So, today in class there was an interesting discussion of ethics.
The scenario was that there was a train on some tracks, heading for a mother and her baby who were stuck. You could, however, throw a switch and have the train change direction - which would result in the train running over a drunk who was sprawled across the other tracks. The professor then asked whether or not you should throw the switch, saving the woman/child but killing the drunk. He then said that there was no right choice, that in fact there was no choice - ethically, it was not your place to decide who lived and who died.A student then said that the baby was innocent, and that there was nothing that could ever justify letting the train run over the woman and her child, killing two lives to save one.Instantly I said "The baby is Hitler!" and the class burst unto laughter.Point, set, match.
Touché.
Old example is old.
But well done with the Hitler part :DOf course that kind of thinking has lead to a passive society that's getting screwed by its leaders. Just seeing a connection here.
If there's no right choice, there's no wrong choice. And 2 is a higher score than 1, so…
Scott_AW: Isn't that the thinking that's begun the persecution of anyone who ever happens to mention "bomb" "islam" or anything anti-westerncountry.
Haha very good.
Also, your professor is talking utter bollocks.Well a drunk vs. a pregnant woman is more of a morale choice that requires some amount of thought, where as assuming ones a terrorist based on imagery and personal paranoia is kind of different.
Now if you didn't say a 'drunk' person and instead said a man passed out on the tracks, then that's a little harder. However one shouldn't decide not to have any opinion on anything, that's just stupid.Consider if they were both on the tracks but at different points, and you could only save one. By the same logic the professor uses, you should let them both die.Cesque, you made my day.
That's only if you're playing European scoring.