11/13 (SAT.) Ethical dilemma(host:Arthur)

回覆文章
頭像
Arthur
YOYO member
文章: 466
註冊時間: 週一 8月 25, 2003 9:15 am
來自: Taipei
聯繫:

11/13 (SAT.) Ethical dilemma(host:Arthur)

文章 Arthur »

Session I:

The Trolley Problem Some psychologists were discussing the neurology of moral judgments. They discussed the trolley problem, which is pretty famous among moral philosophers. The basic conundrum is this:

圖檔

A trolley has lost its brakes, and is about to crash into 5 workers at the end of the track. You find that you just happen to be standing next to a side track that veers into a sand pit, potentially providing safety for the trolley's five passengers. However, along this offshoot of track leading to the sandpit stands a man who is totally unaware of the trolley's problem and the action you're considering. There's no time to warn him. So by pulling the lever and guiding the trolley to safety, you'll save the five passengers but you'll kill the man.
Most people pull the switch, killing the one man to save five. That wouldn't be so interesting by itself, but then the problem is extended to a seemingly similar problem:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
圖檔
Q1: According to first scenario, what is your decision?
Q2: If these five persons on original track are crimes, what is your decision?please explain your reason.
Q3: If the person on another track is your father, what is your decision?Please explain your reason.

Q4: If only two young adults stay on the original track and three old men stay on another track,what is your decision?Please explain your reasons.

Q5:Accoding to second scenario, what is your decision?please explain your reason.
Q6:Your decision about Q1 and Q5 are the same? (kill one person and save five persons),If not, please explain your reason.


Session II:
Ticking time bomb scenario
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The ticking time bomb scenario is a thought experiment that has been used in the ethics debate over whether torture can ever be justified.
Simply stated, the consequentialist argument is that nations, even those that legally disallow torture, can justify its use if they have a terrorist in custody who possesses critical knowledge, such as the location of a time bomb or a weapon of mass destruction that will soon explode and cause great loss of life. Opponents to the argument usually begin by exposing certain assumptions that tend to be hidden by initial presentations of the scenario and tend to obscure the true costs of permitting torture in "real-life" scenarios—e.g., the assumption that the person is in fact a terrorist, whereas in real life there usually remains uncertainty about whether the person is in fact a terrorist—and rely on legal, philosophical/moral, and empirical grounds to reaffirm the need for the absolute prohibition of torture.
Q7:According to the scenario,if you are FBI,What is your decision?
Q8: Have you ever met any dilemma choices? What is your story and situation? Please describe it and tell us how to make decision if possible.

Some other scenarios for discussion if necessary
1.Steal the affordable medicine to save your serious-diseased wife
2. woman and children are the priority for lifeboat when the boat (ex.Titanic) sinks


Agenda:
3:45 ~ 4:00pm Greetings & Free Talk / Ordering Beverage or Meal / Getting Newcomer’s Information
4:00 ~ 4:10pm Opening Remarks / Newcomer’s Self-introduction / Grouping
(Session I)
4:10 ~ 4:50pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
4:50 ~ 5:10pm Summarization (20 mins)
5:10 ~ 5:15pm Regrouping / Instruction Giving / Taking a 10 Minutes Break (Intermission)
(Session II)
5:15 ~ 5:55pm Discussion Session (40 mins)
6:00 ~ 6:20pm Summarization (20 mins)
6:20 ~ 6:30pm Concluding Remarks / Announcements

*****************************************************************************************************************************
Meeting Date: As shown in the Subject Line
Meeting Time: 4:00pm – 6:30pm
Meeting Venue: 丹堤咖啡 Dante Coffee (Minimum Order $80)
Address: 台北市濟南路三段25號-捷運忠孝新生站3號出口步行3分鐘
Important Notes:
1. Participants are recommended to print out the questions for the discussion. Also, the supporting articles, if preferred not to access them via their own mobile phone.
2. Please read the articles and discussion questions provided by the host and write down your thoughts in English in advance.

For Newcomers:
1. Please prepare a two-to-three minute introduction of yourself in English. You may also be asked to give brief feedback at the conclusion of the meeting.
2. The entire meeting is conducted in English. All participants should at least have moderate English conversation skills and be able to articulate your ideas for each discussion question.
3. Newcomers are welcome to attend the meeting and join the discussion up to three times. Formal membership with a lifetime membership fee NT$1000 is required afterward.
===========
厚積而薄發!
===========
Kooper
YOYO member
文章: 2658
註冊時間: 週三 4月 11, 2007 11:40 pm

Re: 11/13 (SAT.) Ethical dilemma(host:Arthur)

文章 Kooper »

It doesn’t feel right for me to judge the value of lives based on their genders, ages, contributions to the society, or simply the number of life involved.

In the trolley problem, I’d probably leave the switch as it is because there is no perfect solution available that can prevent casualties. Since I don't get involved in the decision making, no matter how many people die consequently they are killed by the out-of-control trolley, not by me. If, instead, I choose to control the switch and guide the trolley to the side track, I won't shake the feeling that I am directly responsible for the death or injury of the person standing there.

A game changer to this problem, however, is that if a person that I love or like happens to be at one of the tracks, I would definitely have the trolley go the other way. The joy of saving people I love or like could outweigh the guilt of causing death of other strangers.
回覆文章