At your station, a girl sits down with you and offers to do one minor action, a trifle for you. It will change something for one of the passengers on this train. What? Unclear. You will get a huge amount of money that will close all your problems and still remain on “somewhere to fly”. Let’s gо?
Consider it a lottery ticket. Will something change for a stranger? What’s the difference? They didn’t tell me exactly what it was. Maybe they are looking for him to give him a prize or a certificate, you never know. Meanwhile, money almost burns your hands and already solves your problems.
I wouldn’t do that, to be honest, because I don’t have such urgent financial problems. The man in the movie (the commuter, 2018) had them and I easily understood why he did what he did.
The film’s rating on kinopoisk is 6'6, on imdb-6'3. I didn’t choose the film myself, it was on TV and I liked it. I will read later why the movie is bad.
So, the life of a person is regarded very bizarrely.
“ten lives of strangers or the life of the person closest to you?”
“spending money on life support for the terminally ill or prevention?”
“on some rails 5 people, on others-one, pull the lever to save five instead of one?”
I hate moral choices. I don’t think I’ll ever find myself facing this, but it hurts me like I really have to choose.
Ten lives of strangers or the life of the person closest to you?
Who are these ten people? Does their criminal past (killer, maniac, rapist) make their lives less valuable? Maybe I will choose “ not in their favor” and save someone in the future. What about doctors who save people’s lives day and night? Or children? Usually with the listing of different categories, the imaginary scales in your head swing from side to side.
I always choose my mother’s life in this choice, but if there are criminals in the second half of the scale, then it’s easier to choose. If children, it is more difficult.
It turns out that there is a coefficient. Invisible, almost intangible, by which the value of human life is calculated inside.
Maintaining the lives of the terminally ill or spending the same money on disease prevention?
Let’s say that a person is conscious and can live a more or less normal life on certain medications. Let’s say five years. Five years is a very significant period. Of course, it is worth keeping it alive, it is worth helping it.
What if he doesn’t live a month? And with the same money, you can organize a vaccination campaign against the same disease. As if it’s not that significant anymore. What if a person has five years left, but without the possibility of a normal life?
And in my head again spinning mechanisms that somehow magically calculate the value of human life.
“the Commuter” 2018
Consider the first two paragraphs of this text to be a movie trailer. So, do we take the money and look for a stranger on the train, or do we live our life with huge financial problems and two loans?
You understand the main character at every moment of time. You know, when the life of one unknown person becomes less valuable than your family. ( and it is very obvious, in fact, that this is a conversation exactly about life)
And the most interesting thing is that at some point he finds the one he should have. Standing with a gun pointed at a small, very cute girl, on the other side of the scale is his family, which is now threatened with death, but he does not shoot. He chooses one life of a stranger against the lifes of his wife and son. And I understand it. I, who always choose in dilemmas the life of a person close to me against the life of thousands of others, understand the choice of the hero. I don’t know how this happens, or at what point the stranger’s life comes to the fore. At what point does this stranger’s life become more important than the life of the entire train? Here are the scales and calculations for you. Human life is very bizarrely measured in its value.
Let’s go back to my last question.
The train is rushing at full speed for five people tied to the tracks. You can move the train to other tracks where only one person is lying. They are equal. Not your family, not criminals, not children. Ordinary people, each with their own history. So, are we switching hands? Ah, sly! No, you won’t have time to untie anyone, stop the train, sacrifice yourself, or whatever else they come up with in such situations. Will the train kill five people, or will you pull the lever, move the train to other tracks, and it will run over just one? So what?
I’ll tell you the statistics. Most people won’t switch trains. There is no choice between close people or strangers, there is no choice as to whether people belong to a certain class. Numerical question. Obviously, it would be good to save five, but for five — it’s like fate. This situation already exists and the train is already going to them, but one person is not doomed to this fate initially and pulling the lever, you decide for him. In the first case, with five people, it’s like thier death is not your choice.
Again, some incomprehensible internal computer technology. Almost everything is removed from the equation, except for your choice and the death of people, but still unclear equations are calculated inside.
Just a thought.