My ethics teacher described a situation to us in class. You have a runaway train coming down the tracks on a hill really fast and at the bottom of the hill there is a tunnel in it wil five people. If you don't do anything those five people are going to be killed. and because it is a tunnel they have no way to get out. BUT, what you can do is pull this switch on the rail road track and have the train go onto another side track. The only thing is, this side track also goes into a tunnel in which there is one person. Many people would say, have the train go onto the track with one person. Think about it though, if you do nothing, you are letting 5 people die, if you do something, you are killing one person. Should you let events take place knowing you could change them, but at the cost of a life? If you take action, a person dies because of that action. If you don't, 5 die.

How did you answer this question Yafa? Afterall, this was your class
***************************************************
12-09-03, 05:29 PM
Jelp01
To quote Mr. Spock from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan......."The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few (or the one)" Wink

12-09-03, 06:55 PM
jusork
That's a pretty good question. Should you let five die because you did nothing or kill some other guy because of your decision? The tough part is when you realize you are taking part in killing someone who wouldn't have died if you did nothing. You're basically actively murdering him. Normally, you'd choose the one with the least people dying. But that's equating lives and deciding someone's life. Why should I suddenly choose to kill some other completely innocent person to save these lives? Personally, the only problem for me is that it would suck to get hit by a train. I'd have no problem simply ending a life because surviving is really not that important and it won't matter in the end. But you either choose the group to live or the one man to stay alive. And since either way, you can affect their lives, I'd change the one man's because all in all, 5 people are slightly more important than 1 person and there's also no way for me to know if one of them deserves it or wants it more and so that one man's life would just suddenly be the one gone.

12-09-03, 08:22 PM
Elexina
What on earth are these people doing in these tunnels anyway??! Don't they know trains go through there? They ALL deserve to be squashed!

12-10-03, 04:56 AM
Silja
Divert the train to kill one person- Jelp is correct, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Yes, diverting the train means you are taking the responsibility. You are killing one person. But sometimes you have to lay your concience on the line, sometimes you have to make a decision like that. Better be responsible for killing one person than not doing anything to stop 5 people being killed.

12-10-03, 06:05 PM
aminator2002
I go with Mr. Spock as well.

The toughest question would be what if that one person was you?

I would be ashamed but would do nothing in that situation.

But this is why I don't hang out on train tracks near tunnels (in addition to the fact that there isn't much to do on train tracks)

12-10-03, 06:16 PM
Elexina
Would it change your answer if the one person was Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking or someone like that? What if the five people were all horrible ex-boy/girlfriends? hmmm...

12-10-03, 07:34 PM
newnickname
Wait a minute, wait a minute. You must throw the switch. If this runaway train is going 'really fast', being switched to a side track will cause it to derail and crash, and everyone will be OK.

Er, is there anyone on the train?

12-10-03, 11:52 PM
newnickname
So... supposing there are hundreds of people on the train. Switching it to a side track would almost certainly cause it to jump the rails.

You could certainly save six lives that way, but what might happen to the train would be uncertain. Maybe it would rattle to a halt, resulting in a few bumps and bruises. Maybe it would overturn, resulting in horrible injuries but no deaths. Maybe you'd kill a whole trainful of people.

Now watcha gonna do?

12-11-03, 05:45 AM
Jelp01
If the train is going fast enough, it'll derail eventually whether on the side track or not. And if it's the railroad that runs right under my bedroom window, it'll derail no matter how SLOWLY the train runs.

I personally like the idea that if you're dumb enough to be in a tunnel in the first place, you get what you get. Big Grin

12-11-03, 04:29 PM
Elexina
Word, Jelp.

12-14-03, 07:41 PM
honilov
How could killing only one person make you feel any better than killing five? That one person was a person, too. Confused

Yafa, what would you do?

12-16-03, 01:36 PM
Elexina
Yep, and five people are five people, which is more than one.
I still say it depends on who the people are. And I still ask why they are dumb enough to be playing on the railroad tracks?

12-19-03, 07:36 AM
juanruiz
OK. Here's an analogous hypothetical that is sometimes used to raise discussion:

A group of 20 Jews is hiding from a Nazi search party. If they are found they will be sent to the camps and certain death. In the group is a baby who starts crying, which will alert the Nazis to their hiding place. The only way to save the 19 is to suffocate the baby. Is this murder?

12-19-03, 08:23 AM
shelster
Wow JR....that puts a different spin on it..

Tough question, I hope I am never in situations like that...I just don't know what I would do

12-19-03, 05:17 PM
honilov
Yeah Juan, that's murder. The baby's life is just as important as theirs.

12-19-03, 06:03 PM
juanruiz

quote:Originally posted by honilov:
Yeah Juan, that's murder. The baby's life is just as important as theirs.



So it is ok for all 20 to die instead of just one? You see, the baby will die in either case...should the other 19 also?

12-19-03, 06:17 PM
honilov
Yes again Juan, they all should die by the same means. If they murder the baby than they are killers just like the Nazis. They should risk their lives first while trying to save the baby.

Please tell me that you understand what I'm saying, and tell me what do you think should be done.

12-19-03, 06:28 PM
juanruiz
I believe I understand fully what you are saying, but correct me if I'm wrong: it is better for 20 people to die when the death of one could save 19.

Ok, let's remove the emotional baggage attached to the baby. Let's say it's a man with bronchitis, whose chronic coughing will alert the Nazis. And further, let's say he agrees to be killed to save the other 19. Does that change the moral implications any?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,

Yes, that changes it tremendously if an adult 'agrees' to be killed. However, if that same adult was begging to please not kill him, then he shouldn't be murdered, same as the poor little baby. So if he agrees to be killed, than yes, save the 19, but I still wouldn't be the brave one to kill him.

I'm still waiting to know what you think should be done about the baby.
**************************************************
12-19-03, 06:56 PM
juanruiz
So, it is not the idea that it is wrong for one to die to save the other 19, but that the one must agree to it...if not, all 20 must die?
And if deep-down he really didn't want to die, but viewed it as a necessary sacrifice?

As for the baby scenario, given the situation, I'm afraid I would agree with saving the 19, particularly given the fact that the baby would perish anyway.

12-19-03, 07:17 PM
honilov
Morally, if he agrees to die, I believe it's the thing to do, but that doesn't make it right. It's still murder, and thank you for answering my question about the baby. Smile

12-20-03, 04:25 AM
Silja
Bringing the baby into the equation makes no difference for me. In a situation like you described, there is no time to weigh options, no time to argue- you must make a split second decision for survival. Leaving out the possibility of quieting the baby through other means, because after all this is a philosophy question, I would choose killing the baby over killing 20 people (which would include the baby). And yes, if needed, I would do it myself.

12-20-03, 06:57 AM
shelster
Silja brings up a good point...this has to be a split second decision, and our minds and bodies are programmed for survival. As much as I would like to be able to say I wouldn't be able to kill someone like that...I really think I would agree with her, and do what needed to be done for survival.

12-20-03, 10:32 AM
MkStfnz

quote:Originally posted by juanruiz:
OK. Here's an analogous hypothetical that is sometimes used to raise discussion:

A group of 20 Jews is hiding from a Nazi search party. If they are found they will be sent to the camps and certain death. In the group is a baby who starts crying, which will alert the Nazis to their hiding place. The only way to save the 19 is to suffocate the baby. Is this murder?


Well I think you could fit the Principle of the Double Effect very nicely into this situation. Your actions would be motivated by saving the most lives possible and consequently ethical. This would fit in both situations presented by Yafa and juanruiz.

Juan, your situation would not change the moral implications, just the degree of sadness and brokenness of hearts to which the bad effect is bound to bring.

12-20-03, 02:19 PM
DvdGStwrt
"The good of the many out weight the good of the few or the one."

That is a logical statement that takes in numbers, but does not account for the worth of that one life.

Does the life of one life have the potential to be worth more than 5 lives? Would that one life be the next Mozart or Pasture? Or is that one life going to be dedicated to drugs and a slow lonely death? Are those five worthless and non-contributors to society? Would a difference be made if one did pull?

Hard things to decide at a moments notice with no other data to go on. Let's face it, when push comes to shove we don't think under pressure, we react.

Which brings me to the next important aspect of the question, this is at a moments notice, you obviously have no time to reason out your actions - you can either pull the switch or not.

The agony of that decision would be easily remedied by the numbers. Humans are beings capable of reasoning, we would easily reason that 5 lives are worth more than 1 when under duress. It's simple math, its justifiable and we can, after the fact, comfort ourselves that we did the right thing simply because the many lived with only the lose of one or few.

Suffocating babies, many killing and eating one in a life boat, all been done and much much more.

Morally and simplistically this is murder, justified? Unknown.

Ethically we are reduced to the numbers again, the life of one or few is not worth the life of the many.

In a court of law one would be exonerated for making this kind of choice to kill off the one who stood in the way of the living of the many.

Whether we like it or not is becomes a numbers game, if the individual who does the killing reasons it out it is that pure and simple. It is something we can live with, and we can assume that God/Deity will not judge us harshly for insuring the survival of the many.

David

12-20-03, 07:27 PM
Elexina

quote:Originally posted by juanruiz:...Is this murder?

Yes, it is murder, but I can see where it would be justified.
It is never "okay" to kill a helpless infant, but sometimes we have to make supreme sacrifices for the betterment of the group as a whole. If the death of one means 19 will live, I believe it is justified.
Of course, I would hope that the Jews exhausted all their options as far as quieting the child went, before suffocating it...

quote:let's remove the emotional baggage...

It is still murder and it is still not "okay," but it is a little more okay because the man understands what is happening and realizes he is endangering the group. I don't believe it is legal to agree to be killed, so it is still murder but again, justified.

12-20-03, 11:09 PM
honilov
David, if you think that in a court of law one would be exonerated for murdering a baby, than we are in worst shape than I had imagined.

Elexina, I hate to think that we are in a society where it's justified to murder a helpless baby. The group, however, is not more important than the baby.

I can only hope that I was never in a situation like that with you all where I had to cough. Roll Eyes

12-21-03, 09:51 AM
juanruiz
Honi,

Allow me to ask for a clarification. Are you saying that it is more moral for all 20 to die
(and remember, the baby will also die) than for the baby alone to die?

12-21-03, 08:45 PM
honilov
Yeah Juan, I guess that's what I'm saying. Sorry that I'm not a murderer. I wonder if you would feel the same if it was your baby or if your wife was the one with the chronic coughing. Would you still be willing to murder them to save the 19? Huh? Smile

I'm still waiting on Yafa to answer, but she's avoiding me. Smile

12-21-03, 09:32 PM
Tree
Juan I think you should NEVER have used the baby as a pawn in this thread... should have been the old coughing guy! Wink Roll Eyes

12-21-03, 11:12 PM
juanruiz
Sorry, Tree. I didn't invent that hypothetical. Just posted it. It's an old conundrum used to initiate conversation.

12-22-03, 12:00 AM
honilov
Juan, I hope you didn't think hard of me for asking you that last question. If so, I'm sorry, but that's just how I am. I usually back people up against the wall. Peace. Smile

12-22-03, 12:07 AM
juanruiz
Honi, I have no problem with your question. The idea behind a hypothetical is to analyze the situation logically. To throw in emotional problems is just part of the mix.

12-29-03, 03:58 AM
tsaeb
According to the question, the person who can pull the switch seems to not be in the train. So this person can pull the switch without being killed. This person can just as well pull another switch and cause the train to stop (and possibly derail) so that it does not make it to either tunnel at the end of the line.

P.S. I would stop the baby from crying by stuffing its mouth with a cloth, and I would knock out the cougher with a punch in the nose.

[This message was edited by tsaeb on 12-29-03 at 04:13 AM.]

12-29-03, 01:16 PM
Leppi
Sorry, i've been out of town for a while. I don't know what I would do in this situation. This is a question that has been bothering me for a while. My ethics teacher said if you start reducing it to numbers, and saying that saving the many is better, what about killing one person to donate organs to five other questions. I have spent many sleepless nights thinking about this question and I am still thinking about it.

12-29-03, 08:21 PM
honilov
Yafa, try not to worry too much about this, because I believe you know in your heart that it's not right to kill someone just to save a higher number. Murder is wrong so try to rest your mind a bit. I was wondering where you were.

I would kill in self-defense but I would hope that it never came to that.

12-29-03, 09:23 PM
juanruiz

quote:Originally posted by honilov:
I would kill in self-defense but I would hope that it never came to that.



Honi, in what way are the scenarios I presented not a form of self-defense? Granted, the "victims" would not be the direct assailants, but would be the agent of those assailants.

12-30-03, 01:36 AM
Silja
Honi, I agree with you that murder is wrong. Always. In the same way that war is ugly and bad, always. But, sometimes one needs to choose the lesser evil.

If I were the one throwing the switch, or killing the baby- I would still feel like a murderer. I would feel bad, and it would probably haunt me for the rest of my days. But if it enables others to life, for me, it is worth it.

12-30-03, 06:27 PM
Elexina
what do you do in this situation?

quote:Originally posted by honilov: I hate to think that we are in a society where it's justified to murder a helpless baby.

Justified is a harsh word, but I stick by it. It is better than one should perish -even if it is a helpless baby- than that all should suffer and die.

These situations are just a matter of the lesser of two evils. There is no good choice. If all options (as Tsaeb listed) have been exhausted, however, it may be necessary to take a life to safe the others.

12-30-03, 07:11 PM
honilov
Juan, self-defense to me would be if someone was trying to kill me, or cause me bodily harm, and that baby wouldn't intentionly harm a flea.

Silja and Elexina, since we all gotta die anyway, someday, why kill someone else just to prolong it?

I'm convinced that I could never see it the way you do and I sure hope you can understand my stance on this.

12-31-03, 11:10 AM
Elexina
Hmm... kill someone in self-preservation and then survive to live out my life fully, enjoying and experiencing all the beauties and wonders of this world, loving and laughing, learning and seeing...
Or, die a grueling and torturous death at the hands of my enemy.

You're right. It's a toss-up.

12-31-03, 08:46 PM
juanruiz

quote:Originally posted by honilov:
Juan, self-defense to me would be if someone was trying to kill me, or cause me bodily harm, and that baby wouldn't intentionly harm a flea.



Honi, read my hypothetical. Someone is trying to kill you. A detachment of SS agents is trying to apprehend you and send you to Auschwitz, or Buchenwald, or Bergen-Belsen. Where you will have a number branded into your skin, be stripped, and told you have to take a shower. You, the other 18 adults, and the baby. Now the baby is not knowingly putting you in harm's way, but that is the effect.

01-01-04, 01:13 AM
honilov
Okay Juan, I give up, but I do want you to know that I wouldn't kill you, just to save 19 more.

I see your point, but I just don't agree with it. Peace

01-01-04, 11:19 PM
Elexina
No offense, Juan, but I totally would.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DorianGreyed,