...
"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Fortunately, you spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let "Big Jack" out first. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, [emphasis added] gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.
...

The answer is simple. The fools who decided that the fat guy should go first all deserve to die for being so incredibly stupid. So everyone should huddle around the dynamite and blow themselves up, along with Big Jack.

Come on, if there is a tiny hole, who is stupid enough to send the fat guy first? Obviously, the smallest person capable should go first, and in order as people get bigger. That way, the smallest person can go get help. And this is so freaking obvious, that I have no sympathy for the morons in your imaginary cave.


Also, your scenario is extremely unrealistic, as the dynamite may very well cause the cave to collapse, killing everyone. There is no way that people could know what they have to know in your scenario for it to work.

lol. well perhaps who ever came up with the thought experiment should have 'thought' about that, but nevertheless I could change to say the Big Jack was panicing while we were down there and he actually found the hole first and bolted for it without waiting for the rest of us....that's plausible.

If you want you could also pretend all we have with us is a lethal injection(to kill Big Jack without causing him any un-necessary suffereing) and a bone saw to excavate him from the hole but no dynamite whatsoever.

Better sir?

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 01:33 PM ----------

The Cave Explorers (Pyrrho Edition)
--------------------------------------------

"An enormous rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists have been exploring. Everyone remains relatively calm except for Big Jack who is going on about how he doesn't want to die. You all fan out looking for an escape when "Big Jack" finds a hole. Big Jack, not wanting to die calls out for everyone as bolts for the hole. But Big Jack, a man of generous proportions, gets stuck in the hole. He cannot be moved and there is no other way out.

The high tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a lethal injection of Potassium Chloride and a bone saw. The saw will not cut the rock, but will certainly cut through Big Jack clearing the hole. Big Jack, anticipating your thoughts, pleads for his life. He does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions.


Should you inject Big Jack?

If the roles were reversed, what would you advise your trapped companions to do?"

Yes, kill him. This significantly differs from the Trolley Problem, as the people there are all innocent, whereas Big Jack is a thoughtless, selfish person, who has done something that, if he is allowed to remain there, will kill all of you. He had no right to endanger the rest of you that way, and so he is not innocent and not deserving to be treated as an innocent victim. But even with your new version, one would think that if all of you pulled on his feet, you could pull him back in without killing him.

Dark and deep comes to mind here and what can be gain from venturing into uncharted territory when not prepared for such a journey. Foolishness after fancy which is what most such "thought experiments" are. Wasted mental energy. Curiosity will get you in trouble. Just like that cat in the box; dare we look?
William

Question boiled down: Is it right to kill one person in order to save five? Let's just forget the thought experiment entirely because people seem to always nitpick (missing the point entirely).
My answer is: No, it is not okay to sacrifice one for five.

Yes, I'm okay with assisted suicide and suicide (which I think should be discussed with family and friends before-hand).

I think I'm full of contradictions. I claim that there is no objective moral truth and that morality is the product of reason. My reasoning leads me to believe certain things are wrong: murder, robbery, rape, *suicide* etc...
But because my view is ultimately rooted in the fact that there is no objective moral truth, if someone else's reasoning leads them to believe they would like to be dead, then I respect that, although I believe their reasoning is most likely flawed and could be refuted with a good old fashioned argument.
Suicidal people usually aren't that reasonable though. Too bad...

Could someones reasoning lead you to believe that (let's chose the worst of them) rape is sometimes warranted? I am worried you have built your house on sand and I think there might be stronger foundations out there...some of them are even reasonable. Perhaps there are subjective truths that can't be dismantled by a reasonable argument?

But then there is this: You seem to hold the authority of Reason to be unshakable. Is the authority of Reason an objective moral truth?

The term subjective truth is weird, isn't it? Wouldn't a subjective truth just be an opinion, a matter of taste? Like, for me, chocolate is the best flavor.
Or like mystics who deny reason, replacing it with subjective experience as ultimate reality. I've seen the argument that a mystic awakening is similar to waking up from a dream. The reason that we once held so high and mighty vanishes like a dreamworld. I don't buy it.

I think someone could probably convince me that rape could be warranted; perhaps if the rape victim was also a perpetrator of rape in the past and the rape would prevent some catastrophe. I could see it...

As for reason being an objective moral truth...
Reason is the product of a reasonable mind, right? So how could it exist objectively (separate from and before the mind)?
Or would you make the argument that reason exists objectively like number concepts and the human mind discovers it?

Should you blast Big Jack out?





.

Then it is not only objective moral truth but all objective truth that you are setting aside?

It is strange when people agree. It almost feels like a step up from strictly subjective truth but of course that doesn't make it objective and it could still be infinitely far from that objective and of course there is solipsism. Still, it is strange when people agree and I think any communication whatsoever involves some tacit level of agreement even if it is only an agreement to speak a common language. Dose subjectivity imply solipsism? I'm starting a new thread on that question.

I don't know what solipsism is:brickwall: