Old Ethical Dilema

[blackmage_nuke]

(Particularly for those who said they wouldnt kill anyone in the thread about killing people)

You are on an uncontrollable train headed towards a rail switch. There are five people tied down to one branch of the track and one person tied to the other. You can leave the switch alone and it will kill the five or you can switch the track and it will kill the one. What do you do?

[Slothy]

Switch it is the obvious answer.

[The Summoner of Leviathan]

Honestly, I do not know. I might not do anything. Part of me reasons that I had not set up this situation thus I would not be responsible for the five deaths (even though I would feel guilty for it). The responsible person would be the one who set the train in such a way and who did not try to warn the five people (or who tied them up). Perhaps, this is just me trying to escape responsibility and rationalizing it. It is a criticism I would accept. However, I am always leery of ethical mathematics.

[Shauna]

My friend and I had a discussion about this. I said I would probably switch to minimise casualties. He said he would leave it, and he'd not be held responsible for anything. I pointed out that coming across this and choosing not to do anything is still a decision that is causing deaths, and he got super mad at this. Did not want to accept that choosing to do nothing was still a choice.

[Quindiana Jones]

I'd kill Psychotic.

[Madame Adequate]

My friend and I had a discussion about this. I said I would probably switch to minimise casualties. He said he would leave it, and he'd not be held responsible for anything. I pointed out that coming across this and choosing not to do anything is still a decision that is causing deaths, and he got super mad at this. Did not want to accept that choosing to do nothing was still a choice.

Well, you could make the case that inaction, by definition, cannot have moral weight. Morality requires intent and action, and if someone does not act then it is merely as though they were not there to begin with.

Not that I necessarily agree with that stance.

[Shauna]

Of course, I understand where he was coming from. I just disagreed, and was spurred on by his adamant mad reaction to continue to argue against him.


I say that I'd switch it, but I wonder if I actually would be able to if I came up against the situation.

[blackmage_nuke]

I'd switch it because the probability of one person wanting to sacrifice themselves for those five someone else is greater than the probability of all five individuals wanting to sacrifice themselves for one person. And if Im wrong and those five wanted me to run them over to save the one I wouldnt feel bad about playing the odds.

If they were all yelling out "dont kill me ahhhhhhhh" I would probably still switch the track

[Old Manus]

I'd flick the switch, but nothing happens, the switch breaks, the train gets derailed, we all die, then I realise it's the 1970s and I'm travelling on British Rail.

[Ergroilnin]

Kill them all so it's fair!

[escobert]

My friend and I had a discussion about this. I said I would probably switch to minimise casualties. He said he would leave it, and he'd not be held responsible for anything. I pointed out that coming across this and choosing not to do anything is still a decision that is causing deaths, and he got super mad at this. Did not want to accept that choosing to do nothing was still a choice.

a lot of people see to have trouble with this. It's my first thought when I see that someone video taped and accident or whatever instead of helping.

and I wouldn't like to do it but I would switch to minimize the deaths.

[Del Murder]

Got to switch it, unless I knew the one person, or the five people were all buttholes.

[Quindiana Jones]

I'd flick the switch, but nothing happens, the switch breaks, the train gets derailed, we all die, then I realise it's the 1970s and I'm travelling on British Rail.

That's hardly fair. British engineering gets a crappy rap from the 70s and 80s, but mostly it's just exaggerated nonsense. Fact is, we have had some of the most impressive feats of transport engineering known to man.

[Slothy]

Switch it is the obvious answer.

1. Unless I knew that all of the five were rapists or murderers or something, and I knew the one person was a normal/good person.

2. Unless the one person was a loved one. It might be morally wrong, but I'm not sacrificing one person I love for five people I don't know.

If any of those possibilities were noted in the question I might agree with you. But since we're not told anything about the people, presumably we know nothing about them other than their numbers and locations.

Switch it is still the only moral answer.

As for the question of whether doing nothing is or isn't moral as discussed by Shauna and MILF, it depends. If you do nothing because you have no knowledge of the situation at hand then sure, you're not responsible. But since the situation presupposes that you are aware, doing nothing is still a choice being consciously made. Doing nothing is choosing to let five people die rather than minimizing the casualties and killing one. You may not have set events in motion, but you chose not to save four people when you had the power to do so.

Not a good choice.

[Madame Adequate]

Yes but it's also funny.