Moral Dilemmas

[Illuminattile]

I think I posted these before, but I think it's worth a re-visit.

You're standing on a bridge over a railway, there are five workmen fixing one of the tracks. You notice a runaway carriage heading towards them. None of them see or hear it, and they're too far away to hear your warnings. You realise that the only way to stop the carriage is to throw the switch and divert the carriage onto another track, but you know that doing this will kill one workman who's fixing that track. Would you throw the switch and kill one man instead of four?

What if there was no switch, and the only way to stop the carriage was to push something onto the tracks to block it's path. Unfortunately, the only thing at hand that could stop the carriage is a fat man standing next to you.

Would you push him onto the tracks, killing him, to spare the lives of the four men below? What if it was more than four men, what if it was another carriage full of people? Or a carriage full of school children, or a carriage full of pensioners? What if it was your family? Would that matter?

What if it wasn't a fat man on the bridge, what if it was a guy in a wheelchair, or a baby in a pushchair? Or your best friend? Would that matter?

What if you were a doctor working in a nearby hospital and the four workmen came in, having been hit by the runaway carriage, and they were all dying. One of them needed a heart transplant, one of them needed a kidney, and one of them needed a lung. In the next room you have a middle-aged man who's come in for a general check-up. Would you be willing to kill him and harvest his organs in order to save the lives of those four men?

What if you got into a car accident with four of your friends of family, and you all ended up in hospital. You escaped unscathed, but all the other passengers are in a bad way and need transplants - heart, lung, kidney etc. The hospital doesn't have any organs, but they say that if a patient were to die then they could use their organs. The guy in the next bed is in a coma and may never come out, would you reach over and switch off his life support to save your family or friends? What if it wasn't that easy, what if you had to smother the guy with a pillow?

What if you take it to a larger scale, what if you're a military general faced with the possibility of nuclear war. You know that you can stop the launch of nuclear missiles by carpet bombing a large area, but doing so would surely result in the deaths of innocent civilians. Is it ethical to do so in order to stop all-out war which would kill far more people? And if it's not, would you do it anyway?

Is it ethical to take one life to save another? Is it acceptable for one person to make these kind of decisions, based on what they thing is for the "greater good"? Which is worse, actively killing somebody by throwing a switch or pushing somebody over a bridge, or passively killing a greater number of people by refusing to do so?

 

[S O F I]

I don't see a dilemma in those scenarios.

 

[Flipmo]

I'd probably notice the train coming, stick out my arm at it, and go.... "Uhhh" while wiggling my fingers.

Eventually....everyone would die cause I didn't act

 

[Duke]

I would write a lengthy letter of complaint to the Railways for creating such poor workman's schedules.

On your issue, though, I'd say, basically, the option that saves most lives is worth it. It's not that easy in some of your examples, but:

"Which is worse, actively killing somebody by throwing a switch or pushing somebody over a bridge, or passively killing a greater number of people by refusing to do so? "

In my opinion, the latter.

 

[S O F I]

I would write a lengthy letter of complaint to the Railways for creating such poor workman's schedules.

On your issue, though, I'd say, basically, the option that saves most lives is worth it. It's not that easy in some of your examples, but:

"Which is worse, actively killing somebody by throwing a switch or pushing somebody over a bridge, or passively killing a greater number of people by refusing to do so? "

In my opinion, the latter.

Did you see I, Robot? In the film, robots are programmed to judge the value of a life and save accordingly. In one scene, a robot chooses to save Will Smith rather than a young girl (If I recall correctly), because Will's life is valued more.

Although it doesn't go with what you said, it's something to think about.

Still, I don't see how you can say that actively killing a person is better than passively not saving four or whatever. That's on some liberal save the earth shit where liberal thinkers go and say "If you're not stopping genocide, you're commiting it yourself", some bullshit like that. Not to forget that in the scenario, you're not responsible and not the cause of the death of the greater amount of people.

 

[Duke]

Did you see I, Robot? In the film, robots are programmed to judge the value of a life and save accordingly. In one scene, a robot chooses to save Will Smith rather than a young girl (If I recall correctly), because Will's life is valued more.

Although it doesn't go with what you said, it's something to think about.

Still, I don't see how you can say that actively killing a person is better than passively not saving four or whatever. That's on some liberal save the earth shit where liberal thinkers go and say "If you're not stopping genocide, you're commiting it yourself", some bullshit like that. Not to forget that in the scenario, you're not responsible and not the cause of the death of the greater amount of people.

I understand the obvious moral bad side of actively killing a person to save others versus not doing anything and (sort of) killing four others, but you have to admit there's a strangeness about not doing anything when you could have saved four lives?

What if we upped the ante? Say, actively kill one, save eighty. Would that be different to you?

 

[Illuminattile]

On your issue, though, I'd say, basically, the option that saves most lives is worth it. It's not that easy in some of your examples, but:

"Which is worse, actively killing somebody by throwing a switch or pushing somebody over a bridge, or passively killing a greater number of people by refusing to do so? "

In my opinion, the latter.

That might be the "right" answer ethically, but would you actually do it? Could you bring yourself to actually, directly take somebody's life away?

 

[S O F I]

I understand the obvious moral bad side of actively killing a person to save others versus not doing anything and (sort of) killing four others, but you have to admit there's a strangeness about not doing anything when you could have saved four lives?

What if we upped the ante? Say, actively kill one, save eighty. Would that be different to you?

Still, no. I think I could deal with my conscience better knowing that I didn't actively kill a person but passively let some die.

Although there are government and military policies that do practice doing such things, I don't.

 

[Duke]

Is there then no limit? What if you could save a billion people vs. killing one? Or save your loved ones vs. killing one?

I realize I'm just applying Ilu's examples here, but ok. If you really are that principal about it, then kudos, but I highly doubt you'd make the same choice were the same (ridiculous) situation ever occur.

 

[S O F I]

Is there then no limit? What if you could save a billion people vs. killing one?

I think it'd be kinda cool if this planet lost a billion lives in an instant. Imagine how different life would be.

Or save your loved ones vs. killing one?

Well, that's different. I'd kill to save a loved one.

I realize I'm just applying Ilu's examples here, but ok. If you really are that principal about it, then kudos, but I highly doubt you'd make the same choice were the same (ridiculous) situation ever occur.

But, then again, like Illu said, could you get yourself to kill the person knowing your life isn't in danger?

 

[Duke]

Yeah that's a good question. Depends on the situation most likely. I like to think i'm morally capable of choosing the "lesser evil" and kill one as opposed to passively killing a whole bunch.

In any case, I hope I never really find out.

 

[Bender]

The question is, would I be breaking a moral law if I were to continue over the bridge minding my own business?


This situation is hypothetical. My own work is governed by countless health and safety laws, so too should be the workmens.