You come across a railroad track split into two directions. In one direction there is a single person tied down to the tracks. The other direction has five people tied down to the tracks. A train is approaching and you only have time to pick the direction the train goes. There is no time to save the people. Which way do you send the train?
Obviously, most people would pick to send it toward the one person. Kill one, save five.
You are kidnapped by criminals. They put you in a room with one person on the left, and five on the right. They give you a gun and tell you to kill one group. You either kill the one person, or kill the five. If you do not comply, they will kill all of them.
Most people would hesitate, but would eventually pick the one person to kill. Kill one, save five.
Last. There is a man living alone, with no use in life. He lives off an inheritance, has no job, and is not a productive member of society in any way. It turns out his DNA and bloody type match with five people in a local hospital who need organ transplants. They need them within days, or all five will die. Is it justifiable to kill the one man, harvest his organs, and save five people?
For those who killed the one in the above examples, you killed one to save five. Why should this example be any different?
Either way, the man has a choice to give them his organs or not. It's not like the law will throw him in prison for refusing to give up his vital organs...
For the first and second scnario I would choose killing the 1 to save the others option. Although the second scenario would just be more personal, I reckon I would still do it to save 5 other lives.
For those who killed the one in the above examples, you killed one to save five. Why should this example be any different?
The difference with this example is that, although in essence you are still killing one person to save 5 more, it is not a case of one or the other. With the train example if you don't choose to kill the one, the 5 would die anyway, with the criminal scenario, if you don't choose the one, everyone will be killed. With this scenario it is not certain that those 5 would die. There could be other donors within that 5 days, unlikely, but not impossible.
Simply put, the scenarios are only the same if you subscribe to Bayesian utilitarianism, which most people do not.
I wonder what would happen if...
You are kidnapped by criminals. They put you in a room with one person on the left, and five on the right. They give you a gun and tell you to kill one group. You either kill the one person, or kill the five. If you do not comply, they will kill all of them.
In this case I elect to shoot myself in the chest. Hopefully I can convince the criminals that I offed myself while somehow managing not to pierce my heart or give myself a pneumothorax.
...if I'm given anything bigger than a 9mm to do the deed with, forget it!
In our case, youve said that the person has no job etc. but still those other five people could be worse. Perhaps the five people are or are going to be a band of criminals (not known so they wont get arrested)? =P
And even in the other examples the one person that dies could be seriously "more important" than the other five in total. Perhaps the one person was a very good scientist who was about to find a cure for some illness that kills thousends... And the other five are like the jobless person described. =P You get the idea.
Then again, if you dont know about the people, its just common sense to save the ones who are more plentiful.
Well whatever. I dont know why i even write about such a meaningless question. :/ (No offense to OP.)
Wow you guys just won't let it go will you? I remember an argument once about how if you have to look at every little detail, you really won't do it. There are only two time of people, Wolves and Sheep. Anyone who is still going baa baa over this knows who they are now.
Take the situations as they are. In the last situation, only the one persons organs will save the patients. There is not enough time to find another donor. Why is it not justifiable to kill one to save five in that situation?
You wont get many varying opinions here unless you tell us enough about the one person so that we feel like we know him/her, or show them as our best friend or something like that. Most people wouldn't be able to kill they're best friend, even to save lives, and than will try to kill themselves over they're decision.
This is kind of creepy. I agree for all but the last. I think that the last won is different because its bot forced. I think that its sad for the five people in a local hospital who need organ transplantscruel but to kill that one guy is just bad.
