There's this fellow at Princeton, Joshua Greene, who collects 'moral paradoxes'. You know, the kind where you get to pick who to save from drowning, but with a more philisophical edge
( Read more... )
I think there's another issue that might creep in - that of the victim's culpability. If someone's sitting on the track, they're presumably assuming a bit of risk that a train might come their way. If someone's standing a short distance away from a track, there's not the same expectation that someone's going to come along and shove them in the path of a train; the bystander is less deserving of his fate than the workers sitting on the track.
Another explanation for the paradox is that we treat the situations differently because of the actions we're asked to take - one is merely throwing a switch, the other is pushing a presumably struggling victim onto the track.
Comments 2
Another explanation for the paradox is that we treat the situations differently because of the actions we're asked to take - one is merely throwing a switch, the other is pushing a presumably struggling victim onto the track.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment