Current Events > 5 people are stuck on a railway track.There's a rail car coming at them. However

(+) Yeah! (+)

Sami1000 posted...

If their death is 100% happening, you know for 100% sure what that switch will do and how it is the only thing that can save one of them, then there is no dilemma. You're either killer of one, or killer of five.

See, you keep saying killer of 5 but you are not actively doing something to kill them.

Sami1000 posted...

f we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

Entirely different if it's your family and you damn well know that. This entirely depends on them being strangers.
---

Sami1000 posted...

Dragonblade01 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

Makeveli_lives posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch. And since that is a ridiculous reason to charge somebody for a crime, the person shouldn't be charged either way, nor should he be considered a killer or even a manslaughterer by any reasonable person.

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

So, is it ethically better to let 5 people die, so the one dying anyway wouldn't feel bad dying alone?

This is no dilemma in any way, if we know for a fact that the switch is the only thing you can do. Its either YOU killing 5 people by doing nothing, or killing 1 and doing something.

Whether you see it or not, this is a well-documented moral dilemma for most people.

Stay out of it by doing nothing and five people will die.

Exercise personal agency over the situation and intentionally cause the death of one person.

That's a real dilemma for many.

If their death is 100% happening, you know for 100% sure what that switch will do and how it is the only thing that can save one of them, then there is no dilemma. You're either killer of one, or killer of five.

You can argue about legal bullshit or whatever you want, but you know you killed them by doing nothing. Would be different if you would be in danger by trying to save them, but if all it takes is pulling one switch then there's no question about it.

If we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

You simply do not understand the psychological weight of "doing nothing" vs "doing something." That's why it's a moral dilemma. You can try to equate the two all you want, but the reality of it isn't going to change. To act as an agent, enforcing one's explicit will on the world, is a far different thing from acting as a spectator of some event.

dave_is_slick posted...

Sami1000 posted...

If their death is 100% happening, you know for 100% sure what that switch will do and how it is the only thing that can save one of them, then there is no dilemma. You're either killer of one, or killer of five.

See, you keep saying killer of 5 but you are not actively doing something to kill them.

Sami1000 posted...

f we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

Entirely different if it's your family and you damn well know that. This entirely depends on them being strangers.

Even if they are strangers, are you telling me you would just listen them screaming for their life for you to save them? "But that one guy", "he will die fucking too anyway!!", "yeah, but not my fault if i just stand here and do nothing"

It would be different if you didn't know what to do, or the function of the switch.

Either way, i'm baffled by this whole thing. I see zero dilemma here. I feel like i'm trying to explain to a serial killer why killing people is wrong.
---

SalamanDerp posted...

I'd not pull the lever, wait for the next rail car and then pull the lever.

Lmfao
---

fenderbender321 posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Makeveli_lives posted...

dave_is_slick posted...

Is that supposed to me mean something? It's never as absolute as that.

1 is definitely better then 5. Only turns into a debate when you tell people that limiting it to one death makes them a murderer.

Not when you actively choose to kill someone else instead of letting things be.

As @EpicMickeyDrew pointed out, doing nothing is still actively choosing something that will result in deaths. Not flipping the switch is an action. Flipping the switch is an action. If you can do either, you are actively making a choice as to what the end result will be.

Nobody denies that a decision is being made, but the dilemma is in the nature of the decision. If it helps, the dilemma is not just about saving one or saving five. It's about remaining a spectator, not enforcing your desired result, and allowing five people to die. Or you become a direct agent, taking explicit action to shape the world you live in, and causing one person (who otherwise would not have died) to die.

This dilemma has stood the test of time for a reason.

Sami1000 posted...

If we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

What about 50 strangers vs one person you care about.
---

DarkDragon400 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

If we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

What about 50 strangers vs one person you care about.

Even VSauce wouldn't simulate that.

I don't pull the lever and shoot the guy on the other rail.

No witnesses.
---

DarkDragon400 posted...

What about 50 strangers vs one person you care about.

They have to be random strangers for this to be a dilemma. Throwing people you know on either side imbalances the exercise.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

EpicMickeyDrew posted...

Doing nothing is still doing something. Yes I would pull the lever.

Doing nothing also doesn't make you directly responsible for killing someone.

I think people are letting legality get to their heads when they have this mindset. The only problem here is legality. If we take away all legality, morally, it's either one person dies, or 5. What's the best outcome for the world? Put away the "it's your action" argument which only matters for legality. If you had a gun to your head and had to push the button to kill 1 or 5, or otherwise the guy will kill all 6 of them, which one is the superior choice? The only difference between that one and this is that "you did it". But that only matters for legality or for your own sake of mind, which tbh is pretty selfish when in the big picture, a worse outcome for the world happened.
Honestly, i'd go out to say it's even morally better to pull the switch and it's actually selfish to not to only for your own sake of mind. It's a very understandable selfishness though.

DarkDragon400 posted...

Sami1000 posted...

If we added the numbers little bit higher. Let's say there 50 people and one would die, or better yet, let's say your entire family or one dies. You still find some dilemma there? You wouldn't feel like you just killed your entire family if you did nothing?

What about 50 strangers vs one person you care about.

It's morally better to save the 50 strangers. But it's an understandable selfishness that the majority of the world would pick the one they care about. That's why if someone chooses the latter, it'd be called a "sacrifice", because it's something most people, (including me) won't do. It's kind of the survival instinct at play there. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to not want to die for 5 strangers too. Someone who does, is generally considered a hero though.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Assuming I don't get in trouble or anything, I'd pull the switch. 1 death is better than 5 deaths.

5 people on the tracks are easier to spot than just one lonesome. You could always argue that you saw the group, but didn't even notice the other person on the side track.
---

Cocytus posted...

*Remember, not diverting the car kind of makes you a mass murderer.

FTFY
---

GiftedACIII posted...

I think people are letting legality get to their heads when they have this mindset.

Legality is the farthest thing from my mind. You pull that switch, blood is on your hands.
---

Sami1000 posted...

Even if they are strangers, are you telling me you would just listen them screaming for their life for you to save them? "But that one guy", "he will die f***ing too anyway!!", "yeah, but not my fault if i just stand here and do nothing"

Why are you injecting something that's not in the original question?
---

fenderbender321 posted...

As @EpicMickeyDrew pointed out, doing nothing is still actively choosing something that will result in deaths. Not flipping the switch is an action. Flipping the switch is an action. If you can do either, you are actively making a choice as to what the end result will be.

Nope. Doing nothing is simply spectating and letting what will happen, happen and thus having blood on your mind but not your hands. Pulling the switch makes you a direct participant and you get blood on your hands.

GiftedACIII posted...

It's morally better to save the 50 strangers. But it's an understandable selfishness that the majority of the world would pick the one they care about. That's why if someone chooses the latter, it'd be called a "sacrifice", because it's something most people, (including me) won't do. It's kind of the survival instinct at play there. It's not unreasonable to expect someone to not want to die for 5 strangers too. Someone who does, is generally considered a hero though.

Who are we to decide that it's morally right to decide someone's life isn't worth living just because more people live Fuck that, it's never made sense to me. Especially if it's someone I care about.
---

Sami1000 posted...

Even if they are strangers, are you telling me you would just listen them screaming for their life for you to save them? "But that one guy", "he will die fucking too anyway!!", "yeah, but not my fault if i just stand here and do nothing"

See, at this point I'd say "No they won't they're on a different track to you".

@bulbinking posted...

Are you a railway worker?

Irrelevant.

bulbinking posted...

Do you always favor quantity over quality?

What? This isn't quantity over quality, you're saying that the one guys life is more quality than 5 lives? If anything saving the five is both quantity and quality, assuming each life is worth the same.

bulbinking posted...

Is it your responsibility to do anything?

Legally, no. However I would argue that ethically, morally, as a human being capable to act, it is my responsibility to intervene. Consider the same scenario, but with 5 on one track and no one on the other track, you can say "it's not my responsibility" and leave 5 individuals to die, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would do that.

bulbinking posted...

I would leave the level alone. It is not my responsibility, nor could I claim knowledge of how to operate the level, or even know for sure which track the train would go.

It seems to me that the only thing you are considering here is how this affects you, and your well-being, acting selfishly rather than for the good of many.
---

Makeveli_lives posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch. And since that is a ridiculous reason to charge somebody for a crime, the person shouldn't be charged either way, nor should he be considered a killer or even a manslaughterer by any reasonable person.

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

Thr problem IS an ethical dilemma as moral actions cannot exist in a bubble. Without more info on why we are there, why people are on the tracks, who they are, why the train is going off the rails, ect there can be no informed choices made and either action could be considered equally as bad as the other.

EpicMickeyDrew posted...

It seems to me that the only thing you are considering here is how this affects you, and your well-being, acting selfishly rather than for the good of many.

What if the one person ran a charitable orphanage that a tually helped people, and the other 5 are prison workers serving life sentences for murder?
---

dave_is_slick posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

I think people are letting legality get to their heads when they have this mindset.

Legality is the farthest thing from my mind. You pull that switch, blood is on your hands.

And? If those 5 people were your family members you'd obviously move it towards the stranger too yet that would also be "blood on your hands".
dave_is_slick posted...

Who are we to decide that it's morally right to decide someone's life isn't worth living just because more people live f*** that, it's never made sense to me. Especially if it's someone I care about.

It's just logic. You're contradicting yourself in your very post. Why can you decide that the 5 people, all with their own families and loved ones should die because you don't want to "dirty yourself"? I dont mean this in a bad way but your posts mainly advocate acting on emotion, so I guess it's just different mindsets.
---

bulbinking posted...

Makeveli_lives posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch. And since that is a ridiculous reason to charge somebody for a crime, the person shouldn't be charged either way, nor should he be considered a killer or even a manslaughterer by any reasonable person.

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

Thr problem IS an ethical dilemma as moral actions cannot exist in a bubble. Without more info on why we are there, why people are on the tracks, who they are, why the train is going off the rails, ect there can be no informed choices made and either action could be considered equally as bad as the other.

For this situation yes it can. You don't need the fucking time of day for this.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

bulbinking posted...

Makeveli_lives posted...

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch. And since that is a ridiculous reason to charge somebody for a crime, the person shouldn't be charged either way, nor should he be considered a killer or even a manslaughterer by any reasonable person.

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

Thr problem IS an ethical dilemma as moral actions cannot exist in a bubble. Without more info on why we are there, why people are on the tracks, who they are, why the train is going off the rails, ect there can be no informed choices made and either action could be considered equally as bad as the other.

For this situation yes it can. You don't need the fucking time of day for this.

The issue is people thinking all life holds the same quantitative value, in which case we should all kill ourselves if we overindulge as that means more people have access to your resources instead of just you, making it an inherintly moral decision as more lives benefit and all lives are equal lol
---

GiftedACIII posted...

And? If those 5 people were your family members you'd obviously move it towards the stranger too yet that would also be "blood on your hands".

Because then I'm an active agent in saving my family which would require blood on my hands, unlike before where I'm just a passive observer letting what will happen, happen.

GiftedACIII posted...

It's just logic. You're contradicting yourself in your very post. Why can you decide that the 5 people, all with their own families and loved ones should die because you don't want to "dirty yourself"?

Exactly. Who am I to decide five should die so I don't actively participate in someone's death and who are you to decide one should die so more can live. You said it's logic but I asked why does that make it "moral".

And I used to be the person that was all gung-ho about "needs of the many". Not anymore. First time a video game changed my opinion on things like this.
---

beechesfreeman posted...

You're a murderer either way, since you had the power to stop either.

No, youre not. Youre not legally obligated to act to help someone. If you act and your actions lead to the death of someone then you may be criminally liable. If not criminally, then certainly civilly liable.
---

bulbinking posted...

The issue is people thinking all life holds the same quantitative value, in which case we should all kill ourselves if we overindulge as that means more people have access to your resources instead of just you, making it an inherintly moral decision as more lives benefit and all lives are equal lol

Now once more, in english.
---

are they taking selfies on the train tracks
---

dave_is_slick posted...

Because then I'm an active agent in saving my family which would require blood on my hands, unlike before where I'm just a passive observer letting what will happen, happen.

Ok, well then I'm an active agent in saving 5 lives at an unfortunate expense of one. You realize that you're arbitrarily choose saving your family to be an tolerable exception for killing an innocent person right? I can say I'd be an active agent in saving 5 lives.
dave_is_slick posted...

Exactly. Who am I to decide five should die so I don't actively participate in someone's death and who are you to decide one should die so more can live. You said it's logic but I asked why does that make it "moral".

Because 5 people is more than one. If the trolley wasn't moving in the first place and you were forced to pick 1 person or 5 others or else all 6 would die, wouldn't picking just the one person be the obvious logical choice? Or would you literally just have all 6 die so you don't have to feel the pain of choosing? I personally would much prefer having the better outcome happen than worry about some superficial and abstract idea of whether it was by my action or not
---

None of you know what you'd do unless you've been in the situation.

These are the same people that go on with their "If I would've been there..." shit.

If i dont know any of them, id save the most people i can

If i know them, things change
---

GiftedACIII posted...

Because 5 people is more than one. If the trolley wasn't moving in the first place and you were forced to pick 1 person or 5 others or else all 6 would die, wouldn't picking just the one person be the obvious logical choice?

What does this have to do with morals? I don't give a shit about the logic. Not actively killing someone is way the fuck more moral than playing God.
---

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_hVOW2U7K4-M/SJAKUjz1VNI/AAAAAAAAX0U/-ZctmhM-iio/s640/100_pics.jpg
---

dave_is_slick posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Because 5 people is more than one. If the trolley wasn't moving in the first place and you were forced to pick 1 person or 5 others or else all 6 would die, wouldn't picking just the one person be the obvious logical choice?

What does this have to do with morals? I don't give a shit about the logic. Not actively killing someone is way the fuck more moral than playing God.

Who else is gonna do it?

dave_is_slick posted...

I don't give a s*** about the logic.

Can't argue with that.
---

dave_is_slick posted...

GiftedACIII posted...

Because 5 people is more than one. If the trolley wasn't moving in the first place and you were forced to pick 1 person or 5 others or else all 6 would die, wouldn't picking just the one person be the obvious logical choice?

What does this have to do with morals? I don't give a shit about the logic. Not actively killing someone is way the fuck more moral than playing God.

It's a complicated thing. For lack of a better analogy right now, in FE Awakening, this thief Gaius (who's on your team so a good guy) says he knows he already doesn't have a good reputation so he intentionally kills hostile spies so that the "pure" hero leader doesn't have to "dirty themselves". Or http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ZeroApprovalGambit
It's subjective but I actually find that even more moral than the "pure" hero but I'm guessing you and I will have differing opinions on that.
At the end of the day though, 5 lives saved is a better outcome than 1 life saved, so if someone is willing to dirty their hands to do while sacrificing their peace of mind it'd be even more moral in my honest opinion.
Though that wouldn't apply to me to because to be frank I just don't give a fuck about "blood on my hands". It's all about context to me and to me saving 5 lives, with the hypothetical that they're all equal, is a reasonable justification, just like how you believe saving your family is a reasonable justification.
---

TheGrindery posted...

So TC do you pay for YouTube Red? I know this was one of the free episodes, just wondering.

No, not familiar with YouTube Red.

fenderbender321 posted...

Which proves what I was trying to say earlier...that essentially your crime is that you were in position to either make or not make the switch.

Doing nothing is not a crime in this scenario. You don't have a duty to act.

fenderbender321 posted...

Because at the end of the day 1 death is better than 5. End of story. Any judge/jury that would convict would be a terrible person. Anyone judging the person or calling him a killer is a terrible person too. Consider the circumstances. It's 1 vs 5. That's all there is to it. Everything else is abstract.

What if the one stuck on the other track is a baby...?

Makeveli_lives posted...

This problem is an ethical dilemma not a legal one.

It's a number of problems, moral, legal, ethical, judgement, etc.

Sami1000 posted...

Is there a reason i shouldn't save 4 people??? What am i missing here?

Shouldn't have four people?

Sami1000 posted...

Its either YOU killing 5 people by doing nothing

You don't have a duty to act. You're not a first responder with a mandate from the state to act. You're not a railroad employee. You're a regular citizen passing by and then you see the whole scenario. Put it this way, you might get prosecuted if you actively kill the one person, but as shitty as it sounds, you can't be arrested or tried for doing nothing.

Sami1000 posted...

Sure. Lett someone fall from heights, "it was the gravity hur hur"

False analogy.

Sami1000 posted...

If their death is 100% happening, you know for 100% sure what that switch will do and how it is the only thing that can save one of them, then there is no dilemma. You're either killer of one, or killer of five.

That's precisely a dilemma, a choice between two unattractive choices.

Dragonblade01 posted...

You simply do not understand the psychological weight of "doing nothing" vs "doing something." That's why it's a moral dilemma. You can try to equate the two all you want, but the reality of it isn't going to change. To act as an agent, enforcing one's explicit will on the world, is a far different thing from acting as a spectator of some event.

Well said.

Sami1000 posted...

Even if they are strangers, are you telling me you would just listen them screaming for their life for you to save them?

The 5 people are 80+ years old each and the other one on the other track is a baby.
Now what you gonna do?

fenderbender321 posted...

doing nothing is still actively choosing something that will result in deaths

You don't have a duty to act!

save the 5, it's a no-brainer. But the transplant version of this I would go the other way, and I'm not sure there's a huge difference
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Nobody denies that a decision is being made, but the dilemma is in the nature of the decision. If it helps, the dilemma is not just about saving one or saving five. It's about remaining a spectator, not enforcing your desired result, and allowing five people to die. Or you become a direct agent, taking explicit action to shape the world you live in, and causing one person (who otherwise would not have died) to die.

This dilemma has stood the test of time for a reason.

Well said.

DrizztLink posted...

I don't pull the lever and shoot the guy on the other rail.

No witnesses.

lol, takes all kinds.