Forum Moderators: open
Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do? Such ethical dilemmas provide classic "experiments" for philosophers. Here the [BBC] presents four such quandaries and asks readers to vote on what they think is right.
[news.bbc.co.uk...]
Tough decisions. What would you do?
Kidnapped = me disconnecting. I'm also pro-choice.
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
Against my "better" judgement (cleaner gene pool!), I'll flip the switch. ;)
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
The fat man lives. He was never in danger, whereas everyone in Q2 was. Stupidity kills - trolley tracks are meant for trolleys, not loitering.
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Big Jake goes boom! I, on the other hand & with a strong sense of self-preservation, would not recommend such for myself.
Did I win?
I love the first comment:
I feel sorry for the five people. Not only have they had a runaway trolley hurtling towards them but also got trapped in a cave. What a day! - Laura
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I would not flip the switch, I am not god so its not my place to decide.
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Again, If I felt like I could save them I would but I wouldn't push the big guy. Thats just wrong :)
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Sorry big guy, I would blow you up. My worst fear is being drowned so survival instinct comes into play here, either that or I blow myself up before I get a chance to drown! (No joke.)
I love this quote:
I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man.
RJ
RJ
In pretty much all the scenarios, doing any action will probably make you liable to wrongful death suits by the relativews of those killed, if not criminal charges of murder. Yet how many people are charged with murder because of their inaction?
Although the people saved and their relatives will probably be very grateful, how much are they going to help you in your defense?
I really don't like my answer, and I think it's a sad commentary on society where altruistic impulses are tempered by liability considerations.
As for Big Jack, he's history, primal instincts would take over from philosophy, the only decision to make is where to put the dynamite.
I'll wager many of us have heard the term "scared poop-less," but I can't help but chuckle at the thought of "explosive diarrhea."
1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST
I do not have an obligation to stay, but I would.
Yes; this is what could a supererogatory [dictionary.reference.com] act--not a clear-cut obligation on your part, but definitely laudable.
We shouldn't get too far into the debate--the debate on abortion--this question is meant to provoke here, but it's worth pointing out that whether or not you agree that this is a correct illustration of the ethical issues around abortion depends quite a bit on whether or not you view a fetus as a person in the philosophical sense; the question is designed, in other words, to force the listener to unpack the relevant differences--if any--between a developing fetus of unknown potential and a mature, gifted individual.
If you think that 'yes, a fetus is already a person' and you agree that your obligation to the violinist is supererogatory, then you may be more likely to agree that, at least in some circumstances, abortion is permissible. If you'd say that 'no, a developing fetus is not a persion' and you agree that your obligation to the violinist is supererogatory, then a forteriori, you'd probably be even more likely to agree that abortion is sometimes permissible.
Obviously, the opposite would be true for the contrary positions as well--if you think, for example, that you would be obligated to save the musician, and that 'yes, a fetus is a person,' then probably you would be likely oppose abortion in most or all cirumstances.
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I would not flip the switch, I am not god so its not my place to decide.
But the point of the exercise is to decide. That's why the situations are usually so narrow--any choice you take has devastating consequences, and you are in a situation where inaction is either not an option or will bring about one of the dire choices. This problem, for example, is often posed with the listener as the driver of the trolley. You can't stop it and you can't derail it, your only choices are to hit one person or several...
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Again, If I felt like I could save them I would but I wouldn't push the big guy. Thats just wrong :)4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Sorry big guy, I would blow you up. My worst fear is being drowned so survival instinct comes into play here, either that or I blow myself up before I get a chance to drown! (No joke.)
Aha! These are the kinds of answers these hypothetical situations are really designed to elicit. Now tell us why the first is wrong and the second is right...what, in terms of ethics, makes it wrong to kill one man to save several others in one case but right in another?
Part of what these particular experiments are trying to determine is whether or not something is wrong with the idea of utilitarianism [google.ca]. In other words, why or when--if at all--is it appropriate to kill a small number of persons in order to preserve the lives of a larger number?
-b
I'd stay and I'd honestly don't know how could anyone leave. I'd enjoy every minute.
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I wouldn't flip the switch. That person doesn't deserve to die.
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
I wouldn't push the fat man either, same reason.
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Jack gets to live. Damn, I wish I had gone first.
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I would not flip the switch.
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
I would not push the fat man.
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
The big guy gets blown up. Self-preservation rules.
The interesting part is saying No to #2, and Yes to #4. I'll blow up the guy blocking the hole, but I won't push the fat man. Shows where my line of morality lies!
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I'd flip the switch.
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
I also would not push the fat man.
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Big Jack and the five tourists will not die. You'd be surprised at how motivated a person can be with a lit stick of dynamite stuck up their ass. :)
On the other hand if you are the only person who can save him, you have a duty to do so even without being kidnapped. If you saw someone drowning and there was no one else around, and you could save the person without risk to yourself surely you should.
I think the question is poorly posed as it confuses the kidnapping issue with the obligation to help others.
2. Yes. I am assuming all are strangers.
3. Yes, but it is not an easy choice. As with 1. what I think is right goes against my instinctive reaction.
4. Yes
and you could save the person without risk to yourself
The price was 9 months in a bed, thats enough to make people go insane. (Unless you live in Scotland are unemployed and getting benefits, then its a no brainer as long as you can use the money saved to buy enough cider and alcohol to last an extra few months.)
Was that a rant? lol
But the point of the exercise is to decide.
Now tell us why the first is wrong and the second is right
I would say the first is wrong because hes just a fat man in the wrong place at the wrong time, he doesnt deserve to die (unless he is evil, but we will never know. Looks to stars and does the X-Files tune).
The second is not right, but still the fat guy is stopping me from living and because I want to live and not drown a slow death due to lack of air - he dies, If I would go to jail for this then I would indefinitely blow myself up.
2. Runaway Trolley: I flip the switch - unless I have personal connection to the other person, which would make a difference.
3. Fat Man and Trolley: I probably would not jump myself, but I might nudge the fat man. In real life, I wouldn't react fast enough.
4. Cave Explorers: Boom! (Though I should have remembered that extra stick of dynamite in my backpack, and used it first. Oops:((
Part B. If 'twere me, and I was a goner anyway, they should save themselves.
runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people
Who's fault is it that they're on the track during trolly time? The other person hasn't intentionally put herself in harm's way, so why should she die for the five reckless track walkers?
violinist
I guess if the violinist played for you, and taught you how to play, you could get something out of the deal. (However I bet most violinists, rather than spending 9 months next to a total beginner violinist, would instead disconnect themselves.)
$100.00 an hour X 24 hours a day X 9 months + bonuses + incentives = A fair bargain.
2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
No, I will not flip the switch. I do not have the right to decide who should die. As one of the poster on that site says, "The end doesn't always justify the means."
Let's put it this way, what if you are THAT one person on the other track? Would you sacrifice yourself for the other 5? I certainly wouldn't, not even 500. Selfishness to survive is the root of evolution.
3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Of course not. He should die because he is fat?! Come on!
4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Sorry. Really. But I think I'll have to blow him up.
Problem is, if people who are gonna die in the above situations are someone I love. The answers will be completely different.
If those five were labour MPs...
Not really, the BBC has copied a subject high-lighted by the "SAW" movies.
The only thing we learn from that senerio is that people will not play as a team in life-death senerios.
It becomes everyman for him/helself, instead of everyone to beat the true hostile!
>What would you do in these scenarios?
A team solution is the only way to win. So you need to outwin, outlast and outplay.
