Exactly. And a very good comparison. Walt saw she was choking on her own vomit and he pulled up a chair and sat up close and watched her die. He could very easily have saved her. He was saving his own ass and Jessie's, and interestingly he was in the process of becoming a monster. But I believe he at least took personal responsibility for the choice he made, he didn't say "Well I didn't do anything, therefore it wasn't my fault!" The kind of people who refuse to take responsibility for their choices are also the ones who will deny any moral culpability no matter what they do, project their own guilt out onto others, and scapegoat them in order to make themselves feel cleansed of sin.
I was reminded of Sophie's Choice ...the Nazis ask her 'do you want us to kill your son or your daughter? You can save one, but not the other.'
This was the first thing I thought of too - the Joker trying to prove anyone could fall with the right pressure. The way the Joker tricks them could be something you could use - thinking they are killing or rescuing someone who turns out to be someone else. Having recordings playing of loved ones in distress to make it harder to find where they really are etc. Having puzzles to solve to rescue people and not figuring it out in time. I know these have all been done before in things like Saw and the Bridge, so you'd have to find specific ways to make them unique based on your characters. On a more light hearted version of the topic is Megamind which demonstrates labelling theory really well. If you're told enough times you're a baddy and treated that way it can be hard to break out of that role. Maybe he could get people to condemn all the hero's actions over and over again, gaslighting him into doubting himself? I agree with you that choosing not to act is still making an active decision. But I also think sometimes thought experiments overlook some psychology. I get they're meant to be what you should hypothetically do and not what you realistically would do, but I think that if we want to have morals we aspire to follow they have to have some allowance for real reactions. Even though choosing not to pull the lever is still a decision, and that choice leads to five people dying who didn't have to, I can see how the feeling of 'if I hadn't been there it would have ended the same' could ease the guilt, whereas pulling the lever means that one person died directly because of you and if you hadn't been there they wouldn't have. I'm not saying therefore one is right, but I can see how people feel that way. I also feel that in real world situations the decisions are very rarely that clear cut - are there other people on the train with you? Can you try to crash it so just you die? Again, I know the point of hypotheticals it to think about what should happen if you're acting with the optimal moral principles, but ignoring stress, fear and guilt etc is something I've always struggled with when discussing them!
Oh I agree @making tracks . If I were in the real situation I might not be able to make a choice quickly enough, even if I knew what the lever does and all the rest of it. Plus my PTSD might make me just freeze up, or my hand might pull the lever while my mind is unable to make a conscious decision—intuition or instinct at work. Often in these split-second decisions the unconscious takes over. These kind of thought experiments are to remove all that and make us think more directly about the moral or ethical core of it with all the incidentals removed. It makes it more purely theoretical. I think what would be really interesting is, after giving people written tests on it and having them explain their choices, put them in the actual situation—simulated, but they don't know that. It would be impossible to really set it up perfectly, but it would be cool to see what people actually do in a real-life situation as opposed to what they wrote in the theoretical one.
Here is a list of moral dilemmas. Value of life (Is one life worth more than another? How much money or wheat is one life worth?) Individual vs Collective (The trolley problem, do bad things for greater good?) Peace vs Justice (Would you break up a peace just for a sense of fairness?) Security vs Freedom (Restrict freedom for safety?) Ends vs means (Do bad things as long as things end okay? Or the intentions are good?) Present vs future (Sacrifice now for later? How much?) I don't know. I find things pretty simple. I find it easy to understand life and ideas and put them into words.
The whole point of these dilemmas is that neither outcome is desirable. So your antagonist is showing your protagonist and judging them, trying to teach him something. Was he trying to say that one answer was correct or that neither answer was correct?
Most stories in popular media say to never harm anyone, ever. Do no harm. They agree with Batman, they hate Thanos. They're afraid to address these dilemmas properly, so they take the option that says, "well, if you want a haircut, you can still cut off more later." Many situations would share in multiple dilemmas. For example, if I demanded to exchange the fingers of 10 people for the life of one, this could touch upon the value of life, the value of quality of life, and the individual vs the collective. I wouldn't worry about originality. You won't be original by trying to make a story about dilemmas and the value of life with the trolley problem. You will, however, be special by making a tasteful and wonderful story that brings the problem home to a relatable setting that hits emotionally. There are many popular stories that turn these dilemmas into vomit, like the Saw series, and Circle. They use some contrived circumstance to showcase a selfish modern society with caricatures of a dog-eat-dog world rife with assumptions and stereotypes. Value of life I am going to keep adding old men to the kill pit until you agree to trade me one baby for all the old men. Who has family? Who has degenerative diseases? I may be a financial manager. Individual vs Collective Kill a person to harvest organs for five people. Or everyone just live with medical problems. Peace vs Justice You found the truth about a crime. Coming forth with the truth will cause riots. Do you uncover the truth? Lots of blood has been spilled. Keep killing for revenge? If you don't, what was the value of your lover's life? Show the world that criminals can get away with their crimes? Security vs Freedom Don't let my daughter go out or let my daughter get raped? Spy on the country or let terrorist attacks happen? Ends vs means I'm a military general. Should I authorize a drone strike on a populated area to kill a terrorist? Or should I allow the terrorist to strike so that we win the propaganda war? Present vs future Should we be miserable and work hard for the future? How far into the future? Work with feces for 50 years and then retire when we're holocaust elderly? Then we're free to enjoy our pension? Free will vs Fate Is the serial killer really at fault here?
OH SHIT. ALL of these, we can't see the future! We don't even know what will happen. The trolley problem. You say that the train will kill five people if I do nothing, but maybe if won't. You say The Joker will keep on killing, but what if he wakes up tomorrow and stops killing people? Come on, does that seem likely? Ah, but Batman doesn't kill. Just because he doesn't want to get his own hands dirty; he isn't willing to go to hell so that others go to heaven. You see, decisions are difficult to make because we don't have enough information. We can't see the future. We can't understand the full ramifications of our actions. If we did, they'd just be calculations or preferences.
@LucyAshworth you're hitting on some very interesting ideas here. I'm also bothered by the bias of most fiction toward 'Do No Harm'. That's explicitly brought out in House because it's literally the Hippocratic Oath. Doctors are all sworn to Do No Harm, which ties their hands to many solutions. As an example, a pair of identical twins—one is dying of an incurable disease that will slowly torture him to death over the next 10 years, his life is already little besides pain and suffering. His twin needs a full liver (not just a lobe) or a heart transplant or something, and they can't get ahold of one through the usual channels. Twin #1 wants to die and donate the needed part to twin #2, but of course it's against hospital policy to let him commit suicide. There were similar situations in several episodes. While all the other doctors and administrators are wringing their hands feeling like they can do absolutely nothing and must force the diseased twin to live out the rest of his life in increasing pain and suffering, only House explores the non-Hippocratic options. I'm looking into some of these characters who look beyond Do No Harm to Do Some Good. Characters to whom morality and ethics don't just equate with Don't Hurt Anyone's Feelings. Characters like Mulder from the X Files, Sherlock Holmes, and Doyle's earlier character Professor Challenger. He was very similar to Holmes and had a very Watson-esque partner named Doctor Summerlee who was wrapped up entirely in hand-wringing lightweight morality, so he serves as a foil. Challenger's name is apropos, since he challenges the conventional ideas of morality. On the TV series Challenger's character was reduced to a nice guy. In the actual stories he was a brawling asshole who would beat up reporters he didn't want to talk to. As an illustration look at the Kevin Sorbo Hercules. He was a free-roaming goody-two-shoes, but it was OK for him to beat people up as long as they're shown to be bad first and he makes sure not to hurt anybody else. Contrast him against Xena, a former evil warlord who was the baddest bitch in the land, feared by all, but is trying to reform herself with the help of Gabrielle, her cuddly non-violent sidekick. Xena was inherently far more interesting than Hercules was. And Gabrielle began the series using a staff, a non-lethal weapon, but by the end she had traded it for a pair of Sai and killed when necessary. She even had episodes of rage and aggression where Xena had to calm her down.
Hear hear. Seriously. Almost every single story says don't kill a single person, not even for the survival of Earth. I'm not a supporter of the Chinese Communist Party, but really, if it saved 100 people, I'd kill 10 people, and we're not even getting into who is getting saved and why, for what quality of life.
I particularly liked the series conclusion of House, where Wilson (his Watson, highly ethical in the Do No Harm approach) got incurable cancer. He was an Osteopath (if that's the right term?) a cancer doctor, and had talked countless people into living long lives of managed pain and suffering, with their deaths taking months or years in a hospital bed under fluorescent lights with people standing around mouthing platitudes. Of course they're not all platitudes, there's some genuine heart-felt emotion exchanged too, but a lot of platitudes. But as soon as he knew he had cancer he decided he wasn't going to live that empty life he had forced them all to live. He wanted to be free, able to travel and do the things he wants to do on his own recognizance. Live a shorter life, on his own terms, with less pain and suffering. Meanwhile House was faced with serving a 6 month prison sentence, and his only friend Wilson has 5 months to live. So house did a thing Holmes once did—he faked his death and told Wilson. "I'm dead—what do you want to do for the rest of your life?" He left the hospital, forever left the life of the world's greatest diagnostic doctor (which is the only thing he did really well and loved to do), they bought motorcycles and rode off into the wilderness. My suspicion is that in the end they did a Thelma and Louise, probably rode together off a cliff or something, because House's entire life was filled with pain and suffering, and only Wilson's friendship made any of it worthwhile for him. The entire show really is built around challenging these various moral/ethical ideas that the majority of fiction and conventional life is built on. And the book House: The Psychology explores it all excellently. One of the best books I've read. House: The Philosophy is not on the same level but still pretty good.
Back to OP’s topic however, I’m afraid his parameters have really made him into a Jigsaw copy. I’m having difficulty making some of the dilemmas into physical tortures. Even if I did, I’d be doing the creativity for him.
I'm not sure I would sacrifice 10 to save 100 with no other information, but the better question is if you'd sacrifice your own life to save the 100?
With no other information I think I definitely would save the 90. If I knew the 10 were all surgeons or life-savers and the 100 were all convicted murderers and rapists, I'd go the other way.
As of now I might. I'm not afraid of death anymore, and I've lived a good long life. I don't have family or kids or anyone I'm close to, so nothing really binding me to life anymore. I mean, I don't welcome death, but I don't fear it either. Not sure what I'd actually do in the situation though. Probably hesitate too long.
I’d do it resentfully, but yes I would. On the the other hand, if my principles failed and I didn’t, realistically guilt would eat me up, but I shouldn’t feel bad about it. I am not a god, not responsible for the lives of others, and others would not save me. They already haven’t. I’ve done my time in philanthropy. I’ve already given so much and now I’m starting to turn my back on it. I’m trying to be more selfish.
Well if you find yourself in that situation, consider Mr. Pink from Reservoir Dogs: "I'm very sad about that. But some fellas are lucky, and some ain't"
Here is something that may be useful to OP. Among us who debate morality, is there a contest for who is the most righteous? Perhaps the most righteous person is the one who does not try to claim righteousness. He simply wallows in at the bottom of the valley of cynicism, saying that all people are evil, including himself. This way, he avoids any contradictions or hypocrisies. Or perhaps the most righteous person is someone who bravely tries to make some declarations about what is moral and what isn't, even with some flaws.
What do you mean by righteous? When I hear that word I think about zealotry and anger and finger-pointing covered up with the guise of moral superiority. The most righteous almost always seem to be hypocrites.
You have an opinion about what is right and what is wrong. Perhaps you think it is right to kill one person to save 10. Immediately, someone jumps up, eager to test your morality, see if you're a hypocrite. If you are ever caught as hypocrites, all your morals and attempts to be moral will be for naught, and you may be considered even more despicable than an honest murderer. Meanwhile, there is a cynic, or even someone who is silent and says nothing. They'll never be caught being hypocrites because they'll never say anything or have any promises to break. Perhaps they're more righteous because they'll never be caught as hypocrites. At least I would take a stand and attempt to find the objective opinion of a god, that it is better to kill one person for the sake of 10, even if I, a lowly human, might falter in carrying out the duties of a god.
Ok, so you're using the word righteous in its original definition, to mean morally pure or morally correct. It's one of those words that has come to mean almost the opposite of it's original meaning in modern usage.
Yeeaaaahhh, half the time, I can be really deft with connotation, half the time I totally ignore it like an autistic person.
