ChatterBank8 mins ago
Got this today and I thought
14 Answers
I'd pass it along to see how you'd deal with the situation: Have fun.
Scenario 1:
You are in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. You are standing near a switch that will send the car along a different track, where it will only kill one person. You cannot warn them or otherwise influence the outcome � your only choice is to throw the switch or not. There are no legal or other ramifications to your action or inaction.
Do you throw the switch, and why?
Scenario 2:
You are again in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. A person larger than you is standing near you, and with absolute certainty, you know that pushing that person into the path of the car will derail it, sparing the five, but killing that person (throwing yourself in front will not accomplish this). That is the only way to alter the cable car's path and the outcome.
Scenario 1:
You are in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. You are standing near a switch that will send the car along a different track, where it will only kill one person. You cannot warn them or otherwise influence the outcome � your only choice is to throw the switch or not. There are no legal or other ramifications to your action or inaction.
Do you throw the switch, and why?
Scenario 2:
You are again in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. A person larger than you is standing near you, and with absolute certainty, you know that pushing that person into the path of the car will derail it, sparing the five, but killing that person (throwing yourself in front will not accomplish this). That is the only way to alter the cable car's path and the outcome.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by LaceyMike. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Scenario 1: even though there's no ramifications if I throw the switch, don't think I could live with myself for changing the fate of the single person it would kill. I'd rather not throw the switch at all even though the five people will be killed. At least it wouldn't be my fault! Cowardly, I know.
Scenario 2: Same answer for this one i'm afraid. Wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone's death, even if it meant possibly saving another five people.
Scenario 2: Same answer for this one i'm afraid. Wouldn't want to be responsible for anyone's death, even if it meant possibly saving another five people.
It is a moral and ethical problem since we are faced with the dilemma of acting on our own impulse or acting in the interests of being seen as a moral person or self interest. In a philosophical sense, distinguishing consequential (or teleological) from non-consequential (or deontological) ethical theories.
Deontological-based ethics, emphasise moral duty, rights, fairness and justice. Its not fair that the innocent person should die in Scenario 2. In teology, if a decision results in a greater ratio of good to bad in the long run for the individual compared with alternatives, the decision is ethical. This can also border on egoism, since the decision could be made on the basis of �looking good� or being heroic. Save five, kill one. But why is acceptable to kill that one?
Most of us would naturally adopt the utilitarianism approach - the assessment of consequences considering everyone involved. Often pilots will divert away from highly populated areas if they think they are going to crash.
It�s a widely regarded topic and I have done some studies, including Aristotles Teotological argument, but it don�t arf make yer brain hurt.
There is no answer to these questions, as the scenarios force us to think about questions such as:
Is it right to sacrifice one life to save five?
Should some actions (such as killing somebody) never be done?
Why is it acceptable to sacrifice a person in the first case but not the second?
Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die?
Does your opinion change when your life is at stake?
Which most of us would find morally and ethically reprehensible. In the blink of a moment, most of us would act upon moral instincts established by society to be seen in the better light. 1 death is less immoral than 5, but still immoral nonetheless as we had made that choice.
Deontological-based ethics, emphasise moral duty, rights, fairness and justice. Its not fair that the innocent person should die in Scenario 2. In teology, if a decision results in a greater ratio of good to bad in the long run for the individual compared with alternatives, the decision is ethical. This can also border on egoism, since the decision could be made on the basis of �looking good� or being heroic. Save five, kill one. But why is acceptable to kill that one?
Most of us would naturally adopt the utilitarianism approach - the assessment of consequences considering everyone involved. Often pilots will divert away from highly populated areas if they think they are going to crash.
It�s a widely regarded topic and I have done some studies, including Aristotles Teotological argument, but it don�t arf make yer brain hurt.
There is no answer to these questions, as the scenarios force us to think about questions such as:
Is it right to sacrifice one life to save five?
Should some actions (such as killing somebody) never be done?
Why is it acceptable to sacrifice a person in the first case but not the second?
Is there a difference between killing someone and letting them die?
Does your opinion change when your life is at stake?
Which most of us would find morally and ethically reprehensible. In the blink of a moment, most of us would act upon moral instincts established by society to be seen in the better light. 1 death is less immoral than 5, but still immoral nonetheless as we had made that choice.
-- answer removed --
It is, as Octavius states, an ethics issue. It's not designed to test how you would react in the real world, it's designed to get you to think about how we decide what is ethical behaviour and what isn't.
Jonathon Glover's Humanity is highly recommended (by me!!) for anyone interested in knowing more.
Jonathon Glover's Humanity is highly recommended (by me!!) for anyone interested in knowing more.
I politely disagree, Waldo. It could have been put in computer-game terms - better to save one hedgehog or five? - but is deliberately spelt out in terms of real locations and real people. It is of course an ethics test, but it's purely hypothetical; dressing it up as a real-life dilemma is bogus (and for all I know unethical).
The point of this scenario based testing, and this Q is a well-known hypothesis in the field of ethics, is that we will respond according to certain in-built rules using the argument at hand, based on ethics, morals and the greater good. The test focuses on our empathy towards humanitarian and moral actions.
Saying kill five hedgehogs or one, takes away the moral argument, since people will be more tuned into the right or wrong of human-based consequences (i.e reaction of society and the loved ones etc). Killing hedgehogs would be an easy decision and we would not be judged by society on that.
So I agree with Waldo who agrees with me. Its all tickety-boo really.
Saying kill five hedgehogs or one, takes away the moral argument, since people will be more tuned into the right or wrong of human-based consequences (i.e reaction of society and the loved ones etc). Killing hedgehogs would be an easy decision and we would not be judged by society on that.
So I agree with Waldo who agrees with me. Its all tickety-boo really.
Strangely enough, I happened to listen to a podcast on my commute home this evening. That's not strange. I listen to podcasts on my comute quite a lot.
What was strange was the one I was listening to, the Point of Enquiry podcast, happened to have a chap on who was talking about an evolved morality, and who used the same ethics experiments described in the original question.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_mora l_minds/
I know those trolley experiments are widely used, but it was still a nice coincidence, given I had no idea what the podcast was about in advance.
...Or did you listen to it too, LaceyMike?
What was strange was the one I was listening to, the Point of Enquiry podcast, happened to have a chap on who was talking about an evolved morality, and who used the same ethics experiments described in the original question.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/marc_hauser_mora l_minds/
I know those trolley experiments are widely used, but it was still a nice coincidence, given I had no idea what the podcast was about in advance.
...Or did you listen to it too, LaceyMike?
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Starmer & Lammy A Marriage Made In...
News16 mins ago
ChatterBank30 mins ago
Damn Savage Why Is This Only Common...
Law51 mins ago
Home & Garden62 mins ago
69M Uninformed Horrible People....and...
News63 mins ago
