Thought Experiment

13

Replies

  • Vikka_V
    Vikka_V Posts: 9,563 Member
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    Exactly what I think!!
    Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

    Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

    I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

    The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

    Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    Exactly what I think!!
    Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

    Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

    I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

    The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

    Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

    That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?

    Not up to me to decide. Life takes its course and what will be will be. One life is not "sacrificial" simply because other lives are on the line. The only exemption to this would be if I myself could sacrifice my own life to stop the train because then that is my true choice and no one else is harmed in the process. I just cannot abide by killing one person simply because other lives are present. The guilt I would feel and the soul crushing weight of it would be the same, whether it was one person.. or five.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?

    Not up to me to decide. Life takes its course and what will be will be. One life is not "sacrificial" simply because other lives are on the line. The only exemption to this would be if I myself could sacrifice my own life to stop the train because then that is my true choice and no one else is harmed in the process. I just cannot abide by killing one person simply because other lives are present. The guilt I would feel and the soul crushing weight of it would be the same, whether it was one person.. or five.

    But you wouldn't be killing anyone. You would be saving people. Also, if you would feel just as guilty then why not save the most people you can?

    Also sometimes I think about this with cats or puppies.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Unknown
    edited February 2018
    This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    cee134 wrote: »
    Does anyone else want to kidnap this big man from the second example, put him on display, and hog all the money made from the opportunity to see "the man big enough to stop a trolley". I feel like he would have to be a BIG man.

    I think when I originally heard this the Big Man would only derail the empty runaway trolley.

    I don't know much about trolleys, but I am thinking it still weighs alot empty

    Assuming a 15000lb trolley moving at 15mph a required stopping distance of 300 yards and an assumed kinetic coefficient of friction of 0.68. I'm coming up with a 184 pound man.

    https://ask.metafilter.com/225991/How-fat-DOES-a-man-have-to-be-to-stop-a-runaway-trolley

    well if thats the case I guess I could ultimately be a really good person and sacrifice myself to save the workers, but I doubt I would
  • I hope the purpose of this experiment was/is NOT to pass judgement on a person for what they feel they would ultimately decide to do in this situation.

    Or was it?
    Moral superiority
  • This content has been removed.
  • WorkerDrone83
    WorkerDrone83 Posts: 3,195 Member
    I hope the purpose of this experiment was/is NOT to pass judgement on a person for what they feel they would ultimately decide to do in this situation.

    Or was it?
    Moral superiority

    I don't think it was. I think it had something to do with consequentialism or identifying cognitive dissonance. Like if someone said they'd pull the switch, but wouldn't push the big guy.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    edited February 2018
    I hope the purpose of this experiment was/is NOT to pass judgement on a person for what they feel they would ultimately decide to do in this situation.

    Or was it?
    Moral superiority

    I have just found it interesting, I am really happy so many people are giving serious, thought out answers, I find them interesting.
  • This content has been removed.
  • Vikka_V
    Vikka_V Posts: 9,563 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    Exactly what I think!!
    Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

    Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

    I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

    The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

    Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

    That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.

    I understand your reasoning, but I couldn't make that choice. I can't justify my choosing even if it is quantity of lives.
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    Exactly what I think!!
    Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

    If you had children, and one of those people was your child....you'd change your do nothing answer.

    I wonder...I'd like to say yes because idealistically that's what a parent does, protects the future of their DNA, but non parent me says my decision is the same, my child is no more important than anyone else.

    I also wouldn't sacrifice myself for a child (speaking from the point of view of someone who has never had a child, so I can't say if that would change my mind).

    Off topic again but It irks me sometimes that people seem to value childrens lives more than adults, I get that they are innocent but that doesn't make their lives more valuable than an adult. It's sadder maybe because that haven't had as much time, or a chance as someone older, but they are not more valuable or always deserving.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?

    I understand why you say this but I don't see it that way. The train is going to kill someone regardless. But if I try and change that then I'm actively making a choice between whose lives are more important.

    But what if it's puppies tied to the railroad? Would your answer change? You would be saving 5 puppies cause no matter what at least one person (puppy) will die.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    Also, don't surgeons have to make this kind of choice every day? Who they operate on and who they don't.
  • This content has been removed.
  • cee134
    cee134 Posts: 33,711 Member
    edited February 2018
    cee134 wrote: »
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    Vikka_V wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    Exactly what I think!!
    Not up to me to decide that one person should be "sacrificed" for a "greater good", every life is just as important as the next

    Not exactly equal, but I feel really bad for the armed deputy at the school in Florida. He was, arguably, in a position to do something for the greater good, but chose inaction. No judgment from me, though. I don't know what was going on in his mind or in his life.

    I can't imaging being in a situation like that and hope never to be...i have no judgment

    The responsibility of taking a life is something I couldn't live with, I think. It's a moral dilemma for me for sure. I don't think I could ever take a life.

    Off topic, but I do agree with assisted suicide

    That's why this question is easy for me. No matter what, my actions (or inaction) will kill someone. If I have no choice then I would rather do the least amount of damage than the most.


    Quoting you because that's what made me think, not that you have to answer, but is there a difference between "killing" and "letting die"?

    It can be a matter of perception. Are you killing or saving? I look at it as saving but I would still be killing. So being forced to decide, I would feel better saving 5 people then saving one. Not to mention that no matter what someone is going to die.

    Edit to add: Yes, there is a difference. Letting someone die means you aren't the one murdering them.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • This content has been removed.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    cee134 wrote: »
    cee134 wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?

    Not up to me to decide. Life takes its course and what will be will be. One life is not "sacrificial" simply because other lives are on the line. The only exemption to this would be if I myself could sacrifice my own life to stop the train because then that is my true choice and no one else is harmed in the process. I just cannot abide by killing one person simply because other lives are present. The guilt I would feel and the soul crushing weight of it would be the same, whether it was one person.. or five.

    But you wouldn't be killing anyone. You would be saving people. Also, if you would feel just as guilty then why not save the most people you can?

    Also sometimes I think about this with cats or puppies.

    If I want to go that route, why does an unseen force not persuade me one way or the other to save the people on either track? I dislike the notion that somehow one life is less worthy than five due to sheer numbers. If it was meant to be, then I would save one.. or the other. But since I do not believe in higher beings and I don't believe an external force is going to influence me one way or another, I refuse to act on something simply for the "greater good" (whatever that actually means). What happens if the five people all you others want to save all end up being terrible mass murderers or something?

  • This content has been removed.
  • KosmosKitten
    KosmosKitten Posts: 10,476 Member
    dnm1207 wrote: »
    cee134 wrote: »
    I remember hearing this in college. Basically you choose to actively take one life, or passively take 5. I have also heard some dark variations of this, for example, to the people who would choose to sacrifice one life for the good of the many, what if the one person was your child and the other 5 were strangers? Many people change their answer (obviously).

    Call me cold, but I'd do nothing. 5 people would die, but I wouldn't have actively decided that those 5 people's lives were more important than the one.

    ^^ This. My ethics professor actually gave us this problem with the "dark" variables back in college. I was the ONLY person who took a stance of doing nothing because to do so was still to ultimately decide that five lives outweighed one. Who am I to play God and state that the one person's life is worth sacrificing simply because more people are on the other track?

    Fate takes its course.. it is not up to me to decide.

    Yes, but your inaction is still an action. Would you want to save 5 people or 1 knowing you can't save everyone?

    Not up to me to decide. Life takes its course and what will be will be. One life is not "sacrificial" simply because other lives are on the line. The only exemption to this would be if I myself could sacrifice my own life to stop the train because then that is my true choice and no one else is harmed in the process. I just cannot abide by killing one person simply because other lives are present. The guilt I would feel and the soul crushing weight of it would be the same, whether it was one person.. or five.

    Would you let fate take its course if pulling the switch caused the train to safely stop and not kill anyone? Because ... Who are you to play God, and if that is their fate, why should you intervene?

    Yes. I claim no expertise in how trains operate, so why would I go out of my way to take a gamble on whether or not pulling a switch would save people? Especially if my actions could make the situation worse because I have no idea what I'm doing?

    I'm still perplexed why a bunch of idiots are hanging around on a train track when they can probably both see and hear the train. :S
This discussion has been closed.