Ethics Problems~

[Aix]

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

[vla1ne]

not sure if this is in the right section, but if i had to choose, i'd probably send it towards the second person. the 5 who are tied up can't get away at all, and I can't move 5 people even if i wanted to, but the one on the other track still stands a chance to get away on his own, and even if he doesn't, hopefully i can get to, pick up, and get away with the one person faster than i can help those 5 people. if he does get hit though, that's life.

[Aix]

not sure if this is in the right section, but if i had to choose, i'd probably send it towards the second person. the 5 who are tied up can't get away at all, and I can't move 5 people even if i wanted to, but the one on the other track still stands a chance to get away on his own, and even if he doesn't, hopefully i can get to, pick up, and get away with the one person faster than i can help those 5 people. if he does get hit though, that's life.

This is assuming there is no way to save the guy. Let's say they were bound to the tracks and you have no time.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

There is no real right answer here. But personally I'd save the five. Because, assuming I don't know anything about them, I find it better to save more. Because more people means more potential, and less waste of life. Tragic either way, but hopefully less tragic.

[vla1ne]

This is assuming there is no way to save either. Let's say they were bound to the tracks.

then I call the cops and an ambulance. and then i walk away. if there is nothing that i can do to help, then touching anything would make me potentially liable for everything.

[Aix]

then I call the cops and an ambulance. and then i walk away. if there is nothing that i can do to help, then touching anything would make me potentially liable for everything.

I mistyped. Read again.

There is no real right answer here. But personally I'd save the five. Because, assuming I don't know anything about them, I find it better to save more. Because more people means more potential, and less waste of life. Tragic either way, but hopefully less tragic.

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mistyped. Read again.

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

No. I'm probably heavy enough myself.

[vla1ne]

I mistyped. Read again.

there is no correct choice. if there are no reasons for me to save those 5, then my answer remains the same. if this is a discussion about what is the correct choice, then there is none. if i take action, then i actively end a life AND become liable under the law if there are consequences in the world. if I do know them though, then maybe i'd kill the one to save the many, but if not, then i have little reason to jump in.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. You save the 5

[chairman ali]

Needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few. You save the 5

 

What if the 5 are clinically depressed? What if that one person is  a successful scientist who's on his way to making a break through that will save millions of lives?

 

This is called normative ethics.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

To assume that there is a right answer, or even that Aix expects one, is a fallacy.

 

That said, I would aim for as many survivors as possible, but I would likely end up valuing my own life as about a dozen of theirs because... well, I suppose this makes me selfish, but I am comfortable with myself being such in the context of self-preservation.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

What if the 5 are clinically depressed? What if that one person is  a successful scientist who's on his way to making a break through that will save millions of lives?

 

This is called normative ethics.

True but when there's no way of knowing you can't really put that into the equation. With the info provided, saving one on the random chance that they're important for something seems wrong.

[ENMaker]

Just to be safe let the train hit the 5 then kill the 6th yourself. No witnesses.

[chairman ali]

True but when there's no way of knowing you can't really put that into the equation. With the info provided, saving one on the random chance that they're important for something seems wrong.

 

You've not been given info, you've been given choices. What I did is give you different contexts, a deeper view of the situation. Normative ethics is a branch of Philosophy, so this isn't really about choosing as much as it is about looking at everything under the sun.

 

What if that one person is a child? What if the 5 people are babies? 

 

No answer is correct, it is about Philosophy.

[vla1ne]

gonna have to go with Al-Ajnabi here. without deeper context there's not correct answer. from the above criteria, there is literally no outcome that would be right or wrong. it would all be down to what do you personally want to do. so all answers would be equally valid.

 

that said, enguin's solution is definitely the most... effective.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

I mean well obviously.

 

There is no real right answer here.

Pretty sure the point is to ask what each individual would do? At least that's my assumption. Aix didn't clarify exactly so dunno for sure.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Just to be safe let the train hit the 5 then kill the 6th yourself. No witnesses.

 

^This

 

They can never know.

[Azure Wolf]

I would probably switch the track. I'd rather have one person die than five. Either way I'll be a wreck afterwards. If I don't switch the tracks I'd have killed 5 people by not doing anything, but by switching the tracks I'll have killed a person anyway.

 

Though the question remains why am I in a train yard in the first place.

[Trebuchet MS]

MULTI-TRACK DRIFTING?!

 

Okay, joking aside, I will preferably do nothing, then write off the situation as a tragic accident. In both scenarios. This is assuming that every other effort I have attempted to avert the crisis entirely or every attempt to create a new choice out of the situation has failed or takes too long to reach fruition. Because if I can't change what I am able to do now, I should at least try to alter the subsequent chain of events into something I can deal with.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

What if the 5 are clinically depressed? What if that one person is  a successful scientist who's on his way to making a break through that will save millions of lives?

 

This is called normative ethics.

Now you're throwing in more variables. The basic case that Aix gave was simple to analyze and choose a "right" answer for

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

Now you're throwing in more variables. The basic case that Aix gave was simple to analyze and choose a "right" answer for

That's literally the point. You answered one question, so he gave you another.

 

Despite Aix's use of the word "correct," that isn't what this is about. It is identifying how we behave in situations where our values and morals, which are both undoubtedly subjective, are called into question.

 

By thinking on this and other philosophical issues, we can further understand ourselves, even if it brings no practical use.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's literally the point. You answered one question, so he gave you another.

Despite Aix's use of the word "correct," that isn't what this is about. It is identifying how we behave in situations where our values and morals, which are both undoubtedly subjective, are called into question.

If the 5 werent physically in top condition and the one could save millions, the one is worth more.

 

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

 

There is no correct answer, there's a best answer

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

If the 5 werent physically in top condition and the one could save millions, the one is worth more.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

this should be a fun one.

 

What if the one who could save millions also had, say, a 40% chance of causing millions of lives to be lost?

 

49%?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

this should be a fun one.

What if the one who could save millions also had, say, a 40% chance of causing millions of lives to be lost?

49%?

Choose him both times ofc

[chairman ali]

Now you're throwing in more variables. The basic case that Aix gave was simple to analyze and choose a "right" answer for

 

Because variables exist. The question is ethical, it isn't about choosing one or the other.