Sorry, my brain got stuck on the statistical improbability of being the too-small person on the bridge. ;)
There are times when I wish that I hadn't so thoroughly chucked my Mentor books, such as whenever things like this come up. It's possible that, after tea, I'll be able to remember details about the study of differneces in the way men and women tend to analyze ethical quandaries (aka social web vs abstraction, aka why the problems-in-a-vacuum we had to discuss in Mentor III always drove me bugf*** insane) and why women, especially women denied schooling (as most were when these compasses were being developed and propagated), always seemed to be unable to get to the highest category of ethical thought.
It has to do with the "does it matter if..?"question that someone else brought up down below. My "typically female" response: YES, it bloody well does. It always does. The situation is changed if the five people have guns trained on the one and have been taking shots at him in such a way that his terror and pain will be drawn out for as long as possible. The situation is changed if the fat man has an EMT's pack over his shoulder and is heading for an injured child just up the bridge. The situation is changed if the lone person is the landholder who bribed public officials to take your family's farm out from under you, causing your youngest daughter to die because you could no longer afford to treat her rare disease.
This isn't "extra". It's information vital to making a complete and informed decision that has been deliberately withheld in the original scenario. Anyone who who says a full conclusion can be reached without full knowledge is being intellectually dishonest. [Relevant but highly combative concluding sentence removed for the common good.]
Yeah. My Mentor III class was ever-so-much fun. I'm not sure who was happier when I was done, me or the professor.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-07-31 05:16 pm (UTC)There are times when I wish that I hadn't so thoroughly chucked my Mentor books, such as whenever things like this come up. It's possible that, after tea, I'll be able to remember details about the study of differneces in the way men and women tend to analyze ethical quandaries (aka social web vs abstraction, aka why the problems-in-a-vacuum we had to discuss in Mentor III always drove me bugf*** insane) and why women, especially women denied schooling (as most were when these compasses were being developed and propagated), always seemed to be unable to get to the highest category of ethical thought.
It has to do with the "does it matter if..?"question that someone else brought up down below. My "typically female" response: YES, it bloody well does. It always does. The situation is changed if the five people have guns trained on the one and have been taking shots at him in such a way that his terror and pain will be drawn out for as long as possible. The situation is changed if the fat man has an EMT's pack over his shoulder and is heading for an injured child just up the bridge. The situation is changed if the lone person is the landholder who bribed public officials to take your family's farm out from under you, causing your youngest daughter to die because you could no longer afford to treat her rare disease.
This isn't "extra". It's information vital to making a complete and informed decision that has been deliberately withheld in the original scenario. Anyone who who says a full conclusion can be reached without full knowledge is being intellectually dishonest. [Relevant but highly combative concluding sentence removed for the common good.]
Yeah. My Mentor III class was ever-so-much fun. I'm not sure who was happier when I was done, me or the professor.