This is another problem posed to us in philosophy class that I enjoyed. We never did come to an agreement, one way or the other, but I wonder what people here will say.

Note also that this is a toy problem, and it will never EVER happen, but it's still useful to think about.

You're walking down some train tracks. You turn around, and see an out of control train going down the tracks. In the other direction, just past a fork, you see 10 people (you can't tell who; assume they're random people) having a picnic on the tracks. Say it's in a tunnel so they can't get away, it doesn't matter.

Luckly, you're at a switchbox, and can make sure the train doesn't hit them by just pulling the switch! Unfortunately, if you do, it will go down another track and hit a single person (again, you don't know who) walking down the other side of the fork.

Do you pull the switch, knowing full well you're killing the person walking down the tracks, or do you leave it, letting 10 people die?

Note that you don't know who these people are, and there's no easy way out (ie, they WILL die, depending on your choice, you can't warn them or derail the train).

There's really two answers:
1) pull the switch, because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So 10 lives are more valuable than one life, so of course you'll pull it!
2) murder is worse than accident. So it is best to let the people die, rather than taking the other person's life.

I'd pull the switch. Acting within my morals and beliefs, that is the right thing to do-- whether or not the law says so. The needs of many do outweigh the few.

Hmm... I wonder what CupHead will have to say about this?

[quote author=Eibro link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28329 date=1068411779]
I'd pull the switch. Acting within my morals and beliefs, that is the right thing to do-- whether or not the law says so. The needs of many do outweigh the few.
[/quote]
Aye.

Whether you switch the tracks or not, it is muder. By not diverting the train you are condeming/murdering the 10, as you would be condeming/murdering the single person if you did pull it.

Leave the switch and bust out my camcorder. Film the event and collect the money for a CNN exclusive.

./edit They are all idiots for being on the tracks in the first place. They should all die in order to keep their genes out of the pool.

Well, isn't it a better chance that one person would be able to move out of the way faster than a group of ten? Thus, I would pull the switch. (Then of course I would kill Thing and steal his camcorder, next selling it to CNN and get to be rich and a hero.)

I just put myself in the position of the one. I would rather give my life so that the greater number could live. Thats what my morals dictate.

Ok, think about this example:

You're a doctor. you have 10 patients who are going to die with the day. Then one man walks in to get allergy medication. As you test him to see what he needs, you realize that he has the perfect genes to save the 10 people, but you would have to kill him. He, of course, refuses to give his life to save these people.

Would you kill him, if it meant saving 10 lives?

Naa, it's not too late for another man to walk in and save the day. It also has to do with expectations, if he's risking his life willingly by walking somewhere he's not supposed to, or if he's just around. About the train: Try putting the switch between the tracks and let the train derail, with some luck it'll slow down enough that everyone makes it.

[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28347 date=1068417384]
Naa, it's not too late for another man to walk in and save the day. It also has to do with expectations, if he's risking his life willingly by walking somewhere he's not supposed to, or if he's just around. About the train: Try putting the switch between the tracks and let the train derail, with some luck it'll slow down enough that everyone makes it.
[/quote]

I said that there's "no easy way out" for a reason. It's a toy problem; something that can't really happen, but is still useful to discuss.

And for the purposes of the example, the train tracks were abandoned; it's only by accident that a train ended up out of control going down them.

And what do you mean that it's too late? The 10 people have 24 hours to live, unless the doctor kills the one man; how is that any different from the train hitting the 10 people instead of the 1?

i'd leave it. it's their own fault for being on the tracks

Why choose? Hop in front of the train and you're left with no guilt.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28359 date=1068420774]
Why choose? Hop in front of the train and you're left with no guilt.
[/quote]

hmm, originally I said pull out your gun (this is an american psycologist), and shoot the one, then leave the switch. If you can't choose, kill 'em all.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28360 date=1068421777]
[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28359 date=1068420774]
Why choose? Hop in front of the train and you're left with no guilt.
[/quote]

hmm, originally I said pull out your gun (this is an american psycologist), and shoot the one, then leave the switch. If you can't choose, kill 'em all.
[/quote]
Lmfao, +1.

As for the Doctor question (and this is different, the 1 person has refused)... You can't do anything, murder would land you in jail. Allowing the 10 people to die would be just another casualty of (insert disease name here).

Or, you could tell the 10 people, have 1 of them take the fall for murder, and let them kill the person and return the body to you.

You're ALL wrong. It doesn't matter what choice you make, you cannot influence the outcome. Run for your life. The train is "out of control".

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28366 date=1068422485]
You're ALL wrong. It doesn't matter what choice you make, you cannot influence the outcome. Run for your life. The train is "out of control".
[/quote]
I agree with Grok.

It's a surpise to see that the votes are now tied.

Kill the ten people, because it's the fault of the 10 to be so stupid as to have a picnic on the tracks in the first place. Plus the world is already over populated, so think of it as killing 10 people (assuming 5 women and 5 men) and save the world from having to deal with possibly 5 more people (5 being the outcome if each pair had a kid together).

What if there are only 11 people left on earth, 6 males, 5 females. Then five of the men and 5 of the women are killed by the train. Assuming there are no sheep, what will the remaining man do?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28348 date=1068417933]And for the purposes of the example, the train tracks were abandoned; it's only by accident that a train ended up out of control going down them.[/quote]

Well, assuming that the railroad tracks were abandonded, that'd probably make you a person with an occupation that isn't related to railroad mechanics, because there'd be no reason to be at that train track with your equipment. On every modern railroad track you'd have to have the proper equipment, knowledge and ability to toggle the switch on the track. You should probably include in your 'toy' question that you're also an equipped railroad technician, otherwise you wouldn't be able to switch the tracks either way! So I guess I voted for leave it, and let 10 die.

I refuse to believe any of you would leave the switch for the simple reason of purifying the gene pool. Oh it's their own fault for being on the tracks, they deserve to die. No; everyone makes mistakes. Have some decency and try to help out.

The situation with the doctor is different. The man can decide whether or not to give his life for the many. It'd be a selfish decision to let 10 die, but it's his to make.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28348 date=1068417933]
[quote author=Adron link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=0#msg28347 date=1068417384]
Naa, it's not too late for another man to walk in and save the day. It also has to do with expectations, if he's risking his life willingly by walking somewhere he's not supposed to, or if he's just around. About the train: Try putting the switch between the tracks and let the train derail, with some luck it'll slow down enough that everyone makes it.
[/quote]

I said that there's "no easy way out" for a reason. It's a toy problem; something that can't really happen, but is still useful to discuss.

And for the purposes of the example, the train tracks were abandoned; it's only by accident that a train ended up out of control going down them.

And what do you mean that it's too late? The 10 people have 24 hours to live, unless the doctor kills the one man; how is that any different from the train hitting the 10 people instead of the 1?
[/quote]

As you put it, killing the one man would save the 10 people. But if you don't decide to kill that one man now, you may still have some other man appear later, who's willing to sacrifice himself.

The difference in the train case is that people shouldn't be walking around on railroad tracks without looking out for trains - they've all got themselves to blame.

It's misnomered as Murder vs Accident. It cannot be murder if you take action to save the 10 people when an alternate action would save the other guy.

This very thing happened to me back in 1994. I was walking along the beach on Labor Day weekend and came across a large group of people standing by the ocean, pointing and scared. There was a very harsh undertoe, and the lifeguards had retired for the day. In the surf were three boys, struggling to get to the shore. I stopped this girl on her bike and ordered her to go to the lifeguard station and get EVERYONE that three kids were drowning, and she took off. I jumped in the water and went after the boys. The first two boys were closer to shore than the other, and were about 14 and 12. I asked if they needed help and the 14 year old said yes. So I grabbed his arm, he had his little brother's arm, and it took us about 5 minutes to walk the 30 or 40 feet to the sand. Nobody on the beach would come help. When I got those two to safety, the 11 year old boy still in the water was gone. The lifeguards arrived about then, and about 25 of them dove in and started looking for the other boy. His body washed up about 30 minutes later, 100 yards away.

By the standards of this question, I murdered the 11 year old by saving his older brothers first.

That happened to me, also.

If this were to take place in Quebec, you'd be more likely to be charged if you didn't pull the switch. Not giving help to others in need is against the law. Of course, I'm about life/death situations.

[quote author=warz link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=15#msg28391 date=1068427972]
That happened to me, also.
[/quote]

Sucks doesn't it? I didn't go back to the beach for two years after that.

Grok is quite right.

It's equally as much murder if you don't pull the switch, in fact, moreso, since there's more dead people as a result. If you don't pull the switch, you're murdering the 10 people via inaction. You're proceeding on the assumption that the person who doesn't pull the switch makes no choice - that by not pulling the switch, they have allowed random chance to take it's course. That's not valid, IMHO. Not pulling the switch is equally as much a choice as pulling the switch, therefore, the outcome is equally as much that person's responsibility. Therefore, I'd pull the switch.

Yeah, hate it when that happens. That's the main reason I picked up snow boarding. I wanted to get as opposite of the beach as I could.

To those of you with the 'stupid people' comments... As Iago said, this is a philosophical question, it doesn't matter the situation of the other people, or how they got there, simply your decision. (I think I'm learning)

I'm changing my answer. I want to kill Iago for asking the question, then I'm going to kick a puppy.

The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?

[quote author=Yoni link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28432 date=1068440475]
The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?
[/quote]Legally guilty?

[quote author=Eibro link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28433 date=1068440599]
[quote author=Yoni link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28432 date=1068440475]
The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?
[/quote]Legally guilty?
[/quote]
I think morally guilty fits the discussion a little better.

Maybe I was misunderstood. I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control. The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=15#msg28390 date=1068427865]
It's misnomered as Murder vs Accident. It cannot be murder if you take action to save the 10 people when an alternate action would save the other guy.

This very thing happened to me back in 1994. I was walking along the beach on Labor Day weekend and came across a large group of people standing by the ocean, pointing and scared. There was a very harsh undertoe, and the lifeguards had retired for the day. In the surf were three boys, struggling to get to the shore. I stopped this girl on her bike and ordered her to go to the lifeguard station and get EVERYONE that three kids were drowning, and she took off. I jumped in the water and went after the boys. The first two boys were closer to shore than the other, and were about 14 and 12. I asked if they needed help and the 14 year old said yes. So I grabbed his arm, he had his little brother's arm, and it took us about 5 minutes to walk the 30 or 40 feet to the sand. Nobody on the beach would come help. When I got those two to safety, the 11 year old boy still in the water was gone. The lifeguards arrived about then, and about 25 of them dove in and started looking for the other boy. His body washed up about 30 minutes later, 100 yards away.

By the standards of this question, I murdered the 11 year old by saving his older brothers first.
[/quote]

Well, now you've made me feel horrible for ever asking the question and arguing against commensense :(


[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28446 date=1068447011]
Maybe I was misunderstood. I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control. The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.
[/quote]

So it's up to you to choose who lives and who dies? Sounds like you're trying to play God!


Also, I noticed that nobody has argued FOR killing the one person in the hospital case. Why is that so hard to do, if you're ok with the single person dying because of the train? I don't see how you could pull the switch and NOT kill the man. What if this man's genes held the cure for cancer, but he would have to be studied for many years, eventually dying from experiments, but as a result millions of people would be saved. Would it be ok to force HIM to die? Where do we draw the line, in this case?

Final part of the question
What if there were 5 people on each set of tracks; what would you do in that case? It seems odd to pull the switch, because then you're more responsible for the deaths of the 5 people. But if you leave the switch, you're also responsible for the deaths of 5 people. Why does not pulling it seem so much better?



(there should be plenty more to argue now, go nuts! I'm rather impressed how this is going along much the same lines as the discussion at school did, besides Thing's CNN thing :) )

5 lives = 5 lives, you could pull the switch and even though that would be considered murder of the other 5 as opposed to an accident on the other 5, and you were caught by the police, you could say you were saving the life of the other people because you felt that you were drawn to them or some BS, and they probably wouldn't convict you of murder.

I'd say just turned around and walk away in that situation.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28451 date=1068452503]
Well, now you've made me feel horrible for ever asking the question and arguing against commensense :(


[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28446 date=1068447011]
Maybe I was misunderstood. I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control. The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.
[/quote]

So it's up to you to choose who lives and who dies? Sounds like you're trying to play God!


Also, I noticed that nobody has argued FOR killing the one person in the hospital case. Why is that so hard to do, if you're ok with the single person dying because of the train? I don't see how you could pull the switch and NOT kill the man. What if this man's genes held the cure for cancer, but he would have to be studied for many years, eventually dying from experiments, but as a result millions of people would be saved. Would it be ok to force HIM to die? Where do we draw the line, in this case?

Final part of the question
What if there were 5 people on each set of tracks; what would you do in that case? It seems odd to pull the switch, because then you're more responsible for the deaths of the 5 people. But if you leave the switch, you're also responsible for the deaths of 5 people. Why does not pulling it seem so much better?



(there should be plenty more to argue now, go nuts! I'm rather impressed how this is going along much the same lines as the discussion at school did, besides Thing's CNN thing :) )
[/quote]
Instead of blindly attacking people for "playing God", perhaps you might consider that in your situation, regardless of what you do, you'll still (one way or another) end up determining the fate of at least one person...

All of you who chose to pull the switch are murderers and should be stoned to death. Regardless of how many people are on either side of the tracks, you are changing the outcome of an event which results in the death of innocent person(s). I'm glad I live in Texas where capital punishment takes care of people like you. I think they should make it a spectator sport.

[quote author=Thing link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28496 date=1068477797]
All of you who chose to pull the switch are murderers and should be stoned to death. Regardless of how many people are on either side of the tracks, you are changing the outcome of an event which results in the death of innocent person(s). I'm glad I live in Texas where capital punishment takes care of people like you. I think they should make it a spectator sport.
[/quote]

Would you give your life for 10 people?

when trains hit me they break

I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me, ofcourse.

[quote author=warz link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28939 date=1068698349]
I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me, ofcourse.
[/quote]

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem. It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28942 date=1068700361]

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem. It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.
[/quote]

With old train tracks levers you'd have to take some care to make sure it's securely in the right position and not left somewhere between. Well, unless you wanted to save everyone by having the train run off the tracks instead of over the people ;)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28942 date=1068700361]
[quote author=warz link=board=2;threadid=3509;start=30#msg28939 date=1068698349]
I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me, ofcourse.
[/quote]

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem. It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.
[/quote]

If you're going to continually rig the question so that it can only be answered to make you a murderer, this post should have been written as such:

"Are you a murderer? (Y/Y)"

Otherwise you should accept that people other than your professor are capable of independent thought, judgment and application of their own set of weights.