Ethical Dilemma...

[BrightStar]

Each situation would be different, and there are many varying factors, so each case would have a different answer, considering the factors of the case.

**

[tinstar]

Wow. That is one of my favorite ethical questions of all time. I have posed many variations to friends over the years and they all seem to think that the answer is the self-evident and ends with saving the baby, or the pregnant woman, etc..... Someone else already said this but it seems true that noone is really able to get to the core of the moral dilemma of it. What is this METAPHORICAL question really about? What "basics" do the protagonists represent? What premises must be established and agreed to before answering? I still wrestle with it myself...

[ForrestBlack]

Just for the record, I'd be a lot less likely to save the baby. But, it kinda depends on where exactly the old man has wrinkles on his face.

[darknessfalls]

OK, imagine this:

You are standing near the switching post of a train track. On one branch of the track an old man has fallen over, on the other lies a baby. There is a train approaching. If you do nothing, the baby dies. If you switch the track, the old man dies.

What do you do?

I say take out the baby....

[Camby Savelle]

I would walk away and not care.

I think that this world is overpopulated as is. Victoms are only victoms once they're dead, age doesn't matter.

[Tequila Zaire]

I find it odd that so many complain about overpopulation when major nations are experiencing falling population numbers. Plus you NEED a younger workforce to maintain the aging generations. When you're 65 you'll need the 40 and under set to maintain much of the worlds daily things like oh say...powerplants, farms, banks, etc. or on a smaller scale Pharmacies, Hip Replacement R&D, and the making and canning of prune juice.

So really...save the baby...you'll need that worker bee when it matures and you become the old man who should have stayed the fuck away from the tracks.

[TheDeathKnight]

That concept of population growth is based upon the current situation.
We have countries, economies, etc...
So if we have an equal number of new workers, or more,
the idea is that our economy will stay the same or increase, with more workers.
More workers = more tax dollars. More workers = social security money.
But this model does not take into account the fact that if there is not
enough work, what do those unemployed people do?
They steal, they go on welfare, etc...
And what does everyone do?
Everyone consumes resources.
Oil, gas, products, cars, houses, etc...
So the depletion of natural resources will keep growing exponentially as well.
But politicians never look at that.
They only look at the economy, and taxes.
The reason smart countries like Japan, and ones in Europe, are having
a population decrease, is because they realized it *is* a problem...
Just like China realized it is a problem.
It's obviously a problem in Africa.
Too many people means they eat up all the resources,
and people starve, and start fighting, etc...
It's obvious even in a small scale.
If you have 10 kids, you will have a hard life.
If you have 1 or two, it's not that bad.
Our politicians brainwash us with the idea that
population decrease is a bad thing. It's not...
It means more resources for less people.
Imagine that in the most simple ways.
If we produce a certain amount of food in this country,
and there are half as many people, that will mean there
will be twice as much food available, so prices will go down.
If there are the same number of houses, and half the number
of people, there will be more houses available at reasonable prices...

Anyhow, back to the old man and the baby... you have to look at
the situation in a less complicated way. Assume you can only
switch the tracks. You can't save both of them. There is no way.
You are flying a plane, it's going to crash. You can guide it into
a school, or a nursing home. Which one do you hit? That's the
question... You don't get to know anything about the old man,
or the baby or either one's future potential...

[karamae]

why would anyone sit around thinking about stuff like this.

my life has enough ethical dilemmas as it is.

[TheDeathKnight]

Give us an example...

[devil13]

see this is an ethical question and giving eveyrone time to actually think about the answer. in real life though, the outcome may actually vary. you could freeze up even if you wanted to switch the tracks. you may not even think of switching the tracks at all. your split second instincts will take over every time and you either will do it or you wont. as for your ethical question, I hate most people and dont care enough to say I would want either of them to be saved. a better ethical question for me would be to save my brothers baby boy or my grandmother. in that case I know for a fact that I would give my own life for either of them and I also know that my grandmother would give her life for her great grandchild so my obvious choice would be to save my brothers son.

[TheDeathKnight]

Yeah, the more I think about it, the old person has already lived life, and accomplished whatever they might have accomplished. The kid may do great things, and have great experiences... In a larger sense, I believe we need less people in the world. But in a smaller sense, I think a young person has more right to explore life than someone who has already been around the block...

[Morning Glory]

I'd crash the plane into the school. haha. that would be awesome, the kids would love it. oh yeah, plus they'd be able to get out of the way. the old people would all be struggling to get thier wheels chairs and walkers and they'd start lecturing the plane about why it should be more responsible and how there tax dollars are going to be wasted on the damage caused by the plane crash and they'd all die, and the one's that didn't die would have heart attacks after the plane crashed.

[Tequila Zaire]

The reason smart countries like Japan, and ones in Europe, are having
a population decrease, is because they realized it *is* a problem...

In terms of Japan there is a bit more to it than just resource use. WHat they face is a much more severe issue of not having enough young people to take up the jobs needed to sustain the nation. Their is a danger of going TOO far with curbing a massive population. At some point you end up not having enough to cover the minimum or on a smaller scale you lose family bloodlines essential to a culture sustaining itself and carrying on everything from traditions to important contracts.

With China it gets a bit more complicated as the systems in place (some going on over a thousand years) actually contribute to the massive population. When you have an enourmous peasent population that cannot go anywhere (in China citizens can't actually move to other places like we can here, it's a very rigid system that keeps track of where EVERYONE is) you end up with a type of overgrowth effect. You have too many stuck in one place for far too long a period. It's great when you want to sustain certain areas or use them to build up a workforce or army but at one point their is only so much that one area no matter how prosperous can sustain. Even with times of shifting massive amounts of people to one area or another the same thing occurs. Added to this is how little of the actual nation is populated...it's all centered around certain areas predefined by everything from strategic to ecenomic needs. Not exactly an uncommon practice but it is taken a bit far in China where have a bit too many cities with tens of millions as a population...the danger in not spreading out has bit them a few times in the past and will again once the Three gorges dam project finishes. Will I think it will help modernize and hopefully diversify areas of the nation grossly in need of it...it also plans to birth a massive mega city that could add to the problem at hand (essentially the city will be like an interiour Hong Kong....a huge port and buisness center unlike any city that deep in China.)

With Africa you simply have a lack of modernization, birth control, proper medicine, etc. so it's a lot like people of the last two centuries having as many kids as possible since the odds of them reaching adulthood were much harder than today. Infant mortality rate and human life expectancy was nowhere near what it is today in modern nation. Add to this social, political, and religious unrest and you have children breed more out of need to stokes the fires than much else. May sound a bit cruel but it is a continent where child soldiers are commonplace.

Resource use is a key issue but their are many others that plauge us...people often say "we don't have enough space" well we do...VERY little of the U.S. for example is actually populated. Odd to say that I know but if you look at population maps you will still find large expanses of land. Thing is we stick to where other people are...so of course their is no room in heavily populated areas we all want to be. It's where "civilization" is. But as technology allows us to do more and more from anywhere this may change.

Who knows...we may hit the time soon (like in less than 10 years) where a majority work from home offices in areas that were once considered "nowhere" and ease the dense urban populations a bit. People will always want to live in places like NYC but if you live in SoCal you will see that many happily engage in an insane commute to live places far removed from the dense city areas...part out of affordable housing and cost of living...but also to define a new community and get away from the problems of the city.

[TheDeathKnight]

I agree about the space issue.

But at the same time, I think we still use too many natural resources.

People in Africa are killing endangered species just to eat them.
People in south America are tearing down the rainforest,
to make room for cattle land, to make more beef for
the world's plates. We have depeted a lot of the fisheries,
and are depleting the oil, and many other natural resources.

I'm not saying we don't have room for more people on the planet.

Just that we would have a better standard of living if we had less.

But it needs to be controled.

The idea of population needing to be maintained, to pay for
social security, and retirement, is a selfish need. If we had less
people, it would not be as hard to take care of them when they
are older. If there were less unemployed young people, then
there would be more money to give to retired people. If there
were less young people eating the food, there would be extra
food to give to retired old people... It would all work out...
But if we just keep growing and growing, we will run out
of resources, and have some serious problems...

[Tequila Zaire]

People in Africa are killing endangered species just to eat them.
People in south America are tearing down the rainforest,
to make room for cattle land, to make more beef for
the world's plates. We have depeted a lot of the fisheries,
and are depleting the oil, and many other natural resources.

Well with Africa you have a long tradition of eating some of the animals so having western scientists come and say they are endangered and need preserved causes a problem since at times it's a staple of their diet. Offering no alternative...friction and abuse occurs. The rainforests are depleated for simple survival on the part of many people not just the big bad conglomerates. Brazil is a great example and is also one of the most heavily class and racialy unequal nations on the planet...the rainforests are a casuality of this inequality more than anything.You have too many having to resort to such livelyhoods just to get by...or in many cases barely that.

The idea of population needing to be maintained, to pay for
social security, and retirement, is a selfish need. If we had less
people, it would not be as hard to take care of them when they
are older. If there were less unemployed young people, then
there would be more money to give to retired people. If there
were less young people eating the food, there would be extra
food to give to retired old people... It would all work out...
But if we just keep growing and growing, we will run out
of resources, and have some serious problems...

It's all great in theory but in practice it raises some pretty srious questions of WHO is allowed to populate. It will never be all equal...humanity has shown it just can't do that. So it would break down to racial lines far faster than old and young. Will the majority want to maintain their majority and restrict the minority? Will the wealthy control the population habits of the poor? How will one determine when their is TOO many of a certain population? How do we balance it out when we can't balance out what we have in excess now? You have one side eating too much and the other not at all these days.

I like your theory but each time it comes up some hard social questions seem to be forgotten. I don't trust the majority now...it'd do it less so in a population controlled enviornment...too often the majorityhas tried to breed out the minority or in some cases...tried to wipe them out by controling their breeding habits.

[Morning Glory]

It's a sad fact of life, but it's a fact nonetheless that Not surviving is a natural condition. there's a reason that the human body can't fight off disease, severe temperature's, etc. on it's own, and it's because that's the way it was meant to be. I'm not talking about about some divine plan, but just simply logical elemental balance that is neccesary to sustain life on a planet.
Before the industrial revolution there was no polution or overpopulation or lack of resources. the life rate was also only 40 years and one out of every 4 people probbily wouldn't live to see adulthood. that kinda sucks, but I think that's the way it was meant to be.
It's only because selfish people really didn't think/care about the future. most people would probbily rather have an easy life today and live for 150 years, even if it means that in 400 years the 40% increase in the quality of life you've made now will lead to a 200% decrease in life quality then.

[TheDeathKnight]

In Brazil, and Africa, the problems with resource depletion are caused because there are too many people struggling to be rich like the westerners. They want to tear up their resources, so they can sell us beef and diamonds. They do not care about destroying their forests or animals. So let's say they do destroy it all, and the planet is nothing but commercial farms and stockyards for cattle. Eventually there will be enough food and shelter for all the people. But if people keep breeding, they will eventually outpace the ability for nature to provide for people. Cows only grow so fast. Crops use resources like water and soil nutrients. Trees only grow so fast. I'm not saying we won't survive. But what kind of life are we going to have? One without forests? Without unique animals? Where we are all in small living spaces, with factory-farmed food, etc.? I just wish that we could be a smaller human race, still striving for technology, but less of us. We could still be doing all the same things, but causing less impact on the planet. What is the purpose of so many people being here? Is there really a need for so many? Couldn't economies and lifestyles be adjusted to accomodate *less* people? Why is there such a focus on growth? We have this huge focus on producing products, and selling products. The more we produce and sell, the more money we make. That's the only goal people have. And they don't care what impact their production has. I can just imagine a much smaller population, and everyone still doing the same things, but with less impact. Billions of drivers, all driving SUVs, gobble up all the oil. But a few hundred thousand drivers will not use much oil at all. We could go on for many more centuries without depleting the oil reserves. We could all drive big, fast, gas-guzzlers, with very little impact on oil or on emissions amounts. But as the population grows, so does our use of oil, and our emissions. Not to mention our TRASH. All the waste of so many people, is amazing. Just junk mail alone. Think of all the trees that have to be cut down to make paper for junk mail to be printed on. All so those places can make a buck off some idiot who might use the service. I just do not see why people think having less people is such a bad thing. I always get resistance from people, that a declining population is a bad thing. I think it might take some adjustment, but I think it would be a good thing in the long run...