I'd sacrifice the one civilian in both cases. It's simple math--five lives are worth more than one.
A Test of Morality
- Thread starter Skilen
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Both are cases of saving 5 people for the life of one. However, in the first situation it is entirely possible for the civilian to just dodge the fucking train. I've done it, about six seconds before it would have hit me. Unless he's tied down, pull the lever without hesitation.
In the case of the second situation, the specs are not there at all. Is the guy in the waiting room just sitting there? What are we going to run up to him and cut him open, are we going to saunter over to him and kindly ask him to sacrifice his organs to us? Or is he a donor that will give his organs up. That's sort of the make or break of the situation.
I find the hypothetical decisions made by questions of scruples kind of arbitrary and stupid.
In the case of the second situation, the specs are not there at all. Is the guy in the waiting room just sitting there? What are we going to run up to him and cut him open, are we going to saunter over to him and kindly ask him to sacrifice his organs to us? Or is he a donor that will give his organs up. That's sort of the make or break of the situation.
I find the hypothetical decisions made by questions of scruples kind of arbitrary and stupid.
#1 I would save the train because any idiot sitting on the tracks deserves to die.
#2 I would let the hospital patients die because they most likely abused their bodys in such a way that they are also deserving of their fates.
I have been posed this question in a different context and I have come to the realization I am not a very moral person.
#2 I would let the hospital patients die because they most likely abused their bodys in such a way that they are also deserving of their fates.
I have been posed this question in a different context and I have come to the realization I am not a very moral person.
In #1, its impossible to learn more about the people so you give the 5 the benefit of the doubt and assume they have equal social value with the 1.
In #2, the people will most likely need a lung, heart, kidney, liver, and GI tract transplant, since you have time to learn more about them, the decision could go either way. Since the most common causes of liver and kidney failure are drugs and alcohol, it is safeto assume that 95/100 they probably don't deserve the transplant, but it could also be hepatitus or cancer, so it depends. They decision could vary based on age, cause of illness, etc. but genereally i would say no
In #2, the people will most likely need a lung, heart, kidney, liver, and GI tract transplant, since you have time to learn more about them, the decision could go either way. Since the most common causes of liver and kidney failure are drugs and alcohol, it is safeto assume that 95/100 they probably don't deserve the transplant, but it could also be hepatitus or cancer, so it depends. They decision could vary based on age, cause of illness, etc. but genereally i would say no
1. Yell to the civilian "OI! WHAT THE F*CK YOU DOING ON THE TRAIN TRACKS!" then pull the lever, if he doesn't get the hint to move out of the way then clearly his genes are better removed from the gene pool.
2. Do not butcher the man in the waiting room because odds are he does not have the same blood type as the people.
2. Do not butcher the man in the waiting room because odds are he does not have the same blood type as the people.
Your main question seems to be *why* people make the choice they do, and I have a guess:
In the first scenario, you are not directly responsible for the man's death. He died as a result of your actions, but it was only by proxy. Even ignoring questions of the particular need for the transplant, or the need to take immunosuppresants, or the much-shortened lifespan, I believe the question comes down to the directness of the murder.
If, for instance, you asked the second scenario in reverse:
"You can either spend the money to save five lives, or one. If you save the five, they live long lives, while the one dies. If you save the one, he lives a long life while the other five die"
You're forcing people to take direct responsibility for the lives and deaths. In the first scenario, to plunge the five into the river would be *my* fault, as would the death of the man, so more lives saved is better. In the second scenario, the only death I'm directly responsible for is the one man I would have to kill (the diseases kill the others). Proximate cause is a *****, it seems.
In the first scenario, you are not directly responsible for the man's death. He died as a result of your actions, but it was only by proxy. Even ignoring questions of the particular need for the transplant, or the need to take immunosuppresants, or the much-shortened lifespan, I believe the question comes down to the directness of the murder.
If, for instance, you asked the second scenario in reverse:
"You can either spend the money to save five lives, or one. If you save the five, they live long lives, while the one dies. If you save the one, he lives a long life while the other five die"
You're forcing people to take direct responsibility for the lives and deaths. In the first scenario, to plunge the five into the river would be *my* fault, as would the death of the man, so more lives saved is better. In the second scenario, the only death I'm directly responsible for is the one man I would have to kill (the diseases kill the others). Proximate cause is a *****, it seems.
#1: switch the track, there is no time to know the people, so saving 5 is better then saving 1
#2: let the guy live and the 5 die. You have to be the doctor in this situation to know all this right? My point is, I wont let the guy live for morality and i woulnt kill him for the 'math' as 5is better then 1, like first case. If you kill the guy, you commit a crime, you save 5 people, but you go to jail, probaly for a long time, time you could have use to save a lot of people. In a way, killing the guy to save the 5 will cause more people to die, because your in jail.
A had this same problem in a philosophy class last years. I saw this when we studied utilitarianism, witch I turn out to identify myself in this idea.
#2: let the guy live and the 5 die. You have to be the doctor in this situation to know all this right? My point is, I wont let the guy live for morality and i woulnt kill him for the 'math' as 5is better then 1, like first case. If you kill the guy, you commit a crime, you save 5 people, but you go to jail, probaly for a long time, time you could have use to save a lot of people. In a way, killing the guy to save the 5 will cause more people to die, because your in jail.
A had this same problem in a philosophy class last years. I saw this when we studied utilitarianism, witch I turn out to identify myself in this idea.
Terminalchaos said:
Pure utilitarians like Bentham would say kill the jaywalker, but a number of philopher did make they own change. Jhon Steward Mill did answer those who said that utulitarism could cause people to make immorals action by saying thats its always better to follow moral rules, like my exemple :
Darth Mad said:
Iam not sure if I explain this well, but I will give it another try if you think this is confusing.
Terminalchaos said:
As I say its not pure utilitarism but saying thats its better to let the 5 die because if I save them Ill go to jail and I wont be able to save more is still a form of utilitarism. The morality is nothing more here then another 'number' in the calculation to know how to make the better choice for the largest group of person.
If you also take away any kind of consequence like people no longer want to be treated by me because of that, then i suppose I would save the 5 guys. But i agree its a difficult choice and Iam happy that such scenario is not possible, at least I dont see how.
Not let me ask another question, for everyone
there is 2 persons, one is a baby, the other is a 15 yeard old boy. One of them must die, the other will live (the reason why is irrelavant). You choice
Who will die, who will live and why?
Not let me ask another question, for everyone
there is 2 persons, one is a baby, the other is a 15 yeard old boy. One of them must die, the other will live (the reason why is irrelavant). You choice
Who will die, who will live and why?