Moral/Ethical Dilemma Round 2

Post Reply New Topic

This came up when I was reading a paper on utilitarianism....


There is a group of people that want to get out of a cave. On one end of the cave, it is way to small for them to go through, and high tide is already in full swing, so the cave will be flooded soon. And so they journey to the other end where they can easily get out. They are led by a very fat man. Since he is so large, he cannot fit through the opening and he gets stuck, thereby trapping the rest of the group in the cave. Since high tide is already under way, it is only a matter of time before water starts going into the cave and drowning everybody inside, except for the fat person. However, you are on the outside, and you happen to have a stick of dynamite. The only way you can get the rest of the people out of there is to blow him up with it, thereby saving the rest of the group but killing the person. There are no legal ramifications for your action or inaction.

Do you, or would you, blow him up?

*This is not an exercise in finding a loophole, or pointing out the unrealistic scenario inherent in the solutions.

Sadly, as presented, the only ethical choice is to use the dynamite. The alternative is to let the others die.

Stick the stick of dynamite up his.... an lite the the fuse.

In the real world would an expert rescue team resort to explosive in this situation? Highly unlikely I would think so the whole premise is ridiculous.

Instead of these made up stories why not find real situations where choices had to be made?

So I'm bound by that because you wrote it sorry I do not think so I am free to reject hypothetical nonsense.

This is the same as the other two questions you posted last time.

I would wait until they drowned, and then blow the fat man up.
Kill them all.

That reminds me of some book in which one has to decide what utterly absurd decision between two absurd choices one would make. They even gave poll results.

The whole point of this thread is to stretch you out of your comfortable limit and consider scenarios in which you have to make tough decisions. As I said before, it is not meant to be all that realistic.



If you think this thread is nonsense, then don't reply. There is no reason or excuse for you to be rude just because you do not understand the whole point of it.

Why not use the choice to drop the atomic bombs on Japan to end WWII. The same debate do you murder X number of people to save X+Y.

Why don't you just accept the fact that it is hypothetical and made up?

I only go around making corrections in other people's threads when people throw out erroneous claims and false assumptions in order to support a bigoted viewpoint.

I hate fiction. And I hate ilogical fiction even more. I'm not correcting your thread/post as I know its just a recreation of a news story I read months ago. Your not the focus of my attention its the orignal author who thought he was doing something worth while with this.

I'm not sure who you are referring to, but I got this story off of a paper that dealt with the implications of utilitarianism. This story was used to help explain the implications of basing a society entirely on numbers and the greatest happiness principle. The reason I put it here was to see what other people would think of the situation and what they feel is the correct course of action. The scenario is fiction, but it is not illogical in this context.

Hmm trying to look up where I found it I found this real life story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6225301.stm

Oh heres the story I read about the dynamite:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4954856.stm

If I was the person with the dynamite, I would weigh the situation like this:

Who would be more useful for me to keep alive, the fat man or the people trapped? Would the people who live only serve to hamper my life if kept alive?

Are there any people I especially dislike among the people trapped, do I hate these people more than the people I like that are trapped? Is the fat guy my best friend or is my best friend among those who are trapped?

This would be a self-interest orientation.

Thanks to the limited information you provided, I would have to rely on the values of Pyrrhonism.
He maintained that we never know enough to be sure that one course of action is wiser than another. In his youth, when he was taking his constitutional one afternoon, he saw his teacher in philosophy (from whom he had imbibed his principles) with his head stuck in a ditch, unable to get out. After contemplating him for some time, he walked on, maintaining that there was no sufficient ground for thinking he would do any good by pulling the man out.

Yeah that fat guy maybe my pregnant sister and in that case those people in the cave are dead.

I knew about the dynamite one.

Ok I will be nice and give a real answer to the question.

Do nothing (Call 911 and let the cops deal with removing the dead bodies).

All these people who have these semi-dangerous hobbies like cave exploring, trans-oceanic sailing, mountain climbing ,etc. Should be held accountable. Their rescues alone
cost thousands and risk the lives of others. I'm not murdering that fat guy to prevent the accidental death of some thrill seeking yuppies. Fat guy this is your lucky day.

killing the fat bastard would be in my comfortable limits, but did anyone try stomping on his head to push him back down? The selfish prick shouldn't have gone first.