The PRSI Philosophical Conundrum (now with scenario 2)

[.Andy]

I thought this might be a fun test of PRSI intelligence/instruction following ability ;). The scenario would be familiar to many of us who've taken a philosophy course/read The God Delusion. The instructions are very clear;

1. Answer the question with a simple I would flip the switch or I wouldn't flip the switch.
2. Justify your answer with a paragraph or two.
3. There is no (I repeat NO) additional information you can add to the scenario. i.e. I don't care if you have a rocket launcher.
4. Feel free to ask questions to explore other people's answers.

If you fail to adhere to rules 1, 2, and 3 you are of low IQ, deserve ridicule, and mankind hopes you never procreate :).

Scenario A (shamelessly pulled from wikipedia);

A trolley/tram/train is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley/tram/train down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

(edit: assuming the thread is popular I'd like to use the additions/changes the scenario in coming pages to further examine people's train of thought).

edit 2:
Scenario B
There are five young people in hospital suffering from terminal illnesses that are genetic in origin (they by no means brought their imminent deaths upon themselves). Their only hope is a transplant which will definitely save their lives. Assuming no donor organs are available before they die, is the death of a single, healthy, innocent individual as an organ source justifiable to save these five people? Does your answer differ between the two scenarios? If so, why?

[.Andy]

I'd flip the switch.

The scenario is so tight and restrictive that it doesn't allow time to assess the situation (such as the age of the people involved) so it really comes down to a decision of numbers to me. Although giving it thought I'm never sure if there could be any attributes assessable under those conditions that should sway my actions. Would it not be completely arbitrary to kill off five people of any age to save another of a different age?

1 dies to 5 can live.

[Cromulent]

Well trolley is a rather vague name to give it. Makes it sound light and not going particularly fast.

Given the lack of information I would flick the switch because doing so guarantees that only one person will be injured / killed. The problem is that given the lack of information we have no idea if the first person of the group of five would be enough to derail the trolley, if so either track would result in the same outcome.

[.Andy]

Damn Cromulent :D;)! Derailed on the first post! Ok to clarify a trolley is another name for a tram/train. It's heavy, going fast, out of control and will obliterate anything in it's path. The scenario is to more examine your thought process and how you justify your actions in the situation.

[Cromulent]

Damn Cromulent :D;)! Derailed on the first post!

When you're hot, you're hot :).

Ok to clarify a trolley is another name for a tram/train. It's heavy, going fast, out of control and will obliterate anything in it's path. The scenario is to more examine your thought process and how you justify your actions in the situation.

Ah I see. In that case the only possible option would be to flick the switch in the first instance then. If you only have two options available to you then you should pick the option that results in the least loss of life possible.

[Eraserhead]

I have to agree that you should flick the switch.

[mpw]

Flip it.

If that's all the information then for me it'd be a no-brainer, I'd trade the one life for the five.

[skunk]

Playing god, are we? There is no possible way of making a reasonable assessment of the relative "worth" of the imminent victim(s). And how does sentencing one person to certain death who would otherwise survive make saving five others the "correct" answer? Perhaps the most "reasonable" solution would be to leave the switch alone and shoot the other person, just to even things up.

[Cromulent]

Playing god, are we? There is no possible way of making a reasonable assessment of the relative "worth" of the imminent victim(s). And how does sentencing one person to certain death who would otherwise survive make saving five others the "correct" answer? Perhaps the most "reasonable" solution would be to leave the switch alone and shoot the other person, just to even things up.

It is not about worth of the individuals it just the logical choice to pick the option that saves the most lives. There is nothing about worth in the decision.

[skunk]

It is not about worth of the individuals it just the logical choice to pick the option that saves the most lives. There is nothing about worth in the decision.This has absolutely nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with unqualified decisions.

[mpw]

Playing god, are we? There is no possible way of making a reasonable assessment of the relative "worth" of the imminent victim(s). And how does sentencing one person to certain death who would otherwise survive make saving five others the "correct" answer?...

It's hardly 'playing god'. It's deciding whether to save the lives of five people, and accepting the consequence this would mean to one other person.

In my answer I made no effort to assess any relative worth of the victims, simply decided to save the greater number of people. I'm also not saying mine is the 'correct' answer, just my answer.

Given just one more relevant fact I might choose to not flip the switch, but with the only the facts to hand I'd save the greater number.

[Queso]

I wouldn't flip the switch.

I've a nasty feeling I'm the one tied to the alternative track :D

[mpw]

This has absolutely nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with unqualified decisions.
So what would you do skunk? Say that you were not able to qualify your decision, stand back, do nothing and let the five die?

[Chaszmyr]

Rather than simply asking what people's opinions are, it should probably be specified what is being examined here. It's possible that maybe various people have different values attached to their lives, and the one person is a very good person and the five people are all bad people, but let's say you have no idea who the people are. The heart of the issue is if you do nothing, more net damage is resulting, but from your perspective as an ethical agent, things are just running their course. If you flip the switch, however, while you save 4 net lives, you are directly responsible for choosing that the one person should die. Of course, if you're of the persuasion that you should sit by and do nothing, you'd also have to ask yourself if there'd ever be a point where you'd draw a line. Would you let a billion people die rather than choosing for one to die?

[skunk]

It's hardly 'playing god'. It's deciding whether to save the lives of five people, and accepting the consequence this would mean to one other person.You have no way of making that judgment, or of knowing what it would mean to the future of the universe.

[miniConvert]

I wouldn't flip the switch.

The five people have been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Now, he may be mad, but he's a philosopher and I'm going to assume that he has his reasons. I know that if I flip the switch I will kill another person, who I'm going to assume isn't related to whatever is happening with the mad philosopher and is tragically tied there for some other reason - perhaps knowing that no train is due to come along.

So, the mad philosopher gets his way and, as I didn't touch anything, I didn't 'kill' anybody. Really don't know if I'd do this IRL, but it was fun to think about.

[Chaszmyr]

You have no way of making that judgment, or of knowing what it would mean to the future of the universe.

We make decisions all the time without knowing what consequences they'll have down the road, and as soon as we're made aware of the situation in this scenario, we can't simply make no decision because we don't have enough information, whatever ends up happening constitutes a decision we made.

[mpw]

You have no way of making that judgment, or of knowing what it would mean to the future of the universe.

But the same could be said about absolutely everything anybody does everyday.

If I swat the mosquito that buzzes about my room at night, it might not go on to fatally infect person x with malaria, person x then goes on to commit genocide in 20years. Did I play god, or swat a bug? ...or both?

[skunk]

Let's make the question more difficult: what if there were five people tied to one track and four to the other.

[Mord]

The question assumes that I'd give a ****.

[Queso]

The question assumes that I'd give a ****.
In that case you could sit playing with the switch with your eyes covered and allow the decision to chance :)

Let's make the question more difficult: what if there were five people tied to one track and four to the other.

*ahem*

If you fail to adhere to rules 1, 2, and 3 you are of low IQ, deserve ridicule, and mankind hopes you never procreate :).

;)

[skunk]

In that case you could sit playing with the switch with your eyes covered and allow the decision to chance :)That might actually be the only sensible solution.

[Cromulent]

This has absolutely nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with unqualified decisions.

Of course it is to do with logic. You don't have any information other than you can kill or injure one person or you can kill or injure five people. Which is the more logical choice?

[aLoC]

I would not flip the switch.

Life is not perfect. Accidents happen, people get kidnapped, shot, have car crashes etc. The fact that those 5 got a bum deal is sad, but it doesn't give them a right to have someone sacrificed to save them.

None of us have a right to have others sacrificed to save us from the misfortunes of life. We just have to face it the best we can, even if it's not our fault.

[skunk]

Of course it is to do with logic. You don't have any information other than you can kill or injure one person or you can kill or injure five people. Which is the more logical choice?Well, no, your choice is between injecting yourself into the equation or not.

[Cromulent]

Well, no, your choice is between injecting yourself into the equation or not.

If you are the one flicking the switch then you are already in the equation are you not?

[skunk]

If you are the one flicking the switch then you are already in the equation are you not?You do not have to touch the switch.

[Cromulent]

You do not have to touch the switch.

True, but that is a conscious decision not to touch it. Therefore you are still in the equation.

The only time you would be not in the equation was if you had absolutely no idea of the event until after it happened.

[skunk]

I return to my earlier answer: leave the switch alone and shoot the other person. As long as you're in the equation, anything else is unjustifiable.

[aLoC]

I return to my earlier answer: leave the switch alone and shoot the other person. As long as you're in the equation, anything else is unjustifiable.

How do you justify shooting an innocent person? Why should he pay for their bad luck?

[skunk]

How do you justify shooting an innocent person? Why should he pay for their bad luck?Anything else would be favouritism.

[Eraserhead]

Anything else would be favouritism.

But you're still involved ;).

[Blue Velvet]

A train is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 regular PRSI-posting forum members who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.

[MacDawg]

Faster, must go faster ^^^

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[RedTomato]

My response is that I refuse to participate in these playing god exercises. I feel they're unethical.

At college, our lecturer gave out a similar exercise, a pretty famous one.

It went something like this :

Imagine you're in a lifeboat, with about 20 other people. You know there's an uninhabited island nearby,but you only have supplies for 15 people to survive the journey to the island.

Which people do you throw off and why?

We had a list of the 20 people, their names, ages, occupations and interests. The class had to debate which ones to keep and which to eject.

I refused to participate, as I felt the whole thing was unethical and dehumanising. The class got really into it, debating hotly who to choose, their merits etc and also spent an hour pestering me, persuading me, telling me I was spoiling the game, saying 'it's only a game' etc.

At the end, the class gave their list to the lecturer, who as you probably guessed, threw it away, and said the main thing was the process involved, not the result.

He also agreed with me and said he personally felt it was an unethical exercise too, and that he had refused to give it to several classes in in the past. (our class was different; it was a teacher-training course.)

I feel this trolley exercise, while different, is potentially is the same type of thing, in that you may end up making value judgements on human lives based on arbitrary criteria. (e.g. is a woman of child-bearing age 'worth more' than a 50-year old experienced farmer?)

You might ask me what would I do in the same situation in real life?

Response: I hope to God that never happens to me, but if it did, I would do the best I could, same as anybody else. Real life is always different to how you imagine it, and every situation is different.

It's like asking you: imagine two people you dearly, completely, love. (Could be your parents or sister or your children or partner). Which do you love more?

The answer is these things aren't comparable. You love both, each in their different way.

What if they were trapped in a fire, and you could only save one? Which would you save?

You'd probably say same as me, 'Hope to God that never happens. I'd have to deal with the situation as it happens.'

If I pressed and tried to force you to state a preference, you might complain that it's distasteful or unethical to force you to state a preference, especially in such an unlikely situation that will probably never happen.

I've typed more than I intended, but hope I've made myself clear. Humans aren't objects, and I don't like making value judgements on lives.

[themadchemist]

I say yes.

Given the minimal information in the original post, there is a pretty simple equation we can use to evaluate this, but it requires that you make a quantifiable decision on how important flipping the switch is. There are really two factors that weigh into our decision: The impact of the decision and our personal culpability for that impact. We know the impact, 5 lives or 1 life. We can use culpability as a scale factor (from 0 to 1) that judges how important the act of flipping the switch is to us individually. Then,

Decision Index=(CulpabilityxImpact)flip - (CulpabilityxImpact)non-flip

If the Decision Index>0, you should flip, if the Decision Index<0, you shouldn't flip, and if it's zero, you can choose randomly. In order to choose not flipping over flipping, you must believe that the flipping of the switch makes you more than five times as culpable for the outcome. If you further assume that Culpability=Culpabilityobservation+Culpabilitychoice, then we see that the range of culpability is shrunk from 0 to 1 to (1-Culpabilityobservation) to 1. Let's say you thought that the minimum level of Culpabilityobservation (your culpability just for seeing what's going on) was .1 (that means, just by observing 10 people die, you have committed the moral equivalent of killing one of them). If the Culpabilityobservation=.1, then in order to meet that 5x threshold, Culpabilitychoice, your culpability for the action you take, must be 7 times as high for flipping the switch as for not.

I arrive at my conclusion because it is hard for me to argue that, in the condition of already observing what's going on, flipping the switch makes me much more culpable than not flipping the switch. I give a relatively high value to Culpabilityobservation, requiring very large differences in Culpabilitychoice for not flipping the switch to be justified.

[Queso]

A train is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 regular PRSI-posting forum members who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher.
We can't even be sure the philosopher is mad in the first place, it's just something we've been told. And on that point, who gets to define where insanity starts anyway?

(Of course, if he/she IS tying PRSI posters there sanity can be safely assumed ;))

[Blue Velvet]

We can't even be sure the philosopher is mad in the first place...

For starting a thread like this? Certifiably mad. ;)

[Much Ado]

I would flip the switch.

Conscious inaction is the same as action, so whatever the outcome it is my decision to make. 5 unknown dead, or 1 unknown dead. It's got to be the one, as this is most likely to minimize human suffering (grief of relatives) and death.

Those getting high and mighty about 'playing God' need to justify the conscious decision to let 5 people die instead of 1.

Let's make the question more difficult: what if there were five people tied to one track and four to the other.

Or, indeed, four hundred to one track and one to the other. Are you still going to abstain, and wash your hands of any guilt?

[aLoC]

Anything else would be favouritism.

It's only favoritism if you treat people differently that should be treated the same. But I don't accept that the people in this story should be treated the same. One of them is not like the others: he's an innocent bystander. It's not his job to accept their fate for them.

[Cromulent]

My response is that I refuse to participate in these playing god exercises. I feel they're unethical.

So would you refuse to respond to the same question if it was 5 animals tied up on one track and 1 on the other?

It's only favoritism if you treat people differently that should be treated the same. But I don't accept that the people in this story should be treated the same. One of them is not like the others: he's an innocent bystander. It's not his job to accept their fate for them.

And how do you know the others are guilty? Your just assuming they are because you are being overly judgemental of the situation they are in.

[MacDawg]

I think the rub here is coming from 'debating' this in a sterile atmosphere, void of any other facts or context... making human life a commodity, and quantifying it as 5 v. 1. To me, that makes it a rather pointless exercise. Matters of the heart cannot be reduced to an equation.

Now, to be sure, people face real life decisions all the time... a burning building with loved ones, who do you save? (or do you die trying to save them all), a mother in childbirth distress, save the mom or the child? and the list goes on and on... but in those life situations there is usually context provided, not a detached distance, as well as often a split second choice to be made. There may even be the choice of self sacrifice in the situation as well, giving one's life to save the other(s). People live with the consequences of their choices and decisions. You are driving down the road and someone steps out in front of you... do you swerve to miss them and hit the oncoming car with 5 people head on? (assuming you can't swerve the other way because of a barrier). Split second, no sterile debate. If it is a squirrel, we splat it (maybe), but what of reflex action?

The example above could very well be substituted to be 5 cows v. 1 cow or 5 trees v. 1 tree, or even 5 Macs v. 1 Mac. With no context it becomes a matter of quantity not conscience. [Edit: posted before the response above suggested the animals]

Just my opinion, you are welcome to yours. ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Much Ado]

^ True as that is, how do you answer the question that has been posed? Would you, or would you not, flip the switch?

I don't like the situation any more than anyone else, but at least I'm prepared to admit what I would do.

[aLoC]

And how do you know the others are "guilty"? Your just assuming they are because you are being overly judgemental of the situation they are in.

I never said they were guilty. Even if they are completely innocent, it still doesn't make it the other guy's responsibility to take their fate for them.

They are the ones unlucky enough to be kidnapped and tied up by a nutty professor. That's terribly sad, but it doesn't give them the right to have you or me or anyone else sacrificed for them.

[Cromulent]

I never said they were guilty. Even if they are completely innocent, it still doesn't make it the other guy's responsibility to take their fate for them.

They are the ones unlucky enough to be kidnapped and tied up by a nutty professor. That's terribly sad, but it doesn't give them the right to have you or me or anyone else sacrificed for them.

So basically what your saying is that in any situation where one group of people is going to die no matter what you do then it is always best to just leave the original group to die without intervention?

[Much Ado]

IThey are the ones unlucky enough to be kidnapped and tied up by a nutty professor. That's terribly sad, but it doesn't give them the right to have you or me or anyone else sacrificed for them.

All 6 have been tied up.

[telecomm]

I think the rub here is coming from 'debating' this in a sterile atmosphere, void of any other facts or context... making human life a commodity, and quantifying it as 5 v. 1. To me, that makes it a rather pointless exercise. Matters of the heart cannot be reduced to an equation.


Yes, but a great many important decisions (for example, whether to send soldiers off to war, etc.) are made at a level of abstraction. We wouldn't want a leader to refuse to make decisions because he or she isn't personally acquainted with all of those involved or affected.

The point of exercises like this one is to engage people in rational decision making, in a situation in which no harm comes out of it (in this case, no lives are really at stake). People do have to make decisions in circumstances where potentially important information is unavailable, and we all expect them to be accountable for their actions, and to have made a rational choice rather than a coin toss.

[MacDawg]

^ True as that is, how do you answer the question that has been posed? Would you, or would you not, flip the switch?

I don't like the situation any more than anyone else, but at least I'm prepared to admit what I would do.

Since it is a sterile exercise, I would reprogram the switch to save all involved ala Kirk in The Wrath of Khan and the Kobayashi Maru exercise :o

James T. Kirk takes the test three times while at Starfleet Academy. Prior to his third attempt, Kirk surreptitiously reprograms the simulator so that it is possible to rescue the freighter. This fact finally comes out, later in the movie, as Kirk, Saavik and others appear marooned, near death. Saavik's response is, "Then you never faced that situation. Faced death." Kirk replies, "I don't believe in the no-win scenario." Strangely enough, despite his obvious cheating, Kirk was awarded a commendation for "original thinking."


My point above being, it is not a real life scenario, and as such, nobody can predict their actions until tested under fire. It is more like a James Bond or James T. Kirk situation. In real life you would have context. Here you don't.

Would it make any difference if the one was your daughter and the 5 had molested your daughter? I know that is not a part of the original scenario, but that is my point... the scenario is pointless because it does not have context. It is a mental exercise that has no real world value.


Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[aLoC]

So basically what your saying is that in any situation where one group of people is going to die no matter what you do then it is always best to just leave the original group to die without intervention?

I'm saying you should do everything you can to help those people, but not sacrifice other innocent people.

[aLoC]

All 6 have been tied up.

I still think you shouldn't sacrifice him.

[MacDawg]

Yes, but a great many important decisions (for example, whether to send soldiers off to war, etc.) are made at a level of abstraction. We wouldn't want a leader to refuse to make decisions because he or she isn't personally acquainted with all of those involved or affected.

And yet that scenario is still not void of overall context

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[LethalWolfe]

Taking the exercise at face value (so staying in the realm of superficial and hypothetical) I'd flip the switch and run over the single individual. I'm just pragmatic like that. It was 5 v 5 I guess I'd just have to pull a Two-Face and flip a coin.:cool:

I never said they were guilty. Even if they are completely innocent, it still doesn't make it the other guy's responsibility to take their fate for them.

They are the ones unlucky enough to be kidnapped and tied up by a nutty professor. That's terribly sad, but it doesn't give them the right to have you or me or anyone else sacrificed for them.
The single person is tied to the track too. How is that persons situation any different than the other 5 people tied to the track?

[Much Ado]

Since it is a sterile exercise, I would reprogram the switch to save all involved ala Kirk in The Wrath of Khan and the Kobayashi Maru exercise

So you consider yourself above bothering to answer the question? :rolleyes:

Two groups of people here: those who admit that they'd base their decision purely on the ratio of people and operate completely on chance (as unfair as this might seem), and those who don't want to answer.

Does anyone have a good reason for not hitting that switch?
The single person is tied to the track too. How is that persons situation any different than the other 5 people tied to the track?

Quite. In fact, the only difference is that they were not necessarily tied by the mad professor, increasing the chance that they were put there by some sane person, or were committing suicide. It's guesswork, but guesswork is all we have to go by.

I still think you shouldn't sacrifice him.

But you are sacrificing the other five for his life.

[LethalWolfe]

Does anyone have a good reason for not hitting that switch?
One is a quadriplegic and physical unable to hit the switch?:D


Lethal

[skunk]

I say yes.

Given the minimal information in the original post, there is a pretty simple equation we can use to evaluate this, but it requires that you make a quantifiable decision on how important flipping the switch is. There are really two factors that weigh into our decision: The impact of the decision and our personal culpability for that impact. We know the impact, 5 lives or 1 life. We can use culpability as a scale factor (from 0 to 1) that judges how important the act of flipping the switch is to us individually. Then,

Decision Index=(CulpabilityxImpact)flip - (CulpabilityxImpact)non-flip

If the Decision Index>0, you should flip, if the Decision Index<0, you shouldn't flip, and if it's zero, you can choose randomly. In order to choose not flipping over flipping, you must believe that the flipping of the switch makes you more than five times as culpable for the outcome. If you further assume that Culpability=Culpabilityobservation+Culpabilitychoice, then we see that the range of culpability is shrunk from 0 to 1 to (1-Culpabilityobservation) to 1. Let's say you thought that the minimum level of Culpabilityobservation (your culpability just for seeing what's going on) was .1 (that means, just by observing 10 people die, you have committed the moral equivalent of killing one of them). If the Culpabilityobservation=.1, then in order to meet that 5x threshold, Culpabilitychoice, your culpability for the action you take, must be 7 times as high for flipping the switch as for not.

I arrive at my conclusion because it is hard for me to argue that, in the condition of already observing what's going on, flipping the switch makes me much more culpable than not flipping the switch. I give a relatively high value to Culpabilityobservation, requiring very large differences in Culpabilitychoice for not flipping the switch to be justified.I see now why the call you themadchemist.

[themadchemist]

Quite. In fact, the only difference is that they were not necessarily tied by the mad professor, increasing the chance that they were put there by some sane person, or were committing suicide. It's guesswork, but guesswork is all we have to go by.

I'm afraid you are completely missing the point of the question by reading extra things into the scenario. The "nutty professor" was added as a rhetorical flourish and has nothing to do with the ethical decision you are being asked to make. You are being asked to weigh the moral responsibility that comes with the action of flipping a switch, and the lives on the track are the test weights you use to figure that out. No other issue (including who put the people on the track, etc., so just assume this is all the same) has any bearing on the actual question asked.

And for the record, sane people generally don't tie folks to railroad tracks Snidely Whiplash style.

[MacDawg]

Quite. In fact, the only difference is that they were not necessarily tied by the mad professor, increasing the chance that they were put there by some sane person, or were committing suicide. It's guesswork, but guesswork is all we have to go by.

So in the absence of context, we invent context to make it more palatable

No, I am not above answering the question
As stated it is just a senseless exercise that is not worthy of an answer

Answering "yes, I would hit the switch" does not make one more intellectual, thoughtful or honest

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Queso]

And for the record, sane people generally don't tie folks to railroad tracks Snidely Whiplash style.
I had the Hooded Claw in mind myself :)

[aLoC]

But you are sacrificing the other five for his life.

No you aren't. The 5 were the ones unlucky enough to be on the default active path, and they have no right to transfer their bad luck to someone else, costing them their life.

If you buy a lottery ticket and it is a loser, do you have the right to give it to the guy next to you and take his winning ticket? No you don't. And it doesn't matter if there are 5 of you or not, that winning ticket is his.

[sushi]

To me it is a simple question, with a simple answer. Throw the switch.

Some folks face issues like this everyday in life and death matters. And they must decide quickly or both courses of action will fail.

While I would feel sorry for the one, logic wise, I would have no problems at all sleeping at night.

[Much Ado]

I'm afraid you are completely missing the point of the question by reading extra things into the scenario. The "nutty professor" was added as a rhetorical flourish and has nothing to do with the ethical decision you are being asked to make. You are being asked to weigh the moral responsibility that comes with the action of flipping a switch, and the lives on the track are the test weights you use to figure that out. No other issue (including who put the people on the track, etc., so just assume this is all the same) has any bearing on the actual question asked.

I know, I've heard this conundrum before but it was about swerving in a car to kill a person on the side of the road after one person had walked in front. I was being pedantic ;)

There was a Star Trek episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_Image_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29) dealing with this very problem.

[themadchemist]

To me it is a simple question, with a simple answer. Throw the switch.

Some folks face issues like this everyday in life and death matters. And they must decide quickly or both courses of action will fail.

While I would feel sorry for the one, logic wise, I would have no problems at all sleeping at night.

Yup. The practice of triage in emergency rooms suggests that as a society, we accept making a similar value judgment, however horrid.


I know, I've heard this conundrum before but it was about swerving in a car to kill a person on the side of the road after one person had walked in front. I was being pedantic

There was a Star Trek episode dealing with this very problem.


Aaah, that makes more sense. Sorry, tone is sometimes hard to read online, especially on a quick read.

[MacDawg]

I know, I've heard this conundrum before but it was about swerving in a car to kill a person on the side of the road after one person had walked in front. I was being pedantic ;)

There was a Star Trek episode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_Image_%28Star_Trek:_Voyager%29) dealing with this very problem..

Ha! Ha! Did you READ post 42 and 48 above?
I reference both of these ;)
[Edit: My bad, you evidently reference a different episode]

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Much Ado]

Ha! Ha! Did you READ post 42 and 48 above?
I reference both of these ;)

Err... no you didn't.

EDIT: No problem ;)

[MacDawg]

Err... no you didn't.

EDIT: No problem ;)

Oh the depth and richness of Star Trek :p

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[telecomm]

And yet that scenario is still not void of overall context

Yes, but unfortunately we're all a bit less than omniscient. Having to make decisions in the absence of all relevant information is the norm rather than the exception.

Again, decisions have to be made, and for good reasons.

[skunk]

Again, decisions have to be made, and for good reasons.This decision does not have to be made. There is no clear and ethical answer, neither is there a logical one. Step away from the switch.

[Much Ado]

This decision does not have to be made. There is no clear and ethical answer, neither is there a logical one. Step away from the switch.

But you would hit the switch if it was between 4,000 people and 1 person, wouldn't you?

[MacDawg]

Yes, but unfortunately we're all a bit less than omniscient. Having to make decisions in the absence of all relevant information is the norm rather than the exception.

Again, decisions have to be made, and for good reasons.

Yes, but there is a vast difference between omniscience and having no context at all.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[telecomm]

Yes, but there is a vast difference between omniscience and having no context at all.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

The decision is act (flip the switch) or don't act (leave the switch as it is). The context is 5 people one side, 1 the other, train, etc. That's it.

You can engage with that scenario or not, but it's missing the point to claim that more information is needed before a decision can be made.

[LethalWolfe]

This decision does not have to be made. There is no clear and ethical answer, neither is there a logical one. Step away from the switch.
But stepping away is a decision, and if there was a clear and ethical answer then there'd be no point in posing the hypothetical situation as a point of discussion.


Lethal

[Much Ado]

Let's flip the question around and go with the Star Trek angle: you are able to help one group of people to escape before the train hits. Which group (5 or 1) do you help? (Presume the groups are tied at different points along a straight track).

That is a decision that HAS to be made, and it still includes the same problems as before.

If you have an answer to that question, then you have an answer to the original. The only difference is that you have the choice between action and inaction, rather than action in two different ways. Still two choices, two consequences.

[MacDawg]

The decision is act (flip the switch) or don't act (leave the switch as it is). The context is 5 people one side, 1 the other, train, etc. That's it.

You can engage with that scenario or not, but it's missing the point to claim that more information is needed before a decision can be made.

Not

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Much Ado]

Not

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

Two burning houses. 1 person in one, 5 in the other. You have time to put out only one fire.

And you're going to do nothing?

[WinterMute]

Trams have gravity brakes and dead-mans handles, but not instruments that allow the track to be switched from the cab, the nature of a railed transport is that the path is decided by external control and no control of the vehicle other than speed is possible from within.

Clearly the Mad Philosopher is trying to ***** with your mind by offering the illusion of choice where none actually exists.

Flip the switch, don't flip the switch, it doesn't matter, nothing will happen, if the DMH hasn't been tripped, trip it, otherwise spend the time trying to figure out why the gravity brakes haven't applied, here's some hints:

Turn the engine off: DMH will engage.
Pull the (presumably disabled) driver out of the cab: DMH will engage.
Pull the fuses in the cab: DMH will engage (do you see what I'm doing here?)

If the driver is actually the Mad Philosopher, kick the living ***** out of him whilst yelling "How's this for existential angst?!!"

In the end the situation is not of my making, the only guilt I can feel is if I don't do everything within my power to avert an accident, I'm not going to feel guilty if I don;t stop the train, only if I stop attempting to.

Philosophers (particularly Mad ones) should take mechanical transport engineering courses.

[MacDawg]

Two burning houses. 1 person in one, 5 in the other. You have time to put out only one fire.

And you're going to do nothing?

Never once have I said I would do nothing, I have only said the exercise as stated was meaningless. So is the one you quoted.

The likelihood that I alone can put out a house fire to save 5 or 1 is incomprehensible. Again, it is just a cold exercise that attempts to put one in a no win situation. Two burning houses? How did I know there was 5 in one and 1 in the other? Has anyone called 911? How long till help arrives? Are there others to help? No? Just me and 2 burning houses in the middle of nowhere? Really??

I don't disagree that no win situations happen in real life, but they are governed by context, emotion and time, as well as a host of other factors.

How about this, my kids are in the same burning house in different rooms, my son in one room and my daughter and granddaughter are in another room. I hear nothing from my son's room (and knowing he is more likely to be able to care for himself), but I hear the baby crying in my daughter's room. I rush to her room first, not knowing the status of my son, but knowing the baby is still alive. I rescue daughter and baby, not knowing my son was alive but unconscious. I die trying to go back and rescue him.

That to me is closer to a real life scenario.

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[telecomm]

...the nature of a railed transport is that the path is decided by external control and no control of the vehicle other than speed is possible from within...

Cough... you're not in the tram/train, you're assumed to be standing beside that external control when you make your choice. ;)

[WinterMute]

Cough... you're not in the tram/train, you're assumed to be standing beside that external control when you make your choice. ;)

So i'll check out the remote gravity brake first, then go make coffee, seeing that kind of thing can ruin your whole day...!:D

edt: actually thats interesting, my assumption that I'm actually on the train and have the ability to affect it directly says a lot more than my avoiding the real question and taking the piss doesn't it?

Oh alright, assuming I have no way of knowing which way the tram is actually heading i flip the switch a random number of times and let Schroedinger take over...

How's that?

[Bobdude161]

I would switch to the third rail which has a very sharp turn and would de-rail me and leave the others on scathed. I couldn't live knowing that I had to choose who to kill with a train.

[telecomm]

Oh alright, assuming I have no way of knowing which way the tram is actually heading i flip the switch a random number of times and let Schroedinger take over...

How's that?

Well, that's OK, but if any cats get harmed...:mad:

[WinterMute]

Well, that's OK, but if any cats get harmed...:mad:

That's the bitch with Schroedinger, the cats were only ever theoretical, try doing that experiment with real cats, people don't half get annoyed......:D

[iJohnHenry]

A trolley/tram/train is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley/tram/train down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?[/b]

(edit: assuming the thread is popular I'd like to use the additions/changes the scenario in coming pages to further examine people's train of thought).

Was that really necessary? :p

As is usual with all Users in my experience, they always fail to define the problem properly, so that a reasonable analyst might be of some help.

WinterMute should be less so. Quite funny. :D

If the tram is a subway car in Toronto, and I am standing on the platform, I need only throw the switch to the 3rd rail.

Switching is done at a central location, so I doubt very much if they could see the 6 in peril.

But in the limited scenario, I throw the switch. No time to do otherwise, or seek further input from those tied on the tracks.

Money is always welcome though.



[Gelfin]

You're going to have to put me down in the low IQ and deserving of ridicule column as well, because the question is not even intended to have an obvious answer. It is useful for certain experimental purposes.

To get the practical angle out of the way first, if you have no time to do anything but make a snap decision whether or not to throw a switch, one thing you don't have time to do is carefully and rationally weigh the moral implications. My off-the-cuff guess is that most people in practice would be paralyzed by the dilemma long enough that the five would die. The rest would throw the switch before fully realizing the gravity of what they were doing, and in both cases the switchmen would later blame themselves later for whatever they did.

What this experiment is meant to do, however, is to explore the internal cost equivalency between willful harm through action and passive harm through inaction. Put another way, how much are your clean hands worth to you? By figuring out how many people would have to be on the first track before you'd intervene, throw the switch and in so doing actively take a single life, we are meant to learn something about our internal moral calculus.

[Much Ado]

I've been thinking about this, and I feel that if more context was given (e.g. the people's backgrounds, ages, gender etc.) then I would be basing my decision on my judgement of them, which is surely wrong.

If we believe that, in principle, every person is entitled to life as much as another, then the 'numbers' game works best- otherwise you are judging which humans are more 'suitable' to live. People have talked abut the 'correct' answer, but even if you know the people intimately, your decision would only be 'correct' as seen through your own eyes.

I don't believe I can make that sort of judgement, so will always default to the option that spares as many human lives as possible.

If you decide which are more suitable for life and which for death, then you will always have that judgement on your conscience.

[MacDawg]

I've been thinking about this, and I feel that if more context was given (e.g. the people's backgrounds, ages, gender etc.) then I would be basing my decision on my judgement of them, which is surely wrong.

If we believe that, in principle, every person is entitled to life as much as another, then the 'numbers' game works best- otherwise you are judging which humans are more 'suitable' to live. People have talked abut the 'correct' answer, but even if you know the people intimately, your decision would only be 'correct' as seen through your own eyes.

I don't believe I can make that sort of judgement, so will always default to the option that spares as many human lives as possible...

So the one is your daughter and the 5 are the men who molested her

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Eraserhead]

If the tram is a subway car in Toronto, and I am standing on the platform, I need only throw the switch to the 3rd rail.

There is a further option, you could pull the switch 1/2 way across so that the train can't take either path at the points and then it'll crash and derail.

[obeygiant]

Is there a "Who gives a crap." switch? lol

or

What switch kills the most people so I can switch from Nascar to fax news to watch the carnage while I slam my Budweiser. ;)

[Much Ado]

So the one is your daughter and the 5 are the men who molested her


(Fast reply ;))

This is just it. I would choose my daughter based on my emotion, but this does not make the decision any more morally right.

If someone robs my house, I might feel inclined to hunt them down and hurt them, but would this be right? Does trusting your emotions give you morally acceptable decisions?

Food for thought. I'm glad for this thread.

[iJohnHenry]

So the one is your daughter and the 5 are the men who molested her

I would immediately launch into such an extended coughing fit, such that I would be paralysed.

There is a further option, you could pull the switch 1/2 way across so that the train can't take either path at the points and then it'll crash and derail.

FYI, the 3rd rail is the power rail, not a switch.

The train would stop, eventually.

If soon enough, is open to measurement and inertia.

[Cromulent]

FYI, the 3rd rail is the power rail, not a switch.

Eh? Where did he mention the 3rd rail?

[skunk]

There is a further option, you could pull the switch 1/2 way across so that the train can't take either path at the points and then it'll crash and derail....risking the death of the 500 innocent passengers as the train plunges off an embankment. Good call, that man! ;)

[BigPrince]

What if it was 5 and 5? lol

[Queso]

...risking the death of the 500 innocent passengers as the train plunges off an embankment. Good call, that man! ;)
And let's not forget the school for orphans at the bottom of the embankment :)

[Blue Velvet]

And let's not forget the school for orphans at the bottom of the embankment :)

Run by a group of nuns. :D

[LethalWolfe]

The big point that seems to have been missed so far is that no matter who dies, it is God's will. If God wants those five people to die God will keep your hand at your side. If God wants that single person to die God will direct your hand to flip the switch. So I guess Skunk was right in saying, "This decision does not have to be made" because there is no decision made by a mere mortal. There is only God's will.

:D


Lethal

[blackfox]

I will reiterate what many have said about the lack of contextual information being relevant to my choice.

As written, however, I would have to pull the switch as the problem explicitly states that the second path (with one person) will lead the tram to safety, whilst the original course (with five people) makes no such explicit claim.

Also, the use of the word "safety" implies to me that there are people aboard the tram - which also plays into my decision - although it could just mean the physical tram, I suppose.

Either way, I would have to grapple with some existential guilt over my role in the scenario - but given what was given - I'd be most comfortable with the above.

[skunk]

Either way, I would have to grapple with some existential guilt over my role in the scenario - but given what was given - I'd be most comfortable with the above.However, while you were grappling with your existential guilt the train would have wiped out the five people, thus freeing you from the need to decide their fate. God works in mysterious ways.

[obeygiant]

Actually wasn't this situation at the end of the Spiderman movie where he has to save either Mary Jane or the tram full of kids. He handled it pretty well.

[skunk]

Actually wasn't this situation at the end of the Spiderman movie where he has to save either Mary Jane or the tram full of kids. He handled it pretty well.I must have missed the bit where we had a switch and a pair of web-shooters to deploy...

[iJohnHenry]

Just do a "Superman", and go back in time.

[Eraserhead]

...risking the death of the 500 innocent passengers as the train plunges off an embankment. Good call, that man! ;)

And let's not forget the school for orphans at the bottom of the embankment :)

Run by a group of nuns. :D

:p. Given that the OP doesn't mention the number of passengers on the train I was assuming it was empty. Is it?

[blackfox]

However, while you were grappling with your existential guilt the train would have wiped out the five people, thus freeing you from the need to decide their fate. God works in mysterious ways.

Ah, but as others have probably mentioned - being informed before the fact, makes you prone to that existential guilt either way - by action or non-action. Which, I assume, was the point of the exercise in the first place.

[sushi]

Ah, but as others have probably mentioned - being informed before the fact, makes you prone to that existential guilt either way - by action or non-action. Which, I assume, was the point of the exercise in the first place.
I think you hit the nail on the head.

It is easy being a bystander so to speak because it seems like one is not getting involved. However, by doing that, the bystander has made a decision, even though they believe they have not.

[.Andy]

As people have said there is no correct answer to the scenario. It's simply a artificial, sterile device to get people to discuss how they'd act, and rationalise their response. It's always an awesome exercise because practically everyone has a slightly different justification for their actions. During the discussion there is usually always a fair amount of healthy debate, discussion and plenty of humour, especially as it strips back any socio-politico-religious affiliations.


There are extra additions to the scenario that change it slightly. They are usually presented in direct answer to people's responses to delve more into their decision making process. One such scenario is along the lines of;

Scenario B
There are five young people in hospital suffering from terminal illnesses that are genetic in origin (they by no means brought their imminent deaths upon themselves). Their only hope is a transplant which will definitely save their lives. Assuming no donor organs are available before they die, is the death of a single, healthy, innocent individual as an organ source justifiable to save these five people? Does your answer differ between the two scenarios? If so, why?

Again it's totally artificial, rather implausible (lets pretend that they all require a different organ ;)), and there's no trick to it at all. It's just to examine how one responds to two different scenarios when presented with identical numerical outcomes.

[Queso]

That's an easy one. Absolutely not.

Our bodies are our only true possession. Nobody has the right to take any part of it away from us for use without our express permission.

EDIT : And before anybody suggests an inconsistency in my beliefs, a collection of stem cells do not constitute an individual in my view.

[WinterMute]

Greg House would say absolutely, but he'd find a way of guilt-tripping the doner into feeling glad about giving up their organs to save 5 complete strangers...!!

No, this wouldn't wash, unless the doner were terminal or riding a motorcycle in the rain, which is roughly the same thing.

People die every day through no fault of their own, a lot of them could be saved by improbable interventions, but they rarely are

Life, as they say, sucks. Buy a helmet.

[aLoC]

In the train story said "no" to sacrificing the individual to save the 5 from their bad luck (being on the default track).

And now in the hospital I say again "no" for the same reason, having bum organs is their bad luck, not his.

Just because life has dealt them a bad hand and it stinks and it's not their fault, they have no right to transfer it someone else. This reasoning works in both cases.

[skunk]

The cases are barely comparable because of the far more active intervention required to change the outcome in the second scenario, but in both cases the answer us "Step away from the lever". Killing one uncompromised indiividual to save five compromised people is unwarranted interference.

[WinterMute]

The cases are barely comparable because of the far more active intervention required to change the outcome in the second scenario, but in both cases the answer us "Step away from the lever". Killing one uncompromised indiividual to save five compromised people is unwarranted interference.

Unless there are significant yuks to be had or at least the possibility of a decent LOLcat right?

[skunk]

Unless there are significant yuks to be had or at least the possibility of a decent LOLcat right?

Well of course yuks and lolcats override any ethical considerations. That almost goes without saying.

[mpw]

..."Step away from the lever"...

Not about to say you're wrong, and I'm sure you could debate me into the ground on ethical and moral issues, but I honestly don't really understand this argument that it's wrong to take any action to save the greatest number of lives because it could wrong in the grand scheme of the universe??

How far do you take a policy like that? What if you're driving home one night and suddenly five children appear in the road; you're faced with the option to swerve off the road avoiding them but leading to your certain death, or 'stepping away from the lever' taking no action and letting events run there course.

I don't believe there is any 'great scheme' and life, mine and everybody else's is just a series of choices and consequences that we each make and which each to a greater or lesser extent impact on everybody else.

[PlaceofDis]

How far do you take a policy like that? What if you're driving home one night and suddenly five children appear in the road; you're faced with the option to swerve off the road avoiding them but leading to your certain death, or 'stepping away from the lever' taking no action and letting events run there course.

thats a different scenario. you're not playing god with six other people's lives. you're deciding on your own life.

so i suppose that if you really wanted to save the greatest number of lives in the train proposition, you'd let it run over yourself, thus saving all six people.

[pdham]

Although I have not yet read the entire thread (I hope to later). Responding to the initial scenarios:

#1

Flip the switch. This one was actually surprisingly easy for me to decide

#2
Again I would flip the switch, but this was far more difficult.


I like this thread. I will post more later

[Lyle]

A trolley/tram/train is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley/tram/train down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?The first time I heard this scenario described, I was a young child. I may have heard it in church, but I'm not sure about that. The version I heard involved a father whose child had gotten caught in the gears of a drawbridge. The father knew that if he "flipped the switch" to lower the drawbridge, his son would be crushed in the gears. If he didn't flip the switch, the passengers in an oncoming train (or whatever it was) would plunge to their deaths. The story was presented as a true story, in which the father had ultimately decided to sacrifice his son's life to save the other people, and that gave me nightmares for days after I heard it.

So I just wanted to take a moment to thank .Andy for bringing up that childhood memory for me. ;)

[Much Ado]

in both cases the answer us "Step away from the lever". Killing one uncompromised indiividual to save five compromised people is unwarranted interference.

Unwarranted interference in what? The natural order of things? Fate?

I don't understand this 'let's pretend I'm not part of the timeline' trail of thought.

[blackfox]

I don't really care for the second scenario - I guess I can't help but ask contextual questions. Such as:

1. If the 5 have a genetic condition that causes organ failure - will it again (and soonish) even if they get the transplant(s)?

2. Age of patients

3. To me, the involvement/guilt issue is completely different. In the first scenario you were presented with a (horrible) choice between 1 dead and 5 dead - which being included in the choice made it somewhat your responsibility.

Scenario 2, however, involves a less acute situation, and the choice is really between 5 and 0, not necessarily 5 and 1.


The one thing I like about the second scenario is that you can plausibly self-sacrifice. In the second scenario I would not be likely to sacrifice someone else to save the 5, but I might be willing to sacrifice myself. This was not an option in the earlier scenario, and allows for different ethical considerations.

[atszyman]

Scenario 1: I'd throw the switch.

The six people have had choices removed for them and no time to consult those who are in better positions to make decisions. In a similar situation if I were the one, I'd want to be the one killed rather than the 5 others given no other information. Sure you can make the argument that they might be bad people but there's just as much reason to believe that the one person is bad and really the intended target. With no emotional connection to the 6 I'd sacrifice one to save 5 as I'd expect someone to do if I were the one.

Scenario 2: Here you have the opportunity to obtain information and decisions from those affected and those who can give their consent (should the one person be in a comatose state unable to answer).

It also opens the door for compromise. Of the 5, if it's two who needs kidneys, one a heart, one some bone marrow and another a liver, You can save 2 of the 5 without killing the original donor. Maybe more since if the single donor is compatible with the other 5 then it's likely matches can be made within the five as well to get a second kidney, and maybe the one who needs a liver will sacrifice his heart for the 4th or vice-versa.

The only way this scenario can be made similar is to make all 6 comatose with no family and that to even save one of the 5 will kill the one at which point I'd probably choose the same as I did in scenario 1. Of course I am not a doctor, nor do I have any medical training so the only way I'd be in this situation would be a desert island situation and it would be likely that all 6 would die if I tried to do anything. So I'd most likely let the 5 die.

Scenario 1 is a complete 5 or one decision with no room for new information. Scenario 2 opens the door for more information and possible compromise.

The minute more information on the people is obtained my decisions can and probably would change dramatically but without that information my answer stands.

[skunk]

How far do you take a policy like that? What if you're driving home one night and suddenly five children appear in the road; you're faced with the option to swerve off the road avoiding them but leading to your certain death, or 'stepping away from the lever' taking no action and letting events run there course.As PoD says, this is an entirely different question, akin to smothering a grenade to save your comrades, or staying at the controls of a doomed aeroplane to avoid a school. Given that choice, I would hope that I would choose my doom rather than theirs.

[skunk]

Unwarranted interference in what? The natural order of things? Fate?"Fate" I suppose is the nearest. Each life is of infinite value, so five lives are no more valuable than one.

[Much Ado]

"Fate" I suppose is the nearest. Each life is of infinite value, so five lives are no more valuable than one.

So the Purges were no greater a loss than any one unspecified murder, or a suicide?

This must also make you a Pacifist...?

[skunk]

So the Purges were no greater a loss than any one unspecified murder, or a suicide?Unquantifiable, but murder and suicide are again two very different propositions.

This must also make you a Pacifist...?I certainly do not believe in war.

[Eraserhead]

I think this time you shouldn't throw the switch, but as atszyman pointed out you could probably save some of the 5 with the organs of the others or with help from the original donor without killing them.

[telecomm]

This second scenario is tricky, and it's tempting to try to build in a 'way out' by modifying the scenario.

This scenario could probably be further strengthened by assuming things like:

1. A decision has to be made in the next two minutes, or the 5 patients in group A will die.

2. The 5 have contracted super bug X, which, genetic records have revealed, can only be cured by organ transplants from the unfortunate person B (who happens to be standing in the next room).

3. All are the same age, etc., and are equally likely to live to a ripe old age (depending on the choice made).

I must admit I'm coming up a bit short on reasons to defend my intuitive view that one shouldn't 'throw the switch' in this case. Hmmm.... I think I'll cheat and ask a moral philosopher friend about this tomorrow night.

[mpw]

....so i suppose that if you really wanted to save the greatest number of lives in the train proposition, you'd let it run over yourself, thus saving all six people.
Well that wasn't one of the two options.

Then again the scenario is too vague and doesn't actually say that anybody is in mortal danger.

Maybe the people are tied to the track, but not across it. The train might be out of control, but be very small and not pose any danger. Maybe the train is several hundred tons of fast moving metal, and the people are tied across the track, but are already dead. It is stated that flipping the switch will lead the train to safety, it doesn't confirm that the lone person tied to the alternate track would be put in danger.

So, I'll change my original answer to do a considered nothing, as as skunk said earlier there's no logic to the decision process, without making certain assumptions. And I always try not to react based on assumption.

However, right or wrong, I still think that given that info. and only those options I'd still flip the switch.

Damn this is making me think! I understand skunk's position now, and respect it, but I still don't entirely buy into the 'unwarranted interference' as I can't see how you can interfere with fate, as you can't know fate... or then you could be accuse of playing God.

[sushi]

I certainly do not believe in war.
OT: Curious. In general, or in all war?

Back to the thread. As for the train decision, there are many who make decisions everyday with limited knowledge. Sure the decision makers would like complete information about a particular situation before making a decision, but unfortunately, they must act upon the situation with the information at hand which is usually incomplete.

That's why based upon the original knowledge given, I would flip the switch.

Of course we all know that Monday morning quarterbacking (hindsight) may change the way you would have decided, but you do the best you can with the information that you have at the time. Sometimes your are damned if you do and damned if you don't. That is the nature of the beast.

[skunk]

OT: Curious. In general, or in all war?I do not believe that a war has ever been fought for the "right" reasons. Until that happens, I reserve my right to be a pacifist. War is a convenient excuse to suspend all civilised rules of interaction: murder, assault, robbery, fraud, lying and betrayal all become magically acceptable when sanctioned by the state in furtherance of its objectives, and I have yet to find an example where the trade-off has been remotely justifiable.

Back to the thread. ...That's why based upon the original knowledge given, I would flip the switch.Why would you cause the death of another person to prevent the death of five? Would you not be guilty of murder?

[obeygiant]

On a long enough timeline everyone will die. So anyone not working to extend life thru medical research is guilty of murder. Jail for everyone.

[iJohnHenry]

skunk, if you were my GP, I would not be a happy camper.

I want decisiveness, even if wrong, and he has missed an issue that another Dr. put right.

[skunk]

On a long enough timeline everyone will die.Your action is not the cause of their deaths. This is not murder.

I want decisiveness, even if wrong.You might be your own worst enemy, then. I certainly would not want my doctor to be decisive if wrong.

[iJohnHenry]

It was a rare reaction, seldom seen in the usual clinic environment. Another Dr. in the same clinic, on a Saturday, doped it out.

Still, better then the que será será approach you seem to advocate.

[sushi]

I do not believe that a war has ever been fought for the "right" reasons. Until that happens, I reserve my right to be a pacifist. War is a convenient excuse to suspend all civilised rules of interaction: murder, assault, robbery, fraud, lying and betrayal all become magically acceptable when sanctioned by the state in furtherance of its objectives, and I have yet to find an example where the trade-off has been remotely justifiable.
I would say that WWII was fought for the "right" reasons. If those who were free did not stand up against those who wished otherwise, many of us would be speaking a different language today.

Personally, I am humbled by the sacrifice made by that generation, and the freedoms we enjoy today because of what that generation accomplished.

Why would you cause the death of another person to prevent the death of five? Would you not be guilty of murder?
Based upon the information given, which assumes all are equal, then IMHO, by flipping the switch, I save 4 lives.

By not flipping the switch, I would be guilty of causing the death of 4 persons that need not die.

And yes, I would sleep like a baby after making such a decision.

Here's one for you. You are the pilot of a single engine helicopter and are carrying 5 individuals. Your engine has quit. You have entered autorotation and are descending in a steady state. However, as you get near the ground and are performing your deceleration to land safely, you now see 20 people in the place that you were going to land.

If you proceed to land, you will save the helicopter and all on board. But, you will kill at least half of those on the ground and probably severely injure the remaining individuals.

If you adjust to an alternate landing location at this time, you will end up crashing, destroying the helicopter and killing all on board, but save the individuals on the ground.

What do you do?

[skunk]

I would say that WWII was fought for the "right" reasons. If those who were free did not stand up against those who wished otherwise, many of us would be speaking a different language today.Considering that the Germans were largely defeated by the Russians, whose leader then killed 20 million or so of his own people, and that the Japanese were forced out of China, whose leader then killed at least 40 million of his own people, the cost/benefit analysis is somewhat moot.

Personally, I am humbled by the sacrifice made by that generation, and the freedoms we enjoy today because of what that generation accomplished.I. too, am humbled (and greatly saddened) by the sacrifices made, but the causes of the war were not as clear-cut as many would assume.

Based upon the information given, which assumes all are equal, then IMHO, by flipping the switch, I save 4 lives.

By not flipping the switch, I would be guilty of causing the death of 4 persons that need not die.Au contraire, by not flipping the switch, you are simply letting things run their course. It is not your job to select which unknown people will die. Stay away from the lever.

Here's one for you. You are the pilot of a single engine helicopter and are carrying 5 individuals. Your engine has quit. You have entered autorotation and are descending in a steady state. However, as you get near the ground and are performing your deceleration to land safely, you now see 20 people in the place that you were going to land.

If you proceed to land, you will save the helicopter and all on board. But, you will kill at least half of those on the ground and probably severely injure the remaining individuals.

If you adjust to an alternate landing location at this time, you will end up crashing, destroying the helicopter and killing all on board, but save the individuals on the ground.

What do you do?As the pilot, I would be immediately responsible for my actions, and I would be undergoing the same risk of death as my passengers. I would divert, as indeed I have implied above.


How far do you take a policy like that? What if you're driving home one night and suddenly five children appear in the road; you're faced with the option to swerve off the road avoiding them but leading to your certain death, or 'stepping away from the lever' taking no action and letting events run their course.
As PoD says, this is an entirely different question, akin to smothering a grenade to save your comrades, or staying at the controls of a doomed aeroplane to avoid a school. Given that choice, I would hope that I would choose my doom rather than theirs.

[sushi]

Au contraire, by not flipping the switch, you are simply letting things run their course. It is not your job to select which unknown people will die.
I assume that you realize that many individuals make decisions such as this on a daily basis, and that there are many, if not most who view this situation much differently than you do.

And I am sure that the 5 folks who survived in the train scenario would be very happy as well.

Stay away from the lever.
Nope, not this kid. I seek out the lever and then make a decision.

BTW, as a pilot regarding the situation that I gave above, while most of us would make the decision to avoid those on the ground, we never day die and will continue to try to survive through our pilot skills until the fat lady sings. Some of us are very lucky to be sitting here typing on MR... :)

[MrSmith]

Read a couple posts, jumped to the end, not going to pull any switches. I didn't set the train in motion so I'm not going to make a conscious decision to take that one person's life.

If we're still talking about that.

[skunk]

Read a couple posts, jumped to the end, not going to pull any switches. I didn't set the train in motion so I'm not going to make a conscious decision to take that one person's life.Unusually, we are in agreement. :)

[Much Ado]

I didn't set the train in motion so I'm not going to make a conscious decision to take that one person's life.

I know that person across the road is being mugged, but I'm not getting involved. After all, that would be interfering with the timeline.

Step away from the mugging.

[skunk]

I know that person across the road is being mugged, but I'm not getting involved. After all, that would be interfering with the timeline.

Step away from the mugging.That is an entirely different scenario, as I suspect you know. Perhaps you should prevent the mugging by pointing out a more defenceless victim further down the alley.

[Much Ado]

That is an entirely different scenario, as I suspect you know.

It is, and I do, but I am still having problems understanding this argument that there is a 'natural order of things' that should not be interfered with. That looks like the morality of Pontius Pilate.

[skunk]

It is, and I do, but I am still having problems understanding this argument that there is a 'natural order of things' that should not be interfered with. That looks like the morality of Pontius Pilate.If the choice was between letting the five be killed or trying to stop the train, I'd try to stop the train. If in doing so I merely condemn a different universe to oblivion, where is the good?

If a fire engine mows down an innocent bystander in the process of racing to rescue five other people from a burning house, is that a trade-off you would be happy with?

[Much Ado]

If a fire engine mows down an innocent bystander in the process of racing to rescue five other people from a burning house, is that a trade-off you would be happy with?

I'm sure the process would not require the innocent to be mown down.

I did post a 'burning house' scenario earlier in the thread, only it was about which house you rush to knowing the number of people at risk in each. Of course, the one with the most people will usually be chosen, even if though we have established that the value of human life is "infinite".

On which point- are you against abortion where childbirth would severely threaten the chances that the mother would live?

[skunk]

In that situation is the choice not the mother's?

[Queso]

On which point- are you against abortion where childbirth would severely threaten the chances that the mother would live?
Personally I accept that other people's abortions, whatever the circumstances, are none of my business. I would rather abortions didn't have to occur, but then I would also rather the world was a big Utopian paradise with free ice cream.

Sometimes you just have to accept that your views are simply of no consequence.

[MrSmith]

...I did post a 'burning house' scenario earlier in the thread, only it was about which house you rush to knowing the number of people at risk in each. Of course, the one with the most people will usually be chosen, even if though we have established that the value of human life is "infinite"...
Sorry I haven't read your post but, against your assumption, if I had a choice between a house with 5 adults and another with 1 child I would rescue the child. What does that make me?

Unusually, we are in agreement. :)
Where's the fun in that? :D

[mpw]

...I'm not going to make a conscious decision to take that one person's life...
I didn't, and don't, see it as a conscious decision to take a person's life, but as a decision to save five lives.
Personally I accept that other people's abortions, whatever the circumstances, are none of my business. I would rather abortions didn't have to occur, but then I would also rather the world was a big Utopian paradise with free ice cream.

Sometimes you just have to accept that your views are simply of no consequence.
Mmmmm ice cream

[themadchemist]

Considering that the Germans were largely defeated by the Russians, whose leader then killed 20 million or so of his own people, and that the Japanese were forced out of China, whose leader then killed at least 40 million of his own people, the cost/benefit analysis is somewhat moot.

I. too, am humbled (and greatly saddened) by the sacrifices made, but the causes of the war were not as clear-cut as many would assume.


I am sorry, but I feel you are conflating independent matters. The war itself stopped a genocide. Subsequent atrocities are separate matters.

[Much Ado]

In that situation is the choice not the mother's?

Personally I accept that other people's abortions, whatever the circumstances, are none of my business.

Sure. I was just giving an example of how violating 'Natural Law' by ending one life to save another can be justified.

We'd let the mother 'flip the switch', even if this means interfering in fate, the order of time, the way of things to come.

[ZiggyPastorius]

All the first, situation a...

I would flip the switch.

Immediately afterwards, I would go to prison. I don't care if Hitler and Stalin were among the five lined up, and as disgusting as that's gonna sound, it simply comes down to my value of human life. I believe the action itself is wrong (murder), however I believe one should do everything in their power to save someone/save as many people as possible/whatever, then face the consequences. If it was worth getting involved, it was worth taking the punishment.

Edit: With that said, if one was not willing to accept the punishment, I agree with Skunk completely in this thread, that you should not pull the switch.

That's how I see it.

As for number two:

I can't answer it.

Here's why: if the healthy person was willingly giving their organs, knowing the consequences, while I think we should do everything in our power to stop them from doing that to themselves (much like suicide), I think if it comes down to them really wanting to do it, we should let them. The problem, however, is...I don't think anyone should do the operation. Much like in my number one response, I don't feel the surgeon doing the transplant has the right to do something that would knowingly result in the person's death.

I hope that makes sense.

[Much Ado]

^ Yeah, so you're with me in saying that we should maximize human life, whereas other such as Skunk would argue (I believe) that the value of each life is effectively infinite, and we shouldn't play God in the situation.

Situation A, that is.

[ZiggyPastorius]

^ Yeah, so you're with me in saying that we should maximize human life, whereas other such as Skunk would argue (I believe) that the value of each life is effectively infinite, and we shouldn't play God in the situation.

Situation A, that is.

Well, the problem is, is I really do completely agree with Skunk. Before I read any posts, but I read the situation, the first thing that came to mind was, "I wouldn't pull the switch at all...I don't want to be responsible for that kind of atrocity." but if the situation came to life, IF I did decide to pull the switch, I would turn myself in and go to prison, or whatever other consequences were required of me.

Edit: I also believe the value of human life is infinite.

[skunk]

I am sorry, but I feel you are conflating independent matters. The war itself stopped a genocide. Subsequent atrocities are separate matters.They are not independent, they are consequential. And no, the war did not stop a genocide: the genocide happened. And no, the war was not entered into to prevent a genocide: it was entered into by the British for all the usual reasons, empire, trade, prestige and influence, and by the USA much later, when the British had already safely ceded much of their technology and influence (and their vast pre-war holdings in the US economy) to the US for materiel, primarily because the Japanese and Germans had already declared war.

[themadchemist]

They are not independent, they are consequential.


If the war hadn't occurred, Stalin would have still killed 20 million of his own people. So what's the difference? Only that Hitler would have taken control of much of continental Europe and exterminated huge chunks of the population. What would have been a more effective response to Hitler marching across Europe? Would you have preferred continued appeasement, which certainly worked so well for old Neville?


And no, the war did not stop a genocide: the genocide happened.


Stop (v): discontinue--put an end to a state or an activity.

The defeat of the Nazis terminated an ongoing genocide. Fewer people were killed in that genocide than would have been otherwise.


And no, the war was not entered into to prevent a genocide

Did I ever claim that it was?

[skunk]

What would have been a more effective response to Hitler marching across Europe? Would you have preferred continued appeasement, which certainly worked so well for old Neville?The response we gave did not stop him.
The defeat of the Nazis terminated an ongoing genocide. Fewer people were killed in that genocide than would have been otherwise.Marginally, but it was an incidental benefit.

[themadchemist]

The response we gave did not stop him.


So the Allied forces didn't stop Hitler? Did he just get bored?

Also, you didn't answer my question.


Marginally

So you think Hitler would have just stopped killing the Jews, gypsies, disabled, etc., at some point, for funsies? There were millions of people left in Europe after World War II who would have been targets for the Nazis.


but it was an incidental benefit.


Pretty huge incidental benefit, if you ask me? And who cares if it was incidental--it was still real. Aside from that, I think you go too far in the other direction in asserting that stopping the genocide was not at all a motivating factor in fighting the war, or at least selling it to the public (which is an important part of successfully executing anything that demands so much public sacrifice).

[psycoswimmer]

I would flip the switch immediately and then attempt to free the single person before the train reaches them. If this train is going completely out of control, I believe that I would notice it with enough time to do this.

[MacDawg]

Liking the new location there skunk
Saw it a while back but neglected to say anything ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[Mord]

Scenario two deserves the same answer, I don't give a ****.

[skunk]

So the Allied forces didn't stop Hitler? Did he just get bored?Perhaps you should ask the Russians about that.

[Macky-Mac]

Perhaps you should ask the Russians about that.

the Russians were part of the allied forces during WW2 so they would agree that the allied forces stopped Hitler, wouldn't they?

[Ugg]

So the Allied forces didn't stop Hitler? Did he just get bored?



Based on contemporary accounts of Hitler's behaviour in his final year, I think we can all agree that he went crazy. Had he not overextended himself, he might well have won.

US involvement most definitely kept Stalin from annihilating the Germans in the aftermath and carting off all but the rocks and soil. Hitler may have been crazy but Stalin was deranged.

[iJohnHenry]

Liking the new location there skunk
Saw it a while back but neglected to say anything ;)


Asleep at the switch might be more accurate, given his position on the matter. ;)

[CorvusCamenarum]

the Russians were part of the allied forces during WW2 so they would agree that the allied forces stopped Hitler, wouldn't they?

That and the fact that Hitler never bothered to consult a weatherman. Or that he never played Risk when he was a kid... ;)

[skunk]

Asleep at the switch might be more accurate, given his position on the matter. ;)Unwarranted. My choice not to randomly exchange one life for another is not made from inertia.

[Much Ado]

US involvement most definitely kept Stalin from annihilating the Germans in the aftermath and carting off all but the rocks and soil. Hitler may have been crazy but Stalin was deranged.

Without wanting to turn this into a history thread, I would take issue with the idea that Stalin was deranged. In fact, what makes Stalin so frightening is how calculated his actions were, and there is a compelling argument to be had that Stalin always believed that what he was doing was best for Russia, and the revolution. It's always comforting to think that such tyrants were mad, but in the case of Stalin this might not be true.

That's all in my opinion.

[obeygiant]

Without wanting to turn this into a history thread, ...

That would be an upgrade. :)