Ethics Questions

[Kandahar]

This question is a two-parter.

1. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. You can flip a switch that will send the train on to a second track...but there is one person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. There is a fat guy standing next to you. The only way you can stop the train is to push him in front of the train. Should you push him?

Is there a distinction between these two scenarios? If so, what is it?

 

[Gibberish]

There is no difference besides the way either a single person of five people die.

In the end the least lives lost is the best choice to me. This is of course somewhat easy decision taking this stance because it is fact that either the one person will die or five people will die.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It depends on who the five people are, and who the one person is.

Where does my loyalty lie?

 

[jfuh]

This question is a two-parter.

1. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. You can flip a switch that will send the train on to a second track...but there is one person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. There is a fat guy standing next to you. The only way you can stop the train is to push him in front of the train. Should you push him?

Is there a distinction between these two scenarios? If so, what is it?

1. Flip the switch and strategically place a stone or two at the junction so as to derail the train as it turns, there by avoiding the person all together.

2. Yes.

 

[FallingPianos]

It depends on who the five people are, and who the one person is.

Where does my loyalty lie?

I think this question is based on the assumption that all else is equal.

 

[FallingPianos]

1. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. You can flip a switch that will send the train on to a second track...but there is one person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

no.

2. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. There is a fat guy standing next to you. The only way you can stop the train is to push him in front of the train. Should you push him?

no.

Is there a distinction between these two scenarios? If so, what is it?

I'm not sure. I'm still working the logic out. but it seems to me that one cannot force another person to give up their life to save another. both scenariors require you to do that, though in the first a significant amount of force has already been applied for you. I suppose the difference between the two is a matter of degree, but not principle.

 

[Saboteur]

I'd go find the villian and punch him.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

This question is a two-parter.

1. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. You can flip a switch that will send the train on to a second track...but there is one person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. There is a fat guy standing next to you. The only way you can stop the train is to push him in front of the train. Should you push him?

Is there a distinction between these two scenarios? If so, what is it?

1. Should has nothing to do with it, will I, probably.
2. Fat people stop trains only in cartoons, but I wouldnt push him.

There is a distinction, in the 2nd scenario the fat person isnt already at risk from the train, and you sacrifice him. Gibberish's answer is very utilitarian of him.

Im something of a principal or rule utilitarian.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think this question is based on the assumption that all else is equal.

Which might be alright, in a very abstract sense-- but it is impossible. No two humans are of equal value, and no two humans are of equal relationship to me.

 

[FallingPianos]

Which might be alright, in a very abstract sense-- but it is impossible. No two humans are of equal value, and no two humans are of equal relationship to me.

what about complete strangers?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

what about complete strangers?

Complete strangers, of indeterminate nationality and no means whatsoever of estimating their contributions to either my society, their own society, or the human species as a whole?

In that case, yes, I would go with numbers. But in that case, we've gone from "hypothetical" into "abstract" and beyond into "incomprehensible".

 

[FallingPianos]

Complete strangers, of indeterminate nationality and no means whatsoever of estimating their contributions to either my society, their own society, or the human species as a whole?

In that case, yes, I would go with numbers. But in that case, we've gone from "hypothetical" into "abstract" and beyond into "incomprehensible".

well, the whole thing struck me as incomprehensible to begin with.

 

[Kandahar]

There is a distinction, in the 2nd scenario the fat person isnt already at risk from the train, and you sacrifice him.

Lachean, you raise an interesting distinction. But as I see it, neither the fat guy standing next to you, nor the one person tied to the alternate track, is really "at risk" from the train unless you choose to act.

I think the reason most people are comfortable answering "Yes" to #1, but are more squeamish with #2, is because it doesn't seem like their actions play as big of a role in the actual death in #1. Since it just requires flipping a switch rather than physically killing someone. But it seems more like irrational human nature as opposed to a self-consistent system of ethics.

Which leads me to another question I wanted to ask of everyone: How important is it that a system of ethics BE self-consistent? Is it better to have certain principles that you always uphold, or is it better to be willing to adjust your morals depending on the situation?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think the reason most people are comfortable answering "Yes" to #1, but are more squeamish with #2, is because it doesn't seem like their actions play as big of a role in the actual death in #1.

If it's morally justified (or obliged) for me to kill a man by pushing a button three thousand miles away-- or, say, by telling another man to push a button thirty thousand feet overhead-- then it's equally justified for me to kill that man by strangling him with my bare hands.

It honestly frightens me that other people don't see this.

How important is it that a system of ethics BE self-consistent? Is it better to have certain principles that you always uphold, or is it better to be willing to adjust your morals depending on the situation?

I think it's absolutely important to have an internally consistent set of moral values, and principles that you follow in upholding those values. Where "adjusting to the situation" comes into play is in recognizing a priority for those values and principles, and knowing when to let a lesser one slide in order to uphold another.

This... is another thing that frightens me, as it seems that most peoples' moral beliefs are entirely inconsistent and riddled with mutually exclusive beliefs.

 

[Apostle13]

I had to google this story up. I had first heard it long ago at a ministers conference.

________________________________________________________________
A true story:
There once was this turntable bridge which spanned a large river. During most of the day, the bridge sat parallel with the tracks, allowing ships to pass freely on both sides. But at certain times each day a train would come along, and the bridge would be turned sideways across the river allowing the trains to cross.

A switchman sat in a small shack on one side of the river where he operated the controls to turn the bridge and lock it into place as the train crossed.

One evening as the switchman was waiting for the last train of the day to come, he looked off into the distance through the dimming twilight and caught sight of the train's light. He stepped to the controls and waited until the train was within a prescribed distance when he was to turn the bridge into position.

He turned the bridge, but to his horror, found that the locking control didn't work. If the bridge was not locked into position securely, it would wobble back and forth at the ends when the train came onto it. This would cause the train to jump the track and go crashing into the river.

This train was a passenger train with many people aboard. He left the bridge turned across the river, and hurried across the bridge to the other side of the river where there was a lever he could use to operate the lock manually.

He could hear the rumble of the train now. He took hold of the lever and leaned backward to apply pressure to keep the mechanism locked.

Many lives depended on this man's strength.

Then, coming across the bridge from the direction of his control shack he heard a sound that made his blood run cold: "Daddy, where are you?" His four year old son was crossing the bridge to look for him.

His first impulse was to cry out to the child, "Run, run!" but the train was to close, the tiny legs would not make it across the bridge in time.

The man almost lifted the lever to run and snatch up his son, and carry him to safety, but he realized he could not get back to the lever in time.

Either the people on the train or his little son must die.

He took just a moment to make his decision. The train sped swiftly and safely on it's way, and no one aboard was aware of the tiny, broken body thrown mercilessly into the river by the rushing train. Nor were they aware of the pitiful figure of a sobbing man still clinging tightly to the lever long after the train had passed

They didn't see him walking home more slowly than he had ever walked,to tell his wife how he had sacrificed her son.

Now if you can comprehend the feelings which went through this man's heart, you can understand the feeling of our Heavenly Father when he sacrificed his Son to bridge the gap between us and eternal life.

How does He feel when we speed along through life without giving a thought to what was done for us through his Son, Jesus Christ?

Can there be any wonder that He caused the earth to tremble and the skies to darken when His only Son died?

Contributed by Cindy Pointe

 

[Monkey Mind]

This question is a two-parter.

1. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. You can flip a switch that will send the train on to a second track...but there is one person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

2. A villain has tied five people to a railroad track, and there is a train hurtling toward them. There is a fat guy standing next to you. The only way you can stop the train is to push him in front of the train. Should you push him?

Is there a distinction between these two scenarios? If so, what is it?

I'm assuming there are no other options for defusing the situations. If there were any chance of stopping the train or untying the people, then I would pursue those instead. Usually these ethical exercises come with a stipulation that there is no other way except to pull the switch, so I'll assume that's the case here.

I don't think there is any distinction between the scenarios. In each case I would not interfere, because it would be unethical to willfully cause the death of someone. Responsibility for the deaths of the five rests with the villain, not with the person who refuses to kill another innocent person in exchange for the five.

UNLESS.. one of my kids were one of the five. In that case I may take what I deemed to be an unethical action, to save my child's life. Or if it were my wife or some other loved one I would ask them first what they wanted me to do. I don't honestly know what I'd do if they said to pull the switch. It would depend on what the single person laying on the track had to say about it, how old everyone involved was, and what I knew about them and their character.

 

[FallingPianos]

Which leads me to another question I wanted to ask of everyone: How important is it that a system of ethics BE self-consistent? Is it better to have certain principles that you always uphold, or is it better to be willing to adjust your morals depending on the situation?

I think its essential. I dont see what use a moral system is if you can change it for ever situation you find yourself in. of course, one ought to be willing to see when there is a flaw in ones moral system and correct it, but the new system should be more consistent than the previous.

 

[Gibberish]

Now if you can comprehend the feelings which went through this man's heart, you can understand the feeling of our Heavenly Father when he sacrificed his Son to bridge the gap between us and eternal life.

How does He feel when we speed along through life without giving a thought to what was done for us through his Son, Jesus Christ?

Can there be any wonder that He caused the earth to tremble and the skies to darken when His only Son died?

According tot his end part we should worship God for the mere fact that he sacrificed his son. If that were the conclusion we should also worship this train operator in the story.

 

[Gibberish]

A true story:

I call BS.

1. What is this man's four year old son doing out by himself at night? That's just bad parenting.
2. How is it that the man could see the trains lights but had time to run across the river to pull a lever but a boy couldn't run back the way he came?
3. Since the trains lights were clearly on the engineer would have seen the boy, granted the boy would have most likely still been struck, the engineer would have stopped the train afterwards.
4. If the father could have yelled for the son the run why didn't he yell for him to jump in the water and then jump in after him? Yes the fall might have killed or he might drowned but those are uncertainties. IF the boy stay on the tracks it is certain he will die.
5. The man would not have just walked home afterwards. Since he was able to control the revolving track from a control room it is logical to assume the setting of the story is in the past 75 years. Authorities would have been involved and the mother would have been called to come to the crime scene.

I guess this is just the Christian way. They needs to make up stories that appeal to a person's emotions and then generically claim some sort of relevance to their faith.

Oh and there is also this about this story on snopes.com

The example quoted above has been in circulation since December 1997, but the tale itself originated as "To Sacrifice a Son: An Allegory," a short story written by Dennis E. Hensley and first published in the Michigan Baptist Bulletin in 1967. Since then, it has appeared in numerous forms, including as as Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints video version produced in the mid-1970s.

http://www.snopes.com/glurge/drawbrid.htm

 

[tryreading]

If it's morally justified (or obliged) for me to kill a man by pushing a button three thousand miles away-- or, say, by telling another man to push a button thirty thousand feet overhead-- then it's equally justified for me to kill that man by strangling him with my bare hands.

It honestly frightens me that other people don't see this.

In the given scenarios, there are two choices. Do nothing or do something. Let five die, or make one die. If your example were used, then make this choice: There are five people on your left you have to strangle. Or, there is one person on your right you can choose to strangle instead. What do you do?

In the given scenarios, someone, or five someones, will die. Its not a question of killing. Course I'm no great thinker, but looking from a nuts and bolts angle, the way I see it is the option of one death is preferable to five. But maybe the reason I can answer so easily is because I don't see the second option as killing, or choose not to.

 

[talloulou]

pushing the fat guy does seem like your hands are getting "dirtier" than the flipping the switch scenario. Either way though you are taking a person and sacrificing them to save many. I don't like it. I don't know that I'd do it. We might be able to rid the world of AIDs next week if we tested and killed every single HIV positive human on Earth. But I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't flip the switch either. If I knew none of the people aboard the train and I also didn't know the person tied to the tracks then I certainly wouldn't step in and take it upon myself to decide fate. I really just don't think I would. In most situations though you don't know choice A will definitely cause such and such while choice B will 'cause such and such. Thank god for that.

As far as the other situation where my kid is stuck on the track and a train load of people are gonna die if I save my kid I'd freaking save my kid anyway. I know that's the wrong decision. But I'd do "wrong" for my kid. I'd do anything to save my kids life especially if my kid was young and innocent and just accidently got stuck in the path of a train. Right or wrong be damned there is just no way in hell I'm gonna stand there and let a train run down my kid when I can prevent that from happening. No way!

 

[talloulou]

I think its essential. I dont see what use a moral system is if you can change it for ever situation you find yourself in. of course, one ought to be willing to see when there is a flaw in ones moral system and correct it, but the new system should be more consistent than the previous.

I don't think its "essential" to have an unyielding black and white take on all moral and ethical decisions. Seems actually rather unwise. I agree that you can easily prioritize what you value most and then adjust accordingly. Everything is relative. Stealing is wrong. However if my kids need medicine or food and my only option at the moment is to steal if for them then I'd do it. I'd feel it was my "duty to do it." However as long as all my survival needs are being met I'm perfectly content to view "stealing" as "wrong." Flexibility is important to survival and taking care of your own.

 

[talloulou]

Now if you can comprehend the feelings which went through this man's heart, you can understand the feeling of our Heavenly Father when he sacrificed his Son to bridge the gap between us and eternal life.

How does He feel when we speed along through life without giving a thought to what was done for us through his Son, Jesus Christ?

Can there be any wonder that He caused the earth to tremble and the skies to darken when His only Son died?

Contributed by Cindy Pointe

I don't know. Is someone else making up the rules that God must follow? The only way for God to allow humans salvation was by sacrificing his son? Why is that? I don't get that unless there's like a ladder situation and this christian "God" is some rungs up away from us but there are higher rungs and even God is under anothers authority. Otherwise it makes no damn sense and the two situations are not comparable in the least. The train operator was forced to pick between two choices. God, presumably, can never be forced and it's hard to believe God's options would be so limited.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In the given scenarios, someone, or five someones, will die. Its not a question of killing. ... But maybe the reason I can answer so easily is because I don't see the second option as killing, or choose not to.

I can't draw the line, because I can't see the difference between allowing someone to die and making someone die. "To kill" and "to not save" are not different, because they are both your decision to make-- and your decision must either lead to the death of one or the deaths of five.

 

[Monkey Mind]

I can't draw the line, because I can't see the difference between allowing someone to die and making someone die. "To kill" and "to not save" are not different, because they are both your decision to make-- and your decision must either lead to the death of one or the deaths of five.

You can't see the difference between allowing someone to die and making someone die. Really? That's insane.