Basilers, what would you do?
* No modifying the situation please. It is what it is. Just curious to see what people would do..
SITUATION 1: You are the driver of a trolley car hurtling down the track at 60 miles an hour. Up ahead, you see 5 workers working on the track. You try to stop, ,but you can't. The brakes don't work. You feel desperate, because you know if you crash into these 5 workers, they will all die.
Suddenly, you notice a side track, off to the right. You realize that you can turn the trolley car onto the side track, killing one worker, but sparing the five.
- Do you go straight ahead or turn right?
SITUATION 2: "You are not the driver but an onlooker, standing on a bridge overlooking the track. Down the track comes a trolley, and at the end of the track are five workers. The brakes do not work. The trolley is about to crash into the 5 workers ahead. You feel helpless to avert this disaster-until you notice, standing next to you, a very heavy man. You could push him off to the bridge, onto the track, into the path of the oncoming trolley. He would die, but the five workers would be saved. (You consider jumping onto the track yourself, but realize you are too small to stop the trolley. "
- What would you do in this situation?
12 Comments • Newest first
i must kill all fat people so i would push him
@iShottedSnow: It's horrible but in cases that there is control over the situation. There's limited control over the situations the TS poses. It's sad to say that an old phrase seems to hold true throughout history.. where it argues that a death is a tragedy, but a massacre/genocide/killing of more than one individual is a statistic. The workers would be informed of the itinerary and the scheduled routes for whatever locomotive would be on route and would have a protocol to follow in case of emergency. The single person is a bystander unaware and expected to act under instinct which may heighten the likely hood of them being killed.
In situation two, the situation is beyond my control in that I have no power over helping save and ensuring the lives of the passengers and bystanders on the bottom. Personally being responsible for killing one individual takes a strong psychological toll on most people and affects them enough where in some cases people develop Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. As for the workers, again they have a protocol and itinerary to work from. If the individual had the same heart as most other people, what's stopping him from throwing me down there? There is no particular logic, but sometimes there are times to exercise control, and when to refrain.
TLDNR: If it's within your power to save someone, recognize that you have to be prepared to face the repercussions.
Oh wow...I had this exact discussion in class. Situation one: turn Situation two: I don't push him
@aalex99999:
Understandable. You believe that saving 4 lives is better than just saving 1 in the context of this thread.
You believe that the end justifies the means.
Sure saving 5 and killing the one sounds good but is it morally right to have intentionally killed one person to save others? This is simply a question of personal preference and ethics. really no point in arguing.
@ThatBox: Why not push the man on the tracks?
You're basically doing the equivalent of that in the first scenario.
Situation one: Kill them all, all five of the workers and sue the engineering company that designed the trolley.
Situation two: Let all five of the workers die, and pretend I was in a really awkward situation like I was on the phone with my spouse and they were in hospital because they had a terminal illness to weasel my way out of the situation and absolve me of any responsibility.
You should've made that "one person" someone you would actually care about like a friend,family member,etc because if it's some random person then ofc I'll kill that person rather than killing 5 people.
Situation One: Turn
Situation 2: Don't push him
Runaway Trolley Dilemma
Choose to intentionally kill the one:
1. Believe that the end justifies the evil deed
2. The majority is more important the minority.
blah blah utilitarianism point of view
personally i don't even answers these scenario type questions because i know that I will most likely never be put in a situation like that. But if I had to answer this I would not move the train to kill the one. Instead try my best to stop the train from killing anyone in the first place and worry about what the outcome is later.
Which is more morally wrong? killing one intentionally or killing a few unintentionally.
hint: Consider both questions both before answering
@MagiBombchu: Adding a 3rd option would defeat the purpose of this scenario.
This scenario is to impose the question of whether or not we would choose to kill the one or let the others die but with no intention of it.
Consider jumping on the track myself.
[quote=Hosanna]Those two questions are the stupidest things I've ever heard.[/quote]
Calm down. This is the kind of stuff that [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY]Harvard lecturers[/url] talk about.
On topic: I think the point of the question is to imagine yourself in the actual situation and think about what you'd do. If you have enough time to rationally think about it, then of course it's logical to spare as many lives as possible. But in the heat of the moment it's a little difficult to think clearly, especially in the second case where you're directly causing murder. That said, I probably wouldn't do anything in either situation.
lol. pushing a fat guy off a bridge.
My brother asked me this question awhile back