Moral Dilemma #128

[Margno]

The situation is set up in a deliberately confining (impossible) way so as to specifically exclude my answer. Worded as it is, I would take no action.

[Sun Wukong]

Is the train on NSG? If so, it should derail itself.

[Vancon]

I say the five for the following reason.

Simply put, less people are affected, and in turn can keep contributing to society.

I love my family just as much as everyone else, but that's the point. Most other families love each other as well, and the loss of one family's family member would affect less people, albeit still a lot.

It's like this. Say I died, then all of these people would be sad, to say the very least:

Mother
Father
Sister
Brother
Cousins
Grandparents
Uncles and Aunts
Friends

And then those people should also be affected by the loss of their family member and their own friends and loved ones will try to aid them through thee tough times.

And now, multiply that by 5. SO MANY MORE PEOPLE. SO MANY. Now all of these people are also living in hell with their daily lives affected.

I would much rather save my own family members, but sometimes you must do what's good for the people, not for your own benefit.

But hey, that's just some ginger kid in the frozen wastes of Canada's opinion.

[The Federal Republic of Simonia]

I'd save the five people, sometimes the few have to be sacrificed for the good of many.

[Aahmerica]

Sit back smoke a square and let both die?

Nah, I'd probably save the person I'm close to.

Strangers never did me no good.

[Maqo]

The traditional version of this problem posits that they are all strangers:

You see a run-away train barrelling towards a fork in the tracks. The switch is set so the train will take the left fork, and run over five people. If you move the switch, the train will take the right fork and run over one person.
You cannot warn the people at all, the train cannot be stopped, yada yada. The only decision you can make is whether or not to move the switch. What is the moral choice?

It is then generally contrasted with:
You are working at a hospital and a healthy man walks in who just happens to be a perfectly compatible match for five of your patients. Each of these patients is in dire need of an organ transplant and will die within the day if they don't get the organs they need; but if the organs were available, the operations would go successfully and they would lead long, happy lives. Do you kill the healthy man and take his organs to save the five dying patients?

Most people will sacrifice the individual in the first situation, but not in the second, but aren't able to articulate why.

because killing someone by choice for the benefit of others, and being forced to choose between who to kill provide two different dilemmas.

In both situations you have the choice:
a) do nothing and let 5 people die (you take no action and the inevitable happens by train or by sickness)
b) take action and save the 5 people by killing 1 person (divert the train, kill the healthy person)
"Being forced to choose who to kill" can apply to both situations. Similarly "killing someone by choice for the benefit of others"

[Felkesjud]

When faced with a difficult multiple choices, the decision to do nothing is still a choice, and it has its consequences. Simply because one did nothing does not mean one is guilt-free. By choosing to do nothing, the people who were killed died as a direct result of one's decision.

That said, I would most likely save the five, unless I knew who they were and had the time to judge their contribution to society and those around them to be overall less important than the loved one. Because, let's face it. If Steven Hawking, Nelson Mandela, Mrtin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie were the five that were on the tracks (because fuck time periods), most of us would save them over the family member. And, likewise, if it's five prison inmates on death row vs. the family member, we'd save the latter.

[Jetan]

The loved one. Five strangers aren't worth a friend or family member.

Their families could say the same of you after you were done visiting their funerals.

So they could. At that point though, the my loved one is still alive so it's still worth it. Actually, if they did say so, they'd have no way bitching about it even, as it'd mean they would have done the same thing themselves.

Their families could say the same of you after you were done visiting their funerals.

Precisely. Sure, if you don't save your family member, you'll grieve, and so will all those who knew your friend or family member, and that's terrible. On the other hand, if you do, you're making five families and friend groups suffer exactly the same thing.

The things is, it's not only about the people who would grieve, it's also about the people who would die. Choosing the strangers over the loved one would be a crass betrayal. You don't betray family, and close friends lose only to said family.

[CTALNH]

The loved one. Five strangers aren't worth a friend or family member.

Depends who the strangers are..

[Greater Mackonia]

Depends on the person, if I deemed them more intelligent and worthy than the five strangers I would save them, if I knew them to be fairly un-extraordinary I would save the strangers.

It really depends entirely upon the people involved and their individual merits.

[Zottistan]

It depends who the loved one was. In most instances, I'd save the five. In one, I'd save the loved one.

[Adiedren]

I'm suprised how many of us picked the first choice.

[WestRedMaple]

Which is not the same thing as not having the ability to stay

So you would leave the patients who are being moved, thus reducing those able to keep the alive. And the police can force you to evacuate.

Well thank you for proving the old saying about assumptions. I haven't said a word about what I would do in that situation.

The question is about what choice someone would make. Staying IS a choice that would fulfill the bounds of the question. Someone forcibly dragging you somewhere is utterly irrelevant, as that isn't part of the choice. That is someone ELSE'S choice

[Nazi Flower Power]

I think it would depend specifically who the one person was. I mean there are definitely people that I know and care about who I would still run over to save the 5 strangers, but then there are other people I just don't think I could kill no matter what was at stake. It's hard to be sure, though, without actually being in that situation. Even if I thought it over and posted a decision, I might change my mind if it ever actually came up.

[WestRedMaple]

When faced with a difficult multiple choices, the decision to do nothing is still a choice, and it has its consequences. Simply because one did nothing does not mean one is guilt-free. By choosing to do nothing, the people who were killed died as a direct result of one's decision.

That said, I would most likely save the five, unless I knew who they were and had the time to judge their contribution to society and those around them to be overall less important than the loved one. Because, let's face it. If Steven Hawking, Nelson Mandela, Mrtin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie were the five that were on the tracks (because fuck time periods), most of us would save them over the family member. And, likewise, if it's five prison inmates on death row vs. the family member, we'd save the latter.

It's guilt-free in any case. The guilt all belongs to whoever set up the situation.

[The Blaatschapen]

I'll pick the loved ones. And then subsequently sue the train company for putting a sheep in charge.

[Settrah]

That said, I would most likely save the five, unless I knew who they were and had the time to judge their contribution to society and those around them to be overall less important than the loved one. Because, let's face it. If Steven Hawking, Nelson Mandela, Mrtin Luther King Jr., Albert Einstein, and Marie Curie were the five that were on the tracks (because fuck time periods), most of us would save them over the family member. And, likewise, if it's five prison inmates on death row vs. the family member, we'd save the latter.

If we're saying screw you to time periods, I'll hope that these historical people were taken from the point after they had achieved their impact, and then go ahead and save my loved one. Because while these five people did great things, I am not attached to them as people.

[WestRedMaple]

Its just as reasonable to assume they are from five different families, it only said that they were strangers and didn't specify who they were.
This seems to be basically a test of how much of a risk you are willing to take, only using lives as the currency risked

Take any five people at random. What are the odds of them all being from a single family? What are the odds of them being the entire family, and not having any friends at all?

It's not a risk. It's a test of whether you care more about yourself, or if you care about others at any ratio below 1/5.

Not quite. What and who you care about is more an issue of how you choose than who you choose.

[L Ron Cupboard]

In the multiverse there are no moral dilemmas.

[WestRedMaple]

The traditional version of this problem posits that they are all strangers:

You see a run-away train barrelling towards a fork in the tracks. The switch is set so the train will take the left fork, and run over five people. If you move the switch, the train will take the right fork and run over one person.
You cannot warn the people at all, the train cannot be stopped, yada yada. The only decision you can make is whether or not to move the switch. What is the moral choice?

It is then generally contrasted with:
You are working at a hospital and a healthy man walks in who just happens to be a perfectly compatible match for five of your patients. Each of these patients is in dire need of an organ transplant and will die within the day if they don't get the organs they need; but if the organs were available, the operations would go successfully and they would lead long, happy lives. Do you kill the healthy man and take his organs to save the five dying patients?

Most people will sacrifice the individual in the first situation, but not in the second, but aren't able to articulate why.

I would switch the track in the first and not kill the person in the second, and I can articulate why (though obviously not everyone would make the same choice or for the same reasons): in the first case, the operation of the train is under my authority. I have every right to make the decision about which track to take. In the second, I have no authority to harvest organs belonging to a healthy person. That is their rightful choice to make.

[Socialist Tera]

Loved one.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sorry random people, loved ones come first.

[Chopwell]

The Dragon Gods will decide

[ISS Independence]

There is no moral correct action on this one, its just impossible to classify any of the two action as "moral"

[Great Nepal]

The loved one. Five strangers aren't worth a friend or family member.

Their families could say the same of you after you were done visiting their funerals.

Should've been on near the track to wrestle for the lever then.

The traditional version of this problem posits that they are all strangers:

You see a run-away train barrelling towards a fork in the tracks. The switch is set so the train will take the left fork, and run over five people. If you move the switch, the train will take the right fork and run over one person.
You cannot warn the people at all, the train cannot be stopped, yada yada. The only decision you can make is whether or not to move the switch. What is the moral choice?

It is then generally contrasted with:
You are working at a hospital and a healthy man walks in who just happens to be a perfectly compatible match for five of your patients. Each of these patients is in dire need of an organ transplant and will die within the day if they don't get the organs they need; but if the organs were available, the operations would go successfully and they would lead long, happy lives. Do you kill the healthy man and take his organs to save the five dying patients?

Most people will sacrifice the individual in the first situation, but not in the second, but aren't able to articulate why.

Reason is quite simple, in the first case you are merely allowing the person to be killed while in the latter you are killing the person. Naturally allowing something to occur carries less responsibility than doing the action itself as you are dont have guilty mind unlike in the latter. Plus in the transplant scenario, person walking in is a bystander. Essentially two scenarios are comparing apple and oranges, rather it would be more comparable to state:
There are five organs and guarantee that no further organs will arrive in time, five patients needing one organ each and one person needing five organs. Assuming all operations will be successful and all patients will make perfect recovery would you perform operation on five patents or on one patient.
Like in original train case, you are merely allowing those involved to due and everyone can be considered participants.