Questions of Ethics

[atomiczombie]

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.

[girl_dee]

Yes how would I know the outcome? If I knew for sure I'd flip it.

Came back to edit: the question was should the flipper flip the flip switch, Yes. The flipper should.

There are so many variables, what if the one person killed were a child, or wheelchair bound or whatever.. it could be debated throughout infinity.
I am assuming this is even playing field.

[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.

[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?

[Greyson]

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?

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

[Okiebug61]

The plot thickens

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

[Jett]

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.

[Corkey]

I'd flip the switch, even if I were the one. All things being equal and putting the train back on it's normal course.

[atomiczombie]

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?

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

[AtLast]

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

[JustJo]

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?

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...

[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.)

[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.

[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.

[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.