This will be an ethical question thread, that will relate mainly to religious beliefs and ethics. Hopefully it will be a good idea and people will want to play.
Each week I will present a topic, and you may discuss it, and bring your morality into the question.
This week: soldiers have come to search your house! They will kill you and eat you if they find you. You are hiding in the closet farther away from the door than your friend who is hiding underneath a sofa. The people eating soldiers stop in front of the sofa, and start bending over slowly to see if there is anyone underneath it. You see this through the crack in the door. You have 2 choices to jump out, scream and run out the door to save your bestest friend in the whole world, or you can watch them drag him away.
basically would you save yourself? or would you save your friend.
Well, my first question is why the person on the second track are tied up. If its a dadistic form of execution, then I would switch the track. If It was for shits and giggles well...
I would not flip the switch. If the villain tied a lone victim onto a normally safe track, then he must be expecting me to flip the switch.
Maybe there is something special about that one victim. He/she might be a rival (but non-evil) scientist, or a prominent politician who will go one to save many lives.
Also, if I flip the switch I will become involved in something quite dangerous. The scientist might come after me for foiling his dastardly plans.
Finally, If I flip the switch, then I will be directly murdering that one person. I will be responsible for their death. Whereas if I do nothing, I can just pretend I never saw the switch in the first place, and go on living my life.
Flip the switch, assuming it's that straightforward. It's a kill one save five deal, so one is better than five. If I knew more about the victims then I could choose. If that one person was brilliant and benevolent, and the five were a bunch of retards, I would let the retards die.
1. The "Moral" choice is obvious in most cases. There is no point to it if its an obvious question.
2. There are to many "What ifs?". If this continues, then it is more of a game then a debate and should be filed accordingly.
But, I like games, so Ill post anyway.
First, if the single man was far enough away, then I would put the trolley toward him then try to free him via running at the top of my speed.
If the aria was archaic and there was debris around, such as previous trolley tracks or a loose rail spike, then I would use it to cut free the farther people/person.
Since I know it was a mad scientist, I must have seen his lab and it must be nearby. I could find something in his lab which could free them, be it something that can stop the trolley without hurting it or free them threw cutting or acid like potions.
And there is a hundred other possibilities. That is another one of my problems.
Assuming that all six people are absolutely normal and this isn't a trick question:
After watching Les Miserables I feel like I can apply Valjean's decision regarding a man being sent to prison for his crimes. If I decide to not flip the switch I would be condemning myself but if I decided to flip the switch I would be damned.
The question is fairly strait forward in asking that I either be indirectly responsible for the death of five people or directly responsible for the death of one.
I'd take being indirectly responsible and condemned for the death of five than directly responsible and damned for the death of one.
Thanks DDX, this is a welcome relief from the norm on WERP.
Now for the dilemma. I'll will make the following assumptions:
* I know for a fact that this 'mad scientist' did tie all of these people on the tracks. * I am alone to face this situation. * time and distance demands I make this decision to either save the five and live with the consequence of the death of one person haunt me for the rest of my life. Or, visa versa.
If I have time to physically save the one person then together we could untie the others. I know how fast I can run and I also know that I can outrun an old style San Fransisco type electric trolly.
So, if I have time to only go in one direction I would choose to save the five because someone has to have a cell phone, a pocket knife, etc. If the one person is close enough to me so I can clearly recognize him as a serial killer and I'm alone then my choice is easy. I wouldn't hesitate to go for the five. I wouldn't feel haunted in the least.
Assuming that this trolly is the same as I have seen, it moves rather slowly (compared to normal vehicles) and has an emergency brake on it, obvious solution no?
However if this isn't not a trick question, and all 6 people are completely normal, I would save the five, over the one. Now if it was a single child vs. five adults I would save the child and vice versa. Same goes if it was criminals and upstanding citizens, however it would have to be fact, not debated.
I believe that I would base my decision numbers. I don't think I have the strength to watch them die without doing anything to help any of them. I would prefer living knowing that I saved five persons, even though for saving them I had to kill one. I am sure though that I would regret this decision for the rest of my life.
1. The "Moral" choice is obvious in most cases. There is no point to it if its an obvious question.
no. its not obvious. to some at least because they struggle with dealing with the problem such as the train track problem. because they might not wanna push the button because that means they would have to deal with the death of someone. whereas some would make an attempt to do something. so there are actually 3 "solutions" to this. 1 is to ignore, turning a blind eye per se. and this is supposed to make sure you have no direct involvement in the death of these people. 2 is to actually let those people die, and 3 is to change the tracks.
There are to many "What ifs?". If this continues, then it is more of a game then a debate and should be filed accordingly.
uh yea. its supposed to make you think instead of regurgitating sh*t you learn in 5th grade social studies or something ok. jesus dude... quit being a buzzkill. if this thread was meant to be moved. It would have been moved, the first week it was created back in august 09.
First, if the single man was far enough away, then I would put the trolley toward him then try to free him via running at the top of my speed.
yea... no. the point of ethical dilemmas are so that someone dies due to the direct action of you. Can you have that on your conscience?
And there is a hundred other possibilities. That is another one of my problems.
no, there arent hundred other possibilities because that doesnt become a dilemma it becomes a game. and this isnt a game. I already said there are 3 possibilities. and if there are variations to it, it would be in the people tied down which would influence your decision to save anyone or none at all.
enterorion
interesting, you value the people in what they can deliver to society and value them in "use" rather than life itself
314d1
obviously you made no attempt to answer the question as it was meant to be answered. AKA NOT TRICK QUESTIONS.
wajor59
np um... The problem is you can't save all of them. which is why it becomes more of a dilemma than a "trick question"
Assuming that this trolly is the same as I have seen, it moves rather slowly (compared to normal vehicles) and has an emergency brake on it, obvious solution no?
called a trolly problem because it was meant to simplify the problem.
Kyouzou
interesting, you value numbers
gourmas13
ah you are the same as kyouzou.
thanks for answering everyone. I guess Id have to monitor the problems because some of you interpreted them as trick questions. WHICH THEY ARE NOT. OTHER WISE THIS WOULD SAY BRAINTEASER and go into the TAVERN.
I know it isn't a trick question, but this is seriously how I would act.
If I were to come accross this scenerio without any previous knowledge of the events (IE who the people on the track are, who the scientists is, etc), it is entirely possible that I would pull the lever without thinking. But the point of this thread is to think, so let's assume I do.
I would first make the following inferences:
1) The people are not committing suicide, nor is this some freak accident. They were obviously tied down by a third party.
2) I do not have enough time to save everyone.
Knowing myself, there are two equally likely actions that I would then take. The first would be to run away to get help. That way, I wouldn't have directly killed anyone, but I wouldn't have done "nothing" either. The five people would still die, but I would be able to sleep knowing that I at least tried.
The second thing I might do is pull the lever, and then run over to the lone person, and try to save him. I know he's going to die anyway, due to infernce #2, but it's the thought that counts. That way, I can pretend I never made inference #2, which means I didn't actually kill him. I would decieve myself into thinking I just misjudged the speed of the trolley or whatever.
So anyway, I guess this is the more expanded version of my first answer.
