Blockland Ethics Questions: Autism Vaccine

[Rigel]

BLOCKHEAD ETHICS!!

Every week I will post a new ethics question for our beloved blockheads to debate. The results will be saved for posterity.

Trolley question: 9 people voted to pull the lever, 3 people abstained.

Sibling Incest question: 6 people voted that a night of passionate experimentation between adult siblings with protection was okay. 4 people voted that it was unethical regardless of protection.

Vampire Age Gaps: 5 people voted that a person should be over the age of 30 to date a 500 year old vampire. 2 people voted that being over 20 was good enough.


This fourth question is about what could be considered a flaw in the human body.

A world-renowned scientist creates a vaccine that cures Autism (not one that causes it). It expels the autism-causing genes from the DNA of the recipient, and quickly rewires their neurons to reflect what a "neurotypical person" would be like. The process is long, involving a lot of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and visits to psychiatrists and therapists, but it's been proven to "cure" autism. Most countries believe in bodily autonomy, so the process is opt-in for most people. But there are some people on the autism spectrum who cannot care for themselves, and are required to have a legal guardian that makes decisions for them. This "Autism Vaccine" has been proven to work for even the least capable autists, allowing them to speak, dress, feed, and clean themselves. Eventually with therapy, they could even find jobs. A common side effect is major depression from both the rapid rewiring of the brain, from simple mourning over lost time and lost opportunities, and a difficulty in comprehending and embracing the new way their brain works.

However, these low-functioning autists cannot willingly choose to take the vaccine themselves, nor can they understand the implications of what it does. Is it ethical for their legal guardians to force a life-changing drug on their wards? If a low-functioning autist is seemingly happy the way they are (watching cartoons, being spoon-fed, and wearing diapers), should their guardian force them to take a drug that would let them take care of themselves at the possible cost of their happiness? Explain why or why not.

https://strawpoll.com/eNg6vXo6AgA

[Ad Bot]

[Metalliku]

tackle the trolley from the side like a champ. the people inside of it may get injuries from the fall (if there are any), but it's a better fate than getting rolled by it

[Nicepoint]

By basic utilitarian brown townysis, the correct option is to pull the lever

[Conan]

pull the lever as the trolley is halfway over the split, causing it to derail

[Foxscotch]

pull the lever as the trolley is halfway over the split, causing it to derail

now all the passengers are dead, you villain

[Soukuw]

pull the lever as the trolley is halfway over the split, causing it to derail

[Refticus]

pulling the lever is a slippery slope down the path of "the greater good", and i've seen hot fuzz at least 5 times to know that's a bad idea.
i do not pull it, fate shall carry out its will unimpeded.

[Goth77]

BLOCKHEAD ETHICS!!

Every week I will post a new ethics question for our beloved blockheads to debate. The results will be saved for posterity.

The first question is one that everyone knows. The Trolley Problem!


A runaway trolley is headed towards a fork in the tracks. On the south track, there are five people tied to the track. The trolley will hit and kill all of them unless diverted to the north track, where one person is tied to the track. You are the only person close enough to the switch to divert the trolley in time. If you do nothing, five people will die. But you did not tie them to the tracks, so have you really killed them? If you do divert the trolley, you will kill one person who was otherwise safe. You are responsible for his death. But in sacrificing one, you save five.

What do you do, blockheads?

you're just asking if they would save 1 guy or 5 guys and the logical answer is to save the 5 .....however if u alter the scenario just a bit, you will find the voted outcome may vary. see below pic for details:

[bloody jumper]

pull lever, save 5, doom 1. choosing not to act is a choice in and of itself, and in that moment if i don't spare those 5 people when i have the option available to me, i would be a bad person.

[Ceist]

i jump in front of the trolley and make it 6

[Rigel]

you're just asking if they would save 1 guy or 5 guys and the logical answer is to save the 5 .....however if u alter the scenario just a bit, you will find the voted outcome may vary. see below pic for details:

Listen we don't wanna tip the scales too far here.

[Blockomaniac]

ingame vehicle physics make it unlikely the trolley will reach the victims before derailing

[Nicepoint]

pulling the lever is a slippery slope down the path of "the greater good", and i've seen hot fuzz at least 5 times to know that's a bad idea.
i do not pull it, fate shall carry out its will unimpeded.

This answer pisses me off immensely. Every time someone brings up the slippery slope, the implication is that it will eventually lead to worse outcomes, thus defeating the whole point as it turns out there is a greater good to choose.

[Refticus]

This answer pisses me off immensely. Every time someone brings up the slippery slope, the implication is that it will eventually lead to worse outcomes, thus defeating the whole point as it turns out there is a greater good to choose.

that's how it always starts, first it's starting the homeowners association for the neighborhood to get deal with that richardhead mike who REFUSES to get rid of the garbage on his lawn, next thing you know you're sacrificing that richardhead mike so you don't lose the village of the year award because now he INSISTS on keeping 20 lawn flamingos on his small plot of land we've reduced him to.

he doesn't share our vision, his sacrifice is for the greater good of wink dink ville.

[Nicepoint]

-

If at any point those rules lead to worse outcomes, then they're in fact NOT "for the greater good", so working by the greater good principle, none of that would happen.