Another Nother Moral Dilemma

[Niamh.]

This one is pretty tough, tougher than I thought at first read :think:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?

[UserSince2005]

either way your in the wrong. all you could do is what ever possible to trying and stop the train all together, even if there is 0.0001% of success. if you fail then oh well, at least you tried.

[Niamh.]

either way your in the wrong. all you could do is what ever possible to trying and stop the train all together, even if there is 0.0001% of success. if you fail then oh well, at least you tried.

No that's cheating, you have to pick one option or the other, flick the switch or don't flick the switch :fist:

[Beso]

Are we sitting in the trolly?

[Niamh.]

Are we sitting in the trolly?

No

[Denver]

Leave it has it is as if you sent it down another track knowing it would hurt someone then you are responsible to whatever happens

[Beso]

Yeah I would leave it.

[Oliver_W]

I'd let the trolley mow them all in half, and then mix and match the different body parts.

[user104658]

Depends who is on each track, e.g.

- I'd let 5 people adults die to save one child
- I'd let 5 strangers die to save one friend
- I'd let 5 friends die to save one family member


But if we're assuming it's 6 random adult strangers, morally, yes I'd flip the switch and have 1 die rather than 5.

Legally it's a different issue as I suspect actively flipping the switch would make you legally responsible for that person's death whereas doing nothing (other than trying, somehow, to get the train to stop) would not.

[Ammi]

...although 5 people would die..:sad:...I could not actively do anything that would take a life...

[Dogeatdog]

I’d keep flipping the switch just as the tracks begin to separate to try and derail the trolley. That way everyone lives :cheer2:

[The Slim Reaper]

There is a moral responsibility to make sure that we switch it to kill one person, although in practice flicking the switch would be far more difficult.

[Cherie]

Are we sitting in the trolly?

:joker:

[Niamh.]

So apparently, this is what a study on this dilemma concludes :

The Economist reports that only 10% of experimental subjects are willing to throw the stranger under the train. I suspect it would be less, if the subjects found themselves in a real situation, instead of a pretend experimental test. The further result of the experiment is that these 10% of people tend to have personalities that are, "pscyhopathic, Machiavellian, or tended to view life as meaningless."

[Ammi]

There is a moral responsibility to make sure that we switch it to kill one person, although in practice flicking the switch would be far more difficult.

...that’s exactly it though, flicking that switch to cause a death would be an impossibility for me...even though I know it would lead to more deaths...

[user104658]

...that’s exactly it though, flicking that switch to cause a death would be an impossibility for me...even though I know it would lead to more deaths...

What if it was kids on the other track though? I feel like in that case I'd have to hit the switch.

I also know I would if it was to save a loved one... I'd genuinely hit a button that would kill hundreds then. Though I know that's not moral.

[The Slim Reaper]

Ammi West the child murderer :smug:

[Niamh.]

What if it was kids on the other track though? I feel like in that case I'd have to hit the switch.

I also know I would if it was to save a loved one... I'd genuinely hit a button that would kill hundreds then. Though I know that's not moral.

Yeah, if it were kids I probably would too. But what if it were kids on both tracks? 5 kids Vs 1?

[Kazanne]

If the trolley hit the first of the 5 people that body(a big burly body like Slims):hehe: it might stop it killing the other 4,so maybe Ide send it down the track with the 5 people tied to it.

[Ammi]

What if it was kids on the other track though? I feel like in that case I'd have to hit the switch.

I also know I would if it was to save a loved one... I'd genuinely hit a button that would kill hundreds then. Though I know that's not moral.

...I’m going to assume that none of them were children because that would have been specified...?...is my thought process...obviously my thought processes are with a calm rationale...and not the chaos that would be the reality of it, so we never really know...my instinct tells me that I couldn’t actively do anything to take a life...and I’m assuming that wouldn’t be a loved one either because that would have been specified...?...that’s quite an important thing to add to the dilemma...

[Niamh.]

...I’m going to assume that none of them were children because that would have been specified...?...is my thought process...obviously my thought processes are with a calm rationale...and not the chaos that would be the reality of it, so we never really know...my instinct tells me that I couldn’t actively do anything to take a life...and I’m assuming that wouldn’t be a loved one either because that would have been specified...?...that’s quite an important thing to add to the dilemma...

The dilemma is definitely all strangers

[Ammi]

The dilemma is definitely all strangers

...yeah that’s what I assumed in my thought process...plus I’m factoring our children as well because I think that would have been something that was specified...


...not quite the child murderer yet, Slim...steady on there and not so fast...

[user104658]

The dilemma is definitely all strangers

In that case, the right moral choice would be to kill the one person, but most people won't do it.

You can amplify the effect the more you remove the person from the death... e.g, you're sat at a table opposite a stranger. In front of you, there's a gun, a document and a pen. You're given the choice to either sign the document - which will kill 5000 random strangers across the world (you'll never find out who they were or how they died) OR you can shoot the stranger in the room in the head. If you do nothing, you all die (the 5000, the stranger AND you).

Vast majority of people sign the document. That's just how our instincts work, really... people aren't "really real" until you're looking them in the eye.

Basically, that's how a lot of politicians operate every day. They'll sign a piece of paper that they know will kill thousands of people, but few could stomach looking one person in the eye and murdering them.

[bots]

i would let god decide

[Niamh.]

In that case, the right moral choice would be to kill the one person, but most people won't do it.

You can amplify the effect the more you remove the person from the death... e.g, you're sat at a table opposite a stranger. In front of you, there's a gun, a document and a pen. You're given the choice to either sign the document - which will kill 5000 random strangers across the world (you'll never find out who they were or how they died) OR you can shoot the stranger in the room in the head. If you do nothing, you all die (the 5000, the stranger AND you).

Vast majority of people sign the document. That's just how our instincts work, really... people aren't "really real" until you're looking them in the eye.

Basically, that's how a lot of politicians operate every day. They'll sign a piece of paper that they know will kill thousands of people, but few could stomach looking one person in the eye and murdering them.

5000 to 1 though, I think I'd have to seriously consider picking up the gun, if the person started begging me not to though I couldn't :skull:

[smudgie]

I would get out of the area as quick as possible, some mad gang might try tying me to the railway lines next.:hehe:

[user104658]

5000 to 1 though, I think I'd have to seriously consider picking up the gun, if the person started begging me not to though I couldn't :skull:Yeah that's the thing that essentially makes it impossible for most people. The 5000 people is just a number, it's not even a significant number in terms of how many people die every day across the world anyway, but that one in front of you... You can see the fear in their eyes, you can see them crying, and for most people (unless they have an empathy disorder) it becomes near impossible to pull the trigger.

Its sort of a thought experiment that explains the callous actions of politicians. E.g. There are VERY few politicians - even tories [emoji23] - who would sit in a family's living room and decide to take money they need to survive away from them, with the kids sat there scared. But you can bet your arse they'll sign their name to a policy that does exactly the same thing.

Or another example, US healthcare... Take a multi-millionaire politician to one young person who needs treatment for cancer and many of them will be compelled to pay for it themselves. And yet, show them a sheet of statistics about how many thousands of young people in America die because of poor health coverage, and they'll shrug it right off.

My genuine belief is that because human psychology developed in relatively small tribal units, we're just not physically able to think of vast numbers of people as individuals, without actively making the effort to "ponder it out".we have to use higher reasoning to do it, our more instinctual base thought processes just treat it like junk data.

[user104658]

So seeing as most of you think that both are equally as bad, what if you had to pass their sentences but the judge said one of them gets 25 years and one gets 10 years. Which sentence do you give to who?I think this is the other thread :suspect:

[Niamh.]

I think this is the other thread :suspect:

I just moved my post and now you've ruined EVERYTHING :fist:

[user104658]

I just moved my post and now you've ruined EVERYTHING :fist:https://i.imgur.com/YFcfydr.gif

[Niamh.]

https://i.imgur.com/YFcfydr.gif



Drax :love:

[Niamh.]

Yeah that's the thing that essentially makes it impossible for most people. The 5000 people is just a number, it's not even a significant number in terms of how many people die every day across the world anyway, but that one in front of you... You can see the fear in their eyes, you can see them crying, and for most people (unless they have an empathy disorder) it becomes near impossible to pull the trigger.

Its sort of a thought experiment that explains the callous actions of politicians. E.g. There are VERY few politicians - even tories [emoji23] - who would sit in a family's living room and decide to take money they need to survive away from them, with the kids sat there scared. But you can bet your arse they'll sign their name to a policy that does exactly the same thing.

Or another example, US healthcare... Take a multi-millionaire politician to one young person who needs treatment for cancer and many of them will be compelled to pay for it themselves. And yet, show them a sheet of statistics about how many thousands of young people in America die because of poor health coverage, and they'll shrug it right off.

My genuine belief is that because human psychology developed in relatively small tribal units, we're just not physically able to think of vast numbers of people as individuals, without actively making the effort to "ponder it out".we have to use higher reasoning to do it, our more instinctual base thought processes just treat it like junk data.

Yeah, that all makes alot of sense, and this does definitely help to see how that could work in real life too.