Now, I was looking at philosophy websites and came across a rather intriguing question. It is supposed to test your reasoning.
Here is the question: "You are driving a trolley car and you take a turn around a corner. Suddenly, 5 workers come into view, who are working on the track and are very close. You must stop, but the brakes don't work. Then, you see a fork in the track, but, there is a single worker working on that track. So what do you do? Do you continue and kill the five workers, or do you take the fork and kill the one instead?"

So what do you do, and why do you choose it?

After you answer that, try this one to see if your logic holds up: "This time, instead of being the driver, you are an onlooker, who is on a bridge over the track. The same situation is present, but the trolley car is definitely going to hit the five workers, no doubt about it. But then you notice a very fat man is leaning over the bridge, watching. You realize that all you would have to do if give him a push, and he will fall onto the track, and certainly stop the car, but he will also die. So, do you just let the trolley car kill the five workers, or do you send the fat a to his death in order to spare the lives of the workers?"

Did your logic remain the same? That's why this is such an interesting question.

SetoKaiba1025 :

In the first scenario, the options are to have five people die or one person die. The obvious answer is to let the smaller amount die. By changing course, my action does not cause his death. The rampaging trolley causes his death. I am not willing the one man as a means to stop the death of others.

The second scenario changes course and intentionally poses Utilitarianism/Pragmatism and Altruism. If I push the fat guy into the trolley, I have murdered him. My action was to cause his death as a means to saving others. Pragmatism allows this, but people are more than objects. You cannot push the man in the way of the trolley to save others.

If I were the fat man, I could jump and sacrifice myself in order to save another. I cannot push the fat man over because I would be using him as an object.

This is a very heavy debate about morality and conscious chose. There is the impact of greater happiness and moral decision. For the first scenario, the trolley could easily kill fewer people by turning the trolley, which would have the greater amount of impact on people, but this requires to completely change the path of the intended way. However, pushing the fat man would result in the greater happiness of the general people, but at the sacrifice of another human being. Pushing the fat person to save others lives in theory is the best option if the goal is to save the most lives, but he would be an innocent person fallen victim to a murder. The thing about humans is we can analyze the outcome of different events, but a machine would only do what is best for everyone. If I were the conductor, I would keep the trolley going the original intended path because why should someone doing nothing wrong have to die? In theory the five people are also innocent, but they are still in the way of the trolley. Same thing with the fat person. I wouldn't push him just because he is fat and around the trolley. If that logic is used in everyday life, there would be chaos. People would stealing money from others because it would have a better benefit more people. This is my view on this debate.

Mattboo64 :

Ok, let's change the scenario slightly. You're the conductor of the trolley. It's coming to a fork, so you select that it is to go left, like you're route is supposed to. It is after you select left, the old scenario begins. You have five people on the track that the trolley will hit (left side), or you can change the course to the right side and only hit one person.

I understand why you would choose "five people" for the first scenario. By changing the trains current path, you have acted to put someone else in harms way. In this new scenario, you act either direction. You chose left, but you may now choose right instead knowing the outcome.

I still think that, in the first instance, it would be more moral to change the track. I did not cut the brake lines to the trolley, so I am responsible for nothing. However, I do have the opportunity to minimize the deaths. I'll take it. In the second scenario, I can still minimize deaths, but I now have "cut the brakes". I have fully responsibility for the doom of the fat man.

Despite how bad you may feel the obvious answer is to let the smaller amount of people die in the first scenario. Henceforth you let the one man die saving the other five. His death isn't necessarily your fault as you cannot stop the train nor can you warn them. That is assuming this train has no horn for the purpose of this scenario. Therefore you are only trying to lessen the amount of deaths.

For the second scenario I would not push the man over as it is not my life therefore not my choice. If I were to push him it would be (morally) the wrong choice. He could sacrifice himself if he was aware of the situation however its not my choice to push him. Even though I would be saving lives it is still murder as I used him as a tool. Despite lives being saved I have still murdered a man.

The difference between the two situations is that in the first scenario you are not the cause for anyone's death. You are simply trying to lessen the number of deaths. In the second scenario you have the choice to murder no one and watch others die. You can't stop it either but you are even less responsible for their deaths. However if you push the man you are murdering a man.

Well, in the first option, you have the choice to hit either one person, or five people, and even though it seems cruel to that one person, you are still lessening the death toll. It is not an easy choice, as you are still dealing with people's lives, but it is better to hit one than five. 

The second scenario is a bit more tricky. If you were to think about the whole thing rationally, the obvious answer is to push the one man off in order to save the five people. The result is that the fat man dies, and the five workers live. You would obviously be at fault, and would likely be charged with murder, but you would have saved a larger number of people. Thinking about it from a moral perspective though, you can feel conflicted. If you push the fat man, you are killing someone firsthand. Then again, your morals could also be afflicted if you do not push the fat man. Say that the five people die, and you are left realizing that you could have pushed him in order to save them, but chose not to. A tricky situation, but because I am too weak to actually act rationally in this sort of situation, I would likely not push him. 

The situations seem to be similar, but they are different. You are not personally responsible for the death of anyone in the first scenario, although it could be argued that you are if you decide to take the fork in the road and intentionally go after the singular person. Since you cannot stop the vehicle in time though, most people would choose to overlook that. The second situation has you personally acting upon a person though in order to save others. This is most definitely intentional murder. The logic is a bit different, even if the number of people involved remains the same. 

sop281 :

I would argue that pushing him would be irrational. To use the fat man as a tool is not the rational approach. Understanding his own personal dignity and refusing to push him would be the rational decision. The number of lives aren't what is important, the question is about moral action: what should you do? If it is OK to act irrationally, then using the fat man is OK. Just don't try to justify it. If rational beings should always act rationally, then we have to decide if shoving someone onto tracks is rational.

Txgangsta : Now you are bringing morals into the rational aspect. Pushing the man would be completely rational. If you were to choose to push him over to save the lives of the five workers, you would be doing it the rational way. Morally speaking, it is a bad thing to do, but from a rational standpoint pushing him would be a-okay. There is reason to push him, and it is therefore rational. Morality has nothing to do with rationality unless you mix the two. I would never push him because it would be against my morals, but if I were to be able to attack this from a rational aspect, I would push him because the outcome would be better overall. Rational beings would push him. This is all assuming your point of rationality is to have the best possible outcome for others. 

sop281 :

Pushing the man is not rational. You're action is to kill a man. That's irrational. Totally and completely irrational. Saving 5 people is rational and wonderful, but you can't push the fat guy into the train to do it. My morals are the same as rationality. Why should they contradict? We're rational beings! Rational beings should be rational! There is no need to segment the two away from each other. Ever.

If you look at the history of ethics, it begins as religious
declaration, but especially with the Greek, was developed via logic.
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle were simply the last of the Greeks to do that. Homer even gets pretty logical with things you ought to do. Morality is to be in accordance with reason. If you read Roman ethics, you'll see the same things. If you read Christian ethics (especially those Catholics), you'll see the same thing. If you read early Islamic philosophy (but not late Islamic philosophy) and find ethics, you'll see the same things.

Txgangsta : Ethics may have been set up in the ways you have stated, but killing can be rational, and not everyone adopts religious ethics. Do not just place your own morality upon all people. It can and is rational in certain situations, and under certain rational standards. If I were to take the best possible outcome, ignoring my own morality, I would choose to push the man. That is a fully rational choice. Morals only get in the way of rationality. There is no reason to even bring them in to begin with. 

sop281 :

My morality is reason. And so long as you are a rational being, I totally can impose them on you. And I will. I have not mentioned God one time in my explanation of why you should do one over the other. No religion has been present here.

Killing can be rational, yes. War, offensive or defensive, has the potential to be rational. At the very least, the soldier being shot at would be rational to shoot back. Self-defense is rational. And, defense of others is rational. If some guy is being beaten to death and I have a gun on me, I just may pop the assailant in the head before he can finish. Finally, capital punishment is rational. I think it is overused in the US, but it's technically rational. If Hitler was captured alive, loyal Nazis would attempt to free him, kill for him, rule in his place, etc. Osama Bin Laden, also, by simply being alive brought potential danger. Scenarios like that allow for rational capital punishment.

However, in this scenario we have been given, killing the man is irrational. The fat man is guilty of nothing. The fat man is (as far as we know) unwilling to kill himself in order to save people. The fat man does not deserve death. Therefore, you cannot give death to him.

"Best possible outcome" is not rationality. A cockroach can push the buttons enough to figure what the "best possible outcome" would be. Rationality is much greater than what you're giving it.

SetoKaiba1025 : Oh, I was told something like that in my public speaking class except it was 10 people instead of 5 people and then the other option was to kill 1 person over the 10 people with a trolley you didn't control, but in your first scenario, me would be the person controlling it which makes kind of the only option for the first scenario would be killing one person over five. I would choose this because it seems like the most rationale thing to do that I think is rationale because you will have less of the head count stuck to your (I can't think of the word I'm trying to say, but maybe) conscience, but for the second scenario I would not push the fat man to save 5 lives because you are intervening on your own account to show others who is choosed to die and I think that power should not be given to anyone in the world. The second scenario could come back and haunt you more than the first scenario (I think). In the public speaking class, though in the first scenario, I was asked if I would pull the switch to a uncontrollable trolley with no owner or controller to kill one person than the 10 people (or 5 people in your scenario) and I would say in that scenario to kill the 5 people instead of the 1 person because you might not feel the bad karma or bad thoughts towards what you have done if you had pushed the switch to kill 1 person. Did you say what you would do (I would like to hear what everyone else would say on this too, including you)? Thank you for posting this philosophy topic SetoKaiba1025!

Txgangsta : "No religion has been present here".
 
"f you look at the history of ethics, it begins as religious... If you read Christian ethics (especially those Catholics), you'll see the same thing. If you read early Islamic philosophy (but not late Islamic philosophy) and find ethics, you'll see the same things". 

Rationality can take the place of many forms though, and it all depends on person to person, so if I were to personally believe in the rationale of my killing a person to save more than a single soul, I would be choosing my own rational decision. It is the logical choice in the situation. Though this is all coming down to personal issues with the murder. I will cut it off before we continue with the senseless back-and-forth ramblings. 

sop281 :

Haha, very funny. I was talking about philosophy within religions. It has nothing to do with religious declarations. "Christian philosophy" and "Islamic philosophy" are not religions. They are based upon logic alone. They may be faulty, but they're not dogmatic.

Rationality does not "take many forms". Rationality is one thing. If it "took different forms" there would be different correct answers to the same question. There is not. There is one correct answer. You and I cannot both be right. You are wrong for the reasons I listed. You have listed the same reason over and over, and I have addressed it in two different ways.

Your way is not logical. You would murder. End of story. You're not allowed to do that, regardless of the consequences. Five people didn't die, but you, you personally, condemned an innocent man to death.

SetoKaiba1025 :
Id go for the one worker, to minimise the casualties.
I wouldn't push someone off though.
You are stuck to two routes so you take the less problematic one.
That is not the same as sacrificing a bystander.

Txgangsta :
Rationality is to work towards a goal.
Killing one to save 5 is in fact rational in the goal of minimising deaths.
In many ways, thinking of your morals when given an opportunity to save multiple lifes is irrational.
5 is 4 greater than 1, in pure mathematics its an obvious choice.

And ethics arent religious any more than morals. Its nice to think that god came along and savagery dissapeared, but its completeky wrong. Most civilizations had laws against immoral acts, like murder, larsony, assault etc. Not because such acts are irrational but because they are counter productive to society. There goods had no laws against these things. In fact, you can argue the same people that developed these laws built them into later religions. Not the other way round.

"My morality is reason. And so long as you are a rational being".
It's irrational to simply act a way on the whim of another. And 1 persons rain does not fit all.
You are x, sop is y.
X + r = f
That doesn't mean everything that gets r well become f.
Another analogy, baking.
Start with different base ingredients, or use different amounts, the end result is different. A rational being will find their own ideas.

"However, in this scenario we have been given, killing the man is irrational."
You are confusing right and wrong with rationality. If killing one man stopped the earth's destruction it would be rational. You would have b wronged that man, but it was a rational choice. It was reasoned, thought out, and decided as the logical path. It wasn't a decision made on a whom. It was rational.

"there would be different correct answers to the same question"
There are. From 7, make 16.
7+9 =16.
(7+1) *2 = 16.
I want to reach the Lake, their is a fork in the road. Both the left and the right meet at the lake. In life there is often more than one acceptable answer.

I believe sop is correct, for the simple reason that you are mixing right and wrong/morality/the role of law, with rationality. Rationality is not acting in adherence to rules. It's making a reasoned decision with the information you have available to you.
Whether or not something is the best decision is of no consequence to whether it's rational or not.
If I kill you because I can, that's irrational.
If I kill you because it seems apparent you are about to fire a rifle at a random person, that's a rainfall decision. Maybe you weren't going to. But with the information I had at the Time, it was a reasonable assumption and a reasonable reaction.

ra·tion·al
?raSH?nl,?raSHn?l/
adjective
1.
based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
"I'm sure there's a perfectly rational explanation"
synonyms: logical, reasoned, sensible, reasonable, cogent, intelligent, judicious, shrewd, common-sense, commonsensical, sound, prudent

Note the absence of moral, or in adherence of the law.

Edit-any typos found/wrong words are a result of my phones auto-not-so-correct.

thenumberone :

You and I have completely different definitions of rationality. It's not attempting to achieve a goal, even trees do that. If it is "a conscious attempt" instead, the category is still wide enough for mice, birds, etc.

By rationality, I mean the capacity to truly understand. That is reason. A mouse does not understand that it's following the smell of cheese down a maze. It's just operating off of stimulus. Human beings also operate off stimulus, but we can understand that is the case. I can look at you and understand that you are another of the same species and with the same capacities. Rationality is about true understanding rather than simply going with the flow.

So, how does morality/ethics factor in? My understanding affects the way I act. If I do not understand the fat man as the same as myself, I may conclude to push him into the trolley. That is why I say "pushing him his irrational". The only way anyone could decide that would be because they do not understand.

Hume talks about this "is/ought gap". What other solution is there for what we ought to do other than say "rational beings ought to act rationally" or "human beings ought to act human"?

No, this is not a proof for God. To make it so would be a stretch at the very least. This is not religious because it has nothing to do with any sort of "God says". And it really doesn't matter which came first, religion or law. I would guess that they were developed simultaneously, but again, it doesn't matter. They are both necessary aspects of civilization.

Txgangsta :
You're and my definitions are irrelevant. Im running with the stated definition of rationality. Its pretty clear really.

thenumberone :

That isn't a way out of an argument. Words are artificial. Let's use whatever you want to define as "truly understand". Xylophone. There.

So again. Trees can achieve goals. Mice and birds can do that consciously. Only human beings can Xylophone. Xylophoning matters because if you don't understand a situation, you're not going to act correctly. Human beings are Xylophone beings, and should act Xylophone. Therefore, since it is Xylophone to understand the fat guy as an end rather than a means, it is Xylophone to understand you should not push him on the track.

Better?

Txgangsta :
"Words are artificial. Let's use whatever you want to define as "truly understand". Xylophone. There."
Without respecting the set meanings of words, any linguistic debate is pointless. Rational has a definition. You disagree with it but that doesn't change its definition.
Saying xylophone makes no sense because it's meaning doesn't fit. Language is like arithmetic. It works in some forms, not in others. I am going by the book (or dictionary), you are going from your gut feeling (or the heart if you want to be poetic about it).
If you want to discuss something like a word, the book is the key to its understanding.

The irony of your amended example, is that is exactly what you did last time.
You incorrectly used a wird throughout your argument, destroying the entire thing.

Txgangsta : What do you mean by a "xylophone"? Are you talking about the musical instrument, the xylophone or are you talking about a different word? I have to agree with "thenumberone", I don't think you are using the word in the correct context of the word's definition. I think "thenumberone" is taking into context the denotation of the word rationality, while you are taking the context of your own connotation of the word's definition of rationality and I think if people have a different connotation of a word, they might deem their connotation as the real denotation, so many words that might have one definition, but many different connotations could be proved in some way a different kind of mindset on the word, so nobody is really wrong when it comes to defining some words unless they are far from the word's real definition, but I think as long as people can back up their connotation with evidence, then they are correct in some way, so I'd say anyone and everyone is correct or can be correct.