The Trolley Problem (moral dilemma)

[non ego man]

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people with their backs to the trolley. You can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track that has only one person with his back to the trolley. Should you flip the switch?

You are a brilliant transplant surgeon with five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. There are no organs available. A healthy person comes in for a routine checkup and the course of doing the checkup, you discover that his organs are compatible with all five of your dying patients. Should you kill the healthy patient are harvest his organs for the other five?

Nature abhors a vacuum and humans abhor hypocrisy. I've asked this question to many people and the vehemence with which they try and rationalize their contrary positions is always good for a laugh. Have at it.

[TacticalMedic]

Sorry, mate! Trolleys here dont run on tracks I barely even see some of those nowadays.

[dom]

It all depends, would I get in trouble with the law?

[non ego man]

It all depends, would I get in trouble with the law?

No.

Just the eternal screams of anguish echoing through your hollow conscience.

At least that's what I have to live with...

[Nuklear]

1) Yes.
2) No.
I say no because I'm against any deliberate force, even to save other people.
In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

[Silkroad]

1) Ignorance is bliss... so don't get involved i would say because if u do u'll basicly kill some1(although some time doing nothing is just as bad)

2) No( it's not as if the healthy patient is volunteering)

3) Is this suppose to be a discussion starter?

[non ego man]

In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

In the first case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

In the second case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

1) Ignorance is bliss... so don't get involved...

Well, you aren't a hypocrite at least. Most people feel that doing nothing would be morally wrong in this instance.

[Silkroad]

In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

In the first case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

In the second case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

1) Ignorance is bliss... so don't get involved...

Well, you aren't a hypocrite at least. Most people feel that doing nothing would be morally wrong in this instance.

i kinda meant that along the lines of not making decisions for other people

[Silver0]

Yes to all and ignore it
only what you find important matters so simply not finding it important will slowly and unpainfully be forgotten because it does not matter with a light of a room it only shines for the people who look at it

[Nuklear]

In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

In the first case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

In the second case, 5 are going to die but for your action only one dies.

Are you suggesting I didn't understand? I'm pretty sure I explained myself.

[Draquish]

It all depends on the victim's social status, and their wealth. J/k.

I wouldn't do anything in both scenarios. I rather be a dumbass than a killer.

[non ego man]

In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

I was pointing out that your rationale for choosing to take action in the first instance could be applied also to the second instance, where you decided to take no action.

[XemnasXD]

1. switch tracks and kill the one guy, better than killing 5.

2. Let the healthy guy live let the 5 patients die.


Those are no brainers and only while i as typing them did i see the hypocrisy you were pointing out. But the two case are not similar. In the first case someone will die. Unless they all get off the tracks the death of at least 1 person is inevetiable. Taking that into account you choose the lesser amount of casualties.

In case 2 not all parties involved are facing death. You have a healthy person who have a good chance to live and 5 people with bad organs. Eventually all bodies run out of life but it makes no sense to start killing healthy people to keep the unhealthy alive, then whats the point of being healthy since people would be killing you to get your organs.

in case 1 you choose less death.
in case 2 you choose life.
in most cases (not all)

1Life>5deaths
1death>5deaths

Decisions like that are why i don't trust doctors anyway...

[Nuklear]

In the first case someone's going to die anyways, might as well be 1 instead of 3.

I was pointing out that your rationale for choosing to take action in the first instance could be applied also to the second instance, where you decided to take no action.

In the first scenario someone will die either way. It's logical to take less lives. In the second scenario it's not lose, lose. I'd have to use force on someone to save lives. I wouldn't do that.

[Sylhana]

1. Why would anyone walk on a trolley track. The more the better, lets weed out stupidity, speed up natural selection. So I wont flip the switch. (just kidding, wont make any difference to me, 5 lives or 1 life, each life is as valuable as the next, and if someone had to die then it would be an unfair imposition on anyone to make that decision).

2. Not an option at all. Couldnt ever justify killing in this matter to save another life. Ethical code: non-maleficence ie first do no harm.


Note: Just to elaborate more on 1, it could be 5 old people against 1 young fit and healty child. Even if I place it that way, it would still be a hard choice for me to flip the switch or not.

[Squirt]

Stupid question but why is Sylhanas name purple?

[XemnasXD]

Stupid question but why is Sylhanas name purple?

seee the OTL stickies...

[TOloseGT]

a friend of mine tested me with those questions a couple of days ago.

for the first one, either way, someone has to die, so it might as well be the one person that dies instead of the five people. u'r also not directly killing them, u'r just switching the tracks. there's a slight difference between actually killing someone wit ur hands and indirectly killing someone. for the second one, since the healthy guy wasn't going to die in the first place, morally, u wouldn't be able to kill him to give the five other people full lives.

[non ego man]

When boiled down to the basics, there is no ethical difference between the two scenarios. This is why this question has plagued philosophers for 30 years. The problem is what Xemnas said: ethically, they're both no-brainers. And yet we come to opposite conclusions. So we magnify the immaterial differences to make it seem as though there is no ethical conflict and yet ultimately, our explanations are just rationalizations. The differences in the two scenarios are psychological. Its difficult to accept that we can make ethically hypocritical decisions based on immaterial elements of our psychology.

I'm either frightened or encouraged by all the people who wouldn't pull the switch. Not sure which.

[TOloseGT]

there is no ethical difference, but the scenarios aren't 1 to 1 either. in #1, it's a lose-lose situation, in #2, it's not.

[Aiyas]

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people with their backs to the trolley. You can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track that has only one person with his back to the trolley. Should you flip the switch?

Easy.
You flip the switch, then shoot a strand of web out of your wrist at the one person and pull them out of the way. Problem solved.

Seriously though, it sounds like one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situations. Whatever I do, I'm bound to catch criticism from somebody about it, so I may as well flip the switch.

You are a brilliant transplant surgeon with five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. There are no organs available. A healthy person comes in for a routine checkup and the course of doing the checkup, you discover that his organs are compatible with all five of your dying patients. Should you kill the healthy patient are harvest his organs for the other five?

No.
I finish the checkup, then ask him if he would like to donate an organ(I'm saying this under the assumption that at least one of those patients needs an organ that I can take from someone without killing them, like a kidney). Beyond that, whatever happens, happens.

[Dark Shifty]

it all comes down to this...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JSsWEJr8A8s

btw, how do i show youtube videos on the forums?

[Sylhana]

it all comes down to this...
Code: Select all

btw, how do i show youtube videos on the forums?

How to embed youtube vids click here.

[Dark Shifty]

it all comes down to this...

btw, how do i show youtube videos on the forums?

How to embed youtube vids click here.

ty

[the_wicked]

1. Yes, based on the fact that all of the people have no idea what is about to happen. May as well let only 1 perish

2. Now, call me a hypocrite i dont care, i say no because the person who is healthy has every right to live. There is nothing wrong with him. Killing him to save others is immoral because he has done nothing wrong nor would he deserve such a fate.

While in answering, i realize that my answers contradict on terms of numbers. However, it is a moral question not a math problem