|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 4, 2007 17:12:05 GMT -5
Lets say there is a trolley with broken brakes careening down a hill. There is a fork in the track. One fork goes down a path with one person tied to the tracks. The other goes down a path with 5 people tied to the tracks. You are standing on a bridge overlooking the fork. There is a switch next to you that you can use to switch the track. Scenario 1: (I will post more later) Currently the trolley will go down the path with 5 people and will kill every one when it runs them over. All 6 are strangers to you. Do you use the switch and send it down the one with 1 person? Scenario 2
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 4, 2007 17:37:24 GMT -5
No, for religious reasons. If I were inside the train, I would pull the switch.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 4, 2007 17:57:23 GMT -5
But why would it be more acceptable to sacrifice a person as long as you go down to?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 4, 2007 18:29:24 GMT -5
It's not that I would "go down too", but that I would be an unwilling participant in the event rather than an external influence.
In the former scenario, I would be directly intervening with the catastrophe, and as such would be to blame for the individual's death. It's not my right to decide who should live and who should die.
In the latter scenario, I would have much less control over my situation, as the train would run over one of the groups regardless. In a sense, I would be "deciding" either way, so choosing the path of least casualty would be most appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 4, 2007 18:39:51 GMT -5
But what difference would it make where you make a decision? Wouldn't you also be blamed for the 1 individual that you steered over?
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 4, 2007 20:31:31 GMT -5
I think what hes saying is that if he was in the trolley, he would be involved in the accident already, so he can make the choice to kill less people. If he wasnt in the trolley he isnt involved in the accident, and for religious reasons doesnt want to get involved in it even if it involves saving lives.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 4, 2007 20:35:20 GMT -5
Yeah, that's pretty much it.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 4, 2007 20:39:30 GMT -5
Let the trolly run the 5 people over, then go and kill the other one so they're all equal. That's comunism or something.
Ok, seriously I'd hit the switch. If some divine power put me there in the first place, said divine power knows my tendencies and would understand that, by putting me next to the switch, the one person would die so the 5 might live. Anyway, I'd say you're involved from the moment you have the ability to intervene and change the situation, not pulling the lever is as much an action as pulling it.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on May 4, 2007 20:45:18 GMT -5
While I agree that it makes perfect sense logically to hit the switch, I don't believe we have the moral right to sacrifice others.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 4, 2007 20:54:33 GMT -5
I'd try my hardest to partially hit the switch so the tracks are not completely switched and get the train to crash stop or fall off its tracks or whatever. Or, maybe, hit the switch while the trolley is over the fork, so the front wheels go one way and the rear go the other. Either way, I'd probably end up killing everyone in the trolley.
|
|
|
Post by Arachis on May 4, 2007 22:42:09 GMT -5
Im with bezzerker here. Id try and save everyone if possible, even it involved getting more people killed instead.
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on May 4, 2007 22:47:47 GMT -5
I don't know if 'sacrifice' is a fair term for it. Ultimately, you're given a choice between having one person or five people die. My opinion is that it isn't fair that 4 more people die because you're afraid of dirtying your hands.
|
|
|
Post by BlueDolphin on May 4, 2007 23:41:26 GMT -5
I don't know if 'sacrifice' is a fair term for it. Ultimately, you're given a choice between having one person or five people die. My opinion is that it isn't fair that 4 more people die because you're afraid of dirtying your hands. But another way to think of it is this: You are murdering 1 person and saving 5. That doesn't make the murder right though. If a doctor saved 5 people, that would not allow him to kill someone he didn't like and change his records to say he saved only 4. In the end the two are seperate. I would try something like this too. But this situation should be under the premise that this and other 'realistic' loopholes are impossible. It comes down to either 1 or 5 saved.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on May 4, 2007 23:59:51 GMT -5
pfft. I'm taught all this creative and critical thinking and yet the thought inspiring questions never include my thought patterns. I'd flip the swicth that calls the aliens to help me. Then, the aliens would destroy the world and I'd be blamed for it. Then, I'd be rescued from the blame by the dinosaurs that Alexei once claimed lived on the moon. Finally, I'd then be locked for getting way off topic. Anyways...
|
|
|
Post by caffine10x on May 5, 2007 0:21:05 GMT -5
Kinda confused about this question.
Are we assuming that there is people on the trolley? If yes, then when you say "...will kill every one when it runs them over," what do u mean? Everyone on the track AND the trolley or just the people on the tracks?
|
|