Questions of Ethics

[Gemme]

Originally Posted by Nat

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Sparkle

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.

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.