A Test of Morality

[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...

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...

Ah, I probably should have said, but I thought it would be obvious. I said I wouldn't even flip the switch, I'm not gonna dissect the guy either.

Aww, now I'm stuck trying to rationalize why someone would not flip the switch and then dissect the person...

 

[ElegantSwordsman]

I don't really understand 2... I mean, you're talking about killing a healthy guy who just happens to be waiting around at the hospital, presumably worried about a loved one? Why kill a healthy guy for the possibility of saving a few sick ones, who might reject the transplants anyway? That's pretty much irresponsible murder, so I'm gonna have to say it's a no brainer to let him live.

As for #1, I don't see why I have time to reach the switch but somehow can't yell "Yo buddy, train's gonna be coming that way, get off the track you retard!" Bam, no one dies. But for the sake of argument, let's say the sap can't get out of the way of the train. If you pull the lever, guess what, you knowingly killed that guy and will be spending the next few years of your life behind bars. Whereas, if you do nothing, chances are you won't be prosecuted for death by negligence (especially since the alternative is murder); at most you have a guilty conscience. Well, that's my reasoning anyway.

 

[countrysteaksauce]

I guess Utilitarianism for these cases.

 

[Knight Templar]

Kill somebody sitting on a train track (thats just stupid) to save helpless others? Simple save the people on the train.

Butcher somebody so you can help a bunch of sick people? Too far.

 

[ChromeAlchemist]

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.

I like that actually, and it is very true. I agree and change my view to this.

 

[fluffylandmine]

1) Depends
2) Depends

Wanna know why? No? Too bad to get know anyway!-

Do you comprehend to amount of variables taken into place when making these kinds of decisions? Time, character, purpose, the end result, how it will be achieved should you choose to do it; These can all be spread out into many more sub-variables that inherently change to main variable to such a degree that you soon realize you have no fair way of doing either of these.

You cannot just make an on the fly decision without even looking once at all of these(or at least the main ones). It is not fair to you, the dead, and those who live due to the blood of another.

My other point being- everyone will do something different, even at the slightest difference. And if it is the same choice as someone else, how you go about it is another way entirely: IE in case 2 should you kill the man do you blugeon the back his skull in with large blunt object, slit his throat quick and quiet, do you ask him if he would mind giving himself to save others?

 

[Logan Keller]

Why is a completely healthy man in a hospital waiting room?

 

[thiosk]

ook what is this, hapless civilian?

if the hapless civilian has been tied to the tracks and is a beautiful woman, we can count on Dudley Do-Right to save her in the nick of time. He'd be pissed at us if we didn't redirect the train. Otherwise, dipshit needs to get off the god damn tracks, they have signs that say NO TRESSPASSING TRAINS OMG WTF for a reason. If the hapless one is old and dementiated, well, still doesn't matter, your son shouldn't have dropped you off on the tracks.

But who the hell kidnaps and butchers some random guy in a hospital waiting room? What kind of freak would DO something like that? He might be waiting for his damn wife to come out of labor.

 

[Arcticflame]

For number 1 you are manipulating a disaster in order for the best outcome to occur.

For number 2 you are creating a tragedy in order to save people. It's murder.

That is the difference in my opinion, and that is why I would do number 1, but not number 2.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

#1 is simply easy for my utilitarian mind flip the switch but #2 is utterly retarded. I lack any significant data other then butcher someone to help a bunch of people that are sickly thus it makes little sense to butcher a perfectly healthy man in order to save a bunch of sickly people who will most likely reject the transplants anyways.

 

[mr mcshiznit]

#1 - Pull the lever, all i have to do is pull a lever.
#2 - Leave the guy alone in the waiting room. I cant just up and kill a dude face to face..look i'm just not hardcore like that - lover not a ..erm..killer.

 

[Rajin Cajun]

#1 is simply easy for my utilitarian mind flip the switch but #2 is utterly retarded. I lack any significant data other then butcher someone to help a bunch of people that are sickly thus it makes little sense to butcher a perfectly healthy man in order to save a bunch of sickly people who will most likely reject the transplants anyways.

somebody didnt read the first post

No obviously you didn't since it quite obviously states kill some random guy in a waiting room. Please read before correcting others. Thanks.

 

[Janus Vesta]

Situation one, (obviously I can't warn the stranger, that would cheat the situation) I would not pull the switch.

Situation two, I would let the patients die.

Reasoning: I do not find it ethical to end one life to save multiple lives. Each life has infinate worth. If I was in the train/a dying patient I would want to live. But if I was the other guy I wouldn't want my life cut short to save complete strangers. It's not fair either way so why sacrifice the guy who would have lived anyway?

 

[vede]

#1 is simply easy for my utilitarian mind flip the switch but #2 is utterly retarded. I lack any significant data other then butcher someone to help a bunch of people that are sickly thus it makes little sense to butcher a perfectly healthy man in order to save a bunch of sickly people who will most likely reject the transplants anyways.

somebody didnt read the first post

No obviously you didn't since it quite obviously states kill some random guy in a waiting room. Please read before correcting others. Thanks.

Ahem!

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).

Maybe you're the one in need of the reading? You're supposed to read the whole first post.

 

[kommando367]

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?

in #1 i'll choose the former and te'll that dumbass to get out the way of the train. in #2 i highly doubt they'll agree to that (though if they do then problem solvedj, nor survive the procedure of having 5 organs removed. but thats beside the point, i belive if its your time to die, its your time to die. and in my opinion, letting 5 people die of natural causes is more just than killing someone in public