What would you do in this situation?????????

[gurglingmonkey]

I'm guessing as a parent that the life of your child would trump the value of others' lives.
Of course, with these quandaries it's best to look for creative options, like:

turn on the RED LIGHT as all railroads tracks have,so the train would stop..then save the kid.

 

[zanket]

What would you do?

It's a good question. I couldn't sacrifice my son.

 

[Alabaster]

How old is the son?

Hahaha! Was he a good boy or a bad boy? Did he have ADHD?

(Just kidding, folks!)

 

[Learned Hand]

Ah. The Kobayshi Maru Test (for you Star Trek fans).

For me personally, blood is thicker than water.

But I'd try to Kirk it somehow. Maybe I could have a few semis run into the damn thing like photon torpedoes to slow it down so that I could save both.

 

[Why?]

This is really just asking how many strangers would you kill to avoid killing a loved one. Difficult to say without actually being in the sitation. What if the train were full of toddlers?

 

[draqon]

kill everyone to save my child

 

[fo3]

This is really just asking how many strangers would you kill to avoid killing a loved one.

Quoted for emphasis. Surprisingly large number of people are ignoring the hypothetical nature of the question by inventing ways around it, while the question is exactly about what Why said, and not about the clever ways one can think up to stop the train.

Edit: Thought I'd point out that in the current situation, one would not actively kill the other people, but rather keep from saving them. Psychologically, I would be a completely different matter when the actions would be reversed, and instead of having to "push the button" to kill your son and save the others, you would need to "push the button" to kill the others and save your son. The answers by people will vary greatly in these differing situations.

 

[Nasor]

Surprisingly large number of people are ignoring the hypothetical nature of the question by inventing ways around it, while the question is exactly about what Why said, and not about the clever ways one can think up to stop the train.

People always do that. Philosophers like to set up their ethical scenarios with a bit of "back story" to make things interesting, but people always just try to latch onto the details and look for ways to weasel out of having to actually evaluate the dilemma. Many experienced philosophy teachers try to avoid this by stating everything as bluntly and abstractly as possible. The opening question should have been stated something like "What would you do if a train-load of people were about to die and you could save them by pushing a button, but pushing the button would also result in the death of your son?" It's more boring, but it removes the "weasel room."

 

[zanket]

Psychologically, I would be a completely different matter when the actions would be reversed, and instead of having to "push the button" to kill your son and save the others, you would need to "push the button" to kill the others and save your son. The answers by people will vary greatly in these differing situations.

You'd surely have greater liability for the deaths if you had to push the button to save your son. That could be partly what affects the answers people give.

 

[spidergoat]

Imagine you work as a railway drawbridge operator. You are closing the bridge for the express train that's about to arrive when you see your son trapped in the machinery. To close the bridge will kill your son, but save the train. To open the bridge will save your son, but the train will not be able to stop in time.

What would you do?

Quit.

 

[nietzschefan]

I'm curious, if anyone has ever REALLY, historically, had to face this question. In recent memory, I suppose I am thinking of Nazi germany where, neighbours would turn in Jews for fear of reprisal for keeping a secret. Sometimes just for brownie points. Sometimes 'cause he hated Jews or that particular family.

Well, I know my neighbours would do it for free. I suspect only extreemly egoless people could "pass" the test. "Passing" being valueing greater humanity over one's own self.

 

[spidergoat]

Yes, that was a particularly cruel form of torture.

 

[nietzschefan]

Indeed, torture. Such a situation is almost always contrived and artificial. Conceived in the mind. A pre-meditated crime.

The question needs to be answered with a question:

"Cannot you see this thing you do is wrong? Why do you do this thing?"

 

[spidergoat]

I would save my son because I'm selfish. You don't know that the people in the train will die, maybe they won't. (Such mechanisms are computerized now.)

 

[fo3]

Technically, the nature of the question indicates that all the people in the train are 100% certain to die, and that your actions are the only things that can affect the situation.