One family, a bomb and a wall

[Function]

Hi guys

 

Just a self-imagined theoretical topic to open discussion and debates.

 

Consider a wall. A huge wall over which you can throw any item, but over which, nor around which one can go.

Now consider, at one side of this wall, a family: a man, his wife, a son and a daughter (how stereotypical). The children are underaged, should this have influence on the result. This family does not know who, or what is behind the wall, or IF someone or something is behind the wall.

 

Along with this family, at this one side of the wall, is a bomb. A bomb that will erase all life in the system at one side of the wall. The wall will survive that blast, as well as everything or everyone that/who might be standing at the other side of the wall.

 

The bomb's almost detonating, so the family does not have the option to run.

 

Should they throw the bomb over the wall or not, keeping in mind that I know Kantianism, deontology, consequentialism, utilitarism and other basic ethical principles?

 

Please, speak freely.

 

F.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Function

[Delta1212]

There are definitely people on this side of the wall. There may or may not be people on the other side of the wall. If I was the decision maker in this scenario, but existed outside of the situation so it didn't affect me one way or another (as I am), I'd chuck it over the wall.

 

Definitely letting people die to save people who may or may not exist doesn't make sense to me ethically. Whether there is a family with children involved doesn't really play into it, honestly.

[Function]

Definitely letting people die to save people who may or may not exist doesn't make sense to me ethically. Whether there is a family with children involved doesn't really play into it, honestly.

 

It makes sense conform the consequentialism, should you be convinced that there are more people on the other side than on the family's side.

And touché; children are overrated in ethics

[Phi for All]

There's no ethical dilemma here. There's no evidence anyone is on the other side of the wall, but there is an immediate threat on this side that can be solved.

 

You throw the bomb over the wall instantly, as fast as you can to save your family, so that if there really are people on the other side, they can throw it back.

[Function]

There's no ethical dilemma here. There's no evidence anyone is on the other side of the wall, but there is an immediate threat on this side that can be solved.

 

You throw the bomb over the wall instantly, as fast as you can to save your family, so that if there really are people on the other side, they can throw it back.

 

So that's the next problem: ethically seen: should the people on the other side throw the bomb back?

[Phi for All]

 

So that's the next problem: ethically seen: should the people on the other side throw the bomb back?

 

They could interpret having a bomb thrown at them as an attack. The folks on the other side, who now have the bomb, have no idea it was thrown to save other lives. They only know someone threw it over to their side of the wall.

 

Of course they should throw it back, based on the data they have.

[Function]

 

They could interpret having a bomb thrown at them as an attack. The folks on the other side, who now have the bomb, have no idea it was thrown to save other lives. They only know someone threw it over to their side of the wall.

 

Of course they should throw it back, based on the data they have.

 

I'm, as you may've noticed, someone who likes to add "if's"

 

What if the family put a paper, saying "we don't want to die", on the bomb, implying that they throw the bomb to prevent their own death; which is non-malificent

 

And no, they don't have time to write other relevant information on the paper.

Edited January 13, 2015 by Function

[MigL]

What difference does it make ? No-one wants to die.

But to make it interesting leave out the paper note. The bomb is the only thing going over the wall.

Even if you know there is another family on the other side, you will never be able to meet or communicate with them, and they have no influence on your life other than a guilty conscience.

 

 

Would you kill every inhabitant of the planet orbiting a star 10000 LY away to save all life on Earth ?

Of course.

[Function]

What difference does it make ? No-one wants to die.

But to make it interesting leave out the paper note. The bomb is the only thing going over the wall.

Even if you know there is another family on the other side, you will never be able to meet or communicate with them, and they have no influence on your life other than a guilty conscience.

 

 

Would you kill every inhabitant of the planet orbiting a star 10000 LY away to save all life on Earth ?

Of course.

 

I'd like to refer to the trolley-problem

 

If I understand you well, I think you'd say that of there's 5 people on one track, 1 man on another, with a train heading towards the 5 people, you'd hit the switch, making the train divert to the one man?

 

Problem: doctrine of doing and allowing states that, in casu, hitting the switch would be worse than letting the train hit the 5 people

[MigL]

No I never implied a 'greater good".

I mean that if the family on the other side can never interact or influence my life ( other than by throwing the bomb over the wall ), are they really there ? Are they not just an 'idea' or 'concept' as compared to my 'real' family ?

[Delta1212]

No I never implied a 'greater good".

I mean that if the family on the other side can never interact or influence my life ( other than by throwing the bomb over the wall ), are they really there ? Are they not just an 'idea' or 'concept' as compared to my 'real' family ?

They're as real as your family is, they're just less important to you personally. Following this train of thought, you could justify doing anything to someone as being ethical just so long as you don't care what happens to that person/those people.

[Endy0816]

Go under the wall.

[imatfaal]

 

I'd like to refer to the trolley-problem

 

If I understand you well, I think you'd say that of there's 5 people on one track, 1 man on another, with a train heading towards the 5 people, you'd hit the switch, making the train divert to the one man?

 

Problem: doctrine of doing and allowing states that, in casu, hitting the switch would be worse than letting the train hit the 5 people

 

 

[John Cuthber]

Yell over the wall to see if there's someone there.

Count them.

Minimise the total deaths.

Of course, if you are selfish, you can lie about how many people are on your side.

[Function]

Yell over the wall to see if there's someone there.

Count them.

Minimise the total deaths.

Of course, if you are selfish, you can lie about how many people are on your side.

 

So you favorize consequentialism?

[John Cuthber]

 

So you favorize consequentialism?

I'm extraordinarily unlikely to "favorize" anything.

I might favour some things. in general I think that, if the consequences of ones actions are not the basis of ones choice of action then one is rather missing the point of having a brain that can deduce what those consequences may be.

However, I'm not foolish enough to say I'd never be a hypocrite about these things.

If I was in that situation, I might not yell very loudly...

Edited January 17, 2015 by John Cuthber