Harvard Morality Test

[triadboy]

Found this site. They want people to take this morality test, so of course, I thought of you. Unfortunately, they won't tell you what you are when you are done. I guess they will compile the information and curse us as a society later on.


http://moral.wjh.harvard.edu/ :)

[Eos of the Eons]

It's cool that they allow you to explain and justify your responses.

[Yahweh]

I've seen those kinds of tests before. Welcome to Morality 101, kids.

I like the way they asked you to justify your morality at the end (I'd really like to see some of the other answers provided).

I think it was interesting the way the test was set up: Kill one person deliberately, save 5 others. Let 5 people die, one person survives. Its one of those "means vs. numbers" morality tests.

[triadboy]

It's too bad they don't "name" you something as a result.

"You are truly a goodly person"

"You are a rat bastard"


I didn't shove the guy in front of the train, but I let the guy on the other track die. My explanation was: In one instance I was killing the guy. In the other instance, the train was.


:)

[c4ts]

The old Harvard morality test used to be:

1. Are you white? y/n


Aha, aha ha ha. :rolleyes:

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by c4ts
The old Harvard morality test used to be:

1. Are you white? y/n

Aha, aha ha ha. :rolleyes: Perhaps it still is... it's just the interpretation of the answer that changed. ;) :p

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by triadboy
I didn't shove the guy in front of the train, but I let the guy on the other track die. My explanation was: In one instance I was killing the guy. In the other instance, the train was.


Same with me. But my explanation was that when I shove something, or somebody, in front of a train that is likely to stop it ( :roll: ) it could lead to a derailment of the train.

[evildave]

Blah-blah-blah.

Let five (Darwin Award Nominees) die walking on train tracks where they shouldn't, or switch the train to a wholly unknown that A) Might not have track a just out of sight of the switch or B) Might have ANOTHER passenger train on it comming the other way or C) many other possibilities involving random elements being tossed into train schedules.

Even though the train you're on is a 'random element' for its hardware failure, there are contingency plans in place to handle that. Like shutting down the engine and letting it roll to a stop.

This and the one to sacrifice a woman to save five were the ones I was asked to 'justify'.

Too easy.

If the five are worth saving, they would not approve of murder to save their own lives. Besides, there's that pesky Hyppocratic oath. "Do no harm". Who could argue that killing that woman is not "harm"? Only some sort of psycho, that's who.

[JesFine]

I thought it was pretty straight forward too. The five dudes walking on freaking train tracks should have had the common sense to watch out for trains. I am not about to push someone who was smart enough to stay off them onto the train tracks, just to save the idiots that weren't.

I know this is just a hypothetical example, but I have noticed that many people do similar things in real life. Especially at crosswalks. I won't walk on a crosswalk until I am sure the cars will actually stop for me, but I see people go full steam across them even if there is a car bearing down at 30-40 miles an hour. "They have to stop!" is the battlecry. Well, what if they don't, genius? Now you are dead or paralyzed but, hey, if anyone asks, just twitch your finger to spell out "They were supposed to stop" in morse code.

The self-preservation instinct is good for you. Embrace it.

Edited to change "idots" to "idiots"... didn't want to look like an idot.

[c4ts]

I assumed they were all equally stupid, but that the one man obese enough to slow down a speeding train was likely to die of a heart attack from hearing the train rush by the other track anyway, so why not run him over?

[roger]

Originally posted by JesFine
I thought it was pretty straight forward too. The five dudes walking on freaking train tracks should have had the common sense to watch out for trains. I am not about to push someone who was smart enough to stay off them onto the train tracks, just to save the idiots that weren't.

Hmm, I didn't assume that the single guy on the tracks knew that he was on a side track and thus "out of danger" (little did he know, with me at the controls!). I just thought 5 idiots on one track, 1 idiot on the other, might as mow down only 1, darwin awards nonwithstanding.

[Aoidoi]

Originally posted by roger
Hmm, I didn't assume that the single guy on the tracks knew that he was on a side track and thus "out of danger" (little did he know, with me at the controls!). I just thought 5 idiots on one track, 1 idiot on the other, might as mow down only 1, darwin awards nonwithstanding. Why not mow down 5 idiots and improve the gene pool?

Er, did I really type that? :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by JesFine
I know this is just a hypothetical example, but I have noticed that many people do similar things in real life. Especially at crosswalks. I won't walk on a crosswalk until I am sure the cars will actually stop for me, but I see people go full steam across them even if there is a car bearing down at 30-40 miles an hour. "They have to stop!" is the battlecry. Well, what if they don't, genius? Now you are dead or paralyzed but, hey, if anyone asks, just twitch your finger to spell out "They were supposed to stop" in morse code.

Reminds me of a (true, promise!) story of a girl a friend of mine knew. She was practicing for her first parachute jump, and was explaining what went on during the training.

It went something like this:

Friend: "What happens if the parachute doesn't work?"

Girl: "Well, there's this extra parachute, for emergencies..."

Friend: "What if that doesn't work, either?"

(long pause)

Girl: "But it has to!!"

I don't know if the girl ever jumped... :D

[JesFine]

Originally posted by roger


Hmm, I didn't assume that the single guy on the tracks knew that he was on a side track and thus "out of danger" (little did he know, with me at the controls!). I just thought 5 idiots on one track, 1 idiot on the other, might as mow down only 1, darwin awards nonwithstanding.
The first choice was to let a train hit 5 people on the tracks, or else push one guy onto the tracks, which would kill him, but somehow cause the train to stop before hitting the five. That was the example I was talking about. For the one where you had your choice between hitting the one person already on the tracks, or the five people already on the tracks, yeah, I chose to hit the 1 person as well. I figured both groups were equally deserving of train smackage, so I chose the option that resulted in less loss of human life.

Although after reading c4ts'eses and Aoidoi's responses I have to admit they make some good points...

[Ratman_tf]

Heh. That's the problem with hypothetical tests like that. They're usually so out of left field that no one would ever have to make a decision like that ever in their lives. And then people start brainstorming ideas to beat the 'no win scenario'.

So like Captain Kirk, I'd reprogram the simulation so I could save the ship. :D

[c4ts]

I'd put a dime on the track to derail the train. A really big dime.

[Boo]

So, how many of you registered to take future tests? I did, if only for a chance to see the results.




Boo

[swstephe]

How are these tests valid? Let's say that we have the test:

(From a previous thread), you have a button. If you press it, person A will die. If you don't press it, person B will die. A robot programmed according to Asimov's robotic law would be incapable of decision since it would violate the First Law to act or not. Same for us. The choice is purely random. Most people in the previous replies start coming up with subtle imagination reasoning outside the context of the experiment to explain their action/inaction. The test would really be whether action or inaction is preferred in dead-equal experiments. Try something like this:

1) 1 person on side track, or 5 people on current track. (I would guess people would be like Spock and "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and switch the track.
2) the 1 person is a cop, the 5 people are escaped convicts. (whoops, I meant to send it toward the 5).
3) the cop is crooked, the 5 people were wrongly convicted and the cop wanted to silence them, (I am judge and jury)
4) they are all actors in a movie and the man playing the cop is very well known and loved, but the 5 actors on the main track are just bit actors, (does fame give moral superiority).
5) the 5 actors gave their money to charity, the famous actor uses his money on drugs and hookers, (my head hurts).

The point being, without being omnicient, there really is no choice, it is just random without

My tests. You are in a hot air balloon with a co-pilot over a volcano which has sprung a leak. If both of you stay on board, the balloon will decend into hot magma and both of you will die. If one of you fall out, the balloon will definitely be carried on by the wind to safety and one of you will live. My hypothesis is that spiritual people would jump, non-spiritual, cynical, people would push the other guy out, (self-preservation). Or, an interesting twist, lets say that the other person is your parent/child or wife/husband/partner. Would everyone want to jump in the hypothetical situation? What about people who were abused?

[Eos of the Eons]

LOL!! Too true!

I really loved this point:

My hypothesis is that spiritual people would jump, non-spiritual, cynical, people would push the other guy out, (self-preservation). Or, an interesting twist, lets say that the other person is your parent/child or wife/husband/partner. Would everyone want to jump in the hypothetical situation? What about people who were abused?


So, in questions of morality the answer is always

"That depends....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I've seen those kinds of tests before. Welcome to Morality 101, kids.

I like the way they asked you to justify your morality at the end (I'd really like to see some of the other answers provided).



Well ok then. Although it wouldn't allow me enough characters to explain myself properly. Just copying and pasting in what I wrote.

In the first case we might feel that a person has a right *not* to be deprived of his internal organs. We may feel that depriving us of our internal organs in this situation is repugnant even though 4 lives overall would be saved. In ethical decisions we might feel it's not *wholly* a question of sums.

In the second case we have the choice of either allowing 1 man to die or 5 men. Either 1 man or 5 men will die due to an impact of the train. The act of switching the track should not enter into our considerations. The act itself doesn't obviously infringe on the single man's rights.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by triadboy



I didn't shove the guy in front of the train, but I let the guy on the other track die. My explanation was: In one instance I was killing the guy. In the other instance, the train was.


:) [/B]

Shove the guy in front of the train?? That wasn't in any of the questions! :eek: It was shoving a guy to save him being hit by the train!

Or did you get different questions??

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth


Same with me. But my explanation was that when I shove something, or somebody, in front of a train that is likely to stop it ( :roll: ) it could lead to a derailment of the train.

Errrr . . people been getting slightly different questions from me!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by evildave
Blah-blah-blah.

Let five (Darwin Award Nominees) die walking on train tracks where they shouldn't, or switch the train to a wholly unknown that A) Might not have track a just out of sight of the switch or B) Might have ANOTHER passenger train on it comming the other way or C) many other possibilities involving random elements being tossed into train schedules.

Even though the train you're on is a 'random element' for its hardware failure, there are contingency plans in place to handle that. Like shutting down the engine and letting it roll to a stop.

This and the one to sacrifice a woman to save five were the ones I was asked to 'justify'.

Too easy.

If the five are worth saving, they would not approve of murder to save their own lives. Besides, there's that pesky Hyppocratic oath. "Do no harm". Who could argue that killing that woman is not "harm"? Only some sort of psycho, that's who.

God you really are impressively thick! For a kick off the test is supposed to be testing our ethical intuitions. It is therefore obvious that either the 5 men definitely die or the one man does. You are being a typical phi;losophical thicko by pointing out that it wouldn't really be as clear cut as that.

Oh yes, and what justifies your distinction between acts and omissions?? :rolleyes:

[swstephe]

I've noticed we got different questions. I had 2 about throwing a switch. One with a guy that was large enough to stop the train already standing on the track! That's a big guy. I didn't see anything about a woman or throwing anybody.

[Yahweh]

How many people took the shallow way out and said "I'm not morally responsible for those 5 lives on the track"...

I guess evildave did...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JesFine
[B]
The first choice was to let a train hit 5 people on the tracks, or else push one guy onto the tracks, which would kill him, but somehow cause the train to stop before hitting the five.



Wasn't my first question. I never got that question. The question I got was to switch the train to a different track so it only killed one man rather than hit the 5. The only one I got where you get to shove someone is to shove someone out of harms way, the only downside being that he was a bit frail and might get harmed being pushed! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Boo
So, how many of you registered to take future tests? I did, if only for a chance to see the results.




Boo

Yes I did as well.

[roger]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Shove the guy in front of the train?? That wasn't in any of the questions! :eek: It was shoving a guy to save him being hit by the train!

Or did you get different questions??

II, I got the same question as you, pulling a switch, not shoving a guy.

I've seen this discussed elsewhere, I forget where. But they are testing to see how many people will chose to flip a switch to kill somebody vs. how many would push the person in front of a train.

The hypothesis being that more people would press the switch than push the person, even though the two acts are equivalent morally (IMHO).

[Eos of the Eons]

My two questions seemed the same.

Throw a switch to hit one guy instead of five...


in one you were driving the train and could throw a switch, and in the other question you were observing outside of the train and could throw a switch.

The main dilemma with the big guy was that the train would hit him and get wrecked, but not get wrecked if it hit the 5 guys instead.

So, hurt the train by hitting the 'obstacle' (one huge guy) or hit 5 guys. Or in the other you hit five guys instead of one.


I'm thinking a person might change their answer to hitting the 5 guys instead of wrecking the train. I didn't change mine. I hit the one guy both times.

My justification probably doesn't count. I figured that at some point before the train hit that they all would have heard the train coming and would at least try to jump before the train hit them.

I figured one guy would have a better chance at jumping out of the way compared to 5 guys trying to jump out of the way.

My reasoning being that you have less of a chance of hitting one guy compared to hitting any of the 5 guys. In my mind, you may have the chance of hitting zero better if you bear down on only one.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by roger


II, I got the same question as you, pulling a switch, not shoving a guy.

I've seen this discussed elsewhere, I forget where. But they are testing to see how many people will chose to flip a switch to kill somebody vs. how many would push the person in front of a train.

The hypothesis being that more people would press the switch than push the person, even though the two acts are equivalent morally (IMHO).

Ah right. I don't agree it is morally equivalent though. One is more "morally distanced" in flipping a switch.

[roger]

For the record my two scenerios were:

1: 5 people on 1 track, 1 person on a side track. I am watching from the side. I can pull a switch to shunt the train so it hits the 1 person. If I don't pull the switch 5 people die.

2. 5 people are in the hospital. One needs a heart transplant, the next lungs, the third kidneys, etc. They are otherwise healthy. After seeing them, the doctor goes to visit a woman who came in for routine tests. She passed everything; she is completely healthy. The question here is: is the doctor morally justified in harvesting the woman's organs to save the lives of the 5 who need transplants. (assume perfect knowledge - all 5 will survive the operation, all 5 will die if they don't get the operation)

I answered, and I assume most would answer, pull the switch in the first problem, and no, do not harvest the organs in the second. yet each is suggesting killing 1 person to save 5, even though it was the 5 that were going to be killed if somebody didn't intervene.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by roger
For the record my two scenerios were:

1: 5 people on 1 track, 1 person on a side track. I am watching from the side. I can pull a switch to shunt the train so it hits the 1 person. If I don't pull the switch 5 people die.

2. 5 people are in the hospital. One needs a heart transplant, the next lungs, the third kidneys, etc. They are otherwise healthy. After seeing them, the doctor goes to visit a woman who came in for routine tests. She passed everything; she is completely healthy. The question here is: is the doctor morally justified in harvesting the woman's organs to save the lives of the 5 who need transplants. (assume perfect knowledge - all 5 will survive the operation, all 5 will die if they don't get the operation)

I answered, and I assume most would answer, pull the switch in the first problem, and no, do not harvest the organs in the second. yet each is suggesting killing 1 person to save 5, even though it was the 5 that were going to be killed if somebody didn't intervene.

Yes I got the same questions and answered the same as you. I said as a justification:

"In the first case we might feel that a person has a right *not* to be deprived of his internal organs. We may feel that depriving us of our internal organs in this situation is repugnant even though 4 lives overall would be saved. In ethical decisions we might feel it's not *wholly* a question of sums.

In the second case we have the choice of either allowing 1 man to die or 5 men. Either 1 man or 5 men will die due to an impact of the train. The act of switching the track should not enter into our considerations. The act itself doesn't obviously infringe on the single man's rights".

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by evildave
Blah-blah-blah.

Let five (Darwin Award Nominees) die walking on train tracks where they shouldn't, or switch the train to a wholly unknown that A) Might not have track a just out of sight of the switch or B) Might have ANOTHER passenger train on it comming the other way or C) many other possibilities involving random elements being tossed into train schedules.

Even though the train you're on is a 'random element' for its hardware failure, there are contingency plans in place to handle that. Like shutting down the engine and letting it roll to a stop.

This and the one to sacrifice a woman to save five were the ones I was asked to 'justify'.

Too easy.

If the five are worth saving, they would not approve of murder to save their own lives. Besides, there's that pesky Hyppocratic oath. "Do no harm". Who could argue that killing that woman is not "harm"? Only some sort of psycho, that's who.


I picked your post as one of the ' logical ' responses, to point out that it was a ' Morality ' test and not a ' logic ' problem...

[I'll_buy_that]

In the second case we have the choice of either allowing 1 man to die or 5 men. Either 1 man or 5 men will die due to an impact of the train. The act of switching the track should not enter into our considerations. The act itself doesn't obviously infringe on the single man's rights".

I don't know. didn't all 6 of the people take the risks associated with walking on the tracks. What I see here is 1 was lucky enough to not choose the one where a train is traveling. I would think that these two scenarios are similar. and the choice to intervene in either case to save the lives of many would be equally repugnant. No?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that


I don't know. didn't all 6 of the people take the risks associated with walking on the tracks. What I see here is 1 was lucky enough to not choose the one where a train is traveling. I would think that these two scenarios are similar. and the choice to intervene in either case to save the lives of many would be equally repugnant. No?

It's not a ' repugnant ' test either..;)

[swstephe]

Originally posted by roger
For the record my two scenerios were:

1: 5 people on 1 track, 1 person on a side track. I am watching from the side. I can pull a switch to shunt the train so it hits the 1 person. If I don't pull the switch 5 people die.

2. 5 people are in the hospital. One needs a heart transplant, the next lungs, the third kidneys, etc. They are otherwise healthy. After seeing them, the doctor goes to visit a woman who came in for routine tests. She passed everything; she is completely healthy. The question here is: is the doctor morally justified in harvesting the woman's organs to save the lives of the 5 who need transplants. (assume perfect knowledge - all 5 will survive the operation, all 5 will die if they don't get the operation)

I answered, and I assume most would answer, pull the switch in the first problem, and no, do not harvest the organs in the second. yet each is suggesting killing 1 person to save 5, even though it was the 5 that were going to be killed if somebody didn't intervene.

I think the people asking the questions believe that both questions are morally identical. Action = 1 dead, 5 alive vs. Inaction = 5 dead, 1 alive. This leaves the decision up to: cultural taboos (harvesting organs vs. throwing train switches) and genetic and social conditioning, (male vs. female), and the vivid imagination of the person taking the test.

A robot, designed to evaluate moral situations, without social, cultural or genetic conditioning, with an extra "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to solve ties ought to choose 5 over 1 all the time. So, never trust a robot doctor! It would get into stem cell research, cloning and a lot of things that the majority of the human race aren't quite ready for yet.

[I'll_buy_that]

Originally posted by Diogenes


It's not a ' repugnant ' test either..;)


HA! :D :roll:

I found it interesting how many read quite a bit into each question... There could have been a train coming in the other direction, the men could have gotten out of the way...

we only had the information given in the question on which to base our answers, you're right, it wasn't a logic test.

but wouldn't you agree that taking the action that would definately rob 1 life over 5 isn't morally superior? We don't condone suicide missions, but we do hold in high regard those that die in combat. The difference being the intent; one intends on coming home.

maybe not stated like i want, but you get the drift.

[shemp]

Originally posted by swstephe
My tests. You are in a hot air balloon with a co-pilot over a volcano which has sprung a leak.

Who sprang a leak? The volcano? The co-pilot? The balloon?

[JesFine]

The weird thing is, I was given four scenarios.
1)5 men on the track, a train about to hit them. Should you push an innocent bystander who is so huge he will stop the train onto the track? Or let it hit the 5.
2)5 men on the track, a side track with no one on it. Should you let the train hit the five or switch the train to the side track. (I read this one 5 times -- that is what it said, no moral dilemma)
3)5 men on one track, 1 man on the side track. Should you let the train hit the five or switch it so it hits the one.
4)I can't remember.

Then it asked me to justify my answers to 1 (I said let it hit the 5) and 3 (I said, switch to the side track).

I didn't realize it was asking different question to everyone or I would have paid more attention.

[swstephe]

Originally posted by shemp
Who sprang a leak? The volcano? The co-pilot? The balloon?

Okay, I did the necessary sentence diagrams and semantic research Mr. Shemp, and rephrase my statement:

My tests. You are in a hot air balloon with your co-pilot over a volcano. The hot air baloon has sprung a leak. Your co-pilot is passed out, (makes it easier). The volcano is currently active and erupting.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Originally posted by evildave
Blah-blah-blah.

Let five (Darwin Award Nominees) die walking on train tracks where they shouldn't, or switch the train to a wholly unknown that A) Might not have track a just out of sight of the switch or B) Might have ANOTHER passenger train on it comming the other way or C) many other possibilities involving random elements being tossed into train schedules.

Even though the train you're on is a 'random element' for its hardware failure, there are contingency plans in place to handle that. Like shutting down the engine and letting it roll to a stop.

This and the one to sacrifice a woman to save five were the ones I was asked to 'justify'.

Too easy.

If the five are worth saving, they would not approve of murder to save their own lives. Besides, there's that pesky Hyppocratic oath. "Do no harm". Who could argue that killing that woman is not "harm"? Only some sort of psycho, that's who.

Diogenes
I picked your post as one of the ' logical ' responses, to point out that it was a ' Morality ' test and not a ' logic ' problem...

Why do so many dumbf*cks post in this forum? :confused: It seriously pis*ses me off.

[I'll_buy_that]

Your co-pilot is passed out, (makes it easier).


easy, throw the dude out :wink8:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that
In the second case we have the choice of either allowing 1 man to die or 5 men. Either 1 man or 5 men will die due to an impact of the train. The act of switching the track should not enter into our considerations. The act itself doesn't obviously infringe on the single man's rights".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know. didn't all 6 of the people take the risks associated with walking on the tracks. What I see here is 1 was lucky enough to not choose the one where a train is traveling. I would think that these two scenarios are similar. and the choice to intervene in either case to save the lives of many would be equally repugnant. No?

There is a slight repugnance in that we feel more morally responsible in a positive act, rather than omitting to do an act. Nevertheless this slight uneasiness shouldn't dictate what is the ethical thing to do. Why let fate decide when you can intervene and save 4 lives? As I said it is entirely unclear me as to why the single man should be supposed to have more rights than the 5 men.

[I'll_buy_that]

My post was comparing the harvesting of a woman's organs to save 5 to the throw the switch to kill 1 to save the 5. I don't see any difference here. Both would take a life due to my actions or take 5 lives due to my inactions.

why would killing 1 over the 5 men on the tracks be morally superior to the letting 5 die instead of harvesting the woman's organs?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by swstephe


I think the people asking the questions believe that both questions are morally identical. Action = 1 dead, 5 alive vs. Inaction = 5 dead, 1 alive. This leaves the decision up to: cultural taboos (harvesting organs vs. throwing train switches) and genetic and social conditioning, (male vs. female), and the vivid imagination of the person taking the test.

A robot, designed to evaluate moral situations, without social, cultural or genetic conditioning, with an extra "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" to solve ties ought to choose 5 over 1 all the time. So, never trust a robot doctor! It would get into stem cell research, cloning and a lot of things that the majority of the human race aren't quite ready for yet.

Such a robot would therefore be programmed to embrace utilitarianism as an ethical doctrine (ie perform those actions which will lead to the maximum possible happiness). I personnally do not subscribe to utilitarianism. I should hasten to add though that this doesn't mean to say that I believe that ones actions shouldn't very often be heavily influenced towards maxmising happiness, and personnally I see no particular ethical problems with stem cell research and cloning. At least not in principle.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JesFine
The weird thing is, I was given four scenarios.
1)5 men on the track, a train about to hit them. Should you push an innocent bystander who is so huge he will stop the train onto the track? Or let it hit the 5.



Let it hit the 5 men in this case.

[/QUOTE]

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that
My post was comparing the harvesting of a woman's organs to save 5 to the throw the switch to kill 1 to save the 5. I don't see any difference here. Both would take a life due to my actions or take 5 lives due to my inactions.

why would killing 1 over the 5 men on the tracks be morally superior to the letting 5 die instead of harvesting the woman's organs?

Are you claiming you do not feel it is?

Ethics is complex. It's not just a question of simply acting to maximise the total number of lives saved. It's to do with rights, and trust, and how we relate to our fellow human beings.

[Eos of the Eons]

When we go into a hospital we want to know for darn sure that if we came in healthy we will walk out healthy and not be split up into five unhealthy people. Otherwise noone would go to a hospital.

If I'm 20 and 5 old farts (who are like 90) need MY organs, they can't have them until I'm done with them! If I'm 90 and healthy, and 5 people with cancers who are 20-40 need my organs, they can wait until I get cancer and die. It's only fair. I take care of myself.
Sure some folks take care of themselves and get cancer, but oh well, that's life.

Now, if someone threw a switch on me to save five others, I would be a little more understanding. If I'm dumb enough to hang out on a track and not get off when a train is coming, then I deserve a Darwin award.

[Fun2BFree]

In my questions it was not asked which is the right answer or which is the moral answer--it asked "Is it morally permissible...? or something like that---

In the case of the 5 or 1 both on tracks and we choose which track---I would say either letting the train go or switching the train are both morally permissible...

My second question was about pushing someone in front of the train to make it stop before it killed five (nothing about it being a large person--just far enough ahead of the five to stop the train and save them but sacrifice the one...in this case it seems to me NOT morally permissible to push a person into the train...if you are so concerned with saving 5 then throw yourself in front of the train before you decide to sacrifice someone else....as others have noted in the first example the risks taken were by the people at risk in the second YOU put the person at risk.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by I'll_buy_that



HA! :D :roll:

I found it interesting how many read quite a bit into each question... There could have been a train coming in the other direction, the men could have gotten out of the way...

we only had the information given in the question on which to base our answers, you're right, it wasn't a logic test.

but wouldn't you agree that taking the action that would definately rob 1 life over 5 isn't morally superior? We don't condone suicide missions, but we do hold in high regard those that die in combat. The difference being the intent; one intends on coming home.

maybe not stated like i want, but you get the drift.

I felt I knew where you were coming from.. Just wanted to take a jab..

I guess the solution is not to take ' morality ' tests ...

We had a member post a similar dillema not to long ago, about choosing 900,000 vs 1,000,000...

Without any other information the many over the few, seems to be the moral as well as the logical choice.

But I said ' seems '. I believe the truth, is that either choice is immoral, and we have been put in the position of behaving immorally no matter what we decide to do. In this sense, I believe the scenario presents the paradox of ' damned if you do, damned if you don't...

However, who has the right to judge my decision? Certainly not anyone who is free of the same dillema that I have been confronted with.

With more information, such as; knowing the ' one ' is on the verge of discovering a cure for cancer, the situation changes, but it doesn't make it more ' moral ' to kill other innocents.

If the ' one ' were my son, I wouldn't hesitate to make the immoral choice of saving him first, and deal with the guilt later..

[I'll_buy_that]

I think you're close. circumstances seem to change our perception of the logical thing to do, but it probably doesn't make either choice morally right.

[Wile E. Coyote]

I think the problem here is that most people take the situation as "What would you do?" or "What would be the best thing to do?" instead of "Is it moral to do this act?"

The difference is that sometimes the right thing to do is not the moral thing to do. Personally, I do not think that anyone has the moral right to decide who dies and who lives. In these examples, it is not moral to switch the track or to push the guy, but it is also not moral to allow the 5 men to die.

There is no moral choice here. Either way you are deciding the fate of one or more individuals, which is immoral. The only choice here is logic-based. Sure, kill the one guy instead of the five, but either way, your decision is immoral.

Is that clear?

[Skeptical Greg]

Not to say you didn't say it well Wile, but you got me to thinking about another way to put it, that I had alluded to before.

These scenarios are not a valid test of your sense of morality..


We are not being offerred a chance to behave morally, all we have here, is a choice between two immoral actions..