|
Post by saskabronco on Feb 18, 2015 23:13:05 GMT -5
If a train was running down the tracks, on track to kill five workers, and the only option you had to save them was to re-route the train to a track where one worker would be killed, what would you do? (You must pick A or B) A) Do nothing. Five workers die. B) Re-route the train. One worker dies.
Now instead, what if you were standing on a bridge watching a train moving towards five helpless workers. You know the train will kill all five of them. You are standing next to a very large person who, if you push them off the bridge, will land in front of the train and stop it from hitting the other five. (Ignore the logic behind the options and just focus on the answers). What do you do? A) Do nothing. Five workers die. B) Push the person next to you. That person dies.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Feb 18, 2015 23:24:05 GMT -5
My first instinct, as I think most people's would be, is be B and A. Then I guess you would say that B in the first is the same thing as B in the second, so why would I choose to kill the 1 person instead of the 5, then choose to not kill one person and let 5 die? What's the difference between the 2 situations? Yet you picked the 2 different answers. Some mumbo jumbo like that.
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Feb 18, 2015 23:30:18 GMT -5
I will let people do there own thinking so I will put my explanation in spoilers. My first thought was re-route the train, and push the person next to you. Kill one save the majority type of thought. But then as I began thinking deeper. I am not the cause of the train being out of control, and I am not the cause of those five workers being in peril. If I push the man, or I re-route the train I kill a person directly by my action, yes I have an opportunity to save those 5 lives to 1 but who am I to choose who lives and dies?
To me it is not my place to end a life, to save others, especially knowing nothing of any of these people. I think I would feel worse in the long run knowing I was the man who decided 5 lives were more important than one.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Feb 18, 2015 23:32:44 GMT -5
I will let people do there own thinking so I will put my explanation in spoilers. My first thought was re-route the train, and push the person next to you. Kill one save the majority type of thought. But then as I began thinking deeper. I am not the cause of the train being out of control, and I am not the cause of those five workers being in peril. If I push the man, or I re-route the train I kill a person directly by my action, yes I have an opportunity to save those 5 lives to 1 but who am I to choose who lives and dies?
To me it is not my place to end a life, to save others, especially knowing nothing of any of these people. I think I would feel worse in the long run knowing I was the man who decided 5 lives were more important than one. What if it was 1 person vs 100 people?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2015 23:34:04 GMT -5
I would have to know their time in the forty. Can the one guy run faster than the five? Can he catch?
Okay I'll take this serious and give an answer.
|
|
|
Post by MarchingOn on Feb 18, 2015 23:36:12 GMT -5
My answer depends on the ramifications those actions would have on me.
If you intentionally re-directed the train to kill one person, or if you intentionally pushed that fat guy off the bridge, you could get tried for murder.
So if that's a consequence, as sad as it would be, I'd do absolutely nothing. Not because I want those people to die, but I'm also not going to jail for doing something like that.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Feb 18, 2015 23:40:05 GMT -5
My first instinct, as I think most people's would be, is be B and A. Then I guess you would say that B in the first is the same thing as B in the second, so why would I choose to kill the 1 person instead of the 5, then choose to not kill one person and let 5 die? What's the difference between the 2 situations? Yet you picked the 2 different answers. Some mumbo jumbo like that. Like I said, that would be my first instinct, and then I asked myself what's the difference. And I suppose there isn't any. Killing 1 to save 5. I would do nothing on both. Not my place to decide who lives and who dies.
|
|
|
Post by Jancey on Feb 18, 2015 23:42:05 GMT -5
My first instinct, as I think most people's would be, is be B and A. Then I guess you would say that B in the first is the same thing as B in the second, so why would I choose to kill the 1 person instead of the 5, then choose to not kill one person and let 5 die? What's the difference between the 2 situations? Yet you picked the 2 different answers. Some mumbo jumbo like that. Like I said, that would be my first instinct, and then I asked myself what's the difference. And I suppose there isn't any. Killing 1 to save 5. I would do nothing on both. Not my place to decide who lives and who dies. But then I think, what if it's 100 people? 1000? Do you ever sacrifice one to save many? Do you do nothing if it's 5 people but then you sacrifice 1 if it's 100 or 1000? Where is the line drawn? Something to ponder about.
|
|
|
Post by Jindred on Feb 18, 2015 23:43:45 GMT -5
I will let people do there own thinking so I will put my explanation in spoilers. My first thought was re-route the train, and push the person next to you. Kill one save the majority type of thought. But then as I began thinking deeper. I am not the cause of the train being out of control, and I am not the cause of those five workers being in peril. If I push the man, or I re-route the train I kill a person directly by my action, yes I have an opportunity to save those 5 lives to 1 but who am I to choose who lives and dies?
To me it is not my place to end a life, to save others, especially knowing nothing of any of these people. I think I would feel worse in the long run knowing I was the man who decided 5 lives were more important than one. What if it was 1 person vs 100 people? That is interesting. Do 100 lives outweigh 1.. what number of people would it take to give up one life and is it my place to decide? To me this is a question of do I let fate decide or do I choose? Does my choosing not to intervene put their blood on my hands? Is saving 100 lives a grander act than saving 1.. Or is ending one life directly by my hand ok. Basically my decision is that it is not my place to decide who lives and dies. Now here is another interesting variable. Say you know the person you could push in front of the train to save the 5/100 people, then what? Or maybe you know someone in the 5/100 people, is it then easier to push the man?
|
|
|
Post by Juggs on Feb 18, 2015 23:45:47 GMT -5
I know that most people would choose A, especially for the second one, but I have actually considered this quite a bit (not exactly, but similar situation) and would absolutely choose B both times. When so many lives are at stake, I think it's okay to play a numbers game.
I personally change the situation though.
Mine is this: You are standing next to a street with busy traffic, and someone walks out into the sure path of a car traveling at high enough speeds to certainly kill. Do you push them out of the way, even if doing so will certainly kill you? I say YES. I am going to assume that me doing this good thing is not only more important than my remaining life, but that also that if it's possible for me to save the guy, I'd regret not saving him later in life.
I bet that most people disagree with that. Throw your life away to save some stranger, who could be a murderer or just a bad person right? And what would my family and friends think?
But that's not the point. If the person was a murderer, that changes nothing. I would absolutely still jump even if I knew the person was a murderer or had done some other awful thing (terrorism, rape, whatever), as long as I didn't let hate cloud my decision, which I try not to do. If you choose B for either above, yet you would not throw yourself in the way of the car for the murderer, than in my opinion, you are judging them and saying that they are so inhuman that you deserve to judge them and basically be god for them.
Once I reached this conclusion personally, to give every soul the benefit of the doubt, I personally reached a new level of empathy, especially for the guilty and the wrong. This leads me to condemn the death penalty, authority and punitive punishment in general. If you love all life in a religious (christian I guess) sense, how can you not throw yourself to save one person or throw one in to save 5? That's my thought.
|
|