An interesting scenario~

S

shira

Shinigami
Okay so, I was reading this Law magazine I subscribe to (Don't ask...) and there was an interesting scenario for a trial at the back. I've cut out the end, as it's all Law jargon that most wont really understand, but anyway, here is it is!

"Mary is sightseeing in the hills of Wales. She visits a beautiful and huge dam that overlooks a village. She is enjoying the view when she hears a big crack and then notices the dam has burst and water is begininng to burst out through the crack. She immediately recognises that the 1,000 or so people living in the village will al perish. She then sees a sign that says, 'In case of emergency press the red button and flood the adjacent valley.'
She notices one man (her ex-boyfriend who she had argued with earlier) and his dog walking in the adjacent valley. She waves at him and shout. He cannot hear her (he is listening to his iPod), but waves back, giver her a a two-fingered salute and carrying on walking. Mary decides she has to act and presses the red button to save the lives of the people in the village. Her ex-boyfriend is drowned and so is his dog. The television companies hear of her story and the Queen presents her with a medal for saving 1,000 lives. On returning home from Buckingham Palace Mary is is arrested by the police and interview. Sebsequently she is charged with murder.

The rest is legal matters.

My questions to you all are as follows;

1) If you were on the Jury in this case, would you find her guilty of murder, or would you find her innocent (deliberately leading to a miscarriage of justice, as she clearly knew she'd kill her ex-boyfriend and the dog) as she had saved so many.

2) If she had saved her boyfriend and the dog (so not pushing the button) and the 1,000 or so people had died, would you find her guilty of killing 1,000 people, as she clearly knew not pressing the button would result in their death.

Thanks for reading! I look forward to reading your answers!
 
Innocent no matter what she did, due to the unusual mitigating circumstances of being caught in a moral paradox.

Rationally, a thousand lives are worth more than a single life. But if it's the life of one person you know and love weighed against a thousand you've never even met, then subjectively that one person *is* worth more. I know I'd always save the people I know and care about before anyone else.

I'd also argue that while it's (probably, grudgingly) some kind of moral duty not to cause disasters, it's not necessarily your duty to prevent them from taking place.
 
The poor dog! Killing the man is almost worse than killing the strangers in a way as it would be convenient for her if he was being a jerk to her (says the vengeful woman), but it's what I'd do. I'd feel miserable about the dog though. If she tried to warn him, it's not entirely coldblooded. And she could always run and try to save him, whereas saving 1000 people is a lot harder and has a chance of involving sick/old/young people who'd be significantly more likely to perish.

So I'd say it probably was murder, but I wouldn't think it fair if she was singled out and actively penalised for it unless she showed signs of being pleased her ex (and the completely innocent dog) had snuffed it.

Surely it would be manslaughter for the second question at most, unless she was involved in actually breaking the dam. That and I'd personally strongly doubt the plausibility of the bizarre sign in her position so you could argue she didn't actually know it could really be averted in that insane-sounding way.

R
 
Evil committed for the greater good is, in effect, good.

Mary's probably a dumb blond bitch far too eager to press the shiny red button, but her ex-boyfriend doesn't sound too bright, either. So, whatever happens, no-one important would be lost between those two.

As for the dog, if it's a bitch, idc. Bitches live up to their name - Princess has taught me this much.
 
I'd choose the 1000 people. It should not be of our choice on who to save if the circumstances of one side outweighs the other significantly. I mean, there are 1000 lives affected if you send the flood to the village, whilst you only affect 2 lives (3 including you in the relationship) sending it at the valley.

Do you have the moral right to change the destiny of so many people? You have to do something, yes - that's inevitable. But a single future is not as valuable as a collective one, where community is made and more than one idea, skill, etc. is formed.

I would probably see it a gross neglegence to human life if I answered the 2nd question.
 
I would be so busy going after the big-money case involving the retard company who built a ****** dam that I wouldn't have time for the woman's trial.

On an anime-related note, this scenario reminds me a little of events towards the end of Ookamikakushi. Yes, a dam with quite literally a big red button there to be pressed by anyone who wants the dam to open.
 
If I was in their position… caught between the lives of many for the lives or few, I’d have to say…. Depending on who the ex is would change the outcome a lot.
Otherwise, I’d consider what valley I’m actually stood in before pressing anything….. also, I know the welsh are abit slow on the technology front…. But if the guy is an ex, surely she had his number…. And if she’s close enough to see a two finger salute, she’s in the same valley.


Further to this, I’d have to wonder why a red button that controls a dam would be accessible to the public, it sounds like its just my the side of the footpath or something. Providing there where no cameras about she could get out of it with the “no witnesses so it wasn’t me”
 
If she (/lawyer) put forward an interesting and understandable case, that she did actually think rationally and kill him (and the dog) for the benefit of everyone else, then charging her with murder is illogical to me. The village is worth more, and when does did she get "involved" in a proper sense? Would she have been fine if she didn't touch the RB? If it were me, and I knew the person, I would... probably just run away. If you need an answer, though, I could see myself living in a less uncomfortable manner if I killed the one guy/girl, since I knew him/her - the idea of killing hundreds of families is pretty awful.

<object width="250" height="212"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xa6c3OTr6yA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Xa6c3OTr6yA?fs=1&amp;hl=en_GB&amp;rel=0&amp;hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="250" height="212"></embed></object>
 
Jayme said:
the idea of killing hundreds of families is pretty awful.
Click to expand...
I don't know about anyone else, but I see a pretty big difference between killing people and allowing people to die. If you're going to prosecute someone for allowing someone's death to happen, the entire population of earth should be incarcerated for allowing a substasial number of people to die of starvation.

@chaz - Who are we to decide? Sentient human beings all equal at the top of the evolution tree; but moulded by our unique individual life experiences into having different opinions and making different decisions. Really, there is no right thing to do because there is no "right thing". There might be a consensus morality, but who's to say it's right? There is no higher moral authority than the individual. Some might even say due to overpopulation and diminishing resources it might be better for those left alive if more people died. Not my personal opinion, but it could easily be argued.
 
Okay i'll answer these questions as best I can!

Tachi: I think the idea is that she isn't in the valley that she ended up flooding, and the boyfriend was listening to an iPod, down here in Wales we get bad signal anyway xD

Jayme: As for whether she'd be okay 'not pushing the RB' I have no clue. That's more a moral dilema, hence the second question I asked.

ilmaestro: That's another case, we are focusing on this one. ;)

Chaz: You say the lives of 1000 compared to that of 2-3, but let us remember the Ex in this scenario would have had family and friends of his own. Although it would not amount to 1000 people affected, it would still be more than 3.

Rui: When being charged on murder, you are singled out, really. I mean, it was simple, she chose to kill the Ex and the dog by pushing the red button, in order to save the many lives.

All-except-Ayase: No one is really answering the question. There is no doubt that she is guilty of murder, the real question is, morally, do you feel she should be found guilty or innocent? There have been many cases in the past where a Jury has voted innocent, despite obvious guilt. What i'm really asking is, is what Mary did acceptable, or not?
 
This appears to be a variation of the "Trolley Problem", a simple thought experiment that was first mentioned within the field of normative ethics in 1978. I recall mentioning it in a thread a while ago.

The principal difference between this case and the original one is the fact that the sacrificed minority had the ability to save themselves at no cost to the majority at risk, though they perished through being justifiably unaware of the danger that faced them.
Given her excusable inability to persuade her ex-boyfriend and his dog, it seems that the dilemma facing Mary becomes morally identical to that facing the switch-operator, modulo the greater number of people who perish if Mary fails to act.
 
Godot said:
There is no doubt that she is guilty of murder
Click to expand...
Does that not depend on your definition of murder? She wouldn't have time to process the events quickly enough, so I would imagine it could fall somewhere in between murder and manslaughter.
 
Zin5ki said:
This appears to be a variation of the "Trolley Problem", a simple thought experiment that was first mentioned within the field of normative ethics in 1978. I recall mentioning it in a thread a while ago.

The principal difference between this case and the original one is the fact that the sacrificed minority had the ability to save themselves at no cost to the majority at risk, though they perished through being justifiably unaware of the danger that faced them.
Given her excusable inability to persuade her ex-boyfriend and his dog, it seems that the dilemma facing Mary becomes morally identical to that facing the switch-operator, modulo the greater number of people who perish if Mary fails to act.
Click to expand...

But the question being asked here, as I shall say again, is different.

If you were a juror, would you find her guilty or not guilty?

I'm guessing by the tone of your reply, you'd find her not guilty?
 
You stated there to be "no doubt" of her guilt. Heeding this, the only truthful way for me to respond to the question of whether Mary is guilty is to declare that she is.

Since acting truthfully would violate certain moral intuitions in this instance, I suggest you re-phrase the question you asked me in the following manner. "Given that Mary is guilty (in accordance to your specification) and also given that being found guilty of murder leads to receiving punishment, is it morally acceptable for me to truly declare Mary to be guilty?"

Would you be satisfied if I were to answer this question instead of the one you asked, or have I misconstrued your intentions?
 
Zin5ki said:
You stated there to be "no doubt" of her guilt. Heeding this, the only truthful way for me to respond to the question of whether Mary is guilty is to declare that she is.

Since acting truthfully would violate certain moral intuitions in this instance, I suggest you re-phrase the question you asked me in the following manner. "Given that Mary is guilty (in accordance to your specification) and also given that being found guilty of murder leads to receiving punishment, is it morally acceptable for me to truly declare Mary to be guilty?"

Would you be satisfied if I were to answer this question instead of the one you asked, or have I misconstrued your intentions?
Click to expand...

That's pretty much what I said if you read the first post fully, though. But yes, if you wish to phrase it like that, then do so!

"1) If you were on the Jury in this case, would you find her guilty of murder, or would you find her innocent (deliberately leading to a miscarriage of justice, as she clearly knew she'd kill her ex-boyfriend and the dog) as she had saved so many."

That's just a less flamboyant way of saying it really ;)
 
I shall give you your satisfaction. Presuming I could do so without incurring any risk, I would not declare her to be guilty, and thereby I would tell a lie.

However, I have more to say on this subject.

Consider the following sentences:

1) It is right for Mary to have pushed the button.
2) It is wrong to declare Mary to be guilty of murder (and thereby to allow her to receive punishment).

You seem to focus on the matter of whether 2) is correct. However, it seems intuitive that the truth or falsity of 1) entails the truth or falsity of 2), presuming we accept that it is wrong to punish someone who has acted rightly.

I must note that the matter of whether or not 1) is true is the subject of the traditional trolley problem. As such, I am still of the persuasion that the problem you raise concerns very little that the trolley problem does not. Whilst it is true that the moral rightness of our declaration (the delivery of our deliberately false verdict) is a numerically separate property from the moral rightness of her action (her act of murder), establishing the latter allows us to immediately establish the former. It follows that a solution to the trolley problem would act as a solution to the "jury problem" also.

(As an aside, I do not believe that moral sentences, strictly speaking, can ever be true or false. This is quite a separate matter from the one being discussed however, and as such I have presumed otherwise for the sake of simplicity.)
 
@Godot - That may be true, but I know for a fact that there are 3 people in the "save the village" sceranio who are affected. I dont know if any of them have families or friends (although I would agree that I cant imagine them having at least a small group of people between each victim).

ayase said:
@chaz - Who are we to decide? Sentient human beings all equal at the top of the evolution tree; but moulded by our unique individual life experiences into having different opinions and making different decisions.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that you cant make a decision - You may well think that one option is better than the other, but I aint got a firewall to stop you from your point of view. I can only disagree.

Really, there is no right thing to do because there is no "right thing". There might be a consensus morality, but who's to say it's right? There is no higher moral authority than the individual.
Click to expand...
Lemme guess - "Because only the person themselves can decide their own future/destiny, and whether something's right or wrong"?
You said it yourself - We are all equal as sentient beings. So you cannot value the lives of the 3 people more-so than anyone in the village, right?
The maths indicates this:
(Dam group) 1+1+1 < 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1..... (Village)
Surely it would be more sensible and realistic by that logic to say saving the masses of such sentient beings is more humanely ecconomic. If none of the actions are moraly right, then which one is the lesser of 2 evils?
I must say though, you must be a really bad-ass to wipe out a village. If not for the moral issue that you evidently caused the death of so many people, but think of how many people from more foriegn areas (i.e. the next town or so) of the families, the friends and the country's authorities that would want your blood.

Again, going back to the prior statement, I dont care if their life experience is massive, or if one person is a doctor and another is a shop clerk. Value of life is not measured by how well-off they are or their skills. A life is equal to any other, as it is all made from the same material - A body, a mind and a soul.

Some might even say due to overpopulation and diminishing resources it might be better for those left alive if more people died. Not my personal opinion, but it could easily be argued.
Click to expand...
Yeah, supply and demand would be easier to control in such situations. And it was mainly things like war or plagues and disasters that would at least level out the playing flield so overpopulation wouldn't be a problem. But bar the communist countries (North Korea and such), the odd incurtion (Isreal etc) and terrorists, most of the world seems to be of some understanding with each other. We have counter measures for many illnesses and equipment to filter the damage done to certain populated areas from disasters.
So there are less occurances where the population would deminise in large quantities to balance out the growth rate.
(This might be going off-topic now... lol)
 
Chaz said:
"Because only the person themselves can decide their own future/destiny, and whether something's right or wrong"? You said it yourself - We are all equal as sentient beings.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Chaz said:
So you cannot value the lives of the 3 people more-so than anyone in the village, right?
Click to expand...
No.

Look carefully at what you've written there Chaz. "You cannot value..." yes you can. I care about my own immediate family more than the entire population of Buče, Montenegro for example (chosen for it's obscurity and population size, I have nothing against Montenegrins). Why? Because I know and love my family; I have never met anyone from Buče and as such feel no attachment to them. I don't even know they exist now, I certainly wouldn't be in the least bit affected if they ceased to.

Human beings are all equal. But they do not have equal value to one another, and that's only natural. There are people we love and would protect at the cost of our own lives. There are people we would wish dead. These feelings are based on our life experiences, and there is a vast, vast swathe of the population who we all feel nothing towards but indifference. Not because we're callous, but because we simply don't know all these people. You can't possibly care about someone you don't know in any way, who you have never seen or talked to. There is no way you can value them as much as a close acquaintance.

Chaz said:
I must say though, you must be a really bad-ass to wipe out a village. If not for the moral issue that you evidently caused the death of so many people, but think of how many people from more foriegn areas (i.e. the next town or so) of the families, the friends and the country's authorities that would want your blood.
Click to expand...
You would only be causing their deaths if you been responsible for breaking the dam yourself. By not pressing the button, you are simply allowing their deaths to happen, something which would have happened anyway had you not been there. You would be causing the death of the man and dog if you pressed the button, because you are actively choosing to kill them when they would not otherwise have died.

You basically sum it up it the last sentence by saying that I should press the button based on how I would be viewed by others if I didn't. I dare say that you and many others would save the village and kill your acquaintance; not because it's what you actually want to do, but because the consensus morality compels you to do so. You correctly presume that anyone who failed to do the "right thing" in the eyes of others would be ostracised from wider society.

Personally, I'm not ashamed to say that I value the people close to me, their lives and their opinions, far more than those of people I don't know.
 
Back
Top