Jaime's pushing Bran out the window

[Nephenee]

please explain to me how murdering one person in order to save five others works with the essence of the categorical imperative,

Ignoring using people as means to an end here, the reason why murdering people cannot be a general law is because, well, no one would be left alive. That doesn't seem to be an issue here.

There might be a few more reasons why it can't be a general law. Since a life is so valuable, taking something of value away from the world can be wrong.

But taking five lives is worse than taking one.

So I stated that bolded part..where?

I never said you stated it. I was asking you a question, because you couldn't make a decison:

No, we don't agree that more lives are worth than less, and I for one simply don't possess the hubris to decide which or how many lives are worth more than others,

World A: Hitler kills 6 million randomly selected Jews.

World B: Hitler kills 1 randomly selected Jew.

Which Hitler is more immoral?

[Sweetgirl205]

Face it, Jamie pushed Bran because he didn't think things through. He knew Bran saw him dorking his sister. Instead of talking to him to find out what he understood, he pushed. before Jamie lost his hand, he was just as rash as Cersie. It wasn't a great question of ethics for him.

[Zorn Gottes]

It's quite amusing, and not surprising at all, that generally, more intelligent and educated people (philosophers) understand that murdering one person to save 5 lives is justified.

this is simply false: 68% of professional philosophers would approve to switch, which is not Jaime's case.

Jaime's case is not comparable to the classic "switch" Trolley problem, it is comparable to the "fat man" variation:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Resistance to this course of action seems strong; most people who approved of sacrificing one to save five in the first case do not approve in the second sort of case. This has led to attempts to find a relevant moral distinction between the two cases.

One clear distinction is that in the first case, one does not intend harm towards anyone – harming the one is just a side effect of switching the trolley away from the five. However, in the second case, harming the one is an integral part of the plan to save the five. [...]

So, some claim that the difference between the two cases is that in the second, you intend someone's death to save the five, and this is wrong, whereas in the first, you have no such intention. This solution is essentially an application of the doctrine of double effect, which says that you may take action which has bad side effects, but deliberately intending harm (even for good causes) is wrong.[...]

Another distinction is that the first case (switch version) is similar to a pilot in an airplane that has lost power and is about to crash and currently heading towards a heavily populated area. Even if he knows for sure that innocent people will die if he redirects the plane to a less populated area – people who are "uninvolved" – he will actively turn the plane without hesitation. It may well be considered noble to sacrifice your own life to protect others, but morally or legally allowing murder of an innocent person in order to save five people may be insufficient justification.

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

[tsmiles23]

What I find funny is that most people condemn Jamie for trying to kill a child but love the Queen of thorns for the same exact reason.

[winteristheseason]

Jaime should never have put himself in the situation. His deeds with Cersei were highly illegal so no he should not have pushed Bran from the tower because Bran was not doing anything wrong where Jaime was. He is a complete fuck wit

[The Wolves]

What I find funny is that most people condemn Jamie for trying to kill a child but love the Queen of thorns for the same exact reason.

How exactly are these two situations comparable? Jamie pushed Bran to protect the treason him and his sister was committing. Bran was a innocent child who stumbled on two nasty evil pieces of shit committing a number of crimes against a King.

Joffery was shit, he was a uncontrollable, cruel, sadistic piece of shit who held to much power and had to be put down. Yeah it was murder but Joffery was never innocent like Bran.

[tsmiles23]

I read on this thread that murdering a child is never justifiable which a lot of people agreed with I was just pointing out that a lot of people seem ok with justify Jeffery's death as ok because of all the reasons you have listed. I agree that Joffrey had to die but I'm not also saying that there is never a justified reason for killing a child.

[Nephenee]

this is simply false: 68% of professional philosophers would approve to switch, which is not Jaime's case.

Jaime's case is not comparable to the classic "switch" Trolley problem, it is comparable to the "fat man" variation:

http://en.wikipedia....Trolley_problem

Indeed, the examples aren't 100% analogical. What about the disanalogy that, in Jaime's case, that he was saving his family, as opposed to strangers?

Most people, and philosophers, would agree that we have a much greater duty to our family than to strangers. And I think that's a lot more important than the change of actively harming someone to save lives.