is uncomfortable for a while - and then when he is no longer under threat, he is free to do whatever he wishes to do (which may make him happy if he wishes for it to do so). And I don't like the word "innocent". Innocent implies that they are not responsible. And it's the main issue I have against the opponents of self-driving cars. Someone running in front of a smart car is technically innocent as they may have been unable to know the car was there. But they are certainly at fault - and we shouldn't hold things back because of outside factors at fault. As for dying - sure, we don't like humans dying. But let's face it - if someone is nuisible to the point of costing resources and happiness to people, the only permanent removal is death. It should not be used lightly - but some people will be a cost to society until they are no longer. In that vein, however - minimizing pain makes torture completely immoral, as it's main goal is to cause pain. I like this experiment, but feel it's rather limited in it's scope.
I'm in the camp that sacrificing a life for anything is never a good idea. I just think that we as human beings shouldn't think so calculated on how we view life because it some way cheapens it for everyone. Love this experiment. An ethics professor in my first year started his class with almost the exact same thought experiments EXCEPT the last one was tweaked just a bit to make it even harder for those to decide. I know he didn't make it and the thought experiment went something like: A person (I think it was a girl) is being tortured, but because they are being tortured you maximize the happiness of millions for the foreseeable future, is it okay to torture that one person? (I'm pretty sure that's how it goes, but if someone wants to correct me feel free) A lot of people in my class struggled with the answer especially those who had remained consistent with their beliefs. I guess it is just the perceived benefit of lives saved is much greater. Looking back at it that experiment reminds me a lot of an anime I just watched, anyway.
Whenever you want, because you feel it serve something more important. e.g: If the fatman decide to sacrifice himself for the 5 other dude, he's a cool guy. He is not morally forced to do so. And I wont push him on the track. And I feel anyone pushing him is kind of a dick.
I must have misread that then. I thought you meant that even in any case even suicide it would be morally wrong. I guess you only meant that when my actions cause another to die it is morally wrong, right? Unless of course the fat man is morally wrong for jumping in front of the train regardless of the people he saves? But you should not be the one making the call in any circumstance.