(04-21-2010 02:06 PM)NIU007 Wrote: Nobody in the airline industry can be held accountable if people die driving instead. No one was forcing people to fly somewhere in the first place.
In your example, you really wouldn't have time to think about it, but it's either you do nothing since you don't want to get killed, or you grab the baby and hope you're not killed (or perhaps the baby is saved) in the process. Then the decision shifts to the bus driver - does he hit you or swerve into oncoming traffic?
The more typical formulation of the problem avoids the possibility of decision shifting to the driver. Probably the classic example invloves trains & switches.
Scenario 1: You are standing near a fork in the tracks. A train is approaching & will hit five people standing on the right fork unless you pull the switch, forcing the train onto the left fork where there is a single person on the track. Should you pull the switch, saving five but killing one in the process?
It's extended by an admittably quite unrealistic modification to further explore beliefs.
Scenario 2: You are standing near a train track with another person (a stranger). A train is approaching which will hit five people standing in the tracks. If you push the person in front of the train, he will be killed but it will stop before hitting the five (you aren't big enough to stop the train if you jump yourself). Should you push the stranger in front of the train, saving five but killing one in the process?
Most people (as confirmed by experimental philosophers - yes, they do exist) will choose to pull the switch in Scenario 1 but not push the stranger in front of the train in Scenario 2, even though the outcome is identical.
As to the original article (I didn't register so I'm just going by what's posted here), I'm not convinced by their risk calculus. The doctors & nurses who couldn't return home would almost certainly have arranged for someone to cover for them. While some non-essential appointments may have been canceled, it's hard to believe that there was no one to cover any emergencies that might come up. Similarly, how many people fly right before an operation needed to save their life? The stress related heart attacks seems like baseless spectulation - I know I would have just extended my vacation (for a couple of days after they said it was ok to fly to let the madhouse calm down).
The most compelling case is for the car accidents, but is there really any data to suggest that it's more dangerous to drive on unfamiliar roads? It seems like most auto accidents that I'm aware of are a result of alcohol, recklessness, or inattention, not unfamiliarity.