Page 7 of 9

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 4:07 pm
by waterchan
David N. Snyder wrote: What would Buddha do?
I don't think this should be a problem for the Buddha of the pali tipitaka. He can see the kamma of others, so he would act accordingly based on the ripening of kamma involved.

It's only a dilemma for the rest of us.

A virtue ethicist would not flip the switch.

A utilitarian or a lay Buddhist would just flip the switch. Having right intention, there is no killing intent present and therefore no unwholesome kamma accumulated. Unless the guy on the other track is an arahant, in which case the lay Buddhist is kammically screwed for a minimum of 1.62×10^12 years.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:19 pm
by Sokehi
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings,

It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.

You have the means to kill him, and by doing so, save the five.

Or do you not kill him, and let him kill the five.

Arguably, that's a much more difficult choice.

Metta,
Retro. :)
But do you really know that he is going to shoot them? Maybe he stops or not even start doing so at all... :tongue:

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:30 am
by rowboat

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 6:03 pm
by vesak2014
David N. Snyder wrote:What would you do?
I'd flip the switch and reach the tied person as soon as possible to set him free. Whichever nearest comes first. If the mad philosopher is around, I'd ask him to help me by doing either one. At least you do something other than just watching someone gets killed.
What would Buddha do?
This question doesn't apply to a Buddha. Because he can stop the train, or set the five people free, or flip the switch and set the one person free, anything you can think possible.

:anjali:

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:45 pm
by chownah
Perhaps this type of morality problem has gained relevance.

Should your driverless car kill you to save a child's life?

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-driverless ... -life.html
from the link:
"Consider this thought experiment: you are travelling along a single-lane mountain road in an autonomous car that is fast approaching a narrow tunnel. Just before entering the tunnel a child attempts to run across the road but trips in the centre of the lane, effectively blocking the entrance to the tunnel. The car has but two options: hit and kill the child, or swerve into the wall on either side of the tunnel, thus killing you."

chownah

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Sat Aug 02, 2014 4:25 pm
by Ceisiwr
chownah wrote:Perhaps this type of morality problem has gained relevance.

Should your driverless car kill you to save a child's life?

http://phys.org/news/2014-08-driverless ... -life.html
from the link:
"Consider this thought experiment: you are travelling along a single-lane mountain road in an autonomous car that is fast approaching a narrow tunnel. Just before entering the tunnel a child attempts to run across the road but trips in the centre of the lane, effectively blocking the entrance to the tunnel. The car has but two options: hit and kill the child, or swerve into the wall on either side of the tunnel, thus killing you."

chownah


I think my natural reaction would be to hit swerve, seeing the child it would be an automatic response. I dont think hitting the wall would automatically register.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:40 pm
by culaavuso
chownah wrote:Perhaps this type of morality problem has gained relevance.
[url=http://www.wired.com/2014/08/heres-a-terrible-idea-robot-cars-with-adjustable-ethics-settings/]Here’s a Terrible Idea: Robot Cars With Adjustable Ethics Settings[/url] by Patrick Lin wrote: Whatever the right value is to put on human life isn’t the issue here, and it’d be controversial any which way. In the same survey above, 36 percent of respondents would want a robot car to sacrifice their life to avoid crashing into a child, while 64 percent would want the child to die in order to save their own life. This is to say that we’re nowhere near a consensus on this issue.
...
With robot cars, we’re trying to design for random events that previously had no design, and that takes us into surreal territory. Like Alice’s wonderland, we don’t know which way is up or down, right or wrong. But our technologies are powerful: they give us increasing omniscience and control to bring order to the chaos. When we introduce control to what used to be only instinctive or random—when we put God in the machine—we create new responsibility for ourselves to get it right.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2014 11:56 pm
by alan
Here's a good idea: Never read anything by Patrick Lin.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2014 7:31 am
by Unrul3r
Here's an article pertaining to the topic: The Trolley Car Dilemma: The Early Buddhist Answer and Resulting Insights by Pandita

:anjali:

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:46 pm
by thepea
DNS wrote: Sun May 29, 2011 3:10 am I don't think this has been discussed yet here, so thought I would give it a try here:

The Train morality problem / philosophical dilemma / (First Precept issues)

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

(If you flip the switch, you are possibly "responsible" for the death of that person. If you don't flip the switch, five people die)

What would you do?

What would Buddha do?

Image
The trolley represents an external threat to the monestery.
In the path of this threat the five precepts are bound to the track by the perceiver of the threat. As the perceiver of this threat you can make the choice to break one precept or keep your precepts 100% pure and allow the external threat to simply do its thing. If you choose to break one precept you are responsible for the resultant kamma.

With the threat of an invisible attacker where fear is the primary threat I choose to let it do it’s thing.

With a visible threat I would choose to self-preserve.

A Buddha would not breach a precept.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 2:53 pm
by thepea
retrofuturist wrote: Sun May 29, 2011 4:28 am Greetings,

It starts to get more interesting when you move onto the gun-man who is about to kill 5 people.

You have the means to kill him, and by doing so, save the five.

Or do you not kill him, and let him kill the five.

Arguably, that's a much more difficult choice.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Gunman is the external threat. The five he is threatening are the precepts you keep. By killing you brech the five and are responsible for the resultant kamma.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm
by thepea
A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?

What would a Buddha do?

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:28 pm
by Sam Vara
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?
Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:41 pm
by Jack19990101
This trolley scenario is very interesting and intriguing too.

It reminds me of the teaching How one cross the flood -
By not pushing forward, by not backing up, by not standing still, one crosses the flood.
(Paraphrasing).

The teaching is straightforward in -
in case of Trolley and the case of flood,
solution is not in action, nor it is in the outward concern.
Dukkha is permeating from all directions in sphere of concern & action.

imo -
Solution is anatta.
We let go attachment to action, even further, completely let go of the concerning party, surrenderring our trust to Buddha Dhamma.

The trolley scenario, it is a classic to describe Dukkha.
Many Sila dilemma are Dukkha in disguise.

Re: The train morality problem

Posted: Mon Jan 23, 2023 6:50 pm
by thepea
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 4:28 pm
thepea wrote: Mon Jan 23, 2023 3:47 pm A flu is reported to be nasty and is killing the elderly and weak it’s reported to be heading your way.

You can make a decision to allow the flu to run its course and possibly kill the elderly and weak, or you can lockdown the world and mandate strict health regulations that violate a free societies personal rights and freedoms, but might stop the flu from spreading after it’s already noted to spread the world over.

What do you do?
Neither of the above. Governments deal with the first horn of the dilemma every year, without locking down the world. In fact, governments can't lock down the world - only those activities in a specific geographical area over which they have jurisdiction.
Is there a sutra referece to support the jurisdictional control over the buddha , dhamma and sangha?