"What if" Questions

[Darat]

The BBC magazine site has just posted an update to a survey they ran that asked people what they would do when presented by four ethical dilemmas:


Questions: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4954856.stm
Results:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4971902.stm



1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST

One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

The results: 25 percent said yes, 75 percent said no of 57,779 votes cast.


Yes.

2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
In the path of a runaway trolley car are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

The results: 77 percent said yes, 23 percent said no of 65,363 votes cast.



A strong maybe.

3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Again, the runaway trolley car. You're standing on a bridge above and decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. You will die, but five people on the track will be saved. But you are too light to stop it. Next to you is a fat man. He would certainly block the trolley, although he'd undoubtedly die. A small nudge and he'd fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?


A weak maybe.

4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS

A rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists are exploring. You spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let Big Jack out first. A man of generous proportions, he gets stuck. There is no other way out.

The tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. He pleads for his life; he does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast him out?

The results: 75 percent said yes, 25 percent said no of 51,107 votes cast.


I'd say yes.

[FireGarden]

The basic question is would you kill/sacrifice to save lives. They've got a much better question later on, where a doctor has to choose between saving 5 people with a drug or saving one.


1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST
I have no obligation to stay. I would choose to stay, but I am not obliged. I would expect the kidnappers to be arrested -- I will press charges. Hey, if the life of a violinist is worth kidnapping me, then it's worth the kidnappers going to prison.

THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
I would issue warnings. I certainly wouldn't kill the fat man!

4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS
Dynamite the fat guy? No! It's my own damn fault for letting him go first. :)

[Rufo]

I have seen these before, but the questions were them asked as "would you", not "should you" or "are you obliged to". This interesting, because there is no real moral difference that I can see between 2 and 3, but there is a much worse feeling guilt in 3, since it requires you to personally touch the person.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

1. Thomson's Violinist.

It is ridiculous to say that I'm obliged to be a bed-ridden indentured servant to a sick person.

2. The Runaway Trolley Car.

Depends on how good a lawyer I have, since I will clearly be sued by the one person's relatives. Strong maybe.

3. The Fat Man and the Trolley Car.

Perhaps I should ask him and see what he thinks?

4. The Cave Explorers.

Yes.


~~ Paul

[Mojo]

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. The bastards tried to hide my trombone as well. :mad:

[Rufo]

The big problem with these kind of theoretical questions is that in reality, you can't be sure whether or not the violinist will really survive, if killing Big Jack will really save you and the others, and especially if the fat man will actually block the trolley or just die in vain. The thought of being personally, directly responsible (as in "if you hadn't been there it wouldn't have happened") for the meaningless death of a person is too horrible for most people to take the risk, even if it can save more than one.

Oh, perhaps I should answer the questions...

1. I would stay, but I'm not obliged to save someone's life. Think about it - it's like saying I'm obliged to give all my money to charity in order to save the lives of people who will no doubt die if the organization does not get enough money to help them.

2. I would think about it for too long, so I wouldn't flip the switch until it was too late. And I am unsure whether I should do it or not. One can argue that people's lives are equal and that saving five must be better than saving one, but one can also argue that you can't compare the values of people's lives, and that the matter is better left alone. Whatever you do, you will regret it, but I suppose I should really do nothing.

3. Either I would not do it, or I would make the ridiculously stupid decision to jump myself and take the fat man with me. I cannot see one single logical reason why this would be better, so it's not anything I can say one should do. Perhaps it is that I want to avoid the guilt feeling afterwards, or that I feel more just if I do the same thing to myself, kind of like I'm 'helping' (though I really don't have to). When it comes to what one should do, the problem is more or less identical to 2.

4. No. Agreeing with FreeGarden, it was my own decision.

[gfunkusarelius]

these people obviously have not seen hollywood films. in each scenario, i would act in such a way that seems to have no good outcome, or the most selfless outcome, then i would save the others by some sort of serendipitous outcome of my selfless act. everyone lives. yippee!!!!

or possibly the fat guy dies, but we find out he was evil anyway...

[Beth]

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No

[Marquis de Carabas]

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. N/A, as I would never have let his fat ass go first anyway

[Darat]

1. Thomson's Violinist.

It is ridiculous to say that I'm obliged to be a bed-ridden indentured servant to a sick person.

...snip..


Why is it ridiculous?

Personally I hold that I am to (certain extent) obligated to help other people, now of course there are all sorts of qualifiers to that obligation but fundamentally I do believe in that obligation.

[Darat]

Just thinking about these questions a bit more I find myself wondering how much I am influenced by reading Asimov's robot stories in which he explored the meaning of his ethical three laws of robotics?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Darat (and anyone else who answers yes to #1),

Would you answer yes if instead of waking up having been kidnapped and already attached to the guy, you were simply approached by the MSA and asked to perform the service?

[Darat]

Darat (and anyone else who answers yes to #1),

Would you answer yes if instead of waking up having been kidnapped and already attached to the guy, you were simply approached by the MSA and asked to perform the service?

In principle yes but in real life I may have other obligations that I consider more important then his life.

[Jimbo07]

"You're on a sinking ship and civilization has ended and only 20 people can survive. Here's a list of personalities and occupations. Pick the 20..."

I HATED these so-called ethical dilemmas in school. The exercises are not flexible enough to allow alternative solutions. The scenarios are often insane. The questions themselves (as has been pointed out about q. 4) are badly worded or executed in the first place. What sort of moron would put themselves in that situation?

:mad:

ETA: I don't know the mass of a trolley. Let's use a locomotive. How could a flabby human being, even 100lbs. heavier than me, make any more of a dent in a locomotive's momentum? An ethical person would not ask such stupid stupid childish questions and expect the results to be meaningful or relevant to anything.

:mad:

I'm really not happy with things like this am I?

:D

[FireGarden]

I said there is no obligation in (1), even though I would help. But in truth, I could be helping more people doing other things, which cost me less. Yet I don't really volunteer for that kind of thing. So my honest answer is that I probably wouldn't stay. Sorry for raising the hopes of the MAS!



Another question for those that say there is an obligation to help in (1).

What if, instead of a world class violinist, it was to help a road-sweep?


Rufo
No. Agreeing with FreeGarden, it was my own decision
Ain't nothing for free mate! :)

Good comment on the charity thing... It's probably what changed my mind on (1).

[andyandy]

the first moral dilemma is looking at the concept of abortion from a different angle.....surprised no-one's picked that up.....(well OK - I've read "The pig who wanted to eat itself" - where all these are taken from....:) )

guess i'd flip the switch to kill one rather than 5, but not push the fat man off the bridge.....even though that is kind of contradictory.....i suppose the fact that you would play a greater role in the death of the fay guy than the random man on the train track is a factor.....

I wouldnt blow up the fat guy in the hole - hmmm why?? i dont know.....my head hurts.....:)

[Marquis de Carabas]

In principle yes but in real life I may have other obligations that I consider more important then his life.
Surely the same (or similar) obligations you would have in the kidnapping scenario. Is it safe to conclude, then, that the obligation you feel in the kidnapping situation is not the obligation to help, but the obligation to not take actions (disonnecting yourself) that harm?

[FireGarden]

the first moral dilemma is looking at the concept of abortion from a different angle

I guess the 9 months thing gives it away. But your not tied up in hospital for the whole term of pregnancy. And a lot of pregnancies are planned.

Would you have more obligation to help the violinist if you were the one who put him hospital? What if you helped for the first 3 months, then changed your mind?

[Marquis de Carabas]

the first moral dilemma is looking at the concept of abortion from a different angle.....surprised no-one's picked that up.....(well OK - I've read "The pig who wanted to eat itself" - where all these are taken from....:)
Yes, I've heard it in that context before, but I think it's a bad analogy, since it grants to the pro-life side the crux of the entire argument--that the foetus is fully human (like, one assumes, the violinist). In other words, an obligation to the violinist (as Darat feels) does not necessarily translate to an obligation to unborn chillin's.

[Jimbo07]

the first moral dilemma is looking at the concept of abortion from a different angle.....surprised no-one's picked that up

Guilty. I barely read the first question thoroughly more than once.

Now the game's afoot.

I've always wondered where the motivation came from for these false dilemmas...

:mad:

[El Greco]

1. No
2. Yes
3. Yes
4. Yes

The conclusion is, if you are alone you'd better not be near me :D

[tkingdoll]

To me this is about my own free will.

I have two rules:

1) my own life is more important to me than any stranger's.
2) Assuming that the preservation of human life is the goal, then saving 5 lives is better than saving 1.

1. I am not attached to the violinist by my own free will, so I am not obliged to stay. His occupation is irrelevant.

2. I can flip the switch of my own free will, so I would do so.

Again, it is not important who the individuals are or what their value is, and that information is not given. However, imagine that the 1 guy is the violinist and the 5 are murderers - does that change your answer? It doesn't change mine but it's an interesting thought.

3. This is the same idea as 2, just with a different mechanism. There is no moral difference between flipping a switch to kill a stranger, and pushing him yourself, so, yes, I would sacrifice him to save the 5. I don't agree with the hypothesis that I would "decide to jump on the track to stop the trolley" because I would most definitely not decide to do that for 5 strangers (if the 5 people were my family I probably would).

4. Now, in all seriousness, if I'm smart enough to calculate that my weight is not sufficient to stop a moving trolley car, I have to assume that I'm smart enough to calculate that Big Jack cannot fit through the hole.

Ignoring that for a moment, yes, I blast him out, given that a) the preservation of my own life is more important than that of strangers', and b) if I do not, we will all die, including Big Jack cause he will starve to death. If Big Jack is going to die slowly of thirst and starvation, he might as well get blown to pieces and save 5 lives.

[vbloke]

One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous fat man who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Fat Man Appreciation Society. Aware of the tubby's impending death, they hooked you up to the lardy one.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the porker, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected or do you blow him up with the dynamite?

[Marquis de Carabas]

You are unlikely to suffer harm.
To me, this is the entire problem with scenario one. As far as I am concerned, losing nine months of my life to save a stranger is harm.

[Darat]

...snip...

Another question for those that say there is an obligation to help in (1).

What if, instead of a world class violinist, it was to help a road-sweep?

...snip...

Whoops is that meant to be a significant factor in the question? I thought that was just fluff! :blush: My answer is based on an obligation I have to other people not any specific person or type of person.

[tkingdoll]

Whoops is that meant to be a significant factor in the question? I thought that was just fluff! :blush: My answer is based on an obligation I have to other people not any specific person or type of person.

What if he's, say Charles Manson?

[Darat]

the first moral dilemma is looking at the concept of abortion from a different angle.....surprised no-one's picked that up.....(well OK - I've read "The pig who wanted to eat itself" - where all these are taken from....:) )

...snip...

That might be the intent however I disagree that the question manages that unless you start with the premise that at the moment of conception one cell is a human being.

[Darat]

Surely the same (or similar) obligations you would have in the kidnapping scenario. Is it safe to conclude, then, that the obligation you feel in the kidnapping situation is not the obligation to help, but the obligation to not take actions (disonnecting yourself) that harm?

I look at it that in the kidnapping scenario my options have already been restricted so my course of possible reactions to the scenario are also reduced. However even in the original question I am only answering yes in principle since again there may be other obligations I was previously under that would make me decide not to help the person.

[Beth]

3. This is the same idea as 2, just with a different mechanism. There is no moral difference between flipping a switch to kill a stranger, and pushing him yourself, so, yes, I would sacrifice him to save the 5. I don't agree with the hypothesis that I would "decide to jump on the track to stop the trolley" because I would most definitely not decide to do that for 5 strangers (if the 5 people were my family I probably would).


This is interesting because I answered yes to 2 and no to 3, so there is a moral difference to me. I can't really say what it is exactly, so I'll have to mull on that for a while. I suppose the end result is the same, one person dead rather than five. Stilll, to me there is something different about flipping a switch to change the track versus pushing a man to his death from a bridge. Hmm, perhaps it was the part about how no one would ever know. If the two acts are morally the same, why would you care whether or not other people know what you did in one situation but not the other?

[Darat]

What if he's, say Charles Manson?

I thought of adding that to my response as I think it is a more interesting question then asking if I would fell more obligated for the violist then the dustman but I thought it would derail the conversation.

However since you ask...

As far as I am aware he hasn't repented and isn't considered safe to be released to society so in that case I would feel much less an obligation to help him.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I look at it that in the kidnapping scenario my options have already been restricted so my course of possible reactions to the scenario are also reduced.
I see it not as a reduction, but as a change in nature of the options. There are two basic options in either scenario. If requested beforehand, to help or not to help. If forced into it, the option becomes to continue to help or to cease helping.

I can see how someone could have a problem ceasing to help; I would not, however.

However even in the original question I am only answering yes in principle since again there may be other obligations I was previously under that would make me decide not to help the person.
Understood.

[Marquis de Carabas]

This is interesting because I answered yes to 2 and no to 3, so there is a moral difference to me. I can't really say what it is exactly, so I'll have to mull on that for a while. I suppose the end result is the same, one person dead rather than five. Stilll, to me there is something different about flipping a switch to change the track versus pushing a man to his death from a bridge. Hmm, perhaps it was the part about how no one would ever know. If the two acts are morally the same, why would you care whether or not other people know what you did in one situation but not the other?
Many people answer as you did, yes to 2 and no to 3. I think the reason is fairly simple. There is an obvious connection in "push guy off bridge, guy falls in front of on-rushing train". Flipping a relatively distant switch is not an obvious way to divert the course of a large moving object. We know it does that, but we are several levels of abstraction away from the connection.

Now, if one thinks about it, and one is willing to accept the premise that moral instincts in humans have evolved, our ancestors were very rarely, if ever, so far removed in their daily actions from the cause and effect. I throw a spear, spear hits Ug, Ug dies. Cause and effect were immediate.

It seems likely to me that, today, actions which require similar immediacy are more difficult to take, morally, because we've evolved to deal with such actions. Actions which are abstracted out are easier to think through logically because we never evolved a visceral reaction to such situations, as they are relatively new situations.

ETA: Carl Zimmer wrote a bit about this (including results of MRI scans conducted while people were asked these types of questions). The name of the article escapes me, but it can be found in the 2005 edition of The Best American Science & Nature Writing. He explains the position much better than I just did.

[Beth]

Many people answer as you did, yes to 2 and no to 3. I think the reason is fairly simple. There is an obvious connection in "push guy off bridge, guy falls in front of on-rushing train". Flipping a relatively distant switch is not an obvious way to divert the course of a large moving object. We know it does that, but we are several levels of abstraction away from the connection.

Now, if one thinks about it, and one is willing to accept the premise that moral instincts in humans have evolved, our ancestors were very rarely, if ever, so far removed in their daily actions from the cause and effect. I throw a spear, spear hits Ug, Ug dies. Cause and effect were immediate.

It seems likely to me that, today, actions which require similar immediacy are more difficult to take, morally, because we've evolved to deal with such actions. Actions which are abstracted out are easier to think through logically because we never evolved a visceral reaction to such situations, as they are relatively new situations.

That makes some sense.

[Hawk one]

If I got a fat load of cash and could play video games and surf the net all day, I'd do number 1 easily. If not, then they're wasting my time. I should bloody well be compensated for such an act, after all.

Number 2, I'd try and flipping the switch at the exact right time, just so that it would somehow fall over without harming anyone. Because Hollywood's ruined my sense of reality, making me think this is possible.

3: If the fat man doesn't feel like he should save those people (and since he's not jumping, I think this is safe to assume), I see no reason to force him. And I'm not jumping myself. In fact, I'd rather move away from the fat man in case he decides that pushing -me- may be worth a try.

4: In an act of self-preservation, I'd go for using the dynamite.

[EvilSmurf]

That might be the intent however I disagree that the question manages that unless you start with the premise that at the moment of conception one cell is a human being.

Exactly. Thompson made this argument to say that even if one supports the idea that a fetus attains personhood at the moment of conception, it does not necessarily mean that abortion is something one must disagree with.

[roger]

Why is it ridiculous?

Personally I hold that I am to (certain extent) obligated to help other people, now of course there are all sorts of qualifiers to that obligation but fundamentally I do believe in that obligation.Darat, you are aware, of course, that there are people dying in your country every day because they cannot afford proper health care. Why have you not taken on a second job to help them? I have little doubt that you could find somebody for whom this income would save their life, and that this situation is less intrusive on your life than being confined to a hospital bed for nine months.

Second question. Okay, you do it. you walk out after nine months, and you are kidnapped again, and placed in the same scenerio (with a different patient). Do you do it again? How many times?

Now, there is a moral philosopher, I forget his name, that argues we do have these obligations to people, and does in fact give away everything he makes beyond the little that he needs to subsist. So I don't consider these pie-in-the-sky questions, as there is at least one person in the world who is basically saying "yes" to these questions through their actions.

[EvilSmurf]

Darat, you are aware, of course, that there are people dying in your country every day because they cannot afford proper health care.

South East, UK

Darat's a Brit, roger.

[Darat]

Darat, you are aware, of course, that there are people dying in your country every day because they cannot afford proper health care.


I do not believe that is the case however what has that got to do with my answer to the first question?


Why have you not taken on a second job to help them? I have little doubt that you could find somebody for whom this income would save their life, and that this situation is less intrusive on your life than being confined to a hospital bed for nine months.


You are now trying to take my answer Q1 in my OP to other areas without taking into account other things that I have said (specifically see my answers to the Marquis).


Second question. Okay, you do it. you walk out after nine months, and you are kidnapped again, and placed in the same scenerio (with a different patient). Do you do it again? How many times?


Answered above i.e. "However even in the original question I am only answering yes in principle since again there may be other obligations I was previously under that would make me decide not to help the person.".



Now, there is a moral philosopher, I forget his name, that argues we do have these obligations to people, and does in fact give away everything he makes beyond the little that he needs to subsist. So I don't consider these pie-in-the-sky questions, as there is at least one person in the world who is basically saying "yes" to these questions through their actions.

You meant the first question I take it?

From your post it would seem that in principle you believe you have no obligation to help anyone. Thankfully most people don't act as if that was the case; I also suspect you don't actually live by that principle since altruism seems to be a pretty common characteristic of humans.

[BlackCat]

This is interesting because I answered yes to 2 and no to 3, so there is a moral difference to me. I can't really say what it is exactly, so I'll have to mull on that for a while. I suppose the end result is the same, one person dead rather than five. Stilll, to me there is something different about flipping a switch to change the track versus pushing a man to his death from a bridge.
The difference is active vs. passive. Voluntarily killing vs. letting someone die. In the second trolley example, you are actively pushing the man to his death. In the first, you are simply flipping a switch, in other words, someone's going to die, you've chosen who, but played no active role other than to flip a switch. However, I realize these are probably not the best examples of this, and it can be argued that you actively killed both people.

Perhaps we could consider this scenario, by James Rachels:
In the first, Smith stands to gain a large inheritance if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. One evening while the child is taking his bath, Smith sneaks into the bathroom and drowns the child, and then arranges things so that it will look like an accident.

In the second, Jones also stands to gain if anything should happen to his six-year-old cousin. Like Smith, Jones sneaks in planning to drown the child in his bath. However, just as he enters the bathroom Jones sees the child slip and hit his head, and fall face down in the water. Jones is delighted; he stands by, ready to push the child's head back under if it is necessary, but it is not necessary. With only a little thrashing about, the child drowns all by himself, "accidentally," as Jones watches and does nothing.
Is there a moral difference here? If so, what?

BlackCat

[Beth]

The difference is active vs. passive. Voluntarily killing vs. letting someone die. Yes, I think that's part of it.

In the second trolley example, you are actively pushing the man to his death. In the first, you are simply flipping a switch, in other words, someone's going to die, you've chosen who, but played no active role other than to flip a switch. However, I realize these are probably not the best examples of this, and it can be argued that you actively killed both people. Yes, it can be argues, but this gets back to MdC's point. The level of abstraction is definitely higher for the first scenario. One doesn't get one's hands dirty so to speak.



Perhaps we could consider this scenario, by James Rachels:

Is there a moral difference here? If so, what?

BlackCat

Hmm. Good question. I don't see as much of a difference between these two scenarios as I do between the two trolley car examples. Probably because I could envision myself throwing the switch, but not pushing the guy off the bridge. I can't envision myself either murdering a 6 year old or allowing him to die when I could easily prevent it. Thus, the two scenarios seem nearly equally repugnant to me.

[slingblade]

I usually can't answer such questions. I'm one of those annoying brats who can see so many sides or exceptions to any incident that I simply can't give one answer.

Like with the trolley and saving five people or one: what if the one was, f'rinstance, Sagan, or DeBakey, or Einstein, etc, etc.? What if one of the five was someone vital to the world at that moment, and the one was my own son?

The fat guy in the cave: who is he? Same questions, and others, apply. Also, if there are four of us, and we can't pull Fat Bastard out of the hole to save our own lives, do we even deserve to live? ;) Besides, why didn't we try the dynamite first? How the heck do we know it won't shift the rock? Can we even set off the dynamite without killing us all, never mind the dude stuck in the gap? Do we have matches?

Nah. I can't do these.

[Jimbo07]

Nah. I can't do these.

Thank you.

At least I'm not alone...

[BlackCat]

Probably because I could envision myself throwing the switch, but not pushing the guy off the bridge. I can't envision myself either murdering a 6 year old or allowing him to die when I could easily prevent it. Thus, the two scenarios seem nearly equally repugnant to me.
But you're not responsible for the kids, Smith and Jones are. I'm just asking what your opinion is about their actions.

BlackCat

[Darat]

But you're not responsible for the kids, Smith and Jones are. I'm just asking what your opinion is about their actions.

BlackCat

I'll jump in and say that I find the action of one and the inaction of the other equally wrong.

However to move on slightly from the example you posted I do believe that depending on the circumstances the decision not to take action can be justified.

[cyborg]

3. The Fat Man and the Trolley Car.

Perhaps I should ask him and see what he thinks?

Indeed that is my perspective.

In the switch example I am the only moral agent about. The switch cannot choose to do anything. In the fat man example it is his choice whether or not he wants to sacrafice his life, not mine.

BTW the guy who wrote this goes to Imperial College, which by a twist of fate I also attend. I may have to seek him out.

[Darat]

...snip...

BTW the guy who wrote this goes to Imperial College, which by a twist of fate I also attend. I may have to seek him out.

I suggest well away from any railway tracks....

[cyborg]

Don't worry, I'm as thin as they come ;)

[blutoski]

The ones mentioned are a typical conflict of Kantian and Utilitarian ethics: does an individual have rights that can be upheld if the majority would benefit from violating them?

There is a concept of extra-ordinary acts, where a person has individual rights, but volunteers to suspend them for the greater good. For example, there are people who need bone marrow transplants right now, but we are not *obliged* to register. Even if I do volunteer to register, if it turns out that 100 people will die without my marrow, and that donating all that marrow would kill me, I'm not obligated to die for their benefit. The general perception is that I have done more than my minimum obligation by donating to as many as I safely can.




Regarding active vs passive: yes, this is recognized as important. There is a percieved difference in moral obligation for a person to firstly, not harm somebody on purpose, to help if all things are equal. Thirdly, though, if helping carries a cost, society does not have the same expectation. But there is a value assigned to it.

As a lifeguard, my job was to help people who are drowning. This does not make me heroic, because I'm supposed to, and there is little risk. My sister, though, who can't swim very well, jumped into the Thompson river to pull out a small kid who had fallen overboard. That's heroic, because she didn't have to, and there was personal risk.

But if she didn't - if she allowed the girl to die, would we arrest her for murder? No.

How about if a lifeguard didn't pull out a drowning kid? Murder? No, but he'd be charged with something for sure, because he had the obligation.

Completely different is the responsibility of the person who pushes a kid's head under with the intention of drowning her. That person is dangerous, and society feels justified in punishing him.

[uruk]

1. The violinist:
I would remain connected but I would extort as money as I could from
the kidnappers. A famous violinist should a decent amount of cash around.

2. Runaway Trolly:
I'd check to see if the one person on the track better dressed than the
other four. He/she may possibly be a company exec or celebrity. If not
then I'd scream out like hell over the PA system. If I'm near a switch to
change tracks, then I'm probably in a control room of some sort.

3. Fat man and trolly:
I'd no nothing. Anybody knows that a man that is fat enough stop a trolly
would be far to huge to "nudge" off a bridge. I might tell him how horribly
fat he is and that he'll never be loved by a woman and hopefully he'll be
depressed and aguished enough to throw himself of the bridge infront of
the trolly.

4. Fat guy in a cave:
If I was stupid enough to let the fat guy go first I'd use the dynamite on
myself.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Why is it ridiculous?

Personally I hold that I am to (certain extent) obligated to help other people, now of course there are all sorts of qualifiers to that obligation but fundamentally I do believe in that obligation.
By all means, hold yourself to an obligation. But no one else should.

~~ Paul

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST

One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

If the question is, "do I have an obligation," then no. I have no obligation. Whether I would do it or not, though, I have no idea.

2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
In the path of a runaway trolley car are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

This scenario is almost impossible to say yes or no to. I would have to make a split second decision weighing the likelihood of the 5 people on the train dying, and the chances of the person on the other track not getting hit.

I would generally say yes, but I am not fond of black and white scenarios like this.

3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Again, the runaway trolley car. You're standing on a bridge above and decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. You will die, but five people on the track will be saved. But you are too light to stop it. Next to you is a fat man. He would certainly block the trolley, although he'd undoubtedly die. A small nudge and he'd fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Probably not.


4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS

A rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists are exploring. You spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let Big Jack out first. A man of generous proportions, he gets stuck. There is no other way out.

The tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. He pleads for his life; he does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast him out?

Well, I would ask him first, and try to convince him that it is best for the group. If he still insists on not dying, then I would probably do it anyway.

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you are on your way to a steakhouse with $50, and there's a homeless man who needs the money to feed his twelve kids, but your own brother needs the money for his anti-psychotics, but again, there's an insane terrorist threatening to blow up a library if you don't give him the money, how would you like your steak prepared?

[Dark Jaguar]

1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST
One day, you wake up in hospital. In the nearby bed lies a world famous violinist who is connected to you with various tubes and machines.

To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist.

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

I'd say no in this case, but I would totally do it and why couldn't they just ASK me? No, they went for the kidnapping option FIRST. 9 months shouldn't be that big a deal. Keep me entertained, net access, well fed, friend and family allowed to visit, I'd be fine so long as I got up and stretched now and again.

For those who would NOT help this person, let's reverse the situation. You will die unless a single person is medically attached to you. Do you kidnap that person so you can live if it was needed?

2. THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY CAR
In the path of a runaway trolley car are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

3. THE FAT MAN AND THE TROLLEY CAR
Again, the runaway trolley car. You're standing on a bridge above and decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. You will die, but five people on the track will be saved. But you are too light to stop it. Next to you is a fat man. He would certainly block the trolley, although he'd undoubtedly die. A small nudge and he'd fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

I can't see any difference between the two. Hitting the switch is just as active a process as shoving a fat man. Further, if you would ask the fat man if he would do it, why not ask the single man on the tracks if he is willing to die?

This all assumes there is no other way out of the situation. Unfortunatly, I can see far too many. Somehow crashing the trolley may not be an option though. I wonder if there's anyone in it that might die because of that?

4. THE CAVE EXPLORERS

A rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists are exploring. You spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let Big Jack out first. A man of generous proportions, he gets stuck. There is no other way out.

The tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. He pleads for his life; he does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast him out?

Is the dynamite even dry at this point? Is it even possible to blow him up without also blowing everyone else up? That aside, if the others and myself were dumb enough to let him go first, even though if he went last we would ALL be alive, we deserve the consequences. We effectively chose to die. And yes, I say "we" because the others should have frickin' punched me and dragged me through the opening and then had fatkins mcgee come through. Also, why did we bring that guy along? He's always getting us into terrible moral dilemas and we know it. Why do we even still hang out with the guy?

I chose inaction in cases where I have to chose who lives and who dies. It's easier that way. I say that with the full knowledge that the only time it comes up is in video games :D.

The real issue isn't "inaction vs action" for me. Offer me something really hard. Give me a train track issue only this time force me to hit the switch or EVERYONE dies. Hitting the switch just decides who dies.

But anyway, the whole excersise is silly because, simply put, we're never going to run into these situations. My moral system only needs to work for the instances I will ACTUALLY encounter, not the really unlikely situations I really don't have to worry about.

[Marquis de Carabas]

For those who would NOT help this person, let's reverse the situation. You will die unless a single person is medically attached to you. Do you kidnap that person so you can live if it was needed?
Damned straight I would, and for the exact same reason I'd disconnect myself and leave (if possible): I am the single most important thing in my life. Furthermore, if I have my choice, I'm kidnapping Darat, because I know he'll stick around.

[Dark Jaguar]

And there's the rub. I can't justify making myself more important than others (nor can I justify the reverse). So, I won't take the life of another to save my own (just make sure that my death comes quick so I don't have time to remember how much I love my life, it's easy to make a decision to yank off a bandage, not as easy to make the decision to continue the slow removal of a million shards of glass from your leg), unless that person is actually attacking me and that's the only way out of it.

Basically, I just get the idea that "I'm the most important" sort of thinking leads to mafia life.

[epepke]

1. THOMSON'S VIOLINIST

I want to speak to the agent.

[FireGarden]

For those who would NOT help this person, let's reverse the situation. You will die unless a single person is medically attached to you. Do you kidnap that person so you can live if it was needed?
I would only ask for help. Otherwise I would be saying that it's okay for poor people to go out mugging others to earn enough to live on.

I can't see any difference between the two. Hitting the switch is just as active a process as shoving a fat man.
Paul C and Cyborg earlier mentioned one difference....
In the switch example I am the only moral agent about. The switch cannot choose to do anything. In the fat man example it is his choice whether or not he wants to sacrafice his life, not mine.
In the switch example...
Why doesn't the guy on the other track have a say on the sacrifice of his life? Are you saying that you can decide for him because he is too far away to talk to?

[cyborg]

Why doesn't the guy on the other track have a say on the sacrifice of his life? Are you saying that you can decide for him because he is too far away to talk to?

One would assume if we had the time to talk he could get off the damn tracks.

[FireGarden]

But since you don't have time to talk, you can take the decision to sacrifice his life?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

If you are on your way to a steakhouse with $50, and there's a homeless man who needs the money to feed his twelve kids, but your own brother needs the money for his anti-psychotics, but again, there's an insane terrorist threatening to blow up a library if you don't give him the money, how would you like your steak prepared?

Hmm, in such a situation, I'd probably go out for ribs instead.

[Harlequin]

Most of these examples are not only very old and often-discussed situations, but specifically of importance when you put them in the context of moral obligations.

Example #1, as has been mentioned is the standard example used to convince people that there should be no obligation to help this poor violinist. Therefore, even if you accept that a foetus is already a person, a woman who has been raped should be under no obligation to carry that child to term. Various versions of this have made the person a violinist, a terrible criminal, a relative, a complete stranger, etc.

Example #2, the people on the railroad tracks, is used to illustrate the difference between active and inactive causing of harm. It is especially important when you use it in discussions about (again) obligation. Are you actually obliged to change the switch?

Example #3 is interesting because it seems to be counter to #2 but it is not clear why. Surely, you are not obliged to push the fat man? In fact, the key difference between these two examples is that in #2 the lone person on the track has made a personal choice to stand on the track - thereby exposing themselves to exactly this kind of danger, that of being run over by a tram. The fat man should not reasonably be expected to think he has deliberately exposed himself to the risk of being hit by a tram, just because he overeats and stands on bridges.

#4 is also interesting when you study it from an obligation perspective. Some might say that the person with the dynamite is actually obliged to blow up the fat man and save the others. If there are no others present, is your obligation different? What if Fatty had actually shoved you out of the way and insisted on going first? Once you are presented with the situation of a fat man stuck in the opening, does it matter how he got there? After all, he knew you had the dynamite and that he might not fit through, therefore his insisting on going first should lead to a reasonable expectation for being blown up if he does get stuck (#2 above). If it wasn't particularly his choice to go first, then we are back at example #3 - should he be blown up just because he eats too much?


In general, I really enjoy this type of dilemma (thinking about it, not being in it...). I've always found moral philosophy to be more interesting because it seems to be the branch of philosophy that is most likely to be applied to the real world. Occasionally there's a real shocker that makes you reconsider what you think is correct behaviour.

[Beerina]

If you stay in the hospital bed, connected to the violinist, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?

Yes. You have an obligation to yourself to become famous and will get a million dollar book deal out of it, and it will be made into a made-for-TV movie starring one of the people who used to be on "Wings" TV show, with Victoria Principle playing the violinist's mother. You will get a cameo appearance as an orderly standing in an elevator as the reporter rides up.



In the path of a runaway trolley car are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

Yes, for similar reasons to the first question. Indeed, if flipping the switch diverted it from one to the five, you do so anyway, and claim you didn't know the five were there, you were trying to save the one guy's life.


Again, the runaway trolley car. You're standing on a bridge above and decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. You will die, but five people on the track will be saved. But you are too light to stop it. Next to you is a fat man. He would certainly block the trolley, although he'd undoubtedly die. A small nudge and he'd fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Finally a question with some meat on it, so to speak.

Ironically, it isn't for you to decide to sacrifice one person for five others. The five on the trolly car are 99.9% innocent, but not 100% innocent.

There is some element of risk you voluntarily take on when you board a trolly car. But the guy on the bridge is not taking on a reasonable risk to be deliberately pushed and sacrificed. Hence it would be unethical to push the guy from the bridge.

You are, of course, free to sacrifice yourself. You can't know your body won't stop the trolly.

A rock falls and blocks the exit of a cave you and five other tourists are exploring. You spot a hole elsewhere and decide to let Big Jack out first.

So you are the idiot who chose to pull out Big Jack first? You magically know, later on, that you'll never get him out after he's wedged in, but you don't realize that beforehand?

The tide is rising and, unless you get out soon, everyone but Big Jack (whose head is sticking out of the cave) will inevitably drown. Searching through your backpack, you find a stick of dynamite. It will not move the rock, but will certainly blast Big Jack out of the hole. He pleads for his life; he does not want to die, but neither do you and your four companions. Should you blast him out?

You jump on his shoulders as hard as you can and push him down. I guarantee you he isn't stuck that badly, especially with the other people pulling him from behind. "I'm stuck" issues are always with a caveat -- that you can't get the guy out the hard way without injuring him, or at least causing some pain. When death is imminent, pain and injury become secondary.

If you blast him, at your trial you will at least be guilty of manslaughter as expert after expert testify that your belief there was no way to get him out was ludicrous.

[Humphreys]

1. Of course not. There is no "wrong" decision here, it all depends on how much of a hero you wish to be. No one is obligated to be a hero in these sitautions, but certainly they'd be entitled to a lot of praise and to feel really good about themselves if they stayed the 9 months.

I wouldn't stay, I'm too selfish. I'd put 9 months of suffering in my life in front of the rest of his.

2. Yes. The death of five is worse than the death of one.

3. No. This is actual murder, now. In scenario two, I'd consider myself deflecting the trolley away from the group of five, rather than into someone else, but in this scenario, I'm actually killing the fat guy. It's different.

4. Yes. Again, this is different to 4, and I'd count it as some kind of self-defence. Saving myself, rather than murdering someone else.

[FireGarden]

in #2 the lone person on the track has made a personal choice to stand on the track - thereby exposing themselves to exactly this kind of danger, that of being run over by a tram. The fat man should not reasonably be expected to think he has deliberately exposed himself to the risk of being hit by a tram, just because he overeats and stands on bridges.
I'll accept that as a good difference between the two cases. But I'm not convinced that throwing the switch is right.

How can you be sure that all five will be killed if you don't pull the switch? With 5 pairs of eyes/ears, that group is more likely to notice the approach of the tram than the loner. Especielly if you're giving a warning.

If only the MAS hadn't taken away Mojo's trombone! It's a perfect warning device!

[Ladewig]

The answers to these four questions become obviously simple once you recognize that the people involved have souls that can torture you in the afterlife.

[time to run away]

[Marquis de Carabas]

And there's the rub. I can't justify making myself more important than others (nor can I justify the reverse).
I can't even comprehend this sentiment. I can't justify making others as important as myself (nor can I justify the reverse).

[Humphreys]

I don't really understand how someone can justify not putting themselves first, above all others, on some level. You are the only person who will ever have to truly feel your pain, or your pleasure, so I think that's plenty justification to making sure the latter is more prominent.

Of course, your pleasure should not come at the expense of pain for others, but you are justified in putting your pleasure above other's pleasure, or sparing yourself from pain at the expense of failing to spare the pain in others.

It's obviously far more complicated than that in reality, but that's the gist of it.

However, occasionally, sacrificing youself in order to bring pleasure to others, brings the greatest pleasure...

[Stitch]

1) Possibly
2) Yes
3) Yes
4) Yes

But I'm in a good mood, ask me again on Monday morning and it could be a different story.

[Meadmaker]

I don't know what I would really do if in an analogous situation to any of these. However, analyzing them from a moral position is somewhat easier. A couple of principles that guide me are

1. The number of lives just isn't relevant. 5 people aren't more valuable than one.
2. I'm going to die someday. So are all these people. The idea of "saving a life" is a bit inaccurate. The best you can do is prolong a life. As a consequence, It doesn't matter when you die, it matters how you live.
3. Thinking about 2, then, it seems that if you continue to live, knowing that you caused misery by taking an innocent life, it would be a lousy way to live.

So:
Thomson's violinist.
I think I ought to stay connected. We have an obligation to sacrifice for others' benefit. Of course, this is an obligation for everyone, and it seems that society would be obligated to compensate me for whatever loss I experienced as a result, but that's a separate moral issue.

Runaway train:
Insufficient data. There is no obviously moral answer. Five versus one doesn't provide any useful information for making the decision. Probably, I'd throw the switch and kill the one, on the grounds that there are five suffering families instead of one, but I don't think that is the "right" thing to do. Faced with an analogous situation, I would hope that, forced to decide, I would try and minimize suffering as a whole, instead of trying to decide who is "worth" more.

Fat guy near tracks:
Don't push him. I couldn't live with myself knowing I had selected some individual to die. However, I don't think there is a single, blanket statement you could make that it is immoral to push him. I just couldn't do it.

Fat guy in cave:
It's your fault he got there. I couldn't live with myself if I blew him up.


FWIW, I first heard 2 and 3 presented in a conversation with some orthodox Jews, and their teaching was quite clear. You are not allowed to take an action that decides who lives and who dies. That's God's job. Although I don't believe the God part, I think there is wisdom in that attitude. It's a bit arrogant for you to decide that these five people are worth more than that one. If you are deciding whose lives are more important, you are probably doing something wrong.

[Darat]

I don't know what I would really do if in an analogous situation to any of these. However, analyzing them from a moral position is somewhat easier. A couple of principles that guide me are

1. The number of lives just isn't relevant. 5 people aren't more valuable than one.

...snip...

FWIW, I first heard 2 and 3 presented in a conversation with some orthodox Jews, and their teaching was quite clear. You are not allowed to take an action that decides who lives and who dies. That's God's job. Although I don't believe the God part, I think there is wisdom in that attitude. It's a bit arrogant for you to decide that these five people are worth more than that one. If you are deciding whose lives are more important, you are probably doing something wrong.

That is also a Christian teaching.

What about if you had the responsibility to choose between saving one person you love or five people you love and if you don't make that choice then all six will die? You would still not choose to save the five?

[FireGarden]

Darat's last "what if" is like the NHS. (Without the love! :))

Limited resources. How do you spread them around? How expensive does a drug need to be before you decide that it shouldn't be made available on the NHS?

Would you spend a million pounds just treating one person when those resources could be treating many more?

[Solitaire]

If you are on your way to a steakhouse with $50, and there's a homeless man who needs the money to feed his twelve kids, but your own brother needs the money for his anti-psychotics, but again, there's an insane terrorist threatening to blow up a library if you don't give him the money, how would you like your steak prepared?
Uh, dude. Mad Cow. Hello? I just like a salad...

[Meadmaker]

That is also a Christian teaching.

What about if you had the responsibility to choose between saving one person you love or five people you love and if you don't make that choice then all six will die? You would still not choose to save the five?

I don't know what I would do, or even what I should do. I am confident that the solution to the ethical dilemma is not based on the number of people who would die.

I would probably save the five, but I don't know. For example, if the one were my son, and the five were elderly relatives, I would save the one. Middle aged relatives? tough call. And I could imagine circumstances where I would choose to save none.

[Huntster]

No, but I’d stay connected, anyway.

Yes.

No.

You find a stick of dynamite in your daybag? C’mon; you call yourself a skeptic? When was the last time you found a stick of dynamite in your daybag?

[Darat]

I don't know what I would do, or even what I should do. I am confident that the solution to the ethical dilemma is not based on the number of people who would die.

I would probably save the five, but I don't know. For example, if the one were my son, and the five were elderly relatives, I would save the one. Middle aged relatives? tough call. And I could imagine circumstances where I would choose to save none.

OK - recast the hypothetical problem.

The same choice but all you know for certain is that it is entirely your choice to decide whether 1, 5 or 6 people you love will die - you do not know anything about the 6 people beyond the fact that they are someone you love, you have no further information.

Which would you chose

a) One person you love to die
b) Five people you love to die
c) Six people you love to die

?

[cyborg]

I I would probably save the five, but I don't know. For example, if the one were my son, and the five were elderly relatives, I would save the one. Middle aged relatives? tough call. And I could imagine circumstances where I would choose to save none.

Sounds like that's some pretty predictable genetic decision making going on there.