Questions of Ethics

[tapu]

Julie--I think you're making the same, incorrect, assumption I made at the very beginning:

I think the correct way to read it is that the One Person is NOT also a member of the Five Persons.

That may not be what you thought at all, but since I did.... Of course, in the case of keeping all 5 from dying, and making it be only one of those dying, then yes, the answer is simple: save those other four.


(man, if no one else thought this at any point, i am going to feel D-U-M-M.)


sic

[tapu]

There is kind of an argument for letting the train hit 5 strangers rather than turning it to hit one (equal "value") stranger and that is if your moral position is not to interfere in the course of events.

While the question of what constitutes interference (action? how about inaction? natural forces? non-organic forces?....), it's still a possible moral principle to establish, I think.

[Julie]

Tapu - I am a literalist. I never read between the lines. One of which I am trying to change.

"A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?"

Nowhere did I read in this context, there were six people on the tracks. I read - five people on the tracks and one bystander who was not on the tracks. Equals Six People.

Therefore, my assumption is based on the calculation of people the OP stated in her question. Six People including the Bystander. Five Dead or One Dead. Which leaves Four Survivors.

Julie

[tapu]

Yes, Julie, I'm sorry--I was trying to establish that it was at least a "possible" way to read it without asserting that it was the only reading for the way it was worded.

Suffice to say, I read it as you did, but then I realized something else is what was meant.

Hell, I could be wrong on the second count... but I don't think so.

[Julie]

It comes to to personal interpretation. If you are not literal in your response, then you can read it any way you wish. Or perhaps, what you view as literal is contrary to what I believe. It is why, we choose different responses to the question.

There is no right or wrong - it is simply based on your own response.

I think the one thing I would air caution to. To question yourself and to state the response of another was read incorrectly. It is simply a matter of ethics, as stated. How would you respond?

No disrespect - but if I were to evaluate your response. You would have over analyzed it and all five people would be dead. Then, you might have a mini nervous breakdown for just standing there over thinking. :-)

Julie

[tapu]

Eeee, yeeessss, well, it's a strange day here. Hope to see you again.

[betenoire]

Originally Posted by scootebaby

what if the one person was YOU! would those that said they'd flip the switch STILL flip it? how about those who didnt answer--would you sacrifice yourself to save 5 others--without ANY knowledge about those 5?

If I would personally be killed in saving those five people by flipping the switch - I would absolutely not flip the switch. I don't think that's even a question of ethics. The sense of self-preservation is strong with this one.

Even if those five people were not strangers, I would not flip the switch if the result would be that I die. Better that I live with their deaths than they live with mine.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by betenoire

If I would personally be killed in saving those five people by flipping the switch - I would absolutely not flip the switch. I don't think that's even a question of ethics. The sense of self-preservation is strong with this one.

Even if those five people were not strangers, I would not flip the switch if the result would be that I die. Better that I live with their deaths than they live with mine.

As much as we may not wish it to be so, this is who we are. As it was put quite well a couple of hundred years ago:

"Let us suppose that the great empire of China, with all its
myriads of inhabitants, was suddenly swallowed up by an
earthquake, and let us consider how a man of humanity in Europe,
who had no sort of connexion with that part of the world, would
be affected upon receiving intelligence of this dreadful
calamity. He would, I imagine, first of all, express very
strongly his sorrow for the misfortune of that unhappy people, he
would make many melancholy reflections upon the precariousness of
human life, and the vanity of all the labours of man, which could
thus be annihilated in a moment. He would too, perhaps, if he was
a man of speculation, enter into many reasonings concerning the
effects which this disaster might produce upon the commerce of
Europe, and the trade and business of the world in general. And
when all this fine philosophy was over, when all these humane
sentiments had been once fairly expressed, he would pursue his
business or his pleasure, take his repose or his diversion, with
the same ease and tranquillity, as if no such accident had
happened. The most frivolous disaster which could befal himself
would occasion a more real disturbance. If he was to lose his
little finger to-morrow, he would not sleep to-night; but,
provided he never saw them, he will snore with the most profound
security over the ruin of a hundred millions of his brethren, and
the destruction of that immense multitude seems plainly an object
less interesting to him, than this paltry misfortune of his own."

Cheers
Aj

[Nat]

Originally Posted by Julie

Tapu - I am a literalist. I never read between the lines. One of which I am trying to change.

"A train is coming down the tracks and will hit 5 people and kill them - unless a bystander - who is standing next to a switch that would move the train to another track - decides to flip this switch. If s/he does this, only one person would be killed. Should the bystander flip the switch?"

Nowhere did I read in this context, there were six people on the tracks. I read - five people on the tracks and one bystander who was not on the tracks. Equals Six People.

Therefore, my assumption is based on the calculation of people the OP stated in her question. Six People including the Bystander. Five Dead or One Dead. Which leaves Four Survivors.

Julie

Sorry for my badly worded question. There are 5 on one track and 1 on the other.

[Julie]

Originally Posted by Nat

Sorry for my badly worded question. There are 5 on one track and 1 on the other.

My logic escaped me. So literal I am.
Of course it makes sense --

5 people on one track - 1 person on another track.
Bystander now has to choose - save the five people and be responsible for changing the tracks, where the 1 person will surely die.

GOD - I much preferred the other scenario.

FUCK!
Now my head is swarming. I would completely over process it, think far too long on the implications and the five people would die. I would end up like Tapu in a nut house, after suffering a complete utter nervous breakdown.

I would flip the switch. Five people would live and one would die. Of course this would not be without sheer guilt for the loss of one life. Tough one.

Julie

[tapu]

Tapu's been pretty clear on this from the beginning. But again, pleasure to meet you.