Deeper hypothetical situations...

[wowsa0]

You come across a train track and there are 5 people tied to the rails with a train coming towards them. You are next to a lever and can divert the train but this will kill a 6th man tied to the other track. Do you change the course of the train?

I think the answer for most people to the above situation will be yes, you will kill the 6th man to save the other 5. However, if you pulled the lever then this next scenario becomes very interesting:

There are 5 people dying in a hospital and they each need a different organ transplant to survive. You are a doctor but you know that it is impossible to get a donor organ in time for anyone. However, outside in the waiting room is a perfectly healthy man with all his organs intact, bearing in mind you answered kill the one to save the five in the previous question, shouldn't you kill the healthy man in the waiting room to save the lives of the 5 people in ward? For this scenario imagine that it is guaranteed that the 5 will make a full recovery if you remove the organs of the man in the waiting room.

[PrimalSign]

Didn't you do this exact same thread before?

[Rigan Pere]

Hmmm, good question.

If the 5 are in need of organs due to self inflicted things, like lung cancer or drinking or drug abuse, then fuck them, let em rot.

If not then that inocent man just accidently tripped and killed himself on my operating table...

[wowsa0]

Didn't you do this exact same thread before?

Yes. But that was a few years ago I think. Most of the people here now are 08ers, I reckon most of the pre 08s are in beta.

[wowsa0]

If not then that inocent man just accidently tripped and killed himself on my operating table...

So you would kill the innocent bystander in the waiting room? That's an unusual response though, most people save the 5 in the first and let them die in the second but no one has been able to adequately explain to me why that is. As far as I can see the two scenarios are pretty much the same.

[rwp80]

No, don't kill the man in the waiting room.

1. He hasn't done anything to deserve being killed and ultra-looted.

2. He isn't sick or dying, so he's not in their situation.

If he caused the 5 sick people to be where they are, then it would become an interesting question.

In that case, my answer would be kill all 6 of them, make it look like a guilt-fuelled murder-suicide, and blame it on the guy in the waiting room.

[Rigan Pere]

So you would kill the innocent bystander in the waiting room? That's an unusual response though, most people save the 5 in the first and let them die in the second but no one has been able to adequately explain to me why that is. As far as I can see the two scenarios are pretty much the same.

Hmmm, but if you had told me that the 5 who needed organs was not from self inlflicted reasons then like i said it would have been different, so im making assumptions.

But the end answer would be what is the life of 1 compared to 5?

[wowsa0]

No, dont kill the man in the waiting room.

1. He hasn't done anything to deserve being killed and ultra-looted.

2. He isn't sick or dying, so he's not in their situation.



But the guy on the train tracks hasn't done anything, and you're killing him, well I assume you are as you didn't answer the first scenario.

[Echo Del' Torre]

But the end answer would be what is the life of 1 compared to 5?

So, if your death could save 5 random people's lives you would sacrifice yourself?

[holychicken]

The guy who is tied to the track is at least stupid enough to have gotten himself tied to a track.

The guy in the waiting room is not stupid for being in the waiting room. . . or is he?

I am never going to a hospital again.

[hardboiled]

You come across a train track and there are 5 people tied to the rails with a train coming towards them. You are next to a lever and can divert the train but this will kill a 6th man tied to the other track. Do you change the course of the train?

I think the answer for most people to the above situation will be yes, you will kill the 6th man to save the other 5. However, if you pulled the lever then this next scenario becomes very interesting:

There are 5 people dying in a hospital and they each need a different organ transplant to survive. You are a doctor but you know that it is impossible to get a donor organ in time for anyone. However, outside in the waiting room is a perfectly healthy man with all his organs intact, bearing in mind you answered kill the one to save the five in the previous question, shouldn't you kill the healthy man in the waiting room to save the lives of the 5 people in ward? For this scenario imagine that it is guaranteed that the 5 will make a full recovery if you remove the organs of the man in the waiting room.
I wouldn't pull the lever and I wouldn't kill the healthy man. I'm not a believer in collective good.


Hmmm, good question.

If the 5 are in need of organs due to self inflicted things, like lung cancer or drinking or drug abuse, then fuck them, let em rot.

If not then that inocent man just accidently tripped and killed himself on my operating table...

You are the reason why our world sucks.

And I distinctively remember already answering this dilemma on this forum.

[holychicken]

I wouldn't pull the lever and I wouldn't kill the healthy man. I'm not a believer in collective good.
I don't believe "the collective good" should be put above all else, but to not believe in it is to not believe in society. Considering that humans are social creatures, it makes no sense.

[Rigan Pere]

So, if your death could save 5 random people's lives you would sacrifice yourself?

Who said anything about sacrifice? The inocent guy would never know whats happening once that needle went into his neck....

[Darkrabbit18]

So, if your death could save 5 random people's lives you would sacrifice yourself?

Depends on who this people are. If they are people that could benefit society and humanity greatly, then maybe..

But if they are crack addicted, child abusing drunkards.. Fuck no.

If they are all just average people, No.

[Attau]

Fail :sly:.

To make the scenarios the same you'd have to say that the 6th man is also ill and he needs one organ from all 5 of the other group.

Thus - Either the 6th man gets one organ from all 5 of the other sick people or the 5 people each get one organ from the 6th man. Then the scenarios are the same and if that was the entire system I had to work with then yes I would use the 6th man's organs.

There is never a isolated system like that however so it is all just morally wrong altogether. This scenario was fail to begin with.

[DocGonzo]

first one pull the switch...why?

either way , someone is going to die and 5 > 1... if you can only make one of the choices offered, that's the ethical decision...you are forced into a choice and inaction would result in greater deaths than the choice

in the second scenario... sorry, those folks have to find their own donors, you cannot ethically kill the healthy guy

now, if the guy with good organs was brain dead and on life support....

[Connecticaine]

Hmmm, good question.

If the 5 are in need of organs due to self inflicted things, like lung cancer or drinking or drug abuse, then fuck them, let em rot.

If not then that inocent man just accidently tripped and killed himself on my operating table...

Since when did lung cancer become self inflicted? Oh right since the truth commercial came out

rofl

[Paganini]

I'd kill the first, let the second die. Interesting scenario but the difference is that killing the guy in the second scenario qualifies as murder, whereas redirecting the train doesn't. I'm not talking about the law here, I'm talking about my own morals.

[Rigan Pere]

Since when did lung cancer become self inflicted? Oh right since the truth commercial came out

rofl

Im pretty sure if you smoked constantly. your gunna fuck up your lungs, if you wanna be a smartass lets say the guy smoked 100 smokes a day.

[Bloody blade]

I'm not sure...

If the people inflicted these illnesses on themselves, like drug and alchohol abuse, let them die.

But if they didn't self-inflict themselves with these illnesses, then the disease is probably genetic, thus meaning if you save them, you are potentially letting them spread their bad genes through the gene pool, and giving other people who aren't born yet the disease. And the other guy is perfectly healthy, thus his genes would benefit man (unless he contracts a disease later in life).

It just depends with me. I might kill the man, i might not. It depends on circumstance.

[Honest Bill]

I'd definitely wonder why the other guy was tied to the other line. Who the hell tied them there? what had they done to deserve it? Is it safe for me to redirect the train at this pont?

By the time i decided the five would probably have died.

As for the other scenario. I'd probably consult a senior official and tell them that there has been a horrible mistake. I actually have no qualifications to be performing any kind of operation on anybody, i really shouldn't have been allowed to get this job, and that the people who are in charge of hiring doctors were incompetent

[Salaman]

If I was a doctor I wouldn't harvest the 6th guy either as I'd probably lose my job and wouldn't be allowed to practice anywhere else. Since you'd probably save more than five people in future incidents, then letting them go instead of acting out in an illegal fashion would be better for the collective good in the long term.

[PaleOne]

You come across a train track and there are 5 people tied to the rails with a train coming towards them. You are next to a lever and can divert the train but this will kill a 6th man tied to the other track. Do you change the course of the train?

I think the answer for most people to the above situation will be yes, you will kill the 6th man to save the other 5. However, if you pulled the lever then this next scenario becomes very interesting:

There are 5 people dying in a hospital and they each need a different organ transplant to survive. You are a doctor but you know that it is impossible to get a donor organ in time for anyone. However, outside in the waiting room is a perfectly healthy man with all his organs intact, bearing in mind you answered kill the one to save the five in the previous question, shouldn't you kill the healthy man in the waiting room to save the lives of the 5 people in ward? For this scenario imagine that it is guaranteed that the 5 will make a full recovery if you remove the organs of the man in the waiting room.

What if the 5 people tied to the track were all serial killers, and the 6th guy was completely innocent?

No single human being should have the power to decide who lives or dies, except in defense of yourself, your family or your property.

and no single human being should ever have to assume the role of sacrifical animal.

Now what if the 5 people dying in the hospital were dying due to the actions of the 6th person? now that is a real question to consider.

[holychicken]

No single human being should have the power to decide who lives or dies, except in defense of yourself, your family or your property.
The choice is unavoidable in this case . . . if you have your hand on the lever and don't pull it, you are choosing to let the train run over the six people. If you flip the switch, you are choosing to let the train run over the single guy. Either way, you have decided who lives and who dies.

and no single human being should ever have to assume the role of sacrifical animal.
But you are sacrificing the other 6 people for that one guy.

[Sprawlz]

I wouldnt even change the track of the train, if it was ment for the 5 people to die (and unable to save them without concequences) then let them die. Who am i to decide to let them live and kill someone who wasn't supposed to die

[Master Shadow]

no one has been able to adequately explain to me why that is.

The reason is pretty obvious. In the first example you are not the cause of the deaths. Some other individule set up the deathtrap and you happened along and can only do what you can to save as many people as possible.

The second scenario is similar but at the same time entirely different because you would be the cause of the unwilling donor's death. You were in control of the donor dieing whereas in the first example the only control you have is to pull a lever.

[MinusInnocence]

These scenarios are suspiciously familiar.

[Connecticaine]

go play darkfall.

Darwin's theory =)

[Drudley]

Theres alot of people here who thinks their property is more valuable than a human life, so I'd just like to ask them this:

If you replace the 5 people tied to the track with your most precious/valuable possession and let the random guy be a random criminal, would you pull the lever?

The random criminal did not place your item on the tracks, nor did he do anything bad to you. You did not place the your item on the tracks either.

Also, if the criminal and item switched places, would you pull the lever to save the criminal?



And yes, your possession is sure to be utterly destroyed by the train.

[Jamboreen]

Theres alot of people here who thinks their property is more valuable than a human life, so I'd just like to ask them this:

If you replace the 5 people tied to the track with your most precious/valuable possession and let the random guy be a random criminal, would you pull the lever?

The random criminal did not place your item on the tracks, nor did he do anything bad to you. You did not place the your item on the tracks either.

Also, if the criminal and item switched places, would you pull the lever to save the criminal?



And yes, your possession is sure to be utterly destroyed by the train.


My stuff > Criminal.

[PaleOne]

In real life i have attempted twice to intervene in violent situations in order to save some stranger from harm.

In both cases I wasted my time and energy.

In one case I intervened when some biker was beating his girlfriend. She wouldnt press charges against him and went back to him

In another case I broke up a fight between two strangers and ended up getting hit from behind with a bottle 30 minutes later...

And in this hypothertical situation does not take into consideration the character of the people involved. I cannot say that the life of 5 muderers are worth the life of one innocent, so I do not feel you can make a moral judgment based strictly on numbers.

I don't think you could judge anyone for choosing or not choosing to throw a switch.

on the second situation, it is immoral to kill the man in the waiting room period regardless of the needs of the others.

Your needs do not give you right to my property.

[holychicken]

And in this hypothertical situation does not take into consideration the character of the people involved. I cannot say that the life of 5 muderers are worth the life of one innocent, so I do not feel you can make a moral judgment based strictly on numbers.
You make decisions based on the facts you have, not based on every single fact that could possibly be true about a situation. If you made all of your decisions the latter way, you would never be able to make any decisions about anything.

I don't think you could judge anyone for choosing or not choosing to throw a switch.
So, you admit, either way, you are making a choice.

on the second situation, it is immoral to kill the man in the waiting room period regardless of the needs of the others.
Agreed.

[Wickfield]

Generally I avoid being tied to a train track/injuring myself to the point of needing an organ donor.

*however, given the two situations, I would probably kill the 6th man every time.

This is assuming that the 5 people in the other situations are goodish people, or I'm not one of them.

[Damwa]

The difference between the two situations is pretty simple and has already been pointed out quite adequately. This is really all somewhat silly.

You might as well just have had the hospital scenario alone and not involve the train scenario, since they have no necessary logical bearing on each other.