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...