Another moral dilemma

Read the scenario below. What is the right thing to do?

  • A. Do nothing.

    Votes: 6 46.2%

  • B. Divert the train onto the other line.

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • Total voters
    13
(Q) said:
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.
Click to expand...


If the group of 20 were old sterile men - pensioners and the group of 10 were young fit fertile men with families and young chilren would you still opt to kill the men who had families to raise and support and save the pensioners? Even though they were never in danger in the first place?

Opting for greater number all the time in favour of 'needs of many out weigh needs of the few' is flawed decision making.
 
I choose option 2 for these reasons:

1) I assume the 20 men are "basically the same" as the 10 men, the only difference is that there are few men.
2) Whether I act or not, I am still involved in deciding the fate of these 30 men. Doing nothing I am still responsible for the death of the 20 men. However the dilemma is that it could be seen as murder. But my reasoning is that I saved 10 lives.
 
Absane said:
I choose option 2 for these reasons:

1) I assume the 20 men are "basically the same" as the 10 men, the only difference is that there are few men.
2) Whether I act or not, I am still involved in deciding the fate of these 30 men. Doing nothing I am still responsible for the death of the 20 men. However the dilemma is that it could be seen as murder. But my reasoning is that I saved 10 lives.
Click to expand...


How are you responsible?
Are you driving the train?
Did you put the men in the way of the train?

No , thus the deaths of the 20 men will never be considered your fault/responsibility. Not by anyone ever....ever....ever...ever

But changing track to kill 10 men not in harms way could be seen as manslaughter, especially by me (who is now married to one of those 10 men and has 5 hungry mouths to feed and mother in law)
 
Meanwhile an interesting spin on this train dilemma:

from web

"consider a variant of this dilemma. The train is heading down the track, and again there are 20 people stuck on the lines. This time you’re on a footbridge in between the train and the imminent fatalities. ( note: the other 10 don't exist now)

Your only option this time is to throw the huge guy standing next to you over the bridge and in front of the train. What do you do now? "

So you were playing the numbers game before - you gonna throw the man next to you off the bridge to save the 20 men?
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
How are you responsible?
Are you driving the train?
Did you put the men in the way of the train?
Click to expand...

I am responsible because my choice of action determines the fate of the 30 men (in total).

But changing track to kill 10 men not in harms way could be seen as manslaughter, especially by me (who is now married to one of those 10 men and has 5 hungry mouths to feed and mother in law)
Click to expand...

But you ignore the fact that I saved 20 men? If I did NOTHING (when everyone knows I could have done something) I would chastised by society.

How about this: If I do nothing... the world ends. If I do something, only half of the world will end.

What to do? Oh wait, it's murder if I do something. So I will let everyone die.
 
Absane said:
I am responsible because my choice of action determines the fate of the 30 men (in total).



But you ignore the fact that I saved 20 men? If I did NOTHING (when everyone knows I could have done something) I would chastised by society.

How about this: If I do nothing... the world ends. If I do something, only half of the world will end.

What to do? Oh wait, it's murder if I do something. So I will let everyone die.
Click to expand...

answer the dilemma above Ab, re swapping the 20 for just one man. what do you do?
 
I would throw the guy off the bridge. I think that is the best thing to do.

What would I really do in that situation? I would probably freak out and the 20 men would die. That's likely what would happen... but objectively, the best thing to do is sacrifice my friend.
 
Absane said:
I would throw the guy off the bridge. I think that is the best thing to do.

What would I really do in that situation? I would probably freak out and the 20 men would die. That's likely what would happen... but objectively, the best thing to do is sacrifice my friend.
Click to expand...

equally you could scrifice yourself? Ask him to throw you off the bridge?
 
The right thing to do... yes. I could just as well be thrown off.

Would I really want that? Hell no. But the problem I have with these situations is that they are impossible unless the railroad workers are blind, deaf, and cannot feel the vibrations of the train coming. But why would they even by on the railroad in the first place?
 
Absane said:
The right thing to do... yes. I could just as well be thrown off.

Would I really want that? Hell no. But the problem I have with these situations is that they are impossible unless the railroad workers are blind, deaf, and cannot feel the vibrations of the train coming. But why would they even by on the railroad in the first place?
Click to expand...

haha

it's different when you have to act directly to harm another rather than just interfere with stuff isn't it.
 
Theoryofrelativity said:
If the group of 20 were old sterile men - pensioners and the group of 10 were young fit fertile men with families and young chilren would you still opt to kill the men who had families to raise and support and save the pensioners? Even though they were never in danger in the first place?

Opting for greater number all the time in favour of 'needs of many out weigh needs of the few' is flawed decision making.
Click to expand...

You completely missed the point of my post, as usual.

When faced with scenarios as JamesR has described, there is little time, if any, to think about those things, and in fact, as I mentioned in my previous post, many people freeze up and do nothing under those circumstances.

Those who overcome that feeling of shock and are able to think clearly are looking for an opportunity to save the group of 20 men, who is also unlikely to consider details, even as in so much as the group of 10 men who are in peril of being killed as a result of pulling the switch.

James Bond is probably the only character I can think of who could manage to save both groups of men - and still find a woman.

I would therefore submit that a large percentage of people would freeze and do nothing as they watched the group of 20 men die, while those who could think clearly would inadvertenly pull the switch from their compassion to save the 20 men.
 
(Q) said:
I would therefore submit that a large percentage of people would freeze and do nothing as they watched the group of 20 men die, while those who could think clearly would inadvertenly pull the switch from their compassion to save the 20 men.
Click to expand...

I agree, freeze or waving/running/throwing objects frantically to the 10 or 20 is the real response

Meanwhile

(Q) said:
.

James Bond is probably the only character I can think of who could manage to save both groups of men - and still find a woman.
.
Click to expand...

sense of humour alert, sense of humour alert ! :cool:
 
Last edited:
This is easy.
You do neither, and run like hell at the men screaming to let them know about the train.
Most likely they will hear it, and run.
 
James R said:
This is a classic moral dilemma.
Click to expand...
There is no dilemma. I do nothing and just back away.

Besides, if they're stupid enough to stand there as a train approaches, horn blaring, then the world is probably better off without them.
 
Last edited:
Theoryofrelativity said:
haha

it's different when you have to act directly to harm another rather than just interfere with stuff isn't it.
Click to expand...

Well what should be done is not different at all. However, I never claimed to live by what I talk about and believe. As I have said many times in the past, I am a living contradiction. Many of my beliefs are shaped by my own thinking and design. My actions are almost always a product of social influence and pressures.
 
Hapsburg said:
Same action. It'd the same ratio, anyway.
Click to expand...

It is the same ratio, but I doubt the result would be the same.

This is why I would not kill in safe zone 10 for 20 in dangerous zone.

Imagine this spin on this dilemma.

There are 30 people on the line (none on other as yet) 10 people see the train coming and run to the other line for safety.

Do you change the direction of the track to kill those 10 and save the 20 that didn't see the train approach?
 
No. Once again, I just back away and watch. If they are just standing on traintracks while a loud, heavy, and very visible train is barreling towards them, then they're probably so stupid that the world would be better off without them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top