Moral Thought Experiments

[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 firsto ne, and no for the second one. If you do the same, how are the two examples any different?

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Saw this on a youtube video, and this did have a real life implication from Katrina as well.

I'll grab the link and post it to add to the discussion.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I honestly can't decide. However, I realise that both examples are in effect the same. When one looks upon it through a consequentialists eyes, (ie. at the end result produced), the trades are exactly the same; 1 life for 5 others.

However, when you look at what you're actually doing in both, there is a slight difference. In the latter example, you're actually directly killing someone, in the second, you're flicking a switch to do so.

 

[rvkevin]

1. Yes.
2. It depends on how important you think doctor-patient trust is. Would a breach in that trust of that magnitude result in four or more deaths from people not visiting hospitals? It seems plausible. For that reason, I would say not.

 

[Sucumbio]

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?

No. I'm not a yard operator, and I am not responsible for the situation the 5 people and 1 person are in. Purposefully killing 1 person to save 5 is unjustified to me, because to me there's no proof that the 5 would have died, they'd have to die first for me to think that I maybe should have chosen to move the train, but by then it's too late anyway, so the whole thing's moot. Better to just stand by the lever and watch helplessly, at least I can say I had nothing to do with it (whatever it is that put the 5 people/1 person in that position to begin with.)

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 way, first of all there's no guarantee the healthy person's organs would not be rejected by any of the 5 hosts. Also the 5 people were already sick and dying, the healthy person did not equate into their situation, ergo they didn't make them need the organs to begin with, so why should they have to sacrifice themselves for the sake of 5 strangers? Lastly and most importantly the act of killing one person to "save" 5 is a near-sighted act. If the healthy person does in fact wish to sacrifice themselves for the others, fine, but to be murdered in cold blood just so their organs can be harvested, is about the same as curing a cold by cutting off the head.

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

I answered No to both, and yet they're not exactly the same. The first one is less direct in terms of the act of killing, it's death through indecision, vs the second one, which is an outright decision to kill. Though they both have the same results (1 dies or 5 die) the moral dilemma the person is faced with is greater in the first example, it's actually quite easy to not murder someone to harvest their organs to save 5 people, considering all the factors (wrongful death, organ compatibility, it's a hospital and people die all the time from not getting the organs they need, etc.)

 

[rvkevin]

Sucumbrio,
You're missing the point of the hypothetical, all you're doing is challenging the assumptions built into them. Saying "I'm not a yard operator" would be like responding to the hypothetical of being a doctor in hospital before Katrina by saying, "no, I'm not a doctor so I would never be responsible for such a situation". It sidesteps the entire issue. Also, its a given that you are knowledgeable of the situation and you know what the outcomes will be to such a degree that you and everyone else are certain of them given the different actions. Saying "there's no proof that the 5 would have died" might as well be the equivalent of "well, how do I know that the lever won't set off a nuclear bomb?" The outcomes are set to test your criteria for moral decisions, not for you to contest their accuracy.

A hypothetical to test your reluctance to involve yourself in a situation. You are swimming in a public pool and a child playing next to the edge falls in and can't stay above the surface. You are the closest, and everyone else seems not to have noticed. Do you save the child or let the child drown? Do you think it is acceptable to not help simply because "at least I can say I had nothing to do with it"?

To be fair, Dre didn't include the assumptions that normally correspond to the second scenario. The doctor knows the person's organ are compatible with the five people, successful operations, etc. It may be important to note whether lifespan post operation would be a factor for some. The point is basically to see what criteria you set for deciding whether such an action is acceptable. For example, if you use the expected total number of years, it may not be acceptable to do now, but someone may think it would be perfectly acceptable with further advancements in medical technology.

 

[Dre89]

Just to contribute-

By applying a single moral principle/theory I can say:
1. Yes.
2. No

Secondly, I disagree with the 'You don't know they will die' line of reasoning. The odds are heavily in favour them dying, and ignoring that is neglect, which is itself immoral.

If you're going to use that line of reasoning, then if there's a child drowng in a pond near me, and I am wearing some new pants i just bought, can I then rightfully say 'I don't want to ruin these pants, and I don't know for the sure that the child will drown, therefore I won't go in and get my pants dirty'.

 

[SuperBowser]

Ha, I had a similar question to this in an interview years ago. I sat in silence for like 30 seconds before I spoke.

personally, my answer is probably no to both questions. I would just find such an action too difficult in real life. By touching the lever, it's like I killed them!

But logically speaking, I think my answer is yes for the first question and no to the second. I'm going to answer both questions as intended; other factors do not matter and we must assume either 5 people or 1 person will die in both scenarios. Introducing qualifiers/rules/facts to bypass the presented options is missing the point and cheating!

1) I think there is a subtle difference in both scenarios. With the speeding train there is no ''guilty'' party to speak of. You are undeniably the one in power and you must choose who dies. While no potential victim has made an action to bring about their death, somebody must die.

It is a greater good to kill fewer people than more people. You have no further knowledge, this is what you must go on. Talking about who may be more valuable is pointless. We do not know each individual to make such judgements; our limited capacity means the larger group must be assumed more valuable. As such, there is only one decision: you must kill, kill less people.

2) There is no forced decision here, no necessity to kill. Death is not due to your actions. As such, other moral principles may come into play that were perhaps not possible in the previous scenario e.g. our human rights.

 

[Dre89]

2) There is no forced decision here, no necessity to kill. Death is not due to your actions. As such, other moral principles may come into play that were perhaps not possible in the previous scenario e.g. our human rights.

But in the train track scenario if you did nothing technically death would not be aresult of your action.

In stead, in both cases, the death of five people is a result of one's non-action, which can be possibly classed as negligence, thus being immroal.

 

[SuperBowser]

But in the train track scenario if you did nothing technically death would not be aresult of your action.

In stead, in both cases, the death of five people is a result of one's non-action, which can be possibly classed as negligence, thus being immroal.

I suppose I agree with you on some level as I would probably do nothing in real life.

However, it's a bit of a grey area. The truth is that if you find yourself in the situation of a runaway train where you know exactly what will happen if you touch levers then you may as well be the one driving it! It's an unfortunate position, but you are the only person available that can control it. It becomes your responsibility who gets run over. If you do not accept that, you can justify your inaction.

If you woke up in a car (maybe you had a seizure, doesn't really matter) that is headed for 5 people and you just have enough time to turn the wheel so you only run over 1 person, would you? Or would you choose inaction

 

[Sucumbio]

Sucumbrio,
You're missing the point of the hypothetical, all you're doing is challenging the assumptions built into them.

True. I hate hypothetical dilemmas of this nature, because they're typically absurd, requiring ridiculous scenarios to test an obvious question: "Do you weigh life?" "If so, how? By what criterion?" etc. Such questions are morally heavy, and intellectually weak. Without being able to see the futures of those involved so as to objectively determine their life's worth at the time of their "natural" death, killing them "prematurely" seems irresponsible, be it the 5, or the 1. The "best" answer is to kill the 1 and save the 5, under the axiom "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one." But to me that's hogwash. The 5 could be, I dunno, 5 felons who otherwise would spend their lives meaninglessly in prison, and the 1 could be Bill Gates. Or, the 5 could be felons who each find God and turn their lives around, while still in prison, write books, and influence millions, and the 1 could still be Bill Gates, and now you've got a real hard time deciding which of the lot is actually "worth" more.

You are swimming in a public pool and a child playing next to the edge falls in and can't stay above the surface. You are the closest, and everyone else seems not to have noticed. Do you save the child or let the child drown? Do you think it is acceptable to not help simply because "at least I can say I had nothing to do with it"?

This one is not hogwash. I'd definitely help the child. There's no penalty in your example for helping the child, so it's a much easier decision. If you'd have added "but by saving the child, someone else dies" or whatever then I'd likely be as flippant.

The point is basically to see what criteria you set for deciding whether such an action is acceptable.

None, that I can think of. The second example asks if performing surgery to save life by taking someone else's life is acceptable. I find that it is not. Even if 1 person's sacrifice could save 100 people, or thousands, or even millions (perhaps their blood is special and needed to synthesize a cure to a super-flu) it's still not justified. Nature selected those 5, 50, or 5 million people to die, and for the 1 person to live. To interfere with this, is to attempt to master nature, which never bodes well, and I'd be strongly against it in any situation, especially one such as the example, where again there can be nothing absolutely known about the futures of the patients or the lamb.

 

[Sieguest]

For the first,yYes. Either way you go, you would be responsible for the death of a person or people. If you didn't turn the lever. You're responsible via negligence. If you did turn it, you intentionally committed the act. I think it would be in best interest to keep more people alive.

For the second, no. It's not in the best interest of a doctor to kill a completely healthy and uninvolved person to save others who by some other circumstance ended up in the position they are now. His professional name would be shattered and subsequently he would lose his living. If the doctor has done all he can without pushing his professional name into a pool of sharks. Then he is not at fault for the deaths of the five ill people.

 

[Dre89]

It gets annoying hearing people say 'these are irrelevant, inb real life you can never know etc.'

We're not judging the person with the decision. It's simply to test out the practicality of certain moral theories.

This thread can be considered a criticism of utilitarianism, because many people here who adopt utilitarian principle would probably say yes to 1. and no to 2., potentially displaying the flaws in utilitariabism.

This one is not hogwash. I'd definitely help the child. There's no penalty in your example for helping the child, so it's a much easier decision. If you'd have added "but by saving the child, someone else dies" or whatever then I'd likely be as flippant.

The penalty is ruining your pants. The point is to show the whole 'I don't know that they will die therefore I won't participate' is flawed because I can then say I won't save the child to avoid the penalty or ruining my pants.

If you say that the penalty is only trivial, and should be ignored, you then have the issue of determining when and when not the penalty should be ignored.

Nature selected those 5, 50, or 5 million people to die, and for the 1 person to live. To interfere with this, is to attempt to master nature, which never bodes well, and I'd be strongly against it in any situation, especially one such as the example, where again there can be nothing absolutely known about the futures of the patients or the lamb.

This doesn't make sense. If you mean 'nature' as in natural, non-human causes, then if the situation is created by an evil human, then no, nature didn't plan for it.


If when you say 'nature' you mean fate, then that's still flawed because I could make the sacrifice and then say that nature selected the one sacrificed person to die.

No matter which one you chose, by the logic of either one if I see a kid drowning in a pond, I shouldn't save him because 'nature slected him to drown, and it's bad to interfere with nature'. Now Sucumbio you even said you'd save the kid in the pond, so what are you saying, that it's ok to violate what nature has selected when there's no penalty? Or are you saying that when there is no penalty, it's not what nature ahs slected, nature has sleceted you to save him?

It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Sucumbio]

This thread can be considered a criticism of utilitarianism, because many people here who adopt utilitarian principle would probably say yes to 1. and no to 2., potentially displaying the flaws in utilitariabism.

How does it demonstrate a flaw? Because the two scenarios are the "same" yet have typically opposite results? You'll have to do a better job proving they're the same for me to believe that. As of now, they're not the same. In the first, both groups (the 1 and the 5) are in danger (on the train tracks). In the second, only 1 group is in danger (the sick people).

If you say that the penalty is only trivial, and should be ignored, you then have the issue of determining when and when not the penalty should be ignored.

Correct. This would be "act utilitarianism." In the drowning child example, the penalty of getting your pants wet is trivial, so action is warranted.

Take a drowning child at sea, something that actually happened to me. "Help!" cries a father who's gotten too far out and can't swim him and his child back to shore under his own strength. "Are you serious?" says I, making sure he's serious. "Yes!! *gulps water*" Being an Eagle Scout and a certified lifeguard I felt confident I could aid. I determine the consequences to be that they panic (this is what you're taught) and use me as a human "ladder" to keep from drowning. I go anyway, allowing the child to use me as a raft as I swim ashore; the father is aided by an actual lifeguard who's finally noticed the commotion. He's had to wait an extra 20 seconds for the help, but because he's no longer carrying his child, he can stay afloat, just needs the help getting back to shore. Both are saved, the child due to me, the man due to the professional.

In this scenario, I could have just as well determined the risk too great to myself, and instead not swam to the father/son to aid them. The lifeguard would have still noticed them when they did, and -might- have gotten to them in time. Then again, the tide was going out, and on that side of Ship Island, and at that distance from shore, moves VERY fast, and can take someone out to deep sea (over 100 foot deep) in less than 10 seconds. There's a lot going on in this decision. If I don't act, how will I live with myself knowing I might have been able to save them (if one or both drowned). If I do act, and end up dying myself, what will my wife think? I chose to act.

Now if the situation were a bit different, say... this exact scenario but add that there's a shark or two circling them, do I still act? Hell no, lol. Let them be shark bait. Why? Because I may be trained as a lifeguard, but I'm not trained in shark handling, and therefore I feel I'd be "off the hook" so to speak. I could live with myself. "Dude, you let them drown?" "yeah, real unfortunate, but there were sharks, man, and I ain't goin' out like that."

This doesn't make sense. If you mean 'nature' as in natural, non-human causes, then if the situation is created by an evil human, then no, nature didn't plan for it.

If when you say 'nature' you mean fate, then that's still flawed because I could make the sacrifice and then say that nature selected the one sacrificed person to die.

This shouldn't be unclear. 5 million people come down with a deadly disease. The disease is natural. As in, it was not created in a lab by humans, it was found in nature. These 5 million will die, as in their immune response is ill equipped to battle the organism, unless they receive treatment by means of a drug that can be synthesized by exsanguinating one specific person. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the 5 million?

No. The 5 million people came down with the illness through no fault of their own. They weren't... "walking near the pool" if you will. Or swimming too far out to sea. Though technically a poor or incorrect usage of the phrase "natural selection" it's not uncommon vernacular these days to call it as such. The one person CAN choose to sacrifice themselves, and go down in history as the savior of 5 million people. But that's up to them. I personally would not. I would rather the 5 million die. There's 4.95 billion+ more where they came from. If at the time of my death my blood can be used, fine. I'll gladly donate it. But I didn't get them sick, nor did any other human (since I'm a fellow human I may take shared responsibility because I too am human, and the sacrifice may make sense to me), so it's not warranted.

 

[Dre89]

How does it demonstrate a flaw? Because the two scenarios are the "same" yet have typically opposite results? You'll have to do a better job proving they're the same for me to believe that. As of now, they're not the same. In the first, both groups (the 1 and the 5) are in danger (on the train tracks). In the second, only 1 group is in danger (the sick people).

Because most utilitarians, and people in general would say yes to 1 and no to 2, suggesting that utilitarianism asks to do what appears unnatural to us.

Secondly, only one group on the train traick is in danger, the one person isn't in danger unless you turn the train onto them.

Correct. This would be "act utilitarianism." In the drowning child example, the penalty of getting your pants wet is trivial, so action is warranted.

This shouldn't be unclear. 5 million people come down with a deadly disease. The disease is natural. As in, it was not created in a lab by humans, it was found in nature. These 5 million will die, as in their immune response is ill equipped to battle the organism, unless they receive treatment by means of a drug that can be synthesized by exsanguinating one specific person. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the 5 million?

No. The 5 million people came down with the illness through no fault of their own. They weren't... "walking near the pool" if you will. Or swimming too far out to sea. Though technically a poor or incorrect usage of the phrase "natural selection" it's not uncommon vernacular these days to call it as such. The one person CAN choose to sacrifice themselves, and go down in history as the savior of 5 million people. But that's up to them. I personally would not. I would rather the 5 million die. There's 4.95 billion+ more where they came from. If at the time of my death my blood can be used, fine. I'll gladly donate it. But I didn't get them sick, nor did any other human (since I'm a fellow human I may take shared responsibility because I too am human, and the sacrifice may make sense to me), so it's not warranted.

What if the 5 million people came down with a man-made disease, do you then sacrifice the one person?

Or what if your child gets bitten by a lethal spider? It's a natural occurrence, and our bodies aren't designed to cope with this specific spider's poison, so do you just let your child die because it's natural?

 

[Sucumbio]

Because most utilitarians, and people in general would say yes to 1 and no to 2, suggesting that utilitarianism asks to do what appears unnatural to us.

Dude, you just literally re-said what I said and gave that as the answer to my question. -_-

"Because the two scenarios are the "same" yet have typically opposite results?" (which you've yet to prove they're the same. Hint: You get different results because they're different scenarios)

Ok, just answer me this, then: Why does saying "yes" to 1 and "no" to 2 suggest that utilitarianism asks us to do what appears to be unnatural to us?

What if the 5 million people came down with a man-made disease, do you then sacrifice the one person?

since I'm a fellow human I may take shared responsibility because I too am human, and the sacrifice may make sense to me

Though I'd still not sacrifice them against their will. If it were me, personally... I'd be more inclined to sacrificing myself in this instance, because of the man-made element.

Or what if your child gets bitten by a lethal spider? It's a natural occurrence, and our bodies aren't designed to cope with this specific spider's poison, so do you just let your child die because it's natural?

Of course not. That's an entirely different scenario. 5 million strangers vs -my- child.

Each and every situation has to be accounted for. You have to rationalize your situation -before- making a moral judgment. Rule utilitarianism may seem decent on the surface, but for instance "thou shalt not kill" becomes a difficult situation if your life is being threatened and you must act in self defense.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

I would say yes to the first one and no to the second.

In the first scenario, both sides are on a coruse for death (wordplay FTW), so it would seem simpler to kill 1 person to save 5.

The second scenario is much more selfish. Here, if you select option 2 (ignore the person) that person will live, making the situation less dire. Besides, aren't ther such things as organ donors?

Also, are thepeople in scenario 1 tied to the tracks? Otherwise, they could just run off the tracks.

 

[Dre89]

In the first example both parties aren't in danger. The isolated person isn't in a any danger unless you turn the train onto the track they're on.

With regards to them being tied down or not, obviously the point is they can't escape, if they could escape it would defeat the purpose of the thought experiment.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

In the first example both parties aren't in danger. The isolated person isn't in a any danger unless you turn the train onto the track they're on.

Sorry, my bad wording. What I meant was "you flip the switch, 1-5 people will die in a matter of seconds", compared to scenario 2, which there would probably be more time.

With regards to them being tied down or not, obviously the point is they can't escape, if they could escape it would defeat the purpose of the thought experiment.

Asking stuff like that is the simplest way to end a morality debate.

 

[Dre89]

You're not ending it, you're avoiding it.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Technically, I am ending it, with my response being "do nothing and watch the people get off the track"

 

[Dre89]

They can't get off the track.

Why are you wasting time with this?

Obviously if letting them get off the track was an option there'd be no point to the thought experiment.

The DH is no place to troll.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Okay, now that my question's answered, see my first post here for my points.

I wasn't "avoiding" it, as I had already given out points.

And it's not trolling, it's thinking outside the box.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I've had a think about both these situations again, and I've realised something I hadn't considered before. Just to note, I'm looking at this from a consequentialist point of view.

In the first situation, I would imagine that it would be safe to assume that all five people that would be saved are healthy. Now, they'd have many years ahead of them and be able to function in society as normal people, if they survived. In this case, it's a simple 1 for 5 trade, with no catches, (if the car misses them, well, it misses them, duh.). So, I'd say deal.

In the second, things get a little more complicated. The 5 people in hospital are sick, and need organ transplants. The healthy would be donor probably has many years of life ahead of him. The 5 people in hospital need his organs to survive. However, what's to say that the healthy man has the same blood type and is genetically similar? Nothing. So, there's now a distinct possibility that the healthy man's organs will be rejected by the recipients, and he would have died for nothing. Furthermore, when organ transplants occur, the recipient usually goes on immunosuppressive drugs. These suppress the immune system as the name suggests. This means that the recipients will not be able to resist infection or cancer as well as they used to. This will increase their likelihood of dying. These drugs also have side effects, which are probably fairly nasty. This means that, we're trading 1 healthy life, for 5, maybe less unhealthy and possibly painful lives. So I wouldn't approve of this.

 

[Dre89]

I've had a think about both these situations again, and I've realised something I hadn't considered before. Just to note, I'm looking at this from a consequentialist point of view.

In the first situation, I would imagine that it would be safe to assume that all five people that would be saved are healthy. Now, they'd have many years ahead of them and be able to function in society as normal people, if they survived. In this case, it's a simple 1 for 5 trade, with no catches, (if the car misses them, well, it misses them, duh.). So, I'd say deal.

In the second, things get a little more complicated. The 5 people in hospital are sick, and need organ transplants. The healthy would be donor probably has many years of life ahead of him. The 5 people in hospital need his organs to survive. However, what's to say that the healthy man has the same blood type and is genetically similar? Nothing. So, there's now a distinct possibility that the healthy man's organs will be rejected by the recipients, and he would have died for nothing. Furthermore, when organ transplants occur, the recipient usually goes on immunosuppressive drugs. These suppress the immune system as the name suggests. This means that the recipients will not be able to resist infection or cancer as well as they used to. This will increase their likelihood of dying. These drugs also have side effects, which are probably fairly nasty. This means that, we're trading 1 healthy life, for 5, maybe less unhealthy and possibly painful lives. So I wouldn't approve of this.

The reality is, this isn't why you said yes to 1 and no to 2.

What if in 1. You yourself had to physically kill a man to save the five on the track, and in 2, you just had to pull a lever to kill the person in the waiting room to save the five?

 

[Sucumbio]

you never did rebut my points, Dre.

bob, it's not about what would happen if the transplants don't work. you're to assume they'll survive just fine. the question at hand is whether or not you sacrifice a healthy person to make 5 sick people healthy, and the one healthy person dead.

The reality is, people say yes to 1 and no to 2 because they're different situations.

in the first situation, someone's going to die no matter what. So you HAVE to choose the greater good, saving as many people as possible.

in the second situation, you can still make the choice to save 5 for 1, but you can also choose to do nothing, and the 1 will live anyway. this is a tempting choice because you feel sympathetic for the 1, and not sympathetic for the 5 (they're sick, and dying, that's life, deal with it... why should one healthy person be murdered unwillingly for their sake?).

Therefore the idea that utilitarianism is somehow anti-logical, anti-natural, whatever word you're wanting to use... is false, at least based on this test. Now if you can come up with 2 scenarios that AREN'T so different, and yet STILL result in two different responses, then we have something.

 

[GoldShadow]

By applying a single moral principle/theory I can say:
1. Yes.
2. No

I think I can too!

Correct. This would be "act utilitarianism." In the drowning child example, the penalty of getting your pants wet is trivial, so action is warranted.

I believe the answer lies in a combination of act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism ("weak rule utilitarianism" I think is the term?).

The key is in the arbitrary nature of the single victim. In the train scenario, you can save five/kill one or kill five/save one. The key is that that one is not an arbitrary person. It is one specific person that happens to be at one specific unlucky location. We could ask, "would I be willing to kill any one person in order to save five?" but in this situation, that doesn't apply. It's irrelevant. You can't arbitrarily choose some other person to be 'the one' that dies. It is that specific person who's on the train tracks. Act utilitarianism takes over in this situation and lets us justifiably divert the train to kill that one specific person to save the five on the train.

I know I might've worded that in a confusing manner, but I think examining the next part of the problem should clarify what I'm saying. The next part of the problem is, of course, the other scenario: kill one healthy man to save five sick ones?

The issue here is the arbitrary nature of the single man. Why this single man? Essentially, you could replace this man with any other and it would be the same scenario. In other words, what if we don't take this healthy man in the waiting room, but we head to the restaurant across the street and grab someone from there? What if we take somebody walking on the street? In other words, to save those five people, it doesn't have to be this specific person. It can be any arbitrary healthy person. Here, we apply rule utilitarianism.

Would it be okay, every time there were five sick people, to sacrifice one healthy person at random to save them?

The answer is no, because this infringes on a greater good: human autonomy, the right to pursue life without fear of being sacrificed at random. This is because in this scenario, the one person could be any person, therefore, we have to consider the widespread consequences and implications of applying such a rule ("always sacrifice one person to save five") to everybody.

On the other hand, with the train scenario, you're not potentially infringing on everybody's right to life and autonomy, only those who happen to be unluckily positioned near train tracks.

Therefore, choosing to sacrifice one to save five in the train scenario is like the exception to the rule, an exception to the "weak rule" if you will. In this scenario, act utilitarianism takes over. In the other scenario, the general rule applies (general because this scenario can involve anybody and everybody, not just people haphazardly positioned near train tracks) and we can safely say that it would be immoral to sacrifice the one, on account of the rights to autonomy and life.


edit: Also, as a sidenote, interesting thread Dre! This got my brain muscle working.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

The reality is, this isn't why you said yes to 1 and no to 2.

Why do you say that?

What if in 1. You yourself had to physically kill a man to save the five on the track, and in 2, you just had to pull a lever to kill the person in the waiting room to save the five?

Would situation 2 still be harvesting the man's body for organs for transplanting? And would in situation 1 the 5 men saved be completely untouched?

bob, it's not about what would happen if the transplants don't work. you're to assume they'll survive just fine. the question at hand is whether or not you sacrifice a healthy person to make 5 sick people healthy, and the one healthy person dead.

Well, I'm just fleshing out the situation. But yeah, I'm kinda cheating.

And Goldshadow seemed to deal with this far better than I did.

 

[Dre89]

Why do you say that?



Would situation 2 still be harvesting the man's body for organs for transplanting? And would in situation 1 the 5 men saved be completely untouched?



Well, I'm just fleshing out the situation. But yeah, I'm kinda cheating.

And Goldshadow seemed to deal with this far better than I did.

Because Bob the reason why I think people say yes to 1 and not to 2 is because 2 is far more personal and 'gruesome' so to speak.

In 1, you just pull a lever and it's done. In 2, apart from the fact it require far more initiative, it requires a lot more effort, in that you're physically killing the eprson. It takes more to gruesomely kill someone than to just pull a lever.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Because Bob the reason why I think people say yes to 1 and not to 2 is because 2 is far more personal and 'gruesome' so to speak.

So, you think you can psychoanalyse me over the internet, and know more about my thoughts than I do?

In 1, you just pull a lever and it's done. In 2, apart from the fact it require far more initiative, it requires a lot more effort, in that you're physically killing the eprson. It takes more to gruesomely kill someone than to just pull a lever.

Sure, it's more gruesome to kill somebody, rather than flick a switch, but the end result is different, as I've shown earlier. That's the reason, and Goldshadow makes plenty of sense.

 

[KrazyGlue]

For this to be a valid moral experiment, we have to assume the 5 people would die normally, but by killing the one person you will definitely save the 5. Onward:

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?

No.

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.

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

It's hard to say no to both, but there is a reason. In both situations, if the five people die, you have not directly caused anyone to die. If you kill the one person, you have. So, from that standpoint, your choice is really to either kill one person, or to not kill one person. If the other 5 people die, you haven't done anything wrong. But if you kill the one person, you have done something wrong; you've committed murder.

----------------------------------------

To me, an interesting question would be: "If you can sacrifice yourself to save a stranger from certain death, should you do it?" (If necessary, we could assume the stranger is exactly like you in every way.)

 

[Dre89]

The thing is Krazyglue, your answers are essentially saying that your moral conscience is more important to you than the lives of four people.

With regards to your own question, I was going to do one like that but more complicated. Most people would say they would sacrifice their life in that case.

But what if your life is more valuable to other people than the person you're sacrificing yourself for? Should the scientist who has the cure for cancer sacrifice his life for a homless person, before he's revealed the cure?

The whole point of the sacrifice is to put others before yourself, to benefit others, but then again staying alive and revealing the cure will benefit more people, so what do you do?

Now if you say that you wouldn't sacrifice your life because you have the cure, how do you determine when your life is valuable enough to others not to sacrifice? Where is the cut off line?

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

To me, an interesting question would be: "If you can sacrifice yourself to save a stranger from certain death, should you do it?" (If necessary, we could assume the stranger is exactly like you in every way.)

No, I'm me. I value my own consciousness over a copy of my consciousness. See the thing is that I as an entity cease to exist, but a copy of me is still there.

I value myself above a copy of me. This could be justified for the main reasons:

"I think therefore I am", basically, I can't be sure that the copy of me exists, but I can be sure I exist, so if I die to save the copy, how do I know that I'm saving anything?

And I'm a selfish git, self preservation is important.

Well, actually, if it was a split-second decision, I don't know what I'd do...

 

[Dre89]

Australians are so selfish lol.

Also, what do you mean by other people being copies of you? I can understand accepting them as real, individual entities, or saying that other people don't exist, but copies? Does that mean that other people are real, but not individual?

 

[KrazyGlue]

Bob Jane, try to think of the other person not as a copy of you, but a completely separate individual who just so happens to be exactly like you. Ignore who would be emotionally affected by you dying. Just consider the question at its purest form, without any outside considerations. Should you sacrifice yourself? Or does it not even matter whether you do or not?

The thing is Krazyglue, your answers are essentially saying that your moral conscience is more important to you than the lives of four people.

I'm not talking about my conscience or judgment of the situation. I'm just weighing the morals of the situation. This is without consideration of what I or anyone else would think about the situation. If the 5 people die, I have done nothing morally wrong. If I kill the one person, I have done something morally wrong; I've taken a perfectly healthy and safe person and killed them against their will. Note that I am not saying how I would feel about it, but simply stating the facts about the consequences of either option.

 

[Dre89]

But your still prioritizing your moral well being, regardless of what you think about it.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

Bob Jane, try to think of the other person not as a copy of you, but a completely separate individual who just so happens to be exactly like you. Ignore who would be emotionally affected by you dying. Just consider the question at its purest form, without any outside considerations. Should you sacrifice yourself? Or does it not even matter whether you do or not?

Okay, fair enough, but replace "copies of me" with "other guy" or "clone" or whatever. It doesn't really make much difference. I'm a selfish guy.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

KrazyGlue could be providing a public good according to Malthusian interpretation. Having five people die due to a train instead of one means that there are proportionally that many less people to cause strain on resources, reproduce and exponentially contribute to population boom effects due to their progeny and their progeny's progeny.

Also there might be a greater chance that the train spirals out of control after hitting five bodies rather than just one. Especially if these bodies are aligned along the rails of the train which may cause it to careen off the tracks. In this case, not only does non-action guarantee the death of four more people, but also favors the possibility of injuring and/or killing people in the train and inhibiting their ability to look for mates and sustain life outside of their own that will result in competition against you and your progeny in the future.

The same goes with the doctor. Preserving the integrity of the one patient and letting the five other patients die would be providing a public good for everyone else that will have to compete for resources against their progeny in a zero-sum scenario.

 

[KrazyGlue]

But your still prioritizing your moral well being, regardless of what you think about it.

I'm just saying which decision to make is morally right or wrong. If morals aren't in consideration, how is this a moral thought experiment?

KrazyGlue could be providing a public good according to Malthusian interpretation. Having five people die due to a train instead of one means that there are proportionally that many less people to cause strain on resources, reproduce and exponentially contribute to population boom effects due to their progeny and their progeny's progeny.

The same goes with the doctor. Preserving the integrity of the one patient and letting the five other patients die would be providing a public good for everyone else that will have to compete for resources against their progeny in a zero-sum scenario.

Not what I'm arguing, but interesting nonetheless.

Also there might be a greater chance that the train spirals out of control after hitting five bodies rather than just one. Especially if these bodies are aligned along the rails of the train which may cause it to careen off the tracks. In this case, not only does non-action guarantee the death of four more people, but also favors the possibility of injuring and/or killing people in the train and inhibiting their ability to look for mates and sustain life outside of their own that will result in competition against you and your progeny in the future.

We're assuming the train is not going to spiral out of control. We have to assume that everything is the same no matter what you choose, the only differences being how many people died and whether or not you killed someone.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

We're assuming the train is not going to spiral out of control. We have to assume that everything is the same no matter what you choose, the only differences being how many people died and whether or not you killed someone.

I know. Just wishful thinking.