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?
I would say that in the third situation, what's different is that it is the decision of the man rather than your own really and your not really being forced to kill anybody. Although, if i was forced to kill that one man for his organs I would. Also, I say, in that situation, let natural selection take it's course. There is a reason for natural selection, like for example, "The Darwin Awards"? It's there to weed out the larger imperfections in humanity and get rid of them. It also controls population. I mean if we try to save everybody from dying and keep prolonging their lives, aren't we just making the world overcrowded?
In situation number 2 I wouldn't kill anyone because I would rather die than shed an innocent persons blood and You can never trust anyone who holds you or other people at gun point.They probably won't keep their word and kill you and the other five after you shoot the first. The reason why three is different from two is because It's not ones choice to make it's the mans decision. You can chose who not to kill if you're on a speeding train and someones going to die because it's unavoidable but you can't kill a man because he does nothing for society. This would dictate the cause that humanity has fought for since the beginning which is freedom.
for the second one i would probably shoot the kidnappers. for the first one i would try to stop the train and if that doent work ill kill the one. for the last one i would take the organs from the man but not without asking.
On Twin Earth, a [Boltzmann] brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.
On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.
If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.
Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.
QUESTION: What should the brain do?
[ALTERNATIVE EXAMPLE: Same as above, except the brain has had a commisurotomy, and the left half of the brain is a consequentialist and the right side is an absolutist.]
Copyright, 1988 by the American Philosophical Association Available here
I think that there are very few situtations where 1 should survive to let 5 die. Unless it was some huge exception, like if the organs would only buy the five a few days, but the one could survive for a while, then it makes sense, although i can completely understand why most people would find the whole idea distasteful
Here's what you do: nothing. You let all 6 figure it out themselves. Why? (At least in California) there are "good Samaritan" law enacted that if this situation came up, by saving 5 people, the one dead person could not sue you, but recently this has been changed. The "wronged" party can now sue the "good Samaritan" for losses/damages (including death) done because of a decision made by a NON-PROFESSIONAL.
It's almost analogous to this situation: You have a fire hose and two buildings are on fire. One of them is a daycare center, filled with innocent children, and the other is a investment banking facility. Both are now on fire, which do you choose to save?
Under California law, you put down the fire hose and call 9-1-1. You don't get to make that decision yourself.
That last one is a big no.... Because it leads you down the path of killing few (relatively) to "save" many... This was the basic belief of Stalin (arguably Hitler too...) Stalin killed about 20 million in order to bring the rest of the country into the twentieth century (or at least closer to it). Stalin was a madman... If you're forced to pick one over a possible five it's ok. If there is nothing forcing you, you leave it up to chance/god.
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?
