Questions of Ethics

[chefhottie25]

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.

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

[Nat]

Originally Posted by chefhottie25

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.

[tapu]

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.)

[imperfect_cupcake]

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.

[Sparkle]

Originally Posted by tapu

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.)

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.

[LaneyDoll]

Originally Posted by Nat

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.

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.

[tapu]

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!

[T4Texas]

It's obviously a no win situation because somebody is still going to die. But my rationale is that to save five lives would be better and so unfortunately the one would have to be sacrificed even if it were my own. Life is like that, we have to make choices and sacrifices every day or pick the lesser of two evils. Perhaps not to this extent, but still in ways that impact our own lives and our moral beliefs, sometimes with tragic consequences.

[Julie]

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.

[LaneyDoll]

Originally Posted by tapu

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!

I agree. However, I am basing my response on this comment by the OP, "it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch."

There are few variables I can imagine that would prevent me from sacrificing 5 to save 1. At the moment, the introduction of loved ones is the main one I can think of.

Ok, let's add this to the mix---what if, you were to find out that you would suddenly be privy, for the rest of your life, to effects of the deaths (of the 5 only) on their loved ones.

Soooo, is anyone else thinking of the movie "The Box"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

[tapu]

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

[tapu]

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.

[Julie]

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

[tapu]

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.

[Julie]

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

[tapu]

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

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by scootebaby

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?

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.

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Julie

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

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

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Nat

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]

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