Another moral dilemma

[James R]

This is a classic moral dilemma.

You are standing on a railroad track. A little down the line from you, 20 men are working on the track. Suddenly, you notice a train coming down the line at great speed. The workers are totally oblivious of the train's approach, and too far away from you to hear your shouted warning in time.

There's only one way to save the men from being hit by the train, and they are guaranteed to be killed if you do not act. You can save them by moving a switch on the line near you. Doing so will divert the speeding train onto a neighbouring track, which will mean it will miss the 20 men.

Unfortunately, 10 other men are working on the second track. If you divert the train onto the second track, these 10 men will surely die. So, the options are:

A. You do nothing. The train will kill the 20 men it is initially heading for.

OR

B. You switch the train. The train will kill the 10 men on the other line, but the initial 20 will be saved.

What is the right thing to do? And, more importantly, why? What issues are relevant here?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

It has already been decreed that the 20 men are in harms way and the 10 in an area of safety.

If you divert the line you are committing manslaughter. The 10 men were not in harms way and thus your manipulation of events would make you responsible for their deaths.

The alternative is to seek another option, your analogy doesn't allow for any.

But in real life there are always other options.

 

[redarmy11]

Would I have to explain to the families of the 10 men that I killed why I diverted the train?
Are any of the men relatives or friends of mine?

So many questions..

 

[imaplanck.]

It has already been decreed that the 20 men are in harms way and the 10 in an area of safety.

If you divert the line you are committing manslaughter. The 10 men were not in harms way and thus your manipulation of events would make you responsible for their deaths.

No but tor if you purposely waiver your opportunity to prevent the death of the 20 aren't you equally as morally lacking as you would be to purposely direct the train towards the 10. Thus the moral preferrable choice would be to divert the train to the 10.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

from web

"'Stick to the Rules'


Hoerster and Birnbacher are currently working with another aspect of Singer's neo-Darwinism—political and ethical game theory. This is from my standpoint, the most dangerous part of neo-Darwinism. Why? Because it is totally accepted by a certain ugly, hairy, stinking thing, called academic public opinion.

The target is the youth. Have you heard about philosophical cafés? This is a part of the youth culture of today, where youth sit down and discuss something they call philosophy, and I would claim that these cafés are equally as damaging to the mind as Pokémon, violent videogames, or pornography. Why? Because these cafés do not deal with philosophy at all, only with game theory. According to the rules of game theory, one is supposed to develop one's mind by reflecting upon fixed ethical paradoxes.

Peter Singer uses game theory repeatedly: For example, in the "X and Y" case. Two people are in front of you. They are about to get killed by something, and you can only save one of them, X or Y. Whom should you save, he asks?

If X is your sister and Y is a medical scientist, for example, whom do you save? And whom do you save if X is a handicapped person and Y is a healthy dog? Can you see the problem? It is a mental straitjacket. Game theory forces the mind to adapt to a situation where it has to choose between given alternatives. Problem-solving is banned; it is breaking the rules, and that is not allowed.

What is the sane solution to the problem? Of course, to try to find a solution that saves the life of both X and Y. How do you do that? By problem-solving, not by accepting the rules of the game. I would say that the more you practice problem-solving, the more capable you are to come up with a new solution when you are in a crisis, or when you face real-life situations like that of X and Y.

You should have seen some students, who admired Singer, whom I confronted on this issue some time ago! I had about 15 furious students in front of me who screamed: "You can't break the rules!" "Don't cheat!" and "Stick to the rules!" "

hilarious

Meanwhile to reply to You'raplank

No but tor if you purposely waiver your opportunity to prevent the death of the 20 aren't you equally as morally lacking as you would be to purposely direct the train towards the 10. Thus the moral preferrable choice would be to divert the train to the 10.

Why is neglecting the opportunity to kill 10 men and instead electing to attract the attention fo the 20 morally lacking?

you have no moral duty to alter events to the detriment of others in a position of safety, that would not be a moral view you took, rather that you assume arrogantly the right to reside over life and death.

 

[imaplanck.]

Meanwhile to reply to You'raplank

you have no moral duty to alter events to the detriment of others in a position of safety, that is not a moral view that you assume assume it is the arrogance to reside over life and death.

I will refrain from equalling your comment about me because you are a bird. Anyway it is a quality(or lack there of) I already imply myself.

Anyway back to the train. You do have a moral imperative to prevent yourself from killing if it is at all humanly possible. Take for instance running over a child, if you have the power to swerve and prevent the childs death but instead you decide to just go ahead and get to your destination, thus killing the individual- you are not acting to a moral standard that is acceptably equal to just driving down the road and reaching your destination with no child obsticle.

 

[Rosnet]

Do nothing.

I don't believe that I have an obligation to save anyone. So if it is a question of morals, I would certainly choose to not interfere, rather than killing 10 and saving 20.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I am stupido for not seeing the obvious, here it is:

I'd tell the ten men to get off the track (they would) then I'd divert the line. Thus noone gets killed.

 

[Rosnet]

That is not an option.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I will refrain from equalling your comment about me because you are a bird. Anyway it is a quality(or lack there of) I already imply myself.

Anyway back to the train. You do have a moral imperative to prevent yourself from killing if it is at all humanly possible. Take for instance running over a child, if you have the power to swerve and prevent that but you decide to just go ahead and get to your destination - you are not acting to a moral standard that is acceptablly equal to just driving down the road and reaching your destination with no child obsticle.

I only called you 'you'reaplank' as every time I read your user name I feel like I am insulting myself thus I reversed it, a little joke to prevent from me from calling myself a plank Not intended to offend.

 

[imaplanck.]

Yeah I know.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

That is not an option.

said who?

James did not say it was not an option. Are you making up your own rules so you get to kill 10 men?

There are ALWAYS options.

If you create a hypothetical situation for the purpose of philosophising on morals, and then proceed in such a manner as to remove 'all alternate options' then the situation you are describing is so unrealistic as it would never ever arise and thus would never be the subject of real moral dilemma. We may as well discuss whether it is more humane to save a pink unicorn or a polka dot yetti.
ie a complete and utter waste of time.

 

[DJ Erock]

said who?

James did not say it was not an option. Are you making up your own rules so you get to kill 10 men?

There are ALWAYS options.

If you create a hypothetical situation for the purpose of philosophising on morals, and then proceed in such a manner as to remove 'all alternate options' then the situation you are describing is so unrealistic as it would never ever arise and thus would never be the subject of real moral dilemma. We may as well discuss whether it is more humane to save a pink unicorn or a polka dot yetti.
ie a complete and utter waste of time.

"and too far away from you to hear your shouted warning in time"

If you think it is a waste of time, then go away and let us waste our time.

As far as I'm concerned, you save the 20 men. The utilitarian ideal that I know of is to do the most good for the most people. So while you're doing harm to 10, you're doing good for 20. In the way utilitarianism likes to calculate situations, this would be equitable to saving 10 lives, where as letting the 20 men die to save 10 would be equitable to destroying 10 lives. From here, I think the choice is obvious.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

"and too far away from you to hear your shouted warning in time"

If you think it is a waste of time, then go away and let us waste our time.

As far as I'm concerned, you save the 20 men. The utilitarian ideal that I know of is to do the most good for the most people. So while you're doing harm to 10, you're doing good for 20. In the way utilitarianism likes to calculate situations, this would be equitable to saving 10 lives, where as letting the 20 men die to save 10 would be equitable to destroying 10 lives. From here, I think the choice is obvious.

This is so funny, in real life after you murdered 10 men who were not at risk, the 20 men would turn on you and ask you why you did this? They would advise you that their sons and brothers whom you just killed could have been saved had you merely told them to get off the line, created a distraction, waved, ran to where they were, threw a stone to attract attention, used the loud hailer at your feet, prodded them in the arm (they may be just a foot away) a million choices that do not neccitate killing innocents.

and yes I will leave the thread because if you are only happy to discuss this once all 'options' are removed you may as well be talking about how you'll spend your time in heaven for all the value your discussion has.

 

[imaplanck.]

This is so funny, in real life after you murdered 10 men who were not at risk, the 20 men would turn on you and ask you why you did this? They would advise you that their sons and brothers whom you just killed could have been saved had you merely told them to get off the line, created a distraction, waved, ran to where they were, threw a stone to attract attention, used the loud hailer at your feet, prodded them in the arm (they may be just a foot away) a million choices that do not neccitate killing innocents.

and yes I will leave the thread because if you are only happy to discuss this once all 'options' are removed you may as well be talking about how you'll spend your time in heaven for all the value your discussion has.

No you have a good point, but I believe the question is asking you to suspend a 3rd option as to concerntrate on the moral dilemma of doing nothing versus doing something.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

No you have a good point, but I believe the question is asking you to suspend a 3rd option as to concerntrate on the moral dilemma of doing nothing versus doing something.

I've changed my mind, while these type of discussions have no value in real life, except to teach kids how be cold blooded killers as oppose to teaching them how to problem solve, this line of questioning serves a purpose and that is a valuable insight into the respondants psyche. And mildly fun. Thus my heaven question will follow in a new thread shortly. It involves cake and stuff thus a truely hard moral dilemma.

 

[imaplanck.]

It involves cake and stuff .

I cant wait.

 

[James R]

Theoryofrelativity:

You are reacting against this problem in a childish way, saying "It's too hard! It's not fair that there are only two options and I'm not allowed to break the rules and save everyone." In doing that, you're just trying to avoid taking a difficult decision, and giving reasons for your beliefs.

As imaplanck pointed out, the point of this dilemma is to focus on action versus inaction. Is doing nothing as morally culpable as doing something? If you stand back and watch the train kill 20 people when you could have reduced the deaths to 10, are you morally culpable? Or, taking the other view, would you be more morally culpable in that you couldn't be blamed for the 20 deaths if you did nothing, but you would in a sense be responsible for 10 deaths if you pulled the switch?

It is a shame that you are incapable of taking this dilemma in the spirit in which it was intended, and that you seemingly hold no convictions strong enough to defend a point of view on the issue raised.

Well, never mind. Off to your new thread with you.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Theoryofrelativity:

You are reacting against this problem in a childish way, saying "It's too hard! It's not fair that there are only two options and I'm not allowed to break the rules and save everyone." In doing that, you're just trying to avoid taking a difficult decision, and giving reasons for your beliefs.

.

How can it be too hard when I solved it already?
I would tell the 10 men to move and then change the track. DONE.

Failing that I'd let the 20 die and I gave my reasons already in detail, and no its not a difficult decision.

It has already been decreed that the 20 men are in harms way and the 10 in an area of safety.

If you divert the line you are committing manslaughter. The 10 men were not in harms way and thus your manipulation of events would make you responsible for their deaths.

The alternative is to seek another option, your analogy doesn't allow for any.

But in real life there are always other options.

I am stupido for not seeing the obvious, here it is:

I'd tell the ten men to get off the track (they would) then I'd divert the line. Thus noone gets killed.

Meanwhile to reply to You'raplank



Why is neglecting the opportunity to kill 10 men and instead electing to attract the attention fo the 20 morally lacking?

you have no moral duty to alter events to the detriment of others in a position of safety, that would not be a moral view you took, rather that you assume arrogantly the right to reside over life and death.

This is so funny, in real life after you murdered 10 men who were not at risk, the 20 men would turn on you and ask you why you did this? They would advise you that their sons and brothers whom you just killed could have been saved had you merely told them to get off the line, created a distraction, waved, ran to where they were, threw a stone to attract attention, used the loud hailer at your feet, prodded them in the arm (they may be just a foot away) a million choices that do not neccitate killing innocents.

.

So where did you get the 'too hard' crapola from? I suggest you made it up to suit your agenda as the me wailing it's 'too hard' does not exist in reality does it James?

I answered your 'dilemma' both ways, demonstrating more skill than the unimaginative contributers. Sorry you don't recognise that James..but it's not my problem is it.

you don't like my answers well that's a different matter, you don't like me critisising the nature of these dilemma's well that's a different matter, but making up your own version of events to alleviate your frustration?

 

[(Q)]

The decision of what to do or not do in split-second life and death scenarios will be based on whether one has the ability to overcome the 'doe-in-the-headlights' gaze and act. If not, then you'll watch as 20 men die. If so, most likely you'll flick the switch to save the group of 20.

Time is a major factor here, and most people do not have the ability to think through these scenarios and their repercussions when engaged.