[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

To answer the question properly we need to define the boundary of the subject. We need to answer standard questions : what, where, when, who, why, how.

We can also explore the subject further using thought experiments and their variations such us trolley problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem
From those specific cases we may be able to conclude a general rule behind the decisions made in those cases. In my opinion, the trolley problem and its variations ask us what is the priority held by the decision maker, and what factors may influence it.

I found a trolley problem experiment in real life in this video:

Trolley problem is often used to explore human moral values. But even the most basic case produced disagreements among people. Can it be modified to reduce disagreement? Hopefully it can help us finding a common ground to finally construct a universal moral standard.

Here's the basic version.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.

You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?

The original trolley problem creates disagreement because it's like comparing apple to orange. Different people come up with different conversion factor.
First option includes:
- do nothing
- death of 5 strangers
While second option includes:
- do something, which is pulling a lever
- death of a stranger

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

First option includes:
- do nothing
- death of 5 strangers
While second option includes:
- do something, which is pulling a lever
- death of a stranger

Assuming that every stranger has equal value, the original trolley problem is basically asking us to compare the cost of doing something (pulling a lever, and all of its expected consequences) with losing lives of four strangers.
The decision would then depend on the value of conversion factor, which converts the value of the action into the quantity of strangers' lives.
Historically, the survey showed that most people thought that the action worth less than 4 lives of strangers. Unfortunately, the study didn't come with follow up question: how much less was it? Did it worth 3 lives? 2? 1? 0? or a fractional value?
Nevertheless, there were respondents who thought that the action worth more than 4 lives of strangers. Similar follow up question should have been asked: how much more was it? Did it worth 5 lives? 10? 100? 1000? a million? a billion? a trillion? infinity?
The conversion factor wasn't set by the questioner. Thus it must have been set by each respondents from their own experiences. Some type of environments came up with higher values of conversion factor compared to the others.

[alancalverd]

What makes you think that sunflowers have the ability to determine their own future? Can they decide what kind of future they will have?

It seems like you've missed to answer these questions.

They turn to follow the sun in order to maximise energy input to the flower mechanism, which determines the survival of the species by attracting pollinators and producing seeds..

[alancalverd]

Let us naively assume that you don't want to die in a trolley accident.

Statistically, if you were among the group of prospective victims and the group were selected at random, it is more likely 5 in 10⁹ that you would be in the larger group rather than the smaller group (1 in 10⁹).

Now apply my first test: would you like it to happen to you? Statistically, you would want me to save the larger group because that is more likely to contain you (or your loved ones, if you want to apply the second test) . 

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.

You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?

A condition can be added to make the options free from conversion factor. It's that the stopping device is going to be expired soon, which will make it useless after the event. So, the options are basically as follow:
1. sacrifice 6 strangers
2. sacrifice 1 stranger
3. sacrifice 5 strangers
I think I can safely say that most people will choose second option. But I won't be surprised if there are people who choose first option, because they think that reducing the number of people, especially strangers, is a good thing to do.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

They turn to follow the sun in order to maximise energy input to the flower mechanism, which determines the survival of the species by attracting pollinators and producing seeds..

What makes it different than automaton, like a bimetal that bends when being heated?
Can they choose not to follow the sun, e.g. when the energy is excessive?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Let us naively assume that you don't want to die in a trolley accident.

Statistically, if you were among the group of prospective victims and the group were selected at random, it is more likely 5 in 10⁹ that you would be in the larger group rather than the smaller group (1 in 10⁹).

Now apply my first test: would you like it to happen to you? Statistically, you would want me to save the larger group because that is more likely to contain you (or your loved ones, if you want to apply the second test) . 

Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?

[Origin]

I hate this blog, I am putting it on ignore.
By the way the answer to the OP is no.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's my modified version. There are two rail roads, each has a trolley running on it.
Ahead, on the first track, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The first trolley is headed straight for them. On the second track, there is one people tied up and unable to move. The second trolley is headed straight for him. You have a device which can stop a trolley.

You have three (and only three) options:
Do nothing, in which case the trolleys will kill the total of six people on both tracks.
Use the device to stop first trolley, where it will save five person.
Use the device to stop second trolley, where it will save one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?
All people involved here are strangers to you.
Is there any justification to choose other than second option? Is it a universally right thing to do?

A condition can be added to make the options free from conversion factor. It's that the stopping device is going to be expired soon, which will make it useless after the event. So, the options are basically as follow:
1. sacrifice 6 strangers
2. sacrifice 1 stranger
3. sacrifice 5 strangers
I think I can safely say that most people will choose second option. But I won't be surprised if there are people who choose first option, because they think that reducing the number of people, especially strangers, is a good thing to do.

Can anyone find a good justification to choose third option? If a survey respondent somehow choose to save 1 life of a stranger instead of 5 or 0, what could possibly be the reason?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I hate this blog, I am putting it on ignore.
By the way the answer to the OP is no.

To restore your credibility, may be it's a good idea to start doing what you said you wanted to do many times already.
Did you get your answer based on the result of flipping a coin?

[alancalverd]

Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?

I'm sure you can do the statistics. 5>2 in my world, and 1 = 1.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Will you pull the lever if it just saves 2 persons instead of 5?
Will you still pull the lever if it just saves 1 person, while sacrificing another one on different track?

I'm sure you can do the statistics. 5>2 in my world, and 1 = 1.

So, at how many strangers on the track would you not pull the lever?

[alancalverd]

Where {do nothing} → n_dead ≤ n_alive, obviously.

The moral dilemma is where you have three equal target groups labelled politicians, philosophers and priests, and only one trolley.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Where {do nothing} → n_dead ≤ n_alive, obviously.

The moral dilemma is where you have three equal target groups labelled politicians, philosophers and priests, and only one trolley.

I thought you prefer less humans on earth.

Perhaps it would be called trilemma. Why did you leave other profession, such as lawyers and bankers?

[alancalverd]

The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.

Lawyers and bankers work for me when I need them, and oil the wheels of society. The 3Ps are parasites who contribute nothing but friction.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.

Lawyers and bankers work for me when I need them, and oil the wheels of society. The 3Ps are parasites who contribute nothing but friction.

What makes the difference?

Good lawyers are ambiguous. Are they good if they serve justice, or if they serve clients to win their case, even when they did wrong things?

If a banker makes huge profit while bringing down national or global economy, should we call them good or bad banker?

[alancalverd]

The deregulation of banking was a political act, as was the decision to use my money to pay corrupt bankers. Trading whilst bankrupt, which includes knowingly purchasing bad debts and calling them assets, is illegal for anyone except those who can offer banking directorships to politicians.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The world would be a better place with a sustainable human population, but the way to achieve that is to breed less, not to kill more.

What makes the difference?
Is there any particular reason?
Is it based on your intuition?

[alancalverd]

Choosing whom to kill would raise some moral dilemmas. Merely ridding the world of priests, politicians and philosophers would make life more peaceful but wouldn't have much impact on sustainability. You might then start on pensioners, but we have a limited life span anyway, and have contributed to the public good through our taxes and investments, so we should be allowed to enjoy our pensions. Companies that rashly introduced early retirement to save money on the short term often found that, within a year or two, everyone who knew anything useful or had acquired a significant skill, had disappeared. 

But every baby is a net consumer for about the next 20 years, without having contributed anything. So a baby not born is a significant exchequer saving and improvement in the future quality of life for those already here.

Killing people takes effort and organisation, and doing it on a big scale can pose problems disposing of the bodies. Not making babies is the perfect "do nothing" option, with no waste product.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

You might then start on pensioners, but we have a limited life span anyway, and have contributed to the public good through our taxes and investments, so we should be allowed to enjoy our pensions. Companies that rashly introduced early retirement to save money on the short term often found that, within a year or two, everyone who knew anything useful or had acquired a significant skill, had disappeared. 

Killing pensioners would remove incentives for younger generations to work harder and smarter to save  money for their future, which would reduce productivity of the society.