I keep seeing discussions on the question of would you save your dog or a random child if you could only save one. Also including the alternative question would you save your 12 year old dog or a random child. The fact this question is divisive was surprising to me, as I felt strongly that most people would value a human life over an animal. However I found out that this is actually the unpopular position, and most people would save their dog in both situations. What is your stance? And why do you think that way?

I came up with a thought experiment about moral responsibility and the degree of personal involvement

Hi everyone! This is my first Reddit post, so I hope I'm posting this in the right place.

Recently, I came up with an idea that I'm currently calling “The Theory of Minimal and Maximal Involvement.”

I'm not claiming that this is an established psychological theory. For now, it's more of a thought experiment that I'd like to discuss.

The main question is:

If the final outcome is exactly the same, does our moral responsibility change depending on how directly we participate in achieving that outcome?

Imagine the following situation.

You are 100% certain that a dangerous serial killer lives in a particular house. You know with absolute certainty that he is guilty, and for the purposes of this thought experiment, assume that you will face no consequences for his death.

Now imagine five different levels of involvement.

1. Minimal involvement — 10%

You call the police and report him.

The police take him away. From that point on, he could receive life imprisonment, the death penalty, or even be released.

Your personal involvement is minimal.

Question: If you only reported the person, are you responsible for what eventually happens to him?

1. Passive involvement — 30%

Imagine that the person is placed in a gas chamber. Gas begins filling the room.

You are standing on the other side of the glass. You have a button that would save him.

You can press it — or simply do nothing.

You are not physically causing his death, but you knowingly allow the situation to end in his death.

Question: Can inaction become an action when you already know exactly what the outcome will be?

1. Indirect involvement — 50%

You pay a hitman to kill him.

You don't physically kill him yourself.

However, the killing happens because you made the decision and arranged for it to happen.

Question: Does your responsibility become smaller simply because another person stands between you and the actual death?

1. Direct involvement — 80%

The person is tied to a chair.

You are holding a gun.

One pull of the trigger causes his death.

There is no intermediary anymore.

You personally perform the action that directly causes the outcome.

Question: Why does this feel psychologically so different from the previous situations?

1. Maximum involvement — 100%

The person is still in front of you, but now the situation requires direct physical contact.

You have to approach him and carry out the act yourself.

There is almost no psychological distance left:

you → action → person → outcome.

You directly experience what you are doing and its immediate consequences.

And this is what really interests me.

In all five scenarios, the final outcome is identical: the person dies.

Yet the degree of personal involvement is completely different.

Why might someone say:

“I could report him.”

or:

“I could let him die.”

but at the same time say:

“I could never kill him myself”?

Where exactly does that psychological boundary come from?

Why might someone who is willing to choose the second level be unwilling to move to the first, third, fourth, or fifth?

And can a person perceive themselves as less responsible simply because there is a greater physical or psychological distance between them and the outcome?

For now, I'm calling this “The Theory of Minimal and Maximal Involvement.” I realize that this idea may overlap with existing concepts in psychology, philosophy, ethics, or moral psychology.

So I'd really like to know:

Does something like this already exist?

How would you rank these five levels of responsibility?

And does physical proximity to an action actually change how we perceive our own guilt and responsibility?

I’d be really happy to hear your thoughts, answers, and opinions! I’m genuinely curious to see how you interpret this idea and whether anything similar already exists. ❤️

PLEASE READ FIRST!! Please note that this is my first Reddit post and that all topics covered are for hypothetical thought processes.

For an explanation Goop is what others may call a "Human Sludge".

I have come to the personal finding that the ship of Theseus paradox is that it is still the ship when it has its crew that give it its identity. From this the topic of teleportation was discussed. Then i continued to show my ideas of how it would work and that way would be that the person is scanned and the exact state of their being is copied including the strain and structure of the neurons that your brain is made up of. Because thought is the electrical signals of the brain those signals would be copied and transferred to the sight of teleportation.

Teleportation would be a form of public transit and the way it would work would be as follows. The person beginning the proses of teleportation would be scanned, Gooped, then have their conscious transferred, then reassembled upon the other end of teleportation. Goop is what makes up all of a human from the toe to the last strand of hair with the viscosity of the result being somewhat in-between that of oil and honey. Said Goop is stored in large communal tanks stored in the immediate vicinity to make storage and reassembly easier. In the event that a person gains mass in-between teleportation events the mass would consist of a mix of cancer cells and the communal Goop. Upon witch the person may be fined depending on said amount of Goop and cancer biomass used. The inverse however would not be true for people who have lost mass. Any of said person would have parts of outstanding fines paid based upon lost mass.

Goop does expire and has a shelf life between 12-15 months based upon use and storage conditions said shelf life would decrease upon the age and time the Goop is used. After expiration Goop is turned into one of the 2 following things. One of these said things being Soylent Green which would then be fed to poor people as to reduce government expenditures on things like food stamps. The other option is that it would be burned for fuel/biofuel which would be similar of that to things like coal but a weird viscous liquid.

The cancer that I referred to earlier would come from cancer farms. With its use to be biomass as to supply to the Goop tanks in the event of mass loss or rapid expiration. The reason why I chose cancer is because of its properties of rapid growth.

The main part of my concerns would be the initial harvest of Goop with it being from people who have committed crimes against humanity like that being SA and other monstrosities. along with wither or not it is ethical to feed the poor said Soylent Green along with the burning of Goop

I will do my best to respond and answer all questions to the best of my ability which also includes questions on the Goop its self

Question posed by the Good. Organ. Organization. Party.