Questions of Ethics

[Nat]

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

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?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

[Words]

I can't answer as to what the bystander 'should' do, because I don't believe anyone has the right to decide what another 'should' do in such a situation.

If, however, the bystander were me, no, I wouldn't flip the switch (or at least I *think* I wouldn't). It would be awful living with the knowledge that I could have prevented the death of five people, worse still, though, knowing that I'd sent someone to their death who otherwise would have lived.

That said....until something like this were to actually happen, there's no way on earth of knowing what I would do, only what I think I would probably do.

Words

[Okiebug61]

If I read this correctly you are talking about "Normative Ethics" which addresses how one should act morally deciding what is right or wrong in regards to ones actions.

I would have to say that I would not flip the switch because there is no way for me to absolutely know that 5 people are going to die and what the true outcome of my action would be.


This question seems to touch on the following. Do we react or act in a situation. A reaction is often described as an emotional action while an action is described as a thought out action.

So many factors have not been uncovered that saying I would automatically flip the switch is not agreeable for me.

[always2late]

This is actually a pretty "famous" philosophical debate....countless papers have been written changing the variables to see if that would change the outcome, for example, the five are criminals the one is not. Or, the one is young where the five are old. I have to confess I've never debated the question when the potential victims were on an even playing field.

I don't know that I would flip the switch...because I don't think I have a right to decide who will live and who will die. I would leave it to fate, or destiny, or God, or whatever higher power one believes in. Now, I am gonna call myself out and say my logic is flawed because if it were only one person on the track and I could flip the switch and save them...I would. And in that way I WOULD be deciding whether they live or die. Sigh...just call my logic fickle I guess.

[Sparkle]

Assuming I knew the consequences of both action or inaction...

I would flip the switch.
And I wouldn't see myself as "playing god" by doing it. I'm a bystander being given the knowledge and tools to make this decision, if I don't make an active decision no one else will and tragedy will occur either way.

My rationale is a simple matter of numbers.
One person dead, and the lives of one network of people changed forever.
Or five people, and five networks of people changed forever.
I would want to minimize the tragedy.

Given the opportunity I would rather make an active choice than stand by and watch.

[tapu]

I would torture myself in the dilemma until it was too late. So... I guess that means 5 die, instead of the one, which I think would qualify as a decision in this scenario.

I don't think I could deliberately turn a train toward a person, regardless of where it was headed to start with.

On the other hand, if I place Young Son among the 5, well, yes, I would instinctively turn it. And in the reverse situation, I wouldn't turn it, of course.

I'm not sure how much, if any of this, falls into the category of morality as I think we're defining it here. In the latter condition, instinctively is a key word.

[atomiczombie]

I would flip it if I was certain of the outcome. One death is better than five in my view. That being said, the reason I would flip it would be the determining factor with respect to whether this would be a moral action or not, not the outcome. Morality is ultimately rooted in intent.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by always2late

This is actually a pretty "famous" philosophical debate....countless papers have been written changing the variables to see if that would change the outcome, for example, the five are criminals the one is not. Or, the one is young where the five are old. I have to confess I've never debated the question when the potential victims were on an even playing field.

I don't know that I would flip the switch...because I don't think I have a right to decide who will live and who will die. I would leave it to fate, or destiny, or God, or whatever higher power one believes in. Now, I am gonna call myself out and say my logic is flawed because if it were only one person on the track and I could flip the switch and save them...I would. And in that way I WOULD be deciding whether they live or die. Sigh...just call my logic fickle I guess.

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

So, let's say that it's not flipping a switch, instead it's running into a burning building. Or, even easier, calling the fire department to send someone to run into the burning building. Would you also leave that to fate, destiny or some divine being or another? Because the logic you appear to be using is that if some divine being wants you to live then you live and if some divine being wants you to die then you die. Either way it's no business of yours if you pass me by on the street and I'm bleeding to death, it appears you would be just as likely to leave that person to their 'fate' as you would to intervene and that your choice one way or another would be unpredictable (e.g. there is no 'rule' that you're operating under).

[meant to multi quote with Always2Late, but failed]

I think the drowning guy joke bears on this. I'll synopsize it for anyone who hasn't heard it.

Guy drowning, another guy comes along in a boat and tries to save him, but the drowning guy says, No, the Lord will save me. This happens two more times: guys in boats, but the drowning guy says No, the Lord will save me.
Finally, the guy drowns and goes to Heaven and there's the Lord. Guy says, Lord, why didn't you save me? And the Lord says, "Hey, I sent three boats!"

One may be the means of Fate--whatever one does. How then does one "decide"... or does one?

[Semantics]

No moral arithmetic when it comes to people's lives. I wouldn't flip the switch.

[chefhottie25]

Originally Posted by Nat

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

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?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

I have a question...is the person who can flip the switch also the single fatality victim?

[Nat]

Originally Posted by chefhottie25

I have a question...is the person who can flip the switch also the single fatality victim?

Not in the original question but this was proposed as a variation. Both questions are on the table.

[LaneyDoll]

Originally Posted by Nat

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?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

Assuming that the conditions are as stated in the question, yes, the bystander should flip the switch. There is nothing to say if the five "chosen" are serial killers, rapists etc and that the single "chosen" is an innocent child, a scientist with a cure for cancer etc.

I am looking at this from the point of view of sacrificing one to save five.

Is this not something that is done every day? Emergency professionals must make these choices on a regular basis. Two cars trapped/two houses burning/two boats sinking and only time to save one-so do you choose the one that will save the most lives?

But, add the "human element" into this:

The original five are all strangers and just oneof my loved ones is standing in a crowd of the one million who could be chosen. At that point there is no question at all; the five die in order to prevent the possibly loss of my loved one.

[tapu]

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!

[LaneyDoll]

Originally Posted by tapu

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!

I agree. However, I am basing my response on this comment by the OP, "it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch."

There are few variables I can imagine that would prevent me from sacrificing 5 to save 1. At the moment, the introduction of loved ones is the main one I can think of.

Ok, let's add this to the mix---what if, you were to find out that you would suddenly be privy, for the rest of your life, to effects of the deaths (of the 5 only) on their loved ones.

Soooo, is anyone else thinking of the movie "The Box"?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362478/

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by tapu

So... Laney, in the latter scenario, you would act immorally by your own figuring, right? Don't get me wrong--I would, too--but the introduction of one's own loved one into this makes it practically unavoidable. Like, I don't know if I'd want to be that moral.

Now I think it's despair I'm feeling over this thread!

But why should that, of all things, make us despair? We should not be at all surprised that one would prefer their own offspring over a stranger.

Cheers
Aj

[tapu]

I often waffle when push comes to shove your kid in front of the train.

[TickledPink]

Flip the switch already!

6 lives, if I read this correct, 5 saved if said switch if flipped. It's like traige, in a way, no right or wrong, just saving the most lives.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Nat

I asked this on my facebook page after hearing it on a Philosphy Bites podcast, and the question took off pretty well. So I'll ask it here:

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?

I think you need to probably imagine that none of these folks are people you know. They are all of the same value to you - all strangers, all the same age, all law-abiding, all in the same state of health, etc. in order to do real justice to this question. You would also need to imagine that the bystander knows that if he throws the switch, the train will behave in the way it's supposed to.

BUT, it would be interesting also to hear what variables would influence you regarding whether the bystander should throw the switch.

I'm going to try to stay within the boundaries as you've drawn them. Thus, given this situation where, for instance, it may be impossible for any of the people to clear the tracks then the correct move is to flip the switch. Presuming that I have no reason to prefer the one person (it is not someone I know well) over the five then the utilitarian calculus is that since a choice *must* be made (and doing nothing still constitutes a choice in this situation) saving the five people outweighs the one.

I'm presuming this is taking place in this universe so if a train is on its way along a track and there are only two possible ways for it to go, it won't disappear, turn to smoke, or fly suddenly.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

I have a question for those who have said either that they wouldn't flip the switch because it is unpredictable what would happen if the train went either way (e.g. we can't know that if someone was hit by a several ton train that they would die).

Given the weight of a train compared to the weight of a human being, given the mass of a train compared to the mass of a human being, given that humans are made of more fragile stuff than trains, and given that it is a fact that any object in motion will continue to stay in motion unless it is acted upon by another force, why do you believe that we can't know the most likely outcome? I'm not saying the definite outcome--it is possible that, for instance, you could jump from a balloon at the upper-most edge of the Earth's atmosphere without the use of a parachute and wind up living to tell the tale. It is *possible* but the most likely result of such a jump is that your bones would be liquified by the impact and you would die. So since the most likely result of train plowing into one or more bodies is that those bodies will be broken beyond repair, why is that little bit of uncertainty sufficient to make you choose the non-action which results in the deaths of five people?

Cheers
Aj