Questions of Ethics
 

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

I can't answer as to what the bystander 'should' do, because I don't believe anyone has the right to decide what another 'should' do in such a situation.

If, however, the bystander were me, no, I wouldn't flip the switch (or at least I *think* I wouldn't). It would be awful living with the knowledge that I could have prevented the death of five people, worse still, though, knowing that I'd sent someone to their death who otherwise would have lived.

That said....until something like this were to actually happen, there's no way on earth of knowing what I would do, only what I think I would probably do.

Words

If I read this correctly you are talking about "Normative Ethics" which addresses how one should act morally deciding what is right or wrong in regards to ones actions.

I would have to say that I would not flip the switch because there is no way for me to absolutely know that 5 people are going to die and what the true outcome of my action would be.


This question seems to touch on the following. Do we react or act in a situation. A reaction is often described as an emotional action while an action is described as a thought out action.

So many factors have not been uncovered that saying I would automatically flip the switch is not agreeable for me.

Assuming I knew the consequences of both action or inaction...

I would flip the switch.
And I wouldn't see myself as "playing god" by doing it. I'm a bystander being given the knowledge and tools to make this decision, if I don't make an active decision no one else will and tragedy will occur either way.

My rationale is a simple matter of numbers.
One person dead, and the lives of one network of people changed forever.
Or five people, and five networks of people changed forever.
I would want to minimize the tragedy.

Given the opportunity I would rather make an active choice than stand by and watch.

Thinking aloud.
 

I would torture myself in the dilemma until it was too late. So... I guess that means 5 die, instead of the one, which I think would qualify as a decision in this scenario.

I don't think I could deliberately turn a train toward a person, regardless of where it was headed to start with.

On the other hand, if I place Young Son among the 5, well, yes, I would instinctively turn it. And in the reverse situation, I wouldn't turn it, of course.

I'm not sure how much, if any of this, falls into the category of morality as I think we're defining it here. In the latter condition, instinctively is a key word.

I would flip it if I was certain of the outcome. One death is better than five in my view. That being said, the reason I would flip it would be the determining factor with respect to whether this would be a moral action or not, not the outcome. Morality is ultimately rooted in intent.

Someone made mention of there being 5 that were going to die and then taking one in their place that would have lived. The question's too vague for me to make that conclusion. The one that could die may be in the same group as the original 5. On the outskirts and partially struck, for example.

So, that leaves me with a very simple issue. Are 5 lives the same as 1 life? Assuming that all are, as mentioned, on an even playing field...one is not a criminal/priest/mother/child/etc...then no, they are not the same. Five people have five times the ability to heal, nuture, teach, hurt, help, aggravate, charm, or amuse as one person. There are five lifelines versus one that would be majorly affected by the outcome of this.

I choose quantity, since the quality has been pre-determined as equal.

I agree.

I see myself "playing God" if I DON'T flip the switch, actually. It's only humane to want to help another in a crisis.

this may be a derail...
 

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

I believe this would be my decision; If they were children or young adults, yes. If the others were adults, I don't know.

The plot thickens

http://listverse.com/2007/10/21/top-10-moral-dilemmas/

Yes I probably would sacrifice myself to save 5 others I don't know.

I would most likely flip the switch. Then try to figure out how to live with myself.

As I said on Nat's FB I would throw the switch, purely because 5 ppl dead as a result of my inaction seems worse than 1 person dead because of my action... feels the lesser of two evils.

Either way there is a choice to make, to act or not... both carrying substantial consequence and for me the bottom line would be how many will be alive after I make it, 1 or 5.

And as I said before, if it was me on the other tracks frankly ... hell no I wouldn't, never pretended to be a saint ;)

Heh, excellent Natalie, should be interesting.

all things being equal, i don't think there is enough information to make an ethical argument for or against.
that said i'm a staunch believer in personal accountability. if a bunch of people want to hang around the train tracks, with out regard for personal safety or the dilemma they have put a bystander in, they have made their own decision and are solely accountable.

I came back in here because when I was doing other things just now, I kept picturing these fleeting scenarios of two diverging train tracks, and on one set were 5 oldsters tottering around, and on the other was this little toddler beseeching me with arms up. I'd have to say I'm pretty sure that, in the depths of my unconscious, the toddler was starting to pull ahead of the pack.

It it was 5 children...probably yes. If it was 5 adults...probably not.

When it's the 5 versus 1 and I live either way...I'm not so sure. I tend to think I'd lean towards saving 5 lives by sacrificing one...but I also think sacrificing the one would feel like murder if I took an action that caused their death. Not sure if I could do that...

I have a question...is the person who can flip the switch also the single fatality victim?

Not in the original question but this was proposed as a variation. Both questions are on the table. :)

I haven't been able to address this in strict terms of morality. I guess if I were operating from a Utilitarian viewpoint, I would save the 5, regardless of the extra condition(s) we are playing with.

It's a different thing to say "This is what I would want to do," than it is to answer the question of what is the moral thing to do. Sure, the two approaches bear on each other but you need a moral argument that can hold as a general principal for the latter, such as "creates the greatest good for the most people."

It may be impossible or at least very difficult and subjective to decide how to measure the greatest good, but regardless, internally you would be following a defined moral principle.


(I know: thread killer.)

it would not matter if they were young or old or criminals or nuns or artists or scientists. I'd flip the switch. If the one person who would die is me? No. I wouldn't. Or I don't think I would. who knows, if I saw one train heading for another, I might not actually *think* about death of anyone and just attempt to do *something*.

considering that when my mom was ill, I would have killed 10,000 bunnies, my own cat, someone else's grandma, to stop her from dying, so if it would cost the life of five people I don't know to keep the life of one person I love alive, nope, wouldn't throw the swtich then either. And no, who those five people were/how old they were would not make a difference to me.

but if it's all equal, as in the question, then yes, I would throw the switch.

I realized after I posted that instead of referring to an anonymous bystander, I subconsciously substituted myself in that roll and answered from the first person "what *I* would do"

Because that is how I process these type of questions; I can not have an expectation of someone else (whether hypothetical or not) that I would not place on myself. So to examine the ethics of a question, I filter it first through my experience and beliefs (morality).

My answer remains the same, however, regardless whether tis I or an anonymous bystander; because my answer is not based on an emotional response to "who" the people are (or aren't) - it is about the ethical obligation we have as human beings to act rather than to stand by and let things happen.

I think an interesting side discussion would be the distinction between ethics and morals - because while they appear interchangeable as synonyms there are key differences that impact how we view and respond to this train scenario.


Interesting thread, Nat, thanks!
Not a thread killer, Tapu. :)

Assuming that the conditions are as stated in the question, yes, the bystander should flip the switch. There is nothing to say if the five "chosen" are serial killers, rapists etc and that the single "chosen" is an innocent child, a scientist with a cure for cancer etc.

I am looking at this from the point of view of sacrificing one to save five.

Is this not something that is done every day? Emergency professionals must make these choices on a regular basis. Two cars trapped/two houses burning/two boats sinking and only time to save one-so do you choose the one that will save the most lives?

But, add the "human element" into this:

The original five are all strangers and just oneof my loved ones is standing in a crowd of the one million who could be chosen. At that point there is no question at all; the five die in order to prevent the possibly loss of my loved one.

:sparklyheart:

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!


:sock: :sock: :sock:

I am going to base my response on the original OP.
I will place myself as the bystander - It is the only way I can get in her/his head.

If I am given the responsibility of stopping the horrific death of five people, when clearly they ALL will die in a fatal accident and not knowing which of the one people will die if I stop the train - I most certainly would flip the switch.

I will not base this decision on who they are as human beings sharing this world with me, because the OP stated they are strangers.

Clearly, this will not give me a *god* complex - It is simple. I am placed in a situation where I must act quickly. Somehow intuitively I must know, one will die and four will live. Sadly, five will die if I do not.

I also will not allow myself to look at them as men, women or children - serial killers or the next mother theresa. I need to look at them all as innocent.

Flip the Switch **
And I will sleep well afterward. Even if it means I learn the next day, they are all serial killing rapist.

Julie--I think you're making the same, incorrect, assumption I made at the very beginning:

I think the correct way to read it is that the One Person is NOT also a member of the Five Persons.

That may not be what you thought at all, but since I did.... Of course, in the case of keeping all 5 from dying, and making it be only one of those dying, then yes, the answer is simple: save those other four.


(man, if no one else thought this at any point, i am going to feel D-U-M-M.)


sic

There is kind of an argument for letting the train hit 5 strangers rather than turning it to hit one (equal "value") stranger and that is if your moral position is not to interfere in the course of events.

While the question of what constitutes interference (action? how about inaction? natural forces? non-organic forces?....), it's still a possible moral principle to establish, I think.

Tapu - I am a literalist. I never read between the lines. One of which I am trying to change.

"A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?"

Nowhere did I read in this context, there were six people on the tracks. I read - five people on the tracks and one bystander who was not on the tracks. Equals Six People.

Therefore, my assumption is based on the calculation of people the OP stated in her question. Six People including the Bystander. Five Dead or One Dead. Which leaves Four Survivors.

Julie

Yes, Julie, I'm sorry--I was trying to establish that it was at least a "possible" way to read it without asserting that it was the only reading for the way it was worded.

Suffice to say, I read it as you did, but then I realized something else is what was meant.

Hell, I could be wrong on the second count... but I don't think so.

It comes to to personal interpretation. If you are not literal in your response, then you can read it any way you wish. Or perhaps, what you view as literal is contrary to what I believe. It is why, we choose different responses to the question.

There is no right or wrong - it is simply based on your own response.

I think the one thing I would air caution to. To question yourself and to state the response of another was read incorrectly. It is simply a matter of ethics, as stated. How would you respond?

No disrespect - but if I were to evaluate your response. You would have over analyzed it and all five people would be dead. Then, you might have a mini nervous breakdown for just standing there over thinking. :-)

Julie

Eeee, yeeessss, well, it's a strange day here. Hope to see you again.

If I would personally be killed in saving those five people by flipping the switch - I would absolutely not flip the switch. I don't think that's even a question of ethics. The sense of self-preservation is strong with this one.

Even if those five people were not strangers, I would not flip the switch if the result would be that I die. Better that I live with their deaths than they live with mine.

Sorry for my badly worded question. There are 5 on one track and 1 on the other.

My logic escaped me. So literal I am.
Of course it makes sense --

5 people on one track - 1 person on another track.
Bystander now has to choose - save the five people and be responsible for changing the tracks, where the 1 person will surely die.

GOD - I much preferred the other scenario.

FUCK!
Now my head is swarming. I would completely over process it, think far too long on the implications and the five people would die. I would end up like Tapu in a nut house, after suffering a complete utter nervous breakdown.

I would flip the switch. Five people would live and one would die. Of course this would not be without sheer guilt for the loss of one life. Tough one.

Julie

Tapu's been pretty clear on this from the beginning. But again, pleasure to meet you.