| Author |
Message |
|
fougere
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
|
 Posted: 06 Nov 2009 08:08:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I thought it would be interesting to see people's responeses to this hypothetical scenario. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dxfan101010
Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 08:14:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I got the firsts vote lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
simplethinker
snjwffl
Active Member
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 700
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 09:06:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I (think) I would pull the lever for the first one (though I'm not sure that logic would prevail in real life), but I wouldn't push the man for the second one. There's a key difference between pulling a lever (which is sort-of indirect), and physically pushing a man off. Logically the choice seems obvious, but humans are not solely logical beings.
Quote: I'm surprised that that's what the other 3 voters said (at the time of my vote, at least)
Last edited by Guest on 06 Nov 2009 09:07:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dxfan101010
Member
Joined: 31 Mar 2008
Posts: 194
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 09:32:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| i agree the lever would be easier than pushing the guy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magicdanw
pcGuru()
Calc Guru
Joined: 14 Feb 2007
Posts: 1110
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 10:23:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow. I don't think I could ever intentionally cause someone's death... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 770
|
| Posted: 06 Nov 2009 10:47:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Null vote. I broke the rules and warned them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ah-blabla
Newbie
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 03:42:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Do nothing: don't get yourself involved in changing the course of bad things. (And the world is overpopulated...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GloryMXE7
Puzzleman 3000
Active Member
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 12:39:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well for one thing it would have to be a pretty large guy to stop a train that is going too fast to stop itself in time |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polarBody
Newbie
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 02:42:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Wow, this is an eye-opener. My gut reaction to the first scenario was to pull the lever, but morally, there's no difference between pulling the lever in the first scenario and pushing the large dude in the second scenario. If you were to both pull the lever and push the dude, then at the end of both scenarios, you could say, "I have caused someone's death to save five others." It doesn't really matter that the act of pulling a lever is more innocuous than pushing a guy to his death; they both have the same end result in these scenarios. I think the real question to consider is this: Is it okay to kill one so that many can live? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GloryMXE7
Puzzleman 3000
Active Member
Joined: 02 Nov 2008
Posts: 604
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 02:45:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| you mean the same question we have to consider when we talk about embryonic stem cell research. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 770
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 03:30:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
GloryMXE7 wrote: you mean the same question we have to consider when we talk about embryonic stem cell research.
It's such a lame issue anyway. Embryonic stem cells are treating zero diseases, but adult stem cells are treating dozens. I don't even know why we talk about embryonic stem cell research anymore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FloppusMaximus
Advanced Member
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 472
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 03:49:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| A single human body falling in front of a train does not slow it down measurably. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DigiTan
Unregistered HyperCam 2
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 10 Nov 2003
Posts: 4468
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 04:01:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: embryonic stem cell research.
Whoa! One tough issue at a time, guys! One issue at a time. :P
My reaction in both cases would be to do nothing, and I mean that in the least apathetic way. I'd have no certainty that stepping in would work like it's supposed to. And in any emergency situation, there's always the risk of misunderstanding a situation and making a bad scenario much worse.. The only exception I'd allow is if I were 100% confident in the level (ie: wasn't toying around with stuff I'm unfamiliar with). Even then, I still wouldn't push the guy. It's just too direct. Unless they were a huge jerk, then yeah... "Geronimo!" Anyway, always glad to take part in a psyc experiment that doesn't involve electric shocks.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Nov 2009 04:04:12 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fougere
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 05:39:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, FloppusMaximus, it's just a hypothetical scenario; the fact that a man's body is not large enough to stop a train is irrelevant.
Also interesting to note: the man on the bridge could hurl YOU down on the tracks just as easily as you could him; whereas the lever is incapable of 'turning the tables' like that. It makes scenario #2 seem much more personal.
In addition, in scenario #1, you have 6 men stuck in a closed situation where some of them MUST die. But in scenario #2, there are only 5 men stuck there, with the possibility of you introducing a sixth. With the inevitability of scenario #2 disguised like that, I think it's easier to remove yourself from the situation and do nothing.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Nov 2009 05:40:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polarBody
Newbie
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 05:40:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FloppusMaximus wrote: A single human body falling in front of a train does not slow it down measurably.
If you consider momentum alone, then yes. But a human body could conceivably cause a derailment, which would definitely halt the train. Of course, there's no guarantee that the train will derail, and even if it did, people on board the train could die as a result.
So yeah, it's not the most airtight scenario, but...well...come on, you get the idea!
EDIT: Ha! Simultaneous posts!
By the way FougereRapide, I disagree with your analysis. In scenario 1, there's initially only 5 people in immediate danger, and the sixth person is only brought into danger through a conscious action made by the lever puller. The sixth person is in no danger as long as the lever remains untouched. Similarly, in scenario 2, the large man is in no danger unless pushed. Thus, aside from the personal contact with the sixth person that you mentioned, there's really no difference between the two scenarios.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Nov 2009 06:01:38 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IAmACalculator
In a state of quasi-hiatus
Know-It-All
Joined: 21 Oct 2005
Posts: 1571
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 06:09:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Scenario 2: Jump off yourself? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
account4me2
Newbie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 06:56:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A good way to think about it is that you're not doing any killing - which is true. All the people involved you know nothing about - they are just people (ignoring the 'big' nature of one man). So simply: either 5 people are going to be killed by the situation, or 1 person is going to be killed by the situation, and you just get to decide which. Thus the question is the same: will you choose 5 dead or 1 (as polarBody said)?
Also, as FougereRapide said, it's a hypothetical. You must assume that the conditions set out in it are correct. So you must ignore questions like "Is the guy large enough?", momentum, or your confidence in the lever (the hypothetical says the man will stop the train, and that the lever will redirect it).
IAmACalculator wrote: Scenario 2: Jump off yourself?
I lolled. Very well observed. That's a real ethical dilemma:
Sacrifice yourself (whose value of life you are able to judge), or a 'large' man you don't know another thing about.
EDIT: Actually IAmACalculator, I think the question partially adresses this by specifying that the man next to you is 'large', and thus able to stop the train. It doesn't say whether you are or not.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Nov 2009 10:14:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polarBody
Newbie
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 07:40:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
account4me2 wrote: A good way to think about it is that you're not doing any killing - which is true. All the people involved you know nothing about - they are just people (ignoring the 'big' nature of one man). So simply: either 5 people are going to be killed by the situation, or 1 person is going to be killed by the situation, and you just get to decide which. Thus the question is the same: will you choose 5 dead or 1 (as polarBody said)?
I partially agree. It's true that you must choose between one or five deaths, but the choice is not simply a question of numbers. It is presumed that you didn't orchestrate either scenario; you are merely an observer who can choose to intervene or not to intervene. Thus, if you don't intervene, you haven't killed anyone; you have merely observed five deaths. If you do intervene, however, you have directly caused the death of one man, as sure as if you had shot him with a gun.
So to refine the question further; do you passively allow five deaths to occur, or do you actively cause one death to prevent five? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tr1p1ea
Elite
Joined: 03 Aug 2003
Posts: 870
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 08:09:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh the trolley problem.
When only presented with the first scenario most people pull the lever. Its only after the second scenario is introduced that they often change their minds into doing nothing.
In the first scenario the emphasis seems to be put on saving lives where-as in the second it is on taking, even though in both you could argue either. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
account4me2
Newbie
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: 07 Nov 2009 08:15:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
polarBody wrote: It's true that you must choose between one or five deaths, but the choice is not simply a question of numbers. It is presumed that you didn't orchestrate either scenario; you are merely an observer who can choose to intervene or not to intervene. Thus, if you don't intervene, you haven't killed anyone; you have merely observed five deaths. If you do intervene, however, you have directly caused the death of one man, as sure as if you had shot him with a gun.
It doesn't matter whether or not you orchestrated the scenarios, the fact is that you are part of the situation. I disagree with this: Quote: if you don't intervene, you haven't killed anyone - If you don't intervene, you have killed 4 people (because in both scenarios 1 person will die). It will have been your decision whether or not they lived or died (keep in mind though that 1 person will always die - his/her death is not your decision). Sure the situation itself is partly responsible for the 4 deaths, but you will have been an accomplice in their killing because you chose their death over their life.
It doesn't matter whether or not you physically do something, the fact is that you are in control. You make the decision as to whether or not the train kills 4 or 0 extra people on top of the one inevitable death.
Last edited by Guest on 07 Nov 2009 08:17:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Open Topic & United-TI Talk => General Open Topic
