WrestlingSmarks Ethics and Morals Debate Club

[Bobby Barrows]

WrestlingSmarks
Ethics and Morals
Debate Club

Welcome everyone to the WS Ethical Debate Club. Here we have discussions topics pertaining to the philosophical ideology of "What is Ethical". Ethics, as defined by Merriam-Webster's Dictionary is: "a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values". By extension, Morals are "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior". Here we will be talking about complex ideas, thought experiments, and possibly controversial topics that could extend into political rhetoric or scientific idealism.

Some topics may not be for the faint of heart, and some topics may cause psychological fragmentation (such as certain topics creating emotional instability). Those topics will be given a disclaimer at the beginning of the discussion and placed in spoilers so those who do not wish to partake in it are welcome to avoid it. Topics such as these are known as "Infohazards", and are more or less considered a darker subsection of the Morals and Ethics debates.

With that disclaimer out of the way, I officially invite you to bring your thoughts and perspectives as we ask ourselves "What is Moral or Ethical in the world?" Or perhaps more apt, "Should certain things be Ethical?"​

 

[Vegeta]

Holy forking shirt balls. I’m in

 

[TOP GUY TIME]

this sounds funny

im in

 

[Bobby Barrows]

The Trolley Problem

A staple of Ethical Debate for coming on 55 years. It is based on the papers of essayist philosopher Phillipa Foot (a granddaughter of President Grover Cleveland). The Trolley Problem is a seemingly simplistic issue that carries with it several heavy undertones and generally is considered a baseline for ethical debate. With this post, I will present several different variants on this thought experiment.

I
The Original Problem​

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:​ 1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

II
The Beloved vs. The Unknown
​

Imagine the scenario, same as before. The train is barreling on a collision course towards five people you have never met before. These five people are complete and utter strangers to you. On the other track, however, is someone you recognize very well. They are a loved one of yours (it need not matter who, a parent, child, lover, best friend). You have a chance to commit to an action, or lack thereof. If you change the track, you will save five strangers, but your loved one will perish. Doing nothing saves your loved one, but five strangers will die. The question isn't what is ethical or right, but what would you do?

III
Young vs. Old
​

Instead of the previous scenario, imagine a similar situation to the first. On the first track, there are five elderly people. Their ages do not matter, just that they are older than 60. On the other track, there is a single child, no older than 10. If you switch the track, you will kill the child, but save the five elderly folks. If you do nothing, five elders will die, but the child will live. What do you do?

IV
Free vs. Condemned
​

The authoritarian government has forced you to be the unwilling participant in a morbid game of death after you were convicted of a relatively minor crime. You stand at the switch to a track. A trolley led by an executioner barrels down the track towards its destination: five people who have been determined by the state to be criminals just like you. You do not know the extent of their crimes, as even the most minor of penalties could result in death. On the other track is a person determined by the state to be totally innocent of any crimes, save for them being a discriminated minority of the state and general public. You are given a choice: if you kill the five criminals, you will die alongside them. If you kill the innocent but discriminated minority, you and all of the criminals will be set free. What is ethical? What is the right choice?

Let the debate begin.

 

[Y2Jayne]

Those are all pretty hard choices.


All I can say is that I would always save the people I love and that saving one child seems more important to me than saving five old people. Unless that kid is doing Fortnite dances.

 

[Vegeta]

Some I already know what I’m doing, others I gotta think. Once I got time I’ll actually do this and detail my answers. But yeah, I’ll surely do this one later on.

 

[Alexa]

Scenario I: Pull the Lever
Scenario II: Do Nothing
Scenario III: Do Nothing
Scenario IV: Pull the Lever

 

[Canadian Dragon]

Ill write an essay on this later

 

[Chris]

1. Pull the lever
2. Pull the lever
3. Do nothing
4. Probably pull the lever, unsure here

First three are the same logic for me really, if I let one person live while simultaneously letting 5 die, it's not just my guilt, the survivor will more than likely have a lot too, and if it's a loved one it could strain our relationship bc those 5 people will feel like they're on their shoulders all the time. Flipped for old vs young tho bc I guarantee every one of those old folks would look me dead in the eye and say I better not kill the fucking baby lmao

The last one is different cause it kinda depends on my current mindset in this hellhole if I'm like rebelling and trying to change stuff then yeah I gotta let that poor guy die so I can live and keep fighting on...but if I'm just like living there and that shit sucks I'd let em live just to get myself out of there and be done with life

 

[Canadian Dragon]

I
The Original Problem

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options: 1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track. 2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, I pull the lever. 5 grieving families is more weight on my conscience than one. That being said, this is obviously the overly simple answer. There's a lot to consider if we're going to dig deeper, though the answer remains the same for me.

example: What if the one person is a better person than the 5? What if that one person could have changed the world? What if one of the 5 was a murdering asshole? All fair questions but my answer remains the same, even if more mathematical than ethical:
percentage wise, the odds of good in 5 people is higher than in one, and even if one of them is bad, you cannot justify killing 4 people for 1 bad apple, and you can't justify killing 5 people for 1 GOOD person either. I think this is one is fairly easy unless you have one of those heavy moral dilemmas where you don't want to be responsible for anything, and not pulling the level is "letting fate take its course". Which I would counter by: fate put you there to make a decision. Not making a decision is still making a decision.




II
The Beloved vs. The Unknown

Imagine the scenario, same as before. The train is barreling on a collision course towards five people you have never met before. These five people are complete and utter strangers to you. On the other track, however, is someone you recognize very well. They are a loved one of yours (it need not matter who, a parent, child, lover, best friend). You have a chance to commit to an action, or lack thereof. If you change the track, you will save five strangers, but your loved one will perish. Doing nothing saves your loved one, but five strangers will die. The question isn't what is ethical or right, but what would you do?

I'm going to expand on this one because frankly, it might depend. I think it's easy to pick loved ones here but I'm not sure I'm murdering 5 people. For my wife? yes. For my more eldery parents? Maybe not? I think I still pull the lever, but thinking how many years they have left vs the amount of years the other 5 may have is a real dilemma. What if one of the 5 in a teenager or young adult with his entire life ahead of them? What if your loved one is ok with death and doesn't want you to have 5 dead ppl on your concience? Something to think about here, because it comes down to bit more selfishness than the other choices. Those 5 people, after all, also have loved ones. Would you want them to pick their own and let your loved ones (part of the 5) die if the scenario was reversed? It might be the hardest one, for me, because it pits up morality and logic ( 5 lives are worth more than one) vs. emotion. The ethical decision is probably to save the 5, but I struggle to know if I would do it for anyone.


III
Young vs. Old

Instead of the previous scenario, imagine a similar situation to the first. On the first track, there are five elderly people. Their ages do not matter, just that they are older than 60. On the other track, there is a single child, no older than 10. If you switch the track, you will kill the child, but save the five elderly folks. If you do nothing, five elders will die, but the child will live. What do you do?

Yeah the old folks go here, the majority of eldery folks themselves would prioritize a baby over themselves in the majority of cases. Easy decision. 5 is more than 1 but the combination of those 5 elders remaining life barely fills the baby's entire life span.



IV
Free vs. Condemned

The authoritarian government has forced you to be the unwilling participant in a morbid game of death after you were convicted of a relatively minor crime. You stand at the switch to a track. A trolley led by an executioner barrels down the track towards its destination: five people who have been determined by the state to be criminals just like you. You do not know the extent of their crimes, as even the most minor of penalties could result in death. On the other track is a person determined by the state to be totally innocent of any crimes, save for them being a discriminated minority of the state and general public. You are given a choice: if you kill the five criminals, you will die alongside them. If you kill the innocent but discriminated minority, you and all of the criminals will be set free. What is ethical? What is the right choice?

This one I will get cute on. I kill the innocent minority. Making them a martyr. I use his death to rally the 5 other criminals and we take down the fascist regime, honoring the death of the innocent man killed and using it as our symbol towards freedom.

 

[CakeWalker]

1) Pull Lever
2) Do Nothing (I honestly don't believe anyone doesn't not pick this}
3) Pull Lever
4) Pull Lever

 

[Canadian Dragon]

its kind of boring if you just give your answers without explanation, just saying. kind of defeats the purpose of debate club

 

[CakeWalker]

1) Pull Lever
2) Do Nothing (I honestly don't believe anyone doesn't not pick this}
3) Pull Lever
4) Pull Lever

1] Not doing something is still a choice - so one dying instead of five is a net gain of +4.

2] I don't know anyone who isn't saving a loved one - if there is an attempt to disqualify a loved one - then I would say someone isn't actually using a loved one. Sorry strangers.

3] One child or five people over 60? I mean 60 isn't deaths door anymore. And what is too say that that child isn't dead by the time they are 30, Net gain +4. [this could be expanded into a whole different debate - but id rather not take it that way]

4] im saving myself.

 

[Vegeta]

First one

This one, it wasn’t so easy for me. I don’t wanna be the reason any of these people die, but after thinking about it and knowing SOMEONE has to die, at first I was like well save the five people, it’s more of them, so more of a chance of one of them doing something great for the world, and leaving something behind to be proud of….. but then it’s like okay well, that also leaves a chance of one of them being someone who ends up doing something bad as well. So it made me think even more. Then that makes me look okay, I’ll save the one person. Less likely chance it’s someone who does something great, but less chance they do something evil and bad also. But do you want to save someone based off what they MIGHT do? I’m not sure. In the end I settled on saving the five people. Because I’m going to feel bad either way, but having one body on my count is better than having 5.

Second one

Now here is where it gets tricky, and where I didn’t put much thought into it, so it makes the above answer look bad when here I’ll be fine with killing the five people. I’m going to be selfish on this one because I would find it harder to kill someone who I know and love. Surely if it’s a family member. Because then I would pretty much be black listed from the family, and have none of them, and family means everything to me. So I’m selfish here in away, and I’m fine with that.

Third

Another one where I knew my answer as soon as I read it. Where 60 isn’t really a long life at all, at least it’s a life. You’ve done things and seen things. You enjoyed it, and everything. The one under 10 hasn’t experienced much yet, if they even experienced anything yet. Plus I’m sure most of the old folks would say the same, something like. “I’ve lived my life, let that child live theirs.” This one is the one that’s easy and I don’t feel even the slightest bad about it. (The above one I only feel bad because it’s selfish a little bit)


as for the fourth one. I’m still thinking on this one. Probably best I don’t answer a question about if I live or die, when my current mood would dramatically effect it because let’s just say I’d be splattered over the tracks lol.

 

[Bobby Barrows]

Lots of great answers here, and I do think I like Blaze's answer most, but allow me to throw a twist in here for all but the last scenario:

The decision to change the tracks is the biggest factor in the entire problem. Suppose for a second that inaction, while allowing five people to die, is actually the correct move for several factors: Is it your place to murder one person to save five? Is it your duty to save five people?

By acting, you are personally responsible, and worse, culpable for the death of a singular person. By doing nothing, you are not necessarily responsible for the deaths of five people. You merely witnessed their deaths.

So the question here is: Should you outright murder a single person or watch five people die without the responsibility laid on your hands?