Justice

Human nature is corrupt and explains why society is corrupt. I put in the Train dilemma to give a better explanation – The train problem is a thought experiment in philosophy that asks whether it’s morally right to sacrifice one person to save five. It’s a famous ethical dilemma that’s also used in psychology and artificial intelligence.

By the way, the subject is widely debated and the answer is not solvable in an intelligence sense. It can only be solved in an emotional sense dependent on factors of the experiment.

The scenario:

A runaway train is about to hit five people. You can divert the train to a different track where it will only hit one person. You must decide whether to let the five people die or kill the one person.

The actual Question:

This is all about morality. You are currently thinking that one is less than five, but think of it logically, by choosing the one vs the five, you are actually choosing to kill that person. If you don’t make a decision, five people die and you have no part in it. If you make the decision, you are killing the single person. So suddenly the simple answer becomes less logical and more personal.

Why it is relevant:

Life is made up of choices. Unfortunately, they are not always based on your preference and are reliant on external influences.

Culture and society dictate basic laws which we follow, but there are exceptions and circumstances which can override these laws. Society has the opinion of kill the single vs the five as a preferred option. That has a morality on the person that made the decision is concrete. They killed someone. The five would be dead without the interference. But the single would not be dead. The main thing people do in this single circumstance is to help themselves make the hard decision by disassociating it, as does society.  Basic math allows you to choose five over one. If a person came directly up to you and said, “If you kill this single person, five more will live.” then hands you a knife… What would you do? You actually have to make the decision to kill the person, which is against our normal instincts. It’s not about numbers, but the decision to kill and how easily you can make it. I used to say immediately “kill the one over the five,” in theory. And I would maintain my position by the logic. I would allow myself to make that decision because even if I was the result of that person being killed, I would see five that would live and have children and have purpose. The problem of course is if I was actually responsible for killing the person with my own hand… I wouldn’t or actually couldn’t do it. Logically the one versus five does make an impact on my decision. Me choosing, even if I felt pain every day from it, would not make a difference due to my decision would be justifiable. But given a actual responsibility to kill the person, no there is no way I would physically or emotionally be able to continue with the act. I would logically make a decision, but I could not follow through with it even though it was logic. They are unfortunately hypocritical ethics where thought and ability differ.

Ethics are hard. We all obey rules, laws and society, but then get a judge overriding the rules to tell us… this one…. Circumstance means they are not guilty of the law???? If they said a family member vs five people. That makes a harder decision. We all have a need to protect loved ones. Would it change my decision? More than likely. So why is that philosophy different to the strangers, evidently because of basic selfishness.

Selfish behaviour allows you to allocate your well being over another’s. So, one love vs five strangers? I would probably choose my love vs your five. This is not a guarantee as proven above. The decision being based off of right and wrong, would escape my attention. I would feel guilt and criticize myself daily without a question to save five people who were in the wrong place at the wrong time, even if I had to kill a person to allow them their dreams. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few” is a statement that is often used to describe the moral theory of utilitarianism, from dear Spock.

Justice

Now we look at the justice system and how they randomly pick twelve people to decide if a person is guilty. Does the same moral or ethical dilemma apply, especially in places with death sentences or even the fact that by sending a person, no matter the extent of their crime to prison will destroy their life due to the prejudice against convicted criminals. You are destroying a persons life by making a decision, which means you need to be sure they are actually guilty of the crime. That is a sincere moral obligation.

Most people do not have the intelligence or the ability to see complex information presented to them. So does this actually favour that they will make an unethical and unsound decision in trials? Lets face it, people are also very lazy, they will make a decision quickly to avoid the continued service is able, or slowly due to the court room being preferable to their dead end job. Self-serving prophecy is a guaranteed win or loss for the juries decision. People are selfish.

Ever heard the term “Justice is blind”? Yep, pretty much explains society, doesn’t it…

The law is constantly changed or flouted by unethical means, but the governance which makes the law actually allows for these uncertainties.

 So, we can look at the system as being corrupt right? Example:

If I know that this person going to jail will affect the economy or cost our tax payers money, isn’t it better to allow them to stab the one person (mentioned earlier) in order to save the five people from losing their houses?

Legally no, but selfishly the decision is made the other way. We allow it daily. We persecute the one, to maintain the greater numbers need, no matter the cost. It’s also the way politics works as well, always maintaining the greater goods lie, to maintain power.

This is why defence and prosecutors are highly sort due to their actual abilities. It is their ability to manipulate the jury and whether they can either prove or plant reasonable doubt in that proof. The law is played with and manipulated to enable either side to win. Higher cost equals better non-conviction rate. Doesn’t mean the defendant will win, just gives them greater odds that the lawyer is worth the fee.

The actual justice is only known by the accused whether they are found guilty or innocent. No one else can actually decide on the truth. Justice is not deemed as truth because it is regularly proven wrong. It makes it an unjust and questionable system. No one has a better idea, so it is humanities awfully flawed system.  It also is a freely allowed corruptible system by people with power and money. So we have the weak crushed by society, even if their guilt is not proven. Yet the rich and powerful stomp and the sudden laws are forgotten due to the ethics of one vs five dilemma.

See how quickly our ethics can bite us in the ass?