As it goes with my previous 2 thought experiments, there is no right or wrong answer here. This is purely a hypothetical situation that is meant to be discussed. Have fun! -------------------------- Greg has just one minute to make an agonizing choice. A runaway train is hurtling down the track towards the junction where he is standing. Further down the line too far away for him to reach, forty men are working in a tunnel. If the train reaches them, it is certain to kill many of them.
Greg can't stop the strain. But he can pull the lever that will divert it down another tack. Further down this line, in another tunnel, only five men are working. The death toll is bound to be smaller.
But if Greg pulls the lever, he is deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If he leaves it alone, it will not be him who causes deaths among the forty. He must bring about the deaths of a few people, or allow even more to die. But isn't it worse to kill people than it is simply to let them die?
The rails are humming, the engine noises getting louder. Greg has only seconds to make his choice. To kill or let die?
--------------------- I was sparked to use this thought experiment to help illuminate new points about abortion.
Very inturesting. It is much more simple than the previus 2 Thought Experiments though.
I beleive that if you have the opertunity to save people, you should take it. Basicly it is as if asking "Should he allow forty men to die so there is no one to blame, or should 5 men die and one man take the blame.
I guess in ways Greg would have to sacrifice/risk his own wellbeing to save 35 men. Since many people will probaly try to sue him or get him into trouble anyways if he decides to kill the 5 men.
Okay, NoName, is it safe to say you are a utilitarian? A utilitarian would believe the moral worth of an action is solely determined by its contribution to overall utility. It is thus a form of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcomeâ"the ends justify the means. Utility â" the good to be maximized â" has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure (versus suffering or pain).
As you (Noname) said, it seemed easy for you to choose to have more people survive and less die by making an ACTION. The other road many might think that is if he pulls the lever he will be placing himself in the position of God by deciding who lives and who dies. Which is a crock of sh*t. Greg is choosing who will die whether he pulls the lever or not. He has the position thrusted on him, hence it being a dilemma. His omission is still representing a choice.
I think a Utilitarian (either Mill or Bentham's theory) approach here is probably the most ethical. Even by letting the train go, you are still deciding to do nothing, which really means you're deciding to let 40 people die. Mill's theories on Utilitarianism might be a little more useful since he brings in ideas about how to calculate utility before making a decision. In this case, the odds are definitely in favor of switching the train onto the other track. Of course, in the true fashion of Utilitarianism you can never know. What if most of those 40 guys ended up murdering people or something later in life? What if the 5 people that died could have ended up curing AIDS or something? However unlikely, these are scenarios for which Utilitarianism has no real solution but a utilitarian cannot ignore.
The way I see it, all 45 in Tunnel A and B must of been pretty dense or something to not know that the tunnels they were working on could potenially have a train go through at that time. So I say do nothing. If Greg had not been there at that time by some chance, it would happen anyways.
Also, Moegreche, I have made this argument on the Abortion thread and I will make it again: Even though I highly doubt that tunnel workers would of ever found a cure for AIDS, let us assume they could. Sooner or later someone else would. If one human at any one given time is history has done something ground breaking, someone else sooner or later will have the same idea at roughly the same time. It is more of the needs of the society at any one time that brings about big discoveries, not a single man.
Well I think that making the conscience decision to let the train keep going down its original path, is a decision to let those men die. Therefore, it is no less worse than him deciding that only those 5 men should die. If he has the power to change it, and chooses not too, that is on him as well.
That's an excellent point, Devoidless. I hadn't considered that. Still arguing from a utilitarian point of view, though if one of the 5 guys did cure a disease, it would likely be quite some time before someone else did, which means there would be more people suffering in the mean time. More practically, what if all 40 in the tunnel were single with no family at all, while each of the 5 guys had a big family that would be really upset if they died. Again, utilitarianism would suggest (if you somehow knew this) that it might be better to kill the 40. Of course, I don't really believe in any "true morality" so I think you're totally right. If 40 people are so stupid as to work in a tunnel with the danger of a train coming, then let them die. That's natural selection
To tell the truth I must say that I would let the train go and kill the 40 men.
I think I can manage knowing that 40 did die by an ACCIDENT... There was a decision to make: Kill 5 or let 40 Die and I don't see it as LET DIE.
I wouldn't want to even get involved in the accident, so I would have just walk away... might seem in human but thats me... know if those people were people I knew... would be something else but..
Ahh but the point is Maori, even your omission mean you are involved. It is a dilemma. You are thrusted into this position. So, technically, there would be no accident.
Well personaly I feel that if he lets the 40 men die, though he was not the one to kill them and the fact that they would have died anyways, is still pretty selfish.
Greg, if he refuses to save the 40 men, would only have to place himself in a state of denial (the assumption that he could not do anything), and he will most likely never be spoken to about the incident and people would leave him alone.
If Greg does save the 40 men, he will have to accept the fact that he chose the fate of fellow men. Chances are that people will critisize him for killing the 5 men.
I beleive that most people would have let the 40 people die, it was not their fault the train was going to hit them and pulling the lever would only spill blood onto their own hands. These are the majority of people who are followers, who complain about the things that happen but do nothign about it. These are generaly the people who feel that things will turn out ok if they just let God do his job.
The few people who do pull the lever, are leaders. They know that sometimes you have to sacrifice the lives of a few men to save many. Chances are, the people who do pull the lever will be those who would feel jsut as bad/worse if they did nothing at all. These are the people who try to change the world and stand up for what they beleive.
Of course not everyone whos a leader would save the 40 men, or a folower who would save the 5 men. I do not know if what I said was right or if it evin made sence. Though I still beleive that what I said is fairly close in human personality.
If someone dies when you could've easily prevented it, then you have killed them by your inaction. Therefore I would much rather kill 5 then let 40 die.
i would pull the lever...then try to signal the train to stop. if the second tunnel is further down the line you might have time to stop it from killing anyone. at least that way all 45 men have a chance. if the 5 did end up dying, i would sleep well knowing i did everything i could to prevent it.
It was already stated that there was no way to stop the train or warn the workers. But that might be a moot point.
Am I more or less alone in my thought that, in some way, the workers deserved it? Who the hell works on train tracks without knowing when hundred of tons of steel and iron could turn them into a substance looking something like spaggetti sauce and wet tissue? That is almost like walking into a bears den, kicking it in the groin and wondering if it will eat your face.
