Jump to content

A Moral Dilemma


♥Nick♥

Recommended Posts

The Trolley Problem

A runaway train is heading towards five workers on a railway line. There is no way of warning them, but you are standing near a lever that operates some points. Switch the points and the train goes down a spur. Trouble is, the is another worker on that bit of track too. But, it is one fatality instead of five.

Should you do that?

Now imagine the train heading for the workers again, but this time it can only be stopped by pushing a very large man off a bridge. His great bulk would stop the train, but he would die.

Should you do that?

 

Why and/or why not?

 

Both are cases of sacrificing one to save five.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the first one, pull the lever. By not taking an action to pull the lever, you are indirectly taking an action that results in the death of 5 people rather than one. 

 

Same way for the second one, but he'd probably push me off the bridge before I could get him since I'm small and weak. But y'know, A for effort I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 of you did not read the problem carefully. In both cases, you could save 5 people. The real question is, would you pull the lever and/or push the large man off the bridge?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 of you did not read the problem carefully. In both cases, you could save 5 people. The real question is, would you pull the lever and/or push the large man off the bridge?

and you cant understand implications apparently.

 

yes, they are implying they would do that to save 5 lives over one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and you cant take implications apparently.

 

yes, they are implying they would do that to save 5 lives over one.

So you're just fine with pushing a man off a bridge and thus killing him in the process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're just fine with pushing a man off a bridge and thus killing him in the process?

 

If it is in the interest of saving the 5 workers on the tracks below, yes.

Better to have the guilt of killing one man than that of indirectly killing 5, though that's not the only reason I'd want to save them, ofc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're just fine with pushing a man off a bridge and thus killing him in the process?

would it make me a better man to watch 5 people die when i could have prevented it by sacrificing one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would it make me a better man to watch 5 people die when i could have prevented it by sacrificing one?

What if the person on the second set of tracks was a loved one? Would you do it then? Kill a loved one to save five strangers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the person on the second set of tracks was a loved one? Would you do it then? Kill a loved one to save five strangers?

you completely ignored my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted · Hidden by puddingkip, May 15, 2015 - No reason given
Hidden by puddingkip, May 15, 2015 - No reason given

Thanks for that! (Michael Sandel)

Link to comment

do nothing; kill nobody

 

 

Anyone who interferes is a murderer

I think you may have misread the question.

In any of these scenarios, someone is going to die no matter what happens It boils down to the question of whether you take no action at the cost of 5 lives, or take action and only lose 1.

 

Toward this end, taking action would arguably make you a hero among your peers for having the quick thinking to pull the lever (or push the man off the bridge) to save 5 lives, even at the cost of one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may have misread the question.

In any of these scenarios, someone is going to die no matter what happens It boils down to the question of whether you take no action at the cost of 5 lives, or take action and only lose 1.

 

Toward this end, taking action would arguably make you a hero among your peers for having the quick thinking to pull the lever (or push the man off the bridge) to save 5 lives, even at the cost of one.

You can also be considered a murderer for having killed one person.

 

You got this from braingames? I've seen the episode.

Never heard of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also be considered a murderer for having killed one person.

 

Never heard of it.

Interesting, as thats where i've heard of this. Anyway i'll input my opinion

 

If someones going to die no matter what, you shouldn't kill an innocent person when fate wanted to kill the others.

 

Either way there's a loss, however one at a greater cost. Your conscience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you may have misread the question.

In any of these scenarios, someone is going to die no matter what happens It boils down to the question of whether you take no action at the cost of 5 lives, or take action and only lose 1.

 

Toward this end, taking action would arguably make you a hero among your peers for having the quick thinking to pull the lever (or push the man off the bridge) to save 5 lives, even at the cost of one.

If you're uninvolved, you're responsible for 0 deaths. If you're involved, you're responsible for a death. I read the question thoroughly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're uninvolved, you're responsible for 0 deaths. If you're involved, you're responsible for a death. I read the question thoroughly.

I agree, I'd simply close my eyes and walk away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...