Moral Thought Experiments (PG Version).

[Dre89]

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person?

2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people?

Obviously, you're answers should be justified. Many people choose yes for the first one, and no for the second one. If you do the same, how are the two examples any different?

 

[abhishekh]

If both people are unwilling to sacrifice their lives for the five others, then I'm not going to kill them.

I'm mostly saying this based on the second one, because nobody is going to give up their life to save other people like that, nobody wants to and nobody should be made to.

The first is the same situation as the second, except the second is more like murder whilst the first feels like a more, spur of the moment decision you'd make. I guess the same thing applies though, if the person doesn't agree to do it, it isn't fair for him to do it.

 

[1048576]

1. Kill the one guy. Nobody would negatively change their behaviour as a consequence.

2. Save the one guy. It's good to trust doctors and take active steps to protect your organs.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person?

This is a though one because regardless of what I do my hands will be stained in blood. Damed if you do damed if you don't.

Edit: Though about it some more and came to a conclusion. I would kill the one man and then turn myself in (or commit suicide). In my sense of justice if you see people die and you could of done something to prevent it you are indirectly a murder. In the other choice that one guy is dead due to something I did and there for I am a murder. A murder must pay and suffer a punishment and there for I would request that the justice system execute me to pay back the horror I inflicted on the man's family his friends and his people. I will make sure that my blood is split to pay back the crimes I will have committed. And to bring closer to his family, friends, and people.

2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people?

Depends, if I ask him nicely will he say yes? (I am not joking I would really ask him nicely. I am dead serious.) My answer will vary depending on if he says yes or no.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-life-belong This is very similar to what you are talking about Dre, hope you find it inserting .

 

[Bookworm]

If Dre has studied philosophy, think I may just know what Dre is getting at in his OP when he says he can say yes to 1. and no to 2.

Augustine's double effect principle allows for this conlcusion. The difference between the two scenarios is that in 1., for the intended goodness to be obtained (saving four extra people), the death of the isolated person, is not a requirement, but just an unfortunate consequence of the good deed. In 2. however, the death of the healthy man is intended, for he must be dead for the goodness to be done (he needs to be dead so that one can use his organs to save the others).

However, one can still argue that the DE principle is still just moral/spritual egoism, in that one's moral/spiritual well-being comes before the lives of four extra people.

 

[1048576]

How is the death of the isolated person in case 1 not a requirement? You can't derail the train without hitting him. I could just as easily say that #2 wasn't a requirement, just an unfortunate consequence of not inventing the technology to keep human heads alive in jars in time.

 

[vVv Rapture]

How is the death of the isolated person in case 1 not a requirement? You can't derail the train without hitting him. I could just as easily say that #2 wasn't a requirement, just an unfortunate consequence of not inventing the technology to keep human heads alive in jars in time.

Because the train would be derailed regardless of whether or not the isolated person is there. The requirement of the person being there, let alone dieing in the process, is nonexistent because the train can and will be derailed without influence of the person itself.

In the second one, considering that we know that we cannot keep people alive after that point, it becomes a requirement. Without "head in a jar" technology, the person will always die in the process, making it a requirement, not to mention that the person has to die for the process to happen in the first place.

In scenario two, no healthy person, no process. Healthy person becomes a requirement.

In scenario one, train gets derailed, isolated person is irrelevant. Isolated person is not a requirement.

 

[1048576]

Okay fine, in scenario 2 you have to use a person, but you don't have to kill him. You just have to invent an organ cloner in the next 5 minutes or so after you cut him open.

Basically, in both cases you know someone is going to die.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Okay fine, in scenario 2 you have to use a person, but you don't have to kill him. You just have to invent an organ cloner in the next 5 minutes or so after you cut him open.

Basically, in both cases you know someone is going to die.

No.

You can't just make up whatever you want to be right. You can't do that, so it is not part of the equation. So you're still wrong.

 

[1048576]

Can't do what, invent an organ cloner?
I guess that's not an expressly false claim, but it's not expressly true either. I'd say most people believe we've built more impressive stuff, and consistent cloning is well within the realm of possibility.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Until somebody comes close to inventing an organ cloner, your argument is invalid.

Is not recommended here.

 

[1048576]

Until six people get stuck on train tracks simultaneously, your argument is invalid.

Both outcomes are within the realm of possibility. That one is conceivably more likely is not relevant, since if we're picking morals on an arbitrary sliding scale, it's useless to even discuss them.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Is there a chance 6 people can get caught on tracks right now? Yes

Is there such thing as an organ cloner? No.

 

[1048576]

Is there a chance we could develop an organ cloner in the next 5 minutes? Yes

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

If that's true, develop an organ cloner.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Seriously DH, why the hell are you even replying? I swear I'm losing brain cells every time I read one of his posts.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Because I'm the biggest piece of trollbait ever.

 

[1048576]

Yeah real classy guys.

Just because I can't make an organ cloner, doesn't mean it's not possible. It would obviously require some physics/biology expertise. I'm guessing you don't really need an example of things that can be done that some people can't do.

The point is, that there is a non-zero probability that guy 2 is not required to die to perform the process, just as with the first case.

 

[vVv Rapture]

Yeah real classy guys.

Just because I can't make an organ cloner, doesn't mean it's not possible. It would obviously require some physics/biology expertise. I'm guessing you don't really need an example of things that can be done that some people can't do.

The point is, that there is a non-zero probability that guy 2 is not required to die to perform the process, just as with the first case.

Yes, because a person on earth has enough physics/biology expertise to be able to create an organ cloning machine in five minutes.

You got us.

 

[Sieguest]

Just something to make note of. What 1048576 said, while it doesn't work in this case, isn't completely invalid.
Most people take moral thought experiments under the assumption that it's what we would do in the present time. As we all know, we don't have organ cloning machines right now, so one would have to make their choice based from that, but the reasoning behind why one makes their choice can bring in the concept of technology such as organ cloning machines. One may say they'll keep the one person alive only because medical technology isn't advanced enough and that taking his life against his will would be detrimental not only to the doctor's name professionally but to the person getting killed...(obviously). But a person may add that if technology were more advanced to keep the one healthy person alive, such as the creation of an organ cloner, that they would allow the one person to be used to save the other ill people. Given the idea that a person could vacillate between a choice based on technology and the fact that we are always moving forward in time, the assumption that the response to these questions has to be limited to what they would do in the present time is incorrect.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

@salt

TBH, why should we care about this scenario future-itized?

 

[Sieguest]

Simple, because eventually you might be living in the future where this is possible. If the same question was then posed to you, how would you respond?

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Salt, does it matter of we'll be living the future? It doesn't affect the question.

 

[Sieguest]

Actually it does. If such technology became available in the future that would allow the healthy person to be used and still be kept alive while also being able to save the ill people. Would you decide yes or no to the question of using the healthy person to save the other five ill people? And what would be your reasoning? Compare that to how you answer the question under the assumption that the response must be within the present time and you'll see what I mean.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

How would that change my answer to the question?

And let's take it to the DH.

 

[metalreflectslime]

Train

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person?

2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people?

Obviously, you're answers should be justified. Many people choose yes for the first one, and no for the second one. If you do the same, how are the two examples any different?

In the first example, at least one person were to die anyway no matter what option you choose so it was better to kill the one person by shifting the direction.

In the second example, we do not know for a fact that the operation will be successful. The surgeon could make errors and result in the death of all 5 people. You would have 6 dead people if that happened. In this example it was the 5 people's fault for not taking care of their own health. One healthy person should not have to sacrifice himself to save 5 irresponsible people (unless he wants to). The healthy person deserves to live for being responsible.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Illness is a result of irresponsibility? Please elaborate.

 

[Sieguest]

How would that change my answer to the question?

And let's take it to the DH.

Because the circumstances concerning your answer to the question have changed.

Most who answer no to question 2 say no because they do not feel it is right to kill a healthy and at the moment uninvolved person for the sake of five others. Or they may say no because the killing of a previously uninvolved person is an extreme detriment to the doctor's professional name.
However, given a change in circumstance to where the healthy person could survive and the five sick people still be saved, most would switch their answer to yes. It's the exact same question, but circumstances have changed. I'm not sure how someone may say "no" for another reason that wouldn't trace back to the two I stated above, but there may be another reason that someone may have, in that case their answer might not change.

Anyway, whether your answer would change or not is beside the point. The point is that attacking someone for using a different line of reasoning in an experiment which sole purpose is to find out the lines of moral reasoning people use in certain situations is counterproductive and, if you've previously answered the question, sets a double standard. Showing that advancements in the future may change your answer to the same question spells the difference between utilitarian thought processes or a survival of the fittest type thinking.

 

[Namaste]

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person?

Yes

2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people?

No

Now for justifications!

In the first example, if I don't turn the lever, those 5 people would die. Since in this experiment I assume I know this, then not turning the lever would be the same as me killing those 5 people.

But in the second one, I would not be responsible for those people's deaths. They need organs, and there is no reason that I have to be the person to do it. In fact, since they're in a hospital, they're already under care, and there's no guarantee that if I don't kill the person and cut him up those other 5 will die. That would be the main difference, that I would not be forced into a circumstance where I'm the only one who can save them over the person.

But I wouldn't even really say the first one was "moral", if anything it'd be gray. If someone just let the train hit those 5 people instead of the other guy, I wouldn't call said person immoral, but I'd disagree with their choice of action.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person?

I would switch the tracks because instead of being reliable for multiple deaths, I would be responsible for one. Either way I have to make a choice to kill someone, now it just matters how many I choose to save.

2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people??

Do I have the choice to kill myself in order to save these people? If so I wouldn't be responsible for anyone's death but my own. If not, then No. I would have to willingly kill an impartial party, rather than an alternate choice.

On the first choice it's either I cut loses or go out with a bang. On the second choice it's involving me to bring in another party for the choice to be possible.

In the second example, we do not know for a fact that the operation will be successful. The surgeon could make errors and result in the death of all 5 people. You would have 6 dead people if that happened. In this example it was the 5 people's fault for not taking care of their own health. One healthy person should not have to sacrifice himself to save 5 irresponsible people (unless he wants to). The healthy person deserves to live for being responsible.

This seems more of a cop-out more than an answer. Theoretically say that the opperations will be a sucess, what would your answer be then?

 

[Dre89]

You can't kill yourself in the second scenario, because then no one could implant the organs.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

So your the doctor in this situation? That could have been made more clear earlier.

 

[Dre89]

But it's assumed the reader knows that they're forced to make a moral decision either way, that's the point of these thought experiments. If there was an easy way out, the experiment would be pointless.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I'm interested in what would you choose, and why?

 

[Dre89]

I use the double effect principle, which allows to say yes to 1,and no to 2.

The DE says that it's ok to do say yes in 1, because you don't intend the death of the isolated person. Turning the train onto them is a consequence of doing the good, but you still hope they don't die.

Whereas in 2, you intend the death of the healthy person, he needs to die for you to achieve the good.

However though, I still think using the
DE is letting 4 extra people die, just to preserve my moral conscience. It still seems to be abit of moral
egoism to me, so I don't really know what I think is right.

 

[Sephiroths Masamune]

I agree completely, on your reasoning on them.

Either way on the second choice you could deem your chioce as moral. Some may think that taking that life to save the others is moral. Even though you may look selfish in your eyes, but there could be someone equally selfish on the other side.

 

[Thino]

the second choice has also no sense of emergency mentioned anywhere , because usually patients needing organs can usually wait for a long time , I would say no by the logic of being able to wait for another person to be able to give the organs and it doesnt necessarily needs to be the healthy person that is sitting there

whereas the run-away train is out of control and you have to make a quick and fast decision , decide who is going to die and who is not before the train comes.

but theres also the fact that , in the first scenario , you are in control in a sense since you're the one "deciding" who will die , whereas in the second , the person's will has to be taken in account in order to accomplish what should be the decision in both cases aka saving the most lives

 

[TheOriginalSmasher]

1. A run-away train is heading towards 5 people, who cannot get out of the way. You however, are right next to a lever which can turn the train onto another track, where there is one person who will be killed instead, meaning you would have directly killed said person. Do you turn the train onto the track with one person? 2. There are five ill people in a hosptial, all needing a different organ. However, there is a healthy person sitting in the waiting room. Do you kill the healthy person, and use his organs to save the five other people?

This is really something where, in MY opinion, depends on the person(s) that are going to die. If the group of 5 people are criminals, I say let them die, if the one person is, lets just say, a priest, Then I say let him live, (assuming the other 5 are criminals).

As far as 2. It is pretty much the same scenario, Will the organs keep them alive, and for how many years? etc.

It really depends on who the people are, instead of the situation.

If they were all 20 year old males / females, I would say yes to 1, no to 2.

 

[Sieguest]

While earlier I did point out that operating under some assumptions is counterproductive, I would like to note that there are some assumptions that are not stated in the OP. All of them in reference to question 2.

1. It is assumed that the operation will be successful and that there will be no rejection of the donated organ by the host body.

2. It is assumed that the patients will perish if action is not taken at the time you consider the problem.

Illness is a result of irresponsibility? Please elaborate.

Given what you were responding to, I see the point you're making, though to be fair there are circumstances where someone's illness falls back on the person's irresponsibility. An example being heart problems due to being overweight, tuberculosis or other lung problems due to smoking, or someone over exerting themself and running down their immune system leaving them open to be afflicted with an illness.