A Test of Morality

[Skilen]

Let's assume two hypothetical situations:
1. A train with five passengers is speeding down a track, and, if left unattended, will fall off an uncompleted bridge, and all the passengers will die. But, you can pull a lever and switch the train's direction, sending it en route to a hapless civilian. Do you leave the train untouched,and let the five passengers fall to their death? Or do you change the train's direction, and condemn the civilian to death?

2. There are five hospital patients in need of organs, and without them, they will die. But, there are no places to get the neccesary organs, save one. There is a man in the waiting room. Do you leave the patients to die, or do you sacrifice the man in the waiting room to save the five hospital patients?

In both situations, the people are all complete strangers.

What do you do?

EDIT: For case 2, the person in the waiting room is a perfect match for the patients in the hospital - they will all die at virtually the same time, the only way to save them is with the man in the waiting room's organs. With these organs, they will live normal lives (again, a hypothetical situation, please don't bother posting how probable that is).





I've found that in most situations, one would sacrifice the civilian, while in the second situation, one would be inclined to let the man in the waiting room live unchanged. Thoughts/opinions why?

 

[Xpwn3ntial]

For number 1, it's a simple matter of pulling a switch. If you're in the hospital, you're not necessarily a doctor, and they might have different blood types.

 

[CoverYourHead]

I'd redirect the train, I wouldn't kill the patient, mostly because who knows if he's an match for organs?

Otherwise, I'd let one of the patients die and take their organs and give them to the other patients, assuming that none of them needed an organ he also lacked.

I apologize if I am reading too far into the questions, but this is how I would handle it.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

1 you change direction, that's just the way it is, condemn the few to save the many.

2 let him live.

I see what you did there. Essentially they are the same situations and you have made me a hypocrite now, and I will have to get back to you on the reason why I chose those.

 

[Adam Jenson]

switch the tracks but let the man in the waiting room live

 

[zacaron]

I would pull the switch and save the man because the switch is a guarenty 5 for 1 but with the organ transplant the odds of all 5 people living and accepting the organs are slim plus they would have to be medicated the rest of there lives.

 

[bad rider]

For number one pull the lever and tell the civilian he's a dick for being on the track.

For number two I would leave the people suffering to die, it would ne immoral to kill someone for their possesions no matter how great the cause.

This is excluding obvious other idea like blood groupps and telling the guy to get out the way first.

But the difference is one is a guy who can acknowledge that the train is coming and is dickishly turning this into a moral choice.The other is a innocent bystander that has no reason to die.

 

[Reaperman Wompa]

Switch tracks, but I need to know more for the other decision. there's no point in taking organs if he's not a match. If a match, kill him. Though again, who am I saving? If on the track is a doctor and I'm driving a prison train, then let the prisoners die. Same with the other situation.

 

[Anarchemitis]

The first one I would choose pulling the lever, but there are too many givens/requirements/coincidences for the 2nd one to work so its authenticity of a """"good"""" morality question is not absolute in my mind.

 

[n3w2nj]

morality is subjective.

that said - who are we to decide that the life of one man is worth that of 5 others?

with that in mind, i would not be able to do anything regarding either situations as it is impossible to condemn anyone for the greater good (again subjective).

so ya - for both choices i would not kill 1 to save 5.

 

[Cucumber]

Wait a minute... People, i think you are misunderstanding this one.

Both of these situations are kinda the same, save 1/kill 5, or the ohter way round? I have to assume, since I've not been told the opposite, that all of these people are innocent, not some prison train or stuff like that, and that the waiting-room-guy's organs will match perfectly into the five ohter people. No "death-chance-hullabulla"... (or else i've read wrong =| )

I guess in the train one you would'nt have any problem killing the single civillian, since you do not know him as well as you would know a person sitting in the room next to you. Again, I'ts not been told that I am the one killing the guy in the waiting room, but I have to assume that, since i also am the person killing the civillian on the tracks.

The problem is (i guess) that you would'nt kill the guy in the waiting room, because you are too near?

 

[Easykill]

If they're all perfect matches with the one guy, that would mean they're perfect matches with each other, no? In that case, have one of the five die early and split him up, leaving the relatively healthy guy alive too. That way, No one dies who wouldn't have anyway, and four lives were saved. Done. Just have to decide which one to butcher.

For the other one, let the train fall. For some reason it's better in my mind to let someone die due to inaction than to action. Probably because I do it all the time by spending my money on videogames instead of feeding people with it. I don't want to let myself become someone who can just think that five people have more worth than one or someone who can place value on an individual based on how useful he is to society.

 

[Cucumber]

If they're all perfect matches with the one guy, that would mean they're perfect matches with each other, no? In that case, have one of the five die early and split him up, leaving the relatively healthy guy alive too. That way, No one dies who wouldn't have anyway, and four lives were saved. Done. Just have to decide which one to butcher...

Try and look at the situation more philosophically, and forget the techical part. Stop looking for a reason to avoid the dilemma. And dont blame yourself if you really dont know which one to choose, because there is no right answers...

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

I think the difference here is that one situation is artificially created (train loses control) and the other is naturally created (sick people with failing organs). Most people tend to sympathize more with those who are threatened by an external situation utterly beyond their control than an internal one.

 

[Zetona]

These sort of morality questions are asked a lot nowadays. Mix it up a bit. What if one of the dying people in the hospital was your son? What if the innocent man in both cases was your best friend? What if the only way to stop a major epidemic was to kill all your friends and family members? Those questions are more troubling than the ones posted here.

 

[Skilen]

I think the difference here is that one situation is artificially created (train loses control) and the other is naturally created (sick people with failing organs). Most people tend to sympathize more with those who are threatened by an external situation utterly beyond their control than an internal one.

Not only that, I believe part of it is being able to justify our own actions - in one case, you're pulling a lever. In another, you're pointing to a man and deciding his life doesn't measure up to the other's.

 

[WolfMage]

But I'm House, I can save everyone!
[1] Flip the switch.
[2] Plug the bastard with a pistol shot to the head, when he isn't looking.

 

[vede]

This is the worst "test of morality" I've ever witnessed.

Really, the only real options are "trying to get as many people killed as possible" and "not trying to get as many people killed as possible."

There's either "totally evil" or "relatively neutral."

 

[Jeronus]

1) I would flip the switch all the way in reverse and watch everyone freak out as the train went crashing into a station of unsuspecting people.

2) I would blow up the hospital.(We all go at some point might as well be all at once except for me. I live forever.)

WHY? I hate humanity. Its like a failed experiment that just keeps marching on and in case you were wondering I'm not evil enough to do the things I stated above because I am man at a keyboard typing in a random made up answer to a hypothetical query.