|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 12:07 pm
so, this isn't my question, i heard it on a podcast once, but here it is
Part 1: There's 5 men working on the railroad tracks. Their backs are turned, so they don't notice that a train is coming. You can't yell at them, the only thing you can do is pull a lever, which makes the train go onto some different tracks nearby, where there is only 1 man working (who also doesn't notice a train is coming.) Do you pull the lever?
Part 2: Same scenario, 5 men on the tracks, train is coming...but this time you're on a little bridge above the tracks. There's no lever, but next to you there is a large man, who, if pushed, could stop the train, saving the 5 workers. Do you push the man?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 10, 2010 2:33 pm
One major problem with the whole situation.
When a train is coming, they blare their horn [if allowed in that area] and the tracks begin to shake violently. If the men were actually working on the tracks, they would have to stop because they couldn't get anything done with the shaking that's happening.
Sorry to undermine your questions, they really are great questions, I just ... Cannot believe that death for any number of people could ever be the only answer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:12 pm
it was a hypothetical, based on morality. apparently most people would pull the lever, but not push the man, even though the math is the same
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 24, 2010 6:28 pm
I understand what you're trying to do there, but I couldn't choose an answer to the question because I would think it through too well to give an answer such as death. For instance, if a train is coming by, it is a $500 fine to be on rail-road property, I believe. So the fact that they would be "working" on the tracks as it comes by is illogical seeing as no boss would put their men there at a time like that.
Sorry, I just believe that no pre-mature death is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 9:44 am
I would sacrifice the life of 1 to save 5 if it were based on trying to save more people.
On a more cynical day, I would leave the 5 men to their fate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:57 pm
this is a matter of Deontology VS Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism says basically "the ends justify the means" and judges based on overall happiness vs unhappiness.
Deontology says basically "do whats right because it is right" and says to let nature take its course.
A Utilitarian would say that we should kill the one person in order to save the five others because 5 living outweighs 1 dead.
A Deontologist would say to leave it alone. To flip the switch would be to take action in killing someone whereas to not take action would be to let nature decide their fate
the thing is, while most ppl are willing to flip the switch to kill one and save 5, they are not willing to kill one person to harvest organs for 5 others who need transplants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 30, 2015 10:44 pm
This is an ethical question that will never have a right answer. The first scenario takes some of the burden off of you, but the second one makes you actually kill the man. However, I believe that you, just by being there, will be causing death for at least one person. It's obvious why if you choose the one person, but if you do nothing, then you're killing the five workers by inaction. Either way, you're in a bad situation. You might need to choose the one so you can at least justify your actions under the needs of the many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
