Are you a psychopath? Take a quick test

[zorro_]

I'd have to disagree with you. I think you're arguing more of a 'popular opinion' which does not necessary go hand-in-hand with morality. One such example is rights for homosexuals. A now popular opinion is that it is acceptable, while 10 years ago the popular opinion is that it is not. Does this mean that based on current trends and popularity, morality can change? You can't necessarily argue that there is a correct and incorrect answer. Someone might push the large man to save the 5 people while another may not. Both sides have justifiable and sound reasoning as to why they chose to do so. A question with a correct answer means that it has to be universally correct and have no opinion: 2 + 2 = 4. This cannot have a correct and incorrect answer.

Systems of thought and morality evolve. They can become better or worse. Popular opinion might change, but that is not what I'm talking about. Moral arguments might change, also, and so we continually strive for a more correct answer. Of course you won't be given what you're given with math, but even if an answer might one day prove to be incorrect, we can still come to a correct conclusion with the resources we have now, just like with science. This doesn't prevent a correct answer now for our purposes. Perhaps the man and the trolley and such are special cases because it is very difficult to figure out which is the correct answer, while with many other moral questions the correct answer can be more obviously detected, but I still think nonetheless that a correct answer could be found. Correct in the sense that it has the best reasoning and other justification supporting it. So there might be legitimate reasons for each position, but there might also be pitfalls of one position which cannot be morally justifiable, hence relegating that to the status of a morally worse option. I've argued that pushing the fat man or pulling the lever are acts of murder, so that's morally the incorrect decision.

 

Systems of thought and morality evolve. They can become better or worse. Popular opinion might change, but that is not what I'm talking about. Moral arguments might change, also, and so we continually strive for a more correct answer. Of course you won't be given what you're given with math, but even if an answer might one day prove to be incorrect, we can still come to a correct conclusion with the resources we have now, just like with science. This doesn't prevent a correct answer now for our purposes. Perhaps the man and the trolley and such are special cases because it is very difficult to figure out which is the correct answer, while with many other moral questions the correct answer can be more obviously detected, but I still think nonetheless that a correct answer could be found. Correct in the sense that it has the best reasoning and other justification supporting it. So there might be legitimate reasons for each position, but there might also be pitfalls of one position which cannot be morally justifiable, hence relegating that to the status of a morally worse option. I've argued that pushing the fat man or pulling the lever are acts of murder, so that's morally the incorrect decision.

While it may be murder, in those two instances, the common phrase "the good of the many over the good of the one" comes into play. I would say it's impossibly hard to claim one immoral for pushing the large man over the ledge to save the 5 people if they have sound reasoning for doing so.

 

[Olympia]

I wouldn't flip the switch to save 5 and I wouldn't push the fat guy over. I believe I'm a sociopath, is there a test for that? :\

True sociopaths aren't aware that they are sociopaths, and if they are, they wouldn't care, that's the whole point of it, indifference.
Just because you are an edgy kid that listens to System of a Down and Nirvana and feel like you don't care about anyone or anybody doesn't make you a sociopath, it just makes you a inept foreveralone socially screwed neckbeard.
You are more likely to have autism just from the fact that you are into Runescape, a game which involves repetitive actions over and over again for massive amount of hours.

 

[ASAPgang]

True sociopaths aren't aware that they are sociopaths, and if they are, they wouldn't care, that's the whole point of it, indifference.
Just because you are an edgy kid that listens to System of a Down and Nirvana and feel like you don't care about anyone or anybody doesn't make you a sociopath, it just makes you a inept foreveralone socially screwed neckbeard.
You are more likely to have autism just from the fact that you are into Runescape, a game which involves repetitive actions over and over again for massive amount of hours.

You mean like weightlifting?

 

[0120012345]

I would only save their lives if they vow to work and owe me for the rest of eternity.

 

[Sebas613]

We actually had our instructor ask it in an elective Intelligence Studies class once.

@ the question whether you'd push a fat man in front of the train in order to save 5 people, a friend of mine was looking very serious. I asked her what she would do, and she responded: "If he is really fat enough to stop the train if I push him, I don't think I'm physically capable" - all dead serious. I laughed sooo hard.

 

[Ed Sheeran]

I believe in giving people chances but sacrificing anyone's life to benefit others is rather selfish, however if it was someone you loved it'll leave you a minimum amount of choices to make no matter what the consequences are.

Also, if you think outside the box you could still be punished for triggering any switches or even pushing the large guy into the train.

 

[zorro_]

While it may be murder, in those two instances, the common phrase "the good of the many over the good of the one" comes into play. I would say it's impossibly hard to claim one immoral for pushing the large man over the ledge to save the 5 people if they have sound reasoning for doing so.

So you're endorsing a utilitarian claim, while I'm not. We would have to weigh the two systems against each other and see if one is worse.

 

[isunlinkpk]

I would throw the fat guy over. Minimal loss situation is just how I see it.

 

[BigDiggityDog]

Glad to know.. I am not a psychopath l0l

 

[Insayn3]

Hulk smash the train.

But no really I have no idea what I would do. Every choice in my mind is a horrible one so it would probably be a heat of the moment thing.

 

[Rsaccounttrader]

I think an issue with accepting pushing the man is that it opens the door to some pretty brutal "ends justify the means" thinking a la Nixon or Frank Underwood that leads to horrible misbehavior. For example, are you really positive the train isn't going to stop between where the man would be pushed and where the five people are tied?

In my opinion, you act based on the morality of the action (pushing people in front of trains), which is bad, instead of the morality of the consequence, which is very difficult to determine.

In terms of the family situation, I would probably push the man for a member of my immediate family, especially a child. It's wrong and should be illegal but there is something to say for blood and loyalty

 

[DirtyS]

This is a silly hypothetical because in that actual situation you wouldn't know for sure if pushing the man on the tracks would actually save anyone.

That being said if I had to pick to kill someone...a stranger or a loved one...I would obviously go with the stranger. If anyone else said otherwise I would be concerned.

 

[poppa]

i believe at this moment i would not pull the lever or push the man for 5 people,
because that to me would be murder.If there was more people at stake perhaps i might justify the greater good,but it would still be murder if you threw the switch knowing it would kill the 1 man.however if it was a family member (not an in-law) i would push the man and i could easily justify it to myself as self defense.

 

[Skorp2610]

I would flip the switch, definitely. This because i would be able to prevent even more coll. damage. However, i wouldn't be able to push the man, unless it was for a loved one on the track. Would definitely be able to push then.

 

[PrettyGood]

This is out of context, so many people confuse this experiment... This doesn't tell whether you're a psychopath or not. We've learned about this case study in Psychology. This only tells if you're morally stable. As in if you would have flipped the switch for 1 to 5 and then 1 to 5, or if you did nothing on either then you're morally stable. If you flipped the switch on the 1 to 5, but not in the other scenario you're not morally stable. That's all this tells, not if you're a psychopath.

Pretty stupid study honestly and people always interpret this in a "psychopath test", not really sure why.

 

[Faze Up]

No i am not a psychopath lmao.

 

[Wanted]

I would just jump instead of pushing the man.

 

[Pabz]

If someone is going to die i'd rather it be someone i don't care about

 

[5yeezy]

I would push the man over the ledge and pull the switch, but it would definitely be hard for a long time after pushing him onto the tracks, knowing I saved people but at the same time am the sole reason the big guy is having a funeral.