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.
Well I can't exactly say they deserved it. I took is more as someone higher up the line screwed up. Like it was not supposed to go down that line, someone forgot to turn the track, or the warning system failed. I don't think that they would knowingly work on the railroad when they knew that it was active.
there is no way you could know if the train could stop or not...split second decision and all. i was just saying how i think i would react. besides, if the train kills the workers, its the railways fault. they shouldn't have workers in a tunnel on an active track.
I realy think everyone is losing the whole point of the story.
Anyways, Wally, you would allow 40 men to die just because it was not your mistake in the first place? Sometimes you must take responsibility when originaly it isn't your responsability.
Personaly I would rather someone say "I would let the 40 die so no one yells at me for killing 5 people" than have someone say "Not my problem, so I will just ignore it."
But the point is that you have the chance to change it. This thought experiment is taking into account that you know what will happen if you do not make the change.
I think the problem is not kill or let die, because by not doing anything you are actually doing something. The choice then is to save 5 or 35. The only problem is greg will get more critiscised for letting 5 people die because of circumstance. Only if greg worried about himself would he not pull the lever. As I said before not pulling the lever is also an action, so he is really not letting 40 die, but is rather still killing them.
Final verdict: pull the lever
reasoning: you can make two actions, one that will save 5 and one that will save 35
I think i follow most of what u guys are saying. To do nothing is an action in its self. So i would pull the lever, of course if that happened to me I would stand in front of the train so i don't have to see it.
Well, Besides the fun of thinking to thin a herd and make some wealthy boss spend his cash on more workers... xP I think that for one, if the fact was on me that I had not told of the Fourty, I would say this. That one ) It is not in my position as of being God or ANYONE else to choose who dies and who lives. If I'm put down for not telling I'll say blame the idiot that made them work their themselves. I'm pretty sure nowadays you can tell if tracks are operated or not. Radios and Signals exist. In truth, I would put it as harsh as "Let them die " But I would say it was idiocracy. I would not have pushed it into the other men, though. Those Five worked well and right and had no reason to die, because they weren't idiots. If FIVE men can work on the RIGHT track, and 40 can't... Theres some real stupidity. In truth, though, In Experiment Three -- Theres a twist, during few darned seconds.. what can a man do? Take time and think and then say I'll pick the five or the forty? Greg might just end up doing something he regrets.
but.. its rather tuff. It seems morally and ethically completely wrong to die for doing nothing to those five. Yet you are killing fourty.
How would you guys.. working for familys or selves be working, have done nothing wrong, and then have some kid named Greg murder you for the lives of 40 others who didn't know WTF they were doing. painful.. :S
Quite simply, switch the tracks. Being there and not doing anything would put you at responsibility regardless, so you might as well throw yourself onto the tracks and die, too >_< But aside from that, it's better to be charged with 5 counts of manslaughter than 40 counts or negligence. Either way, you end up in prison, but they'll keep you there for a long time. The legal system just wants to put people away. Now, think about it from - a family member of one of the five men, next to one of the fourty. Who would you rather be in either situation? A family member of one of the five people would have every right to hate the person who pulled the lever. But on the other hand, the family member of one of the 40 if you DIDN'T pull the lever would have every right to hate you. You can't buy off family members with "There would be a smaller death toll..." unless their logic would be unblinded by emotion. Which I doubt in this situation.
