Morality question from NPR...

qbee42 · Aug 30, 2007

1) No, I wouldn't pull the lever. There is too good a chance of derailing the train and causing even greater loss of life.

2) No, I wouldn't push the stranger. I wouldn't directly kill someone unless that person is a direct threat.

In all honesty, it's unlikely I'd take any action in either situation, regardless of my beliefs. It's more likely I'd stand there and watch it all happen, then think "maybe I should have done something..." That's what usually happens in unpracticed emergency situations.

Tom

Danny Hamilton · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 03:47 PM) [snapback]504494[/snapback]</div>

Would have murdering. . . .been considered murder? Would it have been ok?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Noooooooo!
Burritos!
Tell me you didn't!
I was enjoying this conversation.
Unfortunately, once I notice that Goodwin's Law has been satisfied, I refuse to participate in a conversation any further.
Perhaps, just maybe, you could go back and edit your post?

Lywyllyn · Aug 30, 2007

ah the Hitler angle yes it would have still been murder (or assassination) and only a jury would have the right to make this murder acceptable (which they probably would have within a few minutes of deliceration). But that does not automatically mean that murder is OK, murder is after all the willful action of ending someones life.

So back to the original dilemma. It is murder either way, but your chances of getting away with it are much larger if only one person dies due to a mechanical switch then through a personal intervention (pushing)

Q 1: pull the lever (and get sued by the family of the one victim)
Q 2: yell, holler, hoot with my new found friend from the bridge
Q 2a: he might push me first

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(qbee42 @ Aug 30 2007, 03:53 PM) [snapback]504500[/snapback]</div>

1) No, I wouldn't pull the lever. There is too good a chance of derailing the train and causing even greater loss of life.

[/b]
Click to expand...

In all fairness the outcome was specific, no chance of things going wrong or being misleading. The agreed outcome is either 5 die or 1 dies.

efusco · Aug 30, 2007

You guys want to call it murder by acting in any way to affect the outcome of this situation. But here's the deal, whether you act or fail to act your decision still affects the outcome.
In our culture somehow it's become acceptible to blame those who commit an act and assume that those who do/did not act did nothing wrong.
My point, in my original post, was that failure to act carries equal responsibility as failure to act when failure to act creates a negative or more negative outcome.

Now, in a legal sense (which I don't think should be part of this hypothetical) one has to determine if someone has a duty to act and/or not act in a particular situation. This is often pretty clear in medicine. A patient arrives in my ER and is assigned to me then I have duty. In the hypothetical of the original question it isn't clear to me that there is a legal duty to act in either situation. There may, well, be a moral duty to act however. And in a moral sense the more moral action would be to act in such a way that one is sacrificed for the 5. Failure to act resulting in the death of the 5 is the more immoral of the options.

PA Prius · Aug 30, 2007

There are always more angles to such dilemmas that are not at first obvious and OP is saying we may not consider them....

There is a similar story--

You are out walking and happen to have your gun and one bullet with you (yes, there are limitations in this story too!). As you crest a hill you see a man crouching off to the left aiming his gun toward a group of children off in the distance to the right. You hear one shot from his gun and see the children running and screaming. He is taking aim again. Would you shoot him?

Likely you are reading on here before considering your answer....

If you chose to shoot him.... What you could not see from your perspective was the bear that was about to attack the children and the other man was attempting to take out the bear. You guess how the story ends.

PA P

Lywyllyn · Aug 30, 2007

does shooting in the leg work? or perhaps the trigger arm?

Godiva · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]504313[/snapback]</div>

You see 5 men working on a train track. Mistakenly a train has taken these tracks and is barreling down towards these 5 men. The have their backs to the train and will not be able to get out of the way in time. Neither does the train see the men, so hitting and killing them is inevitable. Next to you is a lever. The only think you can do is to pull the lever which will divert the train to another track where there is only one man working. The train of course would hit and kill that one person but in turn you save the 5 other men. Would you or would you not pull the lever.[/b]
Click to expand...

I would move the lever to save the five and sacrifice the one.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]504313[/snapback]</div>

Second scenario. You see the same 5 men working on the train track with the same train approaching them with the same potential lethality. This time, you are on a bridge above the approaching train. Next to you, there is a stranger. If you were to push the stranger on to the tracks, this would startle and ultimately stop the approaching train. You'd kill the stranger, but would save the 5 workers. Would you or would you not push the stranger.[/b]
Click to expand...

I would not push the stranger.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 10:32 AM) [snapback]504313[/snapback]</div>

If your answers in the 2 scenarios were different, why?
[/b]
Click to expand...

If a stranger falling on the tracks can startle the train to stop (which it can't because trains need miles of warning to stop) then anything could startle the train to stop. It wouldn't have to be a body falling on to the tracks.

Now here's one for you.

A pharmacy has some medicine that is needed by your child. Your child will die without it. Even though the medicine only costs the pharmacy $1 they are selling it for $1000. You don't have $1000 (and you don't have insurance). What do you do?

PA Prius · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 30 2007, 08:34 PM) [snapback]504600[/snapback]</div>

A pharmacy has some medicine that is needed by your child. Your child will die without it. Even though the medicine only costs the pharmacy $1 they are selling it for $1000. You don't have $1000 (and you don't have insurance). What do you do?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Push the pharmacist in front of the train?

PA P

oxnardprof · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(eagle33199 @ Aug 30 2007, 11:46 AM) [snapback]504350[/snapback]</div>

I would extend Evans answer with the implied risk that the individuals were taking. in the first scenario, the workers on both sets of tracks are implied to have an understanding of the risks involved in their work (like getting hit by a train).

[/b]
Click to expand...

Actually, the workers have an explicit right to a safe and healthy place of employment. There is no implied acceptance of a risk of death.

My response is similar to Evan's, particulary since I don't see how the falling person will stop the train from hitting the track workers. I know I am not supposed to ask what if, but why not drop a rock on the train?

TonyPSchaefer · Aug 30, 2007

I'm truly surprised that no one has taken the military angle on this yet. So here's what occurred to me while I was on my way home from work:
If you act, there is death. If you refuse to act, there is death. However, if you decide to act a certain way, you sacrifice one person for the sake of five.

Isn't that what the military does on a regular basis? Don't we wage wars with the belief that the sacrifice of a certain number of soldiers will save a larger number of citizens? Some people are comfortable sending soldiers into battle (push in front of a train) while others volunteer to be the ones in the action (Evan).

I'm not trying to make a pro-war case. Rather I'm beginning to believe that with every decision we make on a regular basis, we are weighing the advantages versus the disadvantages. Some decisions are easy and we don't think twice about them while others cause us pause because of the implications.

The stone-cold pragmatist in me believes that if six of us are being chased by the bear being shot at by PA Prius' gunman, only the slowest runner will be lost.

Sufferin' Prius Envy · Aug 30, 2007

OK you Darwinian meddlers <_< . . .

You people who would throw the switch are saving the five idiots who were working on the "live" track, at the expense of the one intelligent person who was working on the off duty track. Not only was the smart person working on the off duty track, he was facing in the one direction in which a train could approach . . .
unless some idiot (you) came along and meddled in the natural order of things.

The human race is in trouble I tell you . . . deep trouble. :lol:

Godiva · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 30 2007, 09:34 PM) [snapback]504680[/snapback]</div>

You people who would throw the switch are saving the five idiots who were working on the "live" track, at the expense of the one intelligent person who was working on the off duty track. [/b]
Click to expand...

If you had read the original premise carefully it stated "Mistakenly a train has taken these tracks and is barreling down towards these 5 men."

Now granted, no one should work with their backs to a train. But...don't the tracks work both ways? Unlike a road, a single track can carry traffic in either direction. So they are all working facing the same direction. But whether they are facing toward or away from a train depends on which direction the train is coming.

And the track was supposed to be dead...no traffic. The train accidentally got routed to the track they were working on. And it just happens to be coming from the direction to which their backs are turned. (And let's get real. They'd hear the train coming before it hit them.)

I'd say it was careless for the lone working to be working alone.

But the most carelessness was that you didn't read the original premise carefully.

I guess I should throw you from the bridge to get the engineer's attention.

galaxee · Aug 30, 2007

would sacrificing oneself be perceived as a sacrifice for others? or a suicide?

what about all the unanswered questions from your own family?

Wildkow · Aug 30, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Sufferin' Prius Envy @ Aug 30 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]504680[/snapback]</div>

OK you Darwinian meddlers <_< . . .

You people who would throw the switch are saving the five idiots who were working on the "live" track, at the expense of the one intelligent person who was working on the off duty track. Not only was the smart person working on the off duty track, he was facing in the one direction in which a train could approach . . .
unless some idiot (you) came along and meddled in the natural order of things.

The human race is in trouble I tell you . . . deep trouble. :lol:
[/b]
Click to expand...

:lol: !LOL! :lol: Not only that but the five workers could have easily assigned one to watch over the other four workers.

Wildkow

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]504494[/snapback]</div>

Would have murdering Hitler been considered murder? Would it have been ok?

[/b]
Click to expand...

How about killing Bush and saving by some estimates hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's and US troop lives or would you have chosen Hussein with many more deaths on his hands or with burrito like powers of intolerance, anger and hate would you kill both? The World wonders. . . . :mellow:

Wildkow

F8L · Aug 30, 2007

I'll read the rest of the thread when I get more time but I wanted to add that a more detailed version of this morality test was mentioned in "The God Delusion" ~ Richard Dawkins.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Aug 30 2007, 08:32 AM) [snapback]504313[/snapback]</div>

If your answers in the 2 scenarios were different, why?
[/b]
Click to expand...

In a nutshell.. Intent.

You use the same reasoning in the other morality test:

There are 5 humans in a hospital with 5 different types of failing organs and each will die unless they recieve a transplant. In the waiting room sits a human in perfect health. In this situation would you kill the healthy man and give 5 of his perfect organs to the sick humans that need them and thereby save 5 lives and lose only 1?

Why or Why not?

*I understand that his a chopped up version of the original but the idea is presented in enough clarity to answer the question* I also use humans to reduce any gender bias.

efusco · Aug 31, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 30 2007, 10:55 PM) [snapback]504711[/snapback]</div>

You use the same reasoning in the other morality test:

There are 5 humans in a hospital with 5 different types of failing organs and each will die unless they recieve a transplant. In the waiting room sits a human in perfect health. In this situation would you kill the healthy man and give 5 of his perfect organs to the sick humans that need them and thereby save 5 lives and lose only 1?

Why or Why not?[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh, I like that one....
Real world answer is that organ transplant is a high risk proceedure with no guarantee of good outcomes, high cost, etc. Also it's likely that some of the organ failures were/are due to self-inflicted causes. Likelyhood of productive lives is fairly low compared to the health waiting room dude.

Theoretical/ethical answer isn't so clear and by the logic I used earlier you would have to sacrifice the waiting room dude for the sake of the 5. Immediacy is an issue for the real world scenario, but probably not part of the hypothetical.

Wildkow · Aug 31, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 30 2007, 08:55 PM) [snapback]504711[/snapback]</div>

I'll read the rest of the thread when I get more time but I wanted to add that a more detailed version of this morality test was mentioned in "The God Delusion" ~ Richard Dawkins.
In a nutshell.. Intent.

You use the same reasoning in the other morality test:

There are 5 humans in a hospital with 5 different types of failing organs and each will die unless they recieve a transplant. In the waiting room sits a human in perfect health. In this situation would you kill the healthy man and give 5 of his perfect organs to the sick humans that need them and thereby save 5 lives and lose only 1?

Why or Why not?
*I understand that his a chopped up version of the original but the idea is presented in enough clarity to answer the question* I also use humans to reduce any gender bias.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh I do like this one! Being a transplant recipient myself I say hell yes chop them suckers up and give some poor sicko like me and extra 10-20 years of life. No seriously letâ€™s just cut out one of their extra kidneys or a section of their livers what the hell they don't need two kidneys or a whole liver to survive. Good scenario BTW.

Wildkow

burritos · Aug 31, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Danny Hamilton @ Aug 30 2007, 03:54 PM) [snapback]504503[/snapback]</div>

Noooooooo!
Burritos!
Tell me you didn't!
I was enjoying this conversation.
Unfortunately, once I notice that Goodwin's Law has been satisfied, I refuse to participate in a conversation any further.
Perhaps, just maybe, you could go back and edit your post?
[/b]
Click to expand...

You're right my bad bad. I switched it to Stalin. Does that count? Or is there a Godwin's part deux?

F8L · Aug 31, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Aug 30 2007, 09:01 PM) [snapback]504716[/snapback]</div>

Oh, I like that one....
Real world answer is that organ transplant is a high risk proceedure with no guarantee of good outcomes, high cost, etc. Also it's likely that some of the organ failures were/are due to self-inflicted causes. Likelyhood of productive lives is fairly low compared to the health waiting room dude.

Theoretical/ethical answer isn't so clear and by the logic I used earlier you would have to sacrifice the waiting room dude for the sake of the 5. Immediacy is an issue for the real world scenario, but probably not part of the hypothetical.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Odd. While I completely understand your answer it is not the one the study showed the majority of people used.

IMO, the healthy dude in the waiting room would stay alive. I think ethics dictate you do not kill an innocent person to save 5 others. Prudence may dictate otherwise but ethics is a different matter. This is where intent is what matters most. My morality would not allow me to take his life to save those others without his consent. I don't care if it was 5 of my closest family members and it was GWB sitting in that waiting room. I am very honest when I say that.

The non ethical side of me thinks that those 5 people likely had genetic disorders or the damage was self inflicted and thus a healthy human should not be killed to prolong the lives of individuals who may further degrade the genetic pool should they decide to reproduce. lol

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 30 2007, 09:19 PM) [snapback]504726[/snapback]</div>

Oh I do like this one! Being a transplant recipient myself I say hell yes chop them suckers up and give some poor sicko like me and extra 10-20 years of life. No seriously letâ€™s just cut out one of their extra kidneys or a section of their livers what the hell they don't need two kidneys or a whole liver to survive. Good scenario BTW.

Wildkow
[/b]
Click to expand...

thanks Kow, for the honesty and the laugh. :lol:

Godiva · Aug 31, 2007

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 30 2007, 07:34 PM) [snapback]504600[/snapback]</div>

A pharmacy has some medicine that is needed by your child. Your child will die without it. Even though the medicine only costs the pharmacy $1 they are selling it for $1000. You don't have $1000 (and you don't have insurance). What do you do?
[/b]
Click to expand...

What? No one is going to steal the medicine to save their child?

Morality question from NPR...

qbee42 My other car is a boat

Danny Hamilton Active Member

Lywyllyn New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

PA Prius Active Member

Lywyllyn New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

PA Prius Active Member

oxnardprof Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
Staff Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

galaxee mostly benevolent

Wildkow New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

Wildkow New Member

burritos Senior Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

About PriusChat

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Morality question from NPR...

qbee42 My other car is a boat

Danny Hamilton Active Member

Lywyllyn New Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

PA Prius Active Member

Lywyllyn New Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

PA Prius Active Member

oxnardprof Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator Staff Member

Sufferin' Prius Envy Platinum Member

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

galaxee mostly benevolent

Wildkow New Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

efusco Moderator Emeritus Staff Member

Wildkow New Member

burritos Senior Member

F8L Protecting Habitat & AG Lands

Godiva AmeriKan Citizen

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member

TonyPSchaefer Your Friendly Moderator
Staff Member

efusco Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member