Moral traincrash

[Kettlehead]

The "There is a box" thread sort of reminded me of this.

Sitation 1:
A train is moving along a track which has a bomb on it. Between the train and the bomb is a man who has been tied up in a sack and left on the tracks. You have the choice to either save the man or save the train.

Situation 2:
You're wandering by with the man in a sack, (don't ask why). You see the train heading towards the bomb. You have the choice to either dump the man on the tracks or leave the train as it is.

When people do questionairs, almost everyone chooses to leave the man on the tracks, (#1), and to not put the man on the tracks, (#2). This is supposed to show how people instictively think that being a passive murderer is better than being an active murderer, (even though everything obviously ends up the same).

On the other hand, whenever I ask this question on the internet, a large number of people say that they would actually throw the man on the tracks :confused: Is it just me, or does this say something about the average internet user :D

[Reives]

Oh, this scenario's a similar concept as what I just posted on the box thread. D:

I'm too lazy to type up another reply to this, so please refer to my post there. :<
http://www.spongen.org/showthread.php?p=1808#post1808

Whether or not one is to be an agent of death is the difference in the two scenarios.

[ccoa]

Are we talking about a passenger train?

[GubiD]

I have to agree with ccoa here. If it was a passenger train.. you are saving more lives by removing the bomb, while if it was a coal train or whatever, you would be still be scorned upon for removing the bomb, simply because you placed that other person on the tracks. Why not throw them to the side.. so they only loose a leg or something or lay them in the center of the tracks so they wouldnt get hurt, etc.

[Lene]

How the hell would you even be able to stop the train in time? Most likely in any of these situations...unless you stick with the guy and haul ass, everyone dies anyways.

[Kettlehead]

If the train runs over the man, it will stop, (I forgot to mention that :p). The bomb is quite far down the track but you can't stop it any other way. Or of course, you could jump in front of the train yourself. Let's just say that your feet are set in concrete and you can't move them.

[HawkZombie]

Then how would you be able to move the bomb/man? THE POWER OF YOUR MIND!

I choose to evolve to a greater state of being, into a creature of pure energy. Then I won't need to be bothered with such mundane 3D perspectives f thought.

[Reives]

Okay, that train scenario is a bad example of the topic. Use this instead; it's the same conceptual problem and much easier to understand:

Scenario 1:
You are heading to save 2 people from drowning on your jeep on the only road to get there. Halfway through you find another person drowning on the side of the road. You can get off the car to save that one person, but that means you won't arrive in time to save the 2 people. Or you can keep on going to save the 2 people, and leave that 1 person to drown.

Scenario 2:
You are heading to save 2 people from drowning on your jeep on the only road to get there. Halfway through you find another person stuck in the middle of the road. In order to get there to save the 2 people, you have to run over and hence killing that 1 person in the middle of the road. If you do not save the 2 people, they will die.

Assuming that there is no other way around the person to get to the other two people, and that there's no way to get one person out of the road.

[HawkZombie]

I choose to evolve to a greater state of being, into a creature of pure energy. Then I won't need to be bothered with such mundane 3D perspectives f thought.


I can use my old answer again, right? :P

[Cocoa]

Okay, that train scenario is a bad example of the topic. Use this instead; it's the same conceptual problem and much easier to understand:

Scenario 1:
You are heading to save 2 people from drowning on your jeep on the only road to get there. Halfway through you find another person drowning on the side of the road. You can get off the car to save that one person, but that means you won't arrive in time to save the 2 people. Or you can keep on going to save the 2 people, and leave that 1 person to drown.

Scenario 2:
You are heading to save 2 people from drowning on your jeep on the only road to get there. Halfway through you find another person stuck in the middle of the road. In order to get there to save the 2 people, you have to run over and hence killing that 1 person in the middle of the road. If you do not save the 2 people, they will die.

Assuming that there is no other way around the person to get to the other two people, and that there's no way to get one person out of the road.

2 > 1. That would be my choice in considering statistics.

However, I'll choose the path of not actively running over someone and drive off the road and get back on.

[Raven The Dark Angel]

Okay if we are on the second set of situations with the drowning... to me it depends on if I know them. If I know the people my dedicatin and loyality will of course go to them first even if it means more people dying. If I don't know them then of course you'll want to save more people. But the thing is on why people wouldn't activly run over that guy in the road is because there is no way of knowing you'll actually save the two drowning. You could end up running the guy over and then not being able to save those two if you are really in that situation, since you wouldn't know the future to say yes you'll definintly be able to save them.

Also I feel that people don't want to have that kind of power over people's lives. I don't think it's about passive or active kill but rather... it's to choose who you save and another to kill in order to save.

[Reives]

Oh, these situations are all hypothetical such that if you go to save the two people, they will be saved.

The real blunt difference is allowing one to die to save two vs. killing one to save two.

[InFecTioN]

Scenario 1:
-If I know the 2 people drowning an do not know the 1 person drowning, I save the 2 people.

-If i know the 1 person drowning and not the e people drowning, I save the 1 person.

-If I know all 3 of the people drowning, I save the 2 people downign to save more lives.

-If I know none of the people drowning, I save the 1 person because it's more convenient. first come first serve.

Scenario 2: It shouldn't take more than a few seconds to save the guy in the road so i dont see why i cant save all 3.

[Cup o' Wisps]

To reive's thing...
The first one.
Both times. I rescue the guy drowning. And I chose not to run over the guy in the road. Save who you can get.

If I knew people, however, I'd pick them over strangers most likely. Depends on the person mind you. If I knew everyone, go with my original answer. First come, first serve. I know if I stop, the others will die - but what's to guarantee if I don't that I'll get there in time regardless.

[Reives]

I'd probably do that too, but when the situation really happens, I might not have the guts to run over that guy. D: A lot of things aren't really for sure until you're actually in the scenario.

[Cup o' Wisps]

I'm an asshole whose tough on loyalty.
Once you get it, it's there. It takes quite a bit to break it if I like you to begin with. I've allowed people to get hurt to protect friends, and it's been some bad hurt too. The car, a little more in my face. I can't say for sure "oh my god, I'd run that bastard over", but I doubt I'd think it or say it. I'd probably feel horribly guilty. The problem is, guilt for a friend vs. a stranger. I see myself feeling guilty more about the stranger, but I'd still run him over... weird.

[Barbatos]

The scenario I'm familiar with involves a guy either choosing to save his son who's stuck on the tracks or save the train and let his son die in the process.

I would choose saving my son over a train full of strangers. Why should you prioritize based on numbers? Moral reasons? This is just another example of why morality is stupid and people shouldn't live their lives by it unless it is for religious reasons. And let us not forget the separation of church and state.

In the car scenario, if I was rushing to save Ronove who's stuck in quicksand and going to die if I don't get to her soon, but in the process I see Rai and Twilight (for hypothetical purposes lets say I don't know them so they are strangers to me) who've escaped from a korean prison and have gotten into a situation where they will die if I don't choose to rescue them, I would just run them over and head straight to Ryerye. Again, numbers aren't important. Choosing to save who you know is important. If you don't know anyone in either case, then I would say, stick to your original goal instead of trying to prioritize lives based on your gut feeling or assessment.

yay for necrop0stin~

edit: now if you were involved in a Sophie's Choice, that would be a real dilemma.

[Ronove]

Yay for being saved! XD

[Jaabi]

I hate these kinda questions.

I heard Barb's variation at my catholic high school. Maybe I hated it because it was meant to have some religious message.

The only reason people are moral is because it's moral! Morality is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is be moral. Paradox!

EDIT: You know what else? The choice that the father (or whatever) choose in the above issue by the person telling the story at my school WAS!... SAVE THE TRAIN. Because your beliefs tell you your son is okay, and it's better that you can help more people. afhasdtjxnhxmjukixtmklyob,kb *dribbles*

[Barbatos]

EDIT: You know what else? The choice that the father (or whatever) choose in the above issue by the person telling the story at my school WAS!... SAVE THE TRAIN. Because your beliefs tell you your son is okay, and it's better that you can help more people. afhasdtjxnhxmjukixtmklyob,kb *dribbles*

Yep, they teach you that the father chooses to save the train. It's supposed to be the right, moral choice, or whatever. Maybe they want to tell you that it's okay to let your son die because he'll go to heaven or whatever bullshit. Either way, morality sucks, and smart people with common sense (who aren't religious) shouldn't adhere to it.

[Alex]

One problem is that none of these situations properly represent the moral dilemmas they aim to. You could never have enough certainty that you would save the two people who are drowning to warrant running over someone else. The same goes for knowing whether some people might survive the train wreck if you saved the son.

Like Reives was saying, reducing the hypotheticals, it boils down to two situations: choosing between saving one of two groups and actively killing someone to save multiple lives. It's important to note that morality is not universal law. At the very least it is a set of arbitrary human conventions. And saving the greatest number of lives in each case does not necessarily mean that it was the most morally correct choice to make. Morality is more than just saving the greatest number of lives. If that was the case, many evil, immoral actions could be justified. For example, killing all people with AIDS in order to prevent the disease from infecting anyone else in the future. Certainly the number of people saved for the rest of time outnumbers the number of people who currently have AIDS.

Again, since morality is a human convention it is no surprise that some contradictions or deadlocks exist (For example, having to decide between killing one of your two twin brothers whom you love equally or both will be shot). It is not necessary that every decision must result in one of two outcomes: moral or immoral.

My point is that every decision isn't necessarily black and white in terms of morality. Running over the person in the road may be immoral because it could have been avoided. However, saving the drowning victims might be a morally good thing to do. Saving your son may be morally good, just as saving a passenger train from crashing may be morally good. There are degrees of morality in each of these decisions considered. The net loss of lives isn't the only factor. Intentions play a big role in how an action is evaluated in terms of morals. If you didn't really like your son, and you decided to save the train in order to get rid of him, I think most people would agree that at least part of that decision was morally bad.

Plus, after all of this, we're assuming that all lives are of equal value. Your son still has a lot to contribute to society. Is the train full of elderly people? :razz:



With all that said, I would argue, in that specific example, that it is wrong to run over the person in the road when it can clearly be avoided. For the train scenario, saving either group would be morally good, and only inaction might be immoral. But, each situation has to be evauated individually. I don't think a law or universal rule can be created; at least not one that could be used practically. That is the problem I have with these hypothetical situations. I can think of multiple scenarios satisfying those initial conditions where the decision would be judged differently (i.e. Osama bin Laden is the person lying in the road).

Edit:
@Barb: You still have a code of ethics even if it's your own personal code. You have a sense of right and wrong even if it applies only directly to you. You say that you think it's silly for people to follow a code of ethics, but society couldn't function if it didn't. Without morals our behavior would be similar to animals. Surely you must realize this? I'm also pretty sure that you would embrace this idea. I just wanted to clarify why the blunt of my post was focused on morality when you said that you oppose morality. I think I should also point out that if we all followed your standard, there would be no train full of people to save since nobody would work together long enough to make one. Unless of course they developed some sort of sense of right and wrong so that they could work together without screwing each other over at every opportunity... some sort of code... let's call it morality.