Originally posted by huckleberryhoundThat's not a sound argument. The five are more likely to contain one cancer-curer than the one is, all other things being equal.
once 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?
Actually, it could be not necessarily unsound, if you mean that you'd rather allow a cancer-curer to die than be personally responsible for stopping the cure of cancer.
Originally posted by belgianfreakYou cannot decide without more information about the people involved.
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
After all the 5 people may all be only children who have no family left and as such their deaths will have no effect on immediate family - there not being any.
However the one person may be a 60 year old great grandfather with 10 children, 40 granchildren and 100 great grandchildren so his death would have a major effect on his extended family.
Had you not been there, you would have been unable to intervene so you should let the 5 die.
Originally posted by royalchickenwho am i to judge the value of this one guys life?
That's not a sound argument. The five are more likely to contain one cancer-curer than the one is, all other things being equal.
Actually, it could be not necessarily unsound, if you mean that you'd rather allow a cancer-curer to die than be personally responsible for stopping the cure of cancer.
what if it was you beside me on the bridge? how would you agrue for your life?
Originally posted by belgianfreakMan...hard call! I'd probably be frozen in indecision too long to make a move.
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
But assuming time stopped and I could think it over...I guess I'd have to flip the switch.
Originally posted by royalchickenI was reacting to your "so my consience [sic!] is clear if the 5 die". I understand your reasoning. I am not sure I would feel that way myself - I don't think it's possible to tell how you would really react and feel in such a situation. If I had time to think about it, I would probably let the one person die. Most likely I would feel very bad afterwards, no matter which decision I had made. In the second scenario, I don't know if I would be able to kill the one person, even though the logical conclusion would be the same.
I 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.
Originally posted by royalchickenThen again, the 5 are five times more likely to contain people that are sick or going to die sooner anyways. In terms of pure efficiency, it is better to kill those that are already on their way to death.
That's not a sound argument. The five are more likely to contain one cancer-curer than the one is, all other things being equal.
Actually, it could be not necessarily unsound, if you mean that you'd rather allow a cancer-curer to die than be personally responsible for stopping the cure of cancer.
Originally posted by belgianfreakThat's an unrealistic scenario. Therefore I have to give an intuitively unrealistic answer. Push the fat guy, as Bowmann says.
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??
1 edit
Originally posted by huckleberryhound"Please kill me!
who am i to judge the value of this one guys life?
what if it was you beside me on the bridge? how would you agrue for your life?
Oh baby, don't kill me!
Don't drop my corpse onto the floor,
the gain of lives is only four!
So kill me!
Baby, don't kill me!
No matter what you heard him say
I can't stop a speeding train anyway, oh no."
Rather than parodying a great song in a farcical manner, I would plead for you to see things the way I saw them in my earlier posts about why I wouldn't throw the switch. Actually, this scenario is interesting because choosing to let five die is, I would say, indefensible from any point of view other than that of the person making the choice. There isn't a lot I could say.
To clarify, the only argument I can think of for the person to save the one and let the five die is based on the notion that the person at the switch should strive to minimise hir bad conscience. From the point of view of the six potential victims, the switch-bearer's conscience is only important inasmuch as it affects which of them die, so they couldn't make the same argument to the switch-thrower and be believed.
Originally posted by belgianfreakWhen this occurs the mind would take over and you would do the first positive 'good' move, [ie in the first case, save the 5 then hope something could be done for the 1 man].
is inaction really better or more morally justified than action?
Wherreas in the second case the 'normal' person [ie, yourself next to the fat man] would not throw him off . Imagine the mind is like a robot programmed to help and not able to harm , you would then make your choices in a chronological order to save or try to save but it has to be a 'good' action, unless you are a psychopath when you wouldn't care one way or the other and would probably leave things to take their own course anyway.