Jon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 He'd rape the 5, then flick the switch. He's that fast. :nod: ah, but then they'd live to tell the tale ... he'd rape the 1, then flick the switch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Purely based on the info you've given us padders, it's a no brainer for me. flick the switch and save the 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Leave the switch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2010 Hmmm, interesting question. I guess the debate could be who is on the tracks? If it were 5 old blokes and one new born baby, I'd let the old blokes die. Similarly, if it was 5 randoms on one track and my mom on the other, I'd let the randoms die. I guess the other thing is, if you let the 5 people die, then the "mad philosopher" has killed those 5. if you flick the switch then YOU have killed that oneperson. Yes you could argue that you not flicking the switch was what killed the 5, but that's pretty indirect. In the event of flicking the switch you have directly sent the trolley to kill that solitary person. I would think that legal repercussions would see you less favourably as the flick switching murderer, than the passer by watching 5 people die. All that being said, for the sake of a kill5 vs kill 1 argument, I chose kill 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Leave the switch. If you flick the switch you're advocating killing one person to save 5, this has some serious consequences further down the road. What happens when you have 5 people in hospital all in need of different organs? Do you kill a healthy person to get the organs to save them? If you flicked the switch you should, because it's essentially the same thing. Until you intervened the 5 were dying and the one was alive, so what's the difference now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 All that being said, for the sake of a kill5 vs kill 1 argument, I chose kill 1. which is all you can do, based on the (lack of) information given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2010 All that being said, for the sake of a kill5 vs kill 1 argument, I chose kill 1. which is all you can do, based on the (lack of) information given. Hmmm, well i think what i said about the 5 people are going to be killed because of the mad philosopher, but the one person would be dying because of you, has some sort of effect. Would you have as much responsibility for the 5 dying as you would for the one? I don't think you would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Leave the switch. If you flick the switch you're advocating killing one person to save 5, this has some serious consequences further down the road. What happens when you have 5 people in hospital all in need of different organs? Do you kill a healthy person to get the organs to save them? If you flicked the switch you should, because it's essentially the same thing. Until you intervened the 5 were dying and the one was alive, so what's the difference now? you've removed the mad professor from the argument there though TD, who IMO is crucial to the scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Would you have as much responsibility for the 5 dying as you would for the one? I don't think you would. If i knew i could have saved them but by doing nothing they died, then yes, I would feel responsible etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted March 10, 2010 Moderator Share Posted March 10, 2010 Would you have as much responsibility for the 5 dying as you would for the one? I don't think you would. Which was exactly the point I raised. You're then into - Does a lack of action constitute just as much culpability as acting to reduce the death toll does? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 you've removed the mad professor... 'Ere, no one said that the philosopher was also a qualified academic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted March 10, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 10, 2010 Would you have as much responsibility for the 5 dying as you would for the one? I don't think you would. If i knew i could have saved them but by doing nothing they died, then yes, I would feel responsible etc. Fair enough, I may very well feel that way too. But I was also talking about legal responsibility. What's worse? Neglect that killed 5 people, or a direct action which killed 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 In my opinion, if those 6 people couldn't fight off one mad philosopher, then they all deserve to die. :x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paddy Posted March 10, 2010 Author Share Posted March 10, 2010 What happens when you have 5 people in hospital all in need of different organs? Do you kill a healthy person to get the organs to save them? If you flicked the switch you should, because it's essentially the same thing. Until you intervened the 5 were dying and the one was alive, so what's the difference now? This is exactly what the follow up poll was going to be. I think we'll get some rather different results... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSufferingVilla Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 "Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." -Mr. Spock The problem with such questions is that people do not equally value life. Change things around for example: A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path is an honest hardworking family man who has been tied to the track by the mad philosopher. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Fortunately, there is a convicted Pedophile tied to that track. Should you flip the switch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted March 10, 2010 Share Posted March 10, 2010 Leave the switch. If you flick the switch you're advocating killing one person to save 5, this has some serious consequences further down the road. What happens when you have 5 people in hospital all in need of different organs? Do you kill a healthy person to get the organs to save them? If you flicked the switch you should, because it's essentially the same thing. Until you intervened the 5 were dying and the one was alive, so what's the difference now? you've removed the mad professor from the argument there though TD, who IMO is crucial to the scenario. I don't think it's crucial at all. Run away train or planned plot the end result is exactly the same. Once the scenario is set in motion the origin of it becomes irrelevant. To justify killing one to save others on the basis of "someone did something bad to cause it" is wrong. If you want an evil person in the scenario to make your decision easier, how about the 6 people in hospital are all there as a result of the mad philosopher being a drunk driver and running them over. One has minor injuries, the others all have life threatening organ failure that could be fixed with the organs from the guy with minor injuries. This is exactly what the follow up poll was going to be. I think we'll get some rather different results...I think the results would be vastly different. It's the same as the "push a button to kill 1 and save 10" always has far more people siding with it than "pick up this gun and shoot 1 to save 10". People like a disconnect between their actions and the result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiganvillain Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 What about a bomb ticking to kill one person in London, or you can flick a switch and kill 5 people in Mozambique, but save the Londoner? No brainer, the Londoner dies and, quite frankly, reverse the numbers and 5 Londoners die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I can't see how ignoring the situation absolves you of any guilt for the deaths of the 5. Once you've been exposed to the situation such as this your involved in it. If you walked past a woman being battered in an alley would you not intervene? If not, how could you live with yourself afterwards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I'd rather have it on my conscience that I flicked the switch and killed one, than I did nothing and killed 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 11, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 11, 2010 It's the same as the "push a button to kill 1 and save 10" always has far more people siding with it than "pick up this gun and shoot 1 to save 10".Of course, people still think they might do this, because they envisage a "bad guy" endangering (say) a bunch of kids. But what if you'd have to shoot a sweet, innocent little kid, to save ten adults? This is the sort of thing that the Nazis used to have a lot of fun with, as in William Styron's novel (and film) "Sophie's Choice": "We are going to kill ONE of your children - YOU choose which one". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts