Reply to: oops our more portly members are fecked

[Zigenare]

Your wife said the same so unless the knifeman is Baldrick you are fecked...

You're demonstrating your lack of imagination there...

[vetran]

It would not just be murder if you chose to push that fat man, it would also be a breach of his human rights, under European human rights law.

I base this conclusion on two things I remember reading:-
1. The German airforce asked a German court to rule on whether they could shoot down a hijacked airliner in a 911 scenario. The answer was no. You cannot kill one set of people to save another, the numbers involved are irrelevant.
2. In a reality TV program I didn't see but read reports of, contestants played the role of politicians and had to decide whether they could destroy a dam, killing one person who had resisted all attempts to move them out of the way, in order to prevent a flood elsewhere that would kill far more people. The contestants were advised by actual civil servants who'd deal with this in real life. Apparently the correct answer was once again that it would be illegal to kill one person to save others.

This AIUI is why they are trained to push the airline to land by using their wings & fuselage.

Taser the muppet

[vetran]

It depends if she's more attractive than my wife...

Your wife said the same so unless the knifeman is Baldrick you are fecked...

[BR14]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

[IR35 Avoider]

It would not just be murder if you chose to push that fat man, it would also be a breach of his human rights, under European human rights law.

I base this conclusion on two things I remember reading:-
1. The German airforce asked a German court to rule on whether they could shoot down a hijacked airliner in a 911 scenario. The answer was no. You cannot kill one set of people to save another, the numbers involved are irrelevant.
2. In a reality TV program I didn't see but read reports of, contestants played the role of politicians and had to decide whether they could destroy a dam, killing one person who had resisted all attempts to move them out of the way, in order to prevent a flood elsewhere that would kill far more people. The contestants were advised by actual civil servants who'd deal with this in real life. Apparently the correct answer was once again that it would be illegal to kill one person to save others.

[Zigenare]

Ooh...someone watched the RI Christmas Lectures

I did, along with my son.

[SimonMac]

Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".

This is why autonomous cars are a still a thing of fantasyl, the technology may "work" but the law around it is still a long way from clear.

[ladymuck]

Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".

Ooh...someone watched the RI Christmas Lectures

[tazdevil]

The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".

You if you're the 'driver' unless they change the law so that the driver isn't legally in control of their vehicle. Perhaps autonomous vehicles will be legally treated as driverless busses so the responsibility lies with the vehicle operator which is still you. Unless they decide the software is responsible in which case the guy who designed the software is responsible, which could still be you. I think it might be a long time before anyone but the driver/operator can avoid responsibility. Expect loads of stickers in these cars saying you must be alert and have hands on the controls at all time. In which case what's the point?

[Zigenare]

In UK and US common law, you're not legally obliged to help anyone in danger or distress, even if there is negligable or zero risk to yourself.

So legally, and arguably morally, you're perfectly entitled to let the five people be killed. It's just their hard luck and not your fault.

But things may be more complicated if you had a part in getting them into their predicament in the first place, or if your job has an explicit life saving aspect such as a pool guard.

edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.

Why? If you're about to have an accident, does your brain think "If I crash into that cyclist I'll save that bus full of nuns"? Nope, accidents happen - sometimes all the holes in the cheese line up!

The real question is "Who faces the Jury when your autonomous vehicle kills someone while you're in the vehicle?".

[Zigenare]

Did the repeat the experiment with a not fat man?

"Would you shoot a Jew if they were holding a knife to your wife's throat?"

It depends if she's more attractive than my wife...

[tazdevil]

UK people would push a fat man off a bridge to stop a runaway train killing five people | Daily Mail Online

It could be anyone including yourself that needs to be pushed, why the fat man when you could selflessly commit suicide to protect the five on the train?

What if the person to be killed for the preservation of others is a research scientist who if they had lived would have discovered the antidote for the coming flu epidemic that kills all mankind?

[original PM]

edit: This moral conundrum (not) will soon be quite topical when robot car designers have to decide whether and how a vehicle should take evasive action to avoid jaywalkers. In the UK, technically, this shouldn't be much of an issue, because due to the common law principle mentioned above the answer is "do very little, if anything". But no doubt they will be agonising over where and when to sacrifice the driver to save a couple of careless pedestrians.

My 16 y/o daughter has said she would not get a self driving car for the simple reason that it was always try and protect the pedestrian and not the driver.

However I did point out to here that in general under crashing a car at 40 is not fatal due to modern airbags etc - where as hitting a pedestrian at 40 could be fatal so....

Not sure how it would work if some muppet walked into the middle of the motorway when you were doing 70...

But yeah all of these things are just moral dilemma questions - and they all assume that the person making the decision has just happened on the scenario - e.g. they did not do anything to put the 5 people on the oath of the train in jeopardy.

Which removes any 'legal' requirement for the person to do anything.

But as soon as you act you will be held responsible for your actions.

[Whorty]

What about pushing the fat guy off the bridge then claiming he selflessly jumped?

That way he dies a hero, the five other people survive, and you don't get done for murder?

Win-win-win!!

Why don't you just selflessly jump then, rather than waiting to be pushed. Come on Spuddy, this is your time to be the hero you always wanted to be

[Whorty]

Interesting question but nope - do nothing and you are innocent.

But are you innocent? In the eyes of the law today, then yes, but you haven't really 'done nothing', you have made a conscious decision to allow 5 people to die.

So the choices you are given are :
- actively push a man off a bridge to kill him to save 5 or/
- actively decide to do nothing and to allow 5 people to die

These scenarios often move on to give us more information about the people. For example, you initially chose to not push the fat bloke off the bridge, but now you are told he is a convicted pedo on the run. Would you push him now? How does this change your moral compass?

Or maybe you had decided initially to push the fat bloke, you are then told he has a young wife with 2 young children. Would you still push him off?

This is an update to the balloon debate .... that is, there are 5 people in the balloon but it is sinking. 1 person needs to be thrown out to save 4 others. If no one goes overboard, they all die. The 5 people are given characters (e.g. an old priest, young mom, lawyer etc).

There is never a 'right' answer - it is just a test of morality.