tonightscake wrote:Not sure if it ponders too much into religion, but how did everything everywhere begin. Because there is no answer to any initial creation. With the big bang there was nothing then something, but how can nothing bring anything, especially considering the theory of the conservation of matter. More so, if saying there is a supreme being, how did it come into creation, or is it possible for something to simply be?
Vegedus covered it to an extent, but our perceptions matter. It is quite possible for something to be - our existence proves it. So either something came from nothing, and that's provable under the laws of physics, or everything has always existed for eternity and asking how it came from nothing from doesn't make sense as a question, because there would be no such thing as "nothing" - at least, not in a physical sense, even if there is a colloquial meaning to the term. You're also assuming the premise that something has to come from nothing, when it may be possible one day to prove that premise as false, which means that premise can no longer be used to support the notion that something can't come from nothing.
tonightscake wrote:Bing it up
That can stand on its own.
I'll copy the premise as written on Wikipedia:
There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
I find this question unrealistic. It assumes you have perfection information, when that does not happen in reality. It assumes a lot. It assumes the people are unable to untie themselves. It assumes they are unable to at a minimum move out of the way. It assumes there is nothing that can be done to attempt to stop the train - this matters, because if the trolley is braking but still going at a perilous speed, then you may attempt to divert the trolley down the track that has more distance before it encounters a person - i.e. if the first track has people 150m away, the other track 100m away, then you are now balancing being able to kill no one versus being semi-responsible for the death of 5, because in the 150m the trolley may be able to brake in time where as in the 100m it cannot.
The question is largely unanswerable, in part because it depends on your definition of what constitutes being morally responsible for an act, and also because it assumes many premises that will make it so virtually no one will ever be in an analogous situation.
For instance, again, you do not have perfect information. In this clean set of assumptions, if we have a 100% confirmation things will work out the way it says they will, then you should switch the lever. In real life, you will never know what the outcome would've been had you not acted, at the time you choose to act or not act.
Consider this problem another way. You have the same premises as the Wikipedia format. It is logical to throw the switch to save 1 man with the premises given. You throw the switch, the trolley is now on the other path and there is nothing you can do to stop it. But wait. Some hero comes along and rescues the 5 people from the other track. No such hero has come for the lone man. The lone man is killed while the 5 people are cut free, and had you left the trolley unchanged, no one would have died. Is it still the morally right thing to have done to have thrown that switch? You had no way of knowing those 5 people would've never have been in danger, but now because of your actions one person is dead that ultimately did not need to be dead.