Originally posted by belgianfreakAre any of these people particularly good looking or wealthy? What's in it for ME?
a question from a psychological study that facinated me. It's got 2 parts, but we'll get to part 2 later.
question: you realise that a runaway tram is going to hit & kill 5 people. You are next to a switch that will divert the course of a tram so that it will go a down different track and only hit one person.
There's no trick to this, or any othe ...[text shortened]... hange the tram's course and let 1 die?
I'll post part 2 after a few people have answered
Originally posted by belgianfreaklet the 5 die.
a question from a psychological study that facinated me. It's got 2 parts, but we'll get to part 2 later.
question: you realise that a runaway tram is going to hit & kill 5 people. You are next to a switch that will divert the course of a tram so that it will go a down different track and only hit one person.
There's no trick to this, or any othe ...[text shortened]... hange the tram's course and let 1 die?
I'll post part 2 after a few people have answered
Originally posted by royalchickenTechnically, you've killed the five though. If you had the chance to intervene and save their lives but didn't take it, then you've allowed them to be killed. 😕
I'd let it run and kill the 5. As I understand it, the 5 would be hit under any circumstances, regardless of my presence, so my consience is clear if the 5 die, whereas if 1 dies, I've actively killed xym. I don't think that saving 4 lives would make me feel any better about this, while allowing 5 to die who would die regardless of my presence would only be marginally more upsetting than reading about it in the newspaper.
Originally posted by royalchickenThat's what I was thinking.
I'd let it run and kill the 5. As I understand it, the 5 would be hit under any circumstances, regardless of my presence, so my consience is clear if the 5 die, whereas if 1 dies, I've actively killed xym. I don't think that saving 4 lives would make me feel any better about this, while allowing 5 to die who would die regardless of my presence would only be marginally more upsetting than reading about it in the newspaper.
I think my conscience would give me a much harder time having actively taken part in the death of 1 person. I don't know if that would be true, but that's what I'm thinking now.
D
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenI don't think "under any circumestances, regardless of my presence" is quite correct here. They would be hit for sure under any circumstances except you being present and diverting the train. If I'd see someone drown and didn't do anything to save him, I would have a bad conscience, even if I knew that he would have died for sure if I hadn't been present.
I'd let it run and kill the 5. As I understand it, the 5 would be hit under any circumstances, regardless of my presence, so my consience is clear if the 5 die
Edit: Drat, I am way too slow.
interesting responces. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, just what you do. Personally my gut answer was flick the switch and let the 1 die.
OK, second part: this time you are standing on a bridge and a tram on the line running under the bridge is going to hit 5 people. You realise that if you push the huge person next to you off the bridge into the path of the tram his body will stop the tram from hitting the 5. Again, they're all strangers and you won't be procecuted for your actions.
Do you push him/her? If your choice this tim eis different from the last scenario, why??
Originally posted by Daemon SinI've allowed them to be killed, which is very different from actually killing them. If I had to, say, start the train moving before being faced with the switch, then I'd switch and kill one, because my starting the train moving would be an explicit, deadly action.
Technically, you've killed the five though. If you had the chance to intervene and save their lives but didn't take it, then you've allowed them to be killed. 😕
Originally posted by royalchickenis inaction really better or more morally justified than action?
I've allowed them to be killed, which is very different from actually killing them. If I had to, say, start the train moving before being faced with the switch, then I'd switch and kill one, because my starting the train moving would be an explicit, deadly action.
Originally posted by NordlysI would too, but I don't know how many I'd have to allow to die before my conscience would be worse than it would be from actively killing someone. In this situation, I could always plead "none of my business" to myself -- I wouldn't have done anything right, but I'd at least have done nothing wrong.
I don't think "under any circumestances, regardless of my presence" is quite correct here. They would be hit for sure under any circumstances except you being present and diverting the train. If I'd see someone drown and didn't do anything to save him, I would have a bad conscience, even if I knew that he would have died for sure if I hadn't been present.
Edit: Drat, I am way too slow.
Originally posted by belgianfreakI'lll let one die
a question from a psychological study that facinated me. It's got 2 parts, but we'll get to part 2 later.
question: you realise that a runaway tram is going to hit & kill 5 people. You are next to a switch that will divert the course of a tram so that it will go a down different track and only hit one person.
There's no trick to this, or any othe ...[text shortened]... hange the tram's course and let 1 die?
I'll post part 2 after a few people have answered
Originally posted by belgianfreakonce again, no i would not kill the one to save the 5. how do we know that the one might not develope a cure for cancer, or be responsible for the lives of many?
interesting responces. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, just what you do. Personally my gut answer was flick the switch and let the 1 die.
OK, second part: this time you are standing on a bridge and a tram on the line running under the bridge is going to hit 5 people. You realise that if you push the huge person next to you off the bridge ...[text shortened]... .
Do you push him/her? If your choice this tim eis different from the last scenario, why??
Originally posted by belgianfreakThis is exactly the same as the last scenario -- kill 1 or allow 5 to die through inaction. The only difference is that I'm more likely to be physically capable of throwing a switch than toppling a human Faith Whale.
interesting responces. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, just what you do. Personally my gut answer was flick the switch and let the 1 die.
OK, second part: this time you are standing on a bridge and a tram on the line running under the bridge is going to hit 5 people. You realise that if you push the huge person next to you off the bridge ...[text shortened]... .
Do you push him/her? If your choice this tim eis different from the last scenario, why??
Originally posted by belgianfreakI think I should, but I probably wouldn't. Because psychologically it feels different pushing someone with my bare hands or merely flipping a lever. The latter is much easier in terms of detachment.
interesting responces. Remember, there is no right or wrong answer, just what you do. Personally my gut answer was flick the switch and let the 1 die.
OK, second part: this time you are standing on a bridge and a tram on the line running under the bridge is going to hit 5 people. You realise that if you push the huge person next to you off the bridge ...[text shortened]... .
Do you push him/her? If your choice this tim eis different from the last scenario, why??