I think he did that in the Twilight Zone episode and found no internal workings. Just a wooden box with a button.
The issue of life-saving charity makes this issue complicated. Technically speaking, you can save a life with something on the order of 200 dollars. But let’s inflate that figure and say that it takes 1000 dollars to save a life.
That means that everyone here who goes to a cafe every morning is killing one or two people per year in order to do so. Everyone who goes on vacation is killing a few people to do so. Etc.
It’s clear, then, that the life of somebody we don’t know isn’t worth a thousand dollars to us. So for almost everyone, it isn’t going to be worth a million dollars.
I don’t get this whole charity thing. Yeah, you could donate money but you have no obligation to. I think you have an obligation not to go up to people and kill them. How is this scenario any different than strangling an old woman to steal the money under her mattress? Because your hands are clean and it’s so much money?
This is my reaction as well - but from the trailer I saw it seems that there are consequences to not pushing the button as well. Anyone care to spoiler them if you know?
This is my answer, too. It just isn’t right.
I would find it morally repugnant, since I’m actively causing the death.
Would people do it for $500,000?
For $50,000?
For $5,000?
For $5?
What value would satisfy you?
$50,000 sounds about right.
If you believed for one second that it would really work, that someone would die* because you pushed the button, then legally you would be an accessory to murder if you pushed the button. Ok, so maybe in the circumstances there would be zero chance that Jack McCoy would go on a crusade to prosecute you, but legally the liability would be there. It would be no different than if some twisted billionaire got his jollies by paying random people to kill strangers.
*At least if there were some tracable causual link between your action and the person’s death, like a hit order going out. If it was a devil offering you a magic button that would somehow cause someone to suffer a Final Destination-like accident, then it might be murkier.
The notion that there is some big difference between “actively” and “passively” bringing about an event about is nonsense. The next time you meet somebody, you will have the choice of whether or not they live or die - you could murder them or you could not. You have the same choice with charity. There are people in Africa who would live if you spent money on them instead of on some luxury that you don’t really need. If you don’t donate, you cause their death.
You can throw out stuff about “obligation”, but that has nothing to do with causality. You are causing the death of poor people in third world countries. This is not fundamentally different from stabbing people to death.
No it really isn’t. Active and passive really are distinct concepts - that’s why we have the two different words.
And yet, I presume:
a) You have reservations about stabbing random strangers in the street.
b) You don’t give every penny of your hard-earned cash to charity.
Why, and why not - if they are the same?
They are distinct concepts, but the difference isn’t big. Person A is repeatedly stabbing somebody. Person B, who is watching, is fully capable of stopping that person, but does not. Person B was faced with the same choice person A was - should this person live? Both people chose “no”.
Because I’m not psychologically built to recognize the above truth. Nobody is. But it’s still true. The same applies to general relativity - people aren’t built to think of time as being relative, but it is.
I’d push the button. I’d be willing to drop as low as $50,000 for a push and for a million bucks I’d be willing to have the button kill up to 100 people. As the deal is currently structured I’d try to push it three times before they took it away.
I figure the odds of someone I know and care about being selected is pretty low and if someone else is given then button next the odds of me being selected are lower then me dieing from a lot of other reasons. Even if I was killed next that money, the millon, would have a huge positive effect on whoever i leave the money to.
What if you pushed the button and then destroyed the box? Was there something in the movie that prevented this from happening?
If active/passive killings are the same, why don’t those of you who are willing to press the box commit murder for money? Is it because you know that you could get caught? I mean, am I the only one incredibly freaked out at this? It’s okay to kill someone if they’re really far away and you don’t know them and someone offers you money?
If you were offered money for pressing a button and they killed the person right in front of you, would that be any different?
I’ve read this thread with the same disbelief. Folks are willing to kill somebody for money as long as the murder weapon is a box with a button on it instead of a gun or a knife.
And rationalize it a way with a “You’re just like me because you don’t give away everything you own and live in poverty.”
That’s kind of the point, though. Once you’ve detached the act of killing a person with the immediate visceral consequences, is the only objection an academic one of abstract morals, and if so, do you really care when you have something to gain from it without material loss? The Milgram experiment established that a majority of people will continue to “push the button” when commanded to do so by an authority figure (real or perceived) when there is no profit to be gained, so would you really care if some random person allegedly died in some abstract fashion due to an action that is of no negative consequence to you, and if so, why? You make decisions every day, both directly and by elective proxy, that negatively impact other peoples’ quality of life, decisions that may result in death via accident, negligence, warfare, et cetera, but because these deaths are sufficiently abstracted, most people don’t care (and those that do display umbrage that comes not from personal offense but more often a desire to be outraged for the sake of outrage.) This is just a more well-defined form of abstraction.
In On Killing, Grossman notes that the majority of killing on the battlefield is done either by crew-serviced weapons (machine guns, mortars) or indirect fire (howizters, bombing from aircraft or guided missile), where no one person is responsible for the death, but all crew are responsible for the functioning of the weapon system. A soldier makes this choice everytime he goes on the battlefield, and in these cases, without a lot of conscious thought to the consequences for the other guy.
Stranger
I think I agree with The Bith Shuffle. Every personal luxury of mine could have gone towards alleviating suffering of others much worse than death. I am callous to this fact only because it is not immediately and viscerally apparent.
This reminds me of a scene in The Dark Knight.
The Joker has kidnapped several people on two boats in the river, both boats rigged with explosives. One boat is full of goodly, innocent Gotham types; the other prison inmates. Each boat has a detonator (a button) that will explode the other boat. In order to speed things along, the Joker informs them if no one pushes the button, he will push his own super button that will make both boats explode.
This reminds me of the end speech in Schindler’s List.