Ryan

click on one of our sponsors! OR REMOVE ADS

Juana!'s posts got me thinking... I'm curious what everyone will say to this:

Famous "trolly problem":
There is a trolly going down some tracks. It is headed directly towards a group of 6 innocent people. They will all die if nothing is done. However, there is a switch in front of you that will switch the trolly to a different track. However, THAT track has one innocent person on it, and they will most definitely die if you switch the tracks. Given this information and NOTHING else (don't ask questions), would you switch the tracks and save the 6 lives (killing one)?

Remember your answer and then think this one through:

There is an innocent person in a hospital with absolutely nothing wrong with them. They are in perfect health. There are, however, 6 patients who are each terminally ill with a different organ failure. The healthy person just so happens to be an exact match to be a donor for each of the terminally ill patients. You are a doctor. Would you kill the healthy person to get the 6 organs to save the lives of the terminally ill patients? Again, this is all of the info you get.

Remember your answer and then think THIS one through:

There is a pier with a fisherman fishing on it. North of the pier, you see some sharks in the water, obviously looking to eat anything they can get to. South of the pier, you see 6 innocent people swimming in the water. You KNOW as a certainty, that if the fisherman fell dead in the water (distracting the sharks), the 6 people would have time to get out, but if the fisherman didn't fall into the water, the 6 would DEFINITELY die. You have a rifle and are a perfect marksman. You know that you can 100% shoot the fisherman and have him fall dead in the water. If you don't 6 people will die. Do you shoot? Again, no more info.

Remember that answer and think this last one through:

Again at a hospital. There is a man who has been poisoned, and needs 30ml of antidote to live. The hospital only has 30ml in its inventory, and the poison will kill anyone infected in a VERY short time. Just before the man is given the antidote, 6 patients are admitted and each have also been poisoned. They each need 5ml of the antidote, or they too will die. Would you, as the doctor, use the 30ml to treat the 6 patients, or the one who 'had a right' to the medicine first?

After you come to a conclusion to each of these scenarios, see if you answered the same to each one. Did you? Reread them and you'll discover that they are all slight variations of the same question. But most people will answer each one differently. Try to figure out why you answered each way on each one, and generalize that into how you make decisions.

Did you make a decision based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people? Did you act on the threat in the situation and say that was ok, but acting on the person was bad? Did you act only when someone's rights weren't violated? Did you act on ends, or did you act on means to ends?

I'm interested to see what people have to say on this one.

//not a philosophy major

___________________________________________
Oh my god, I have a blog

joerockhead

I would shoot the shark, and the other sharks would either swim away or attack the newly dead shark.

Also, if the trolly kills any of these people (1 or 6) then the rest of this would not happen, as they survivors would be attending the funeral.

ej

The first one I would let anyone that cant move their damn ass out of the way of a trolley die, one or six who cares. The second and third ones the sick and the swimmers get to die. Sucks to be them. On the last one you are asking a different question. I still say the one person gets the antidote cuz it's just not fair to bud in line. The overall idea here is an individuals rights. Now, you may ask how this would differ from Juana's cave question. Well, I answered that one assuming I was in the cave. (If I'm one of the six then adjust my answers accordingly)

Ryan

can't shoot the shark. options are shoot the fisherman, or don't shoot the fisherman.

seriously- what would you do?

___________________________________________
Oh my god, I have a blog

Ryan

you are making an assumption that they are too stupid or lazy to get out of the way... don't make assumptions- maybe it is 6 children who are tied to the tracks, or maybe it's 6 of your loved ones... the point is not to make assumptions or derive more information to answer the questions- you need to make a decision based on the little knowledge you're given (like in a real world quick-decision situation).

Why do you think the overall idea is individual rights? Apply that to the trolley situation and explain how you feel the 6 have a right to live/die, and the 1 person has a right to live/die.

___________________________________________
Oh my god, I have a blog

thepipebomb

1. I would switch the tracks. Why kill six when you can only kill one

2. I would not give the organs. It’s not right to kill someone just to save others. (In this situation)

3. I would not kill the fisherman, for the same reason above.

4. This is a tough one, but I think first come, first served. This is the on I am wavering on the most.

I see that my answers may not adhere to one principle (good of many or individual rights), but I this is what I think would be “most fair.” I’m very aware of the hypocrisy in my answer for number 1 and 2, 3 and 4. For some reason I see it different. I see the trolley more of a choice between killing 1 or 6, forgetting the fact that if you do nothing 6 will die and it will take action on your part to kill the single person.

Ryan

sounds a lot like you care about whether you're acting on the innocent person, or acting on the threat. That is why you're wavering on the last one.

___________________________________________
Oh my god, I have a blog

joerockhead

WHat do you mean I do not have that option? I have the gun, the sharks are right there!!

Ok, I shoot you and then we don't have to worry about any of these people dying!!!

:happycow:


I cannot say really. Sitting in my den and being there are two different things. What if I know the ONE person in any of these? I don't know.

nutkick_42

stop the trolley, get the sick people some prosthetic organs, shoot the sharks, and give everybody 4.25 ccs of medicine which will give everyone a better chance to live while I try to find more.

I'm an engineering student. We are taught to refuse to believe that problem statements are accurate. We look at what people really want to do instead of what they say they want to do. The main goal here is to save lives, in each of these situations I did everything I could think of.

Moral dilemmas only exist when people fail to see the best solution.

ej

I did not make an assumption. I merely do not care their reason. The fact in the first situation is I do nothing and six people die. I did not create that sitiuation, circustance did. If I switch tracks however I have now killed a person to save six. This becomes an overt act on my part. Now, by asking me to imagine it is my loved ones on the tracks you are asking me to assume more information than I have been given. I did not do that but know you are asking me to and that changes the situation. Would I take an action that would kill one person and save six people I didn't know? The answer is no. Would I kill one person to save a loved one? This is a different thread.

This is all about individual rights versus group/societal rights. The question is posed in many ways if one person should be sacrificed(i.e. killed) in order to save more than one person. In this case the number is six. What if the number were two? What if it was 6,000? We are being asked to decide when we can impose on one person's right to live in order for others to enjoy theirs. The catch here is that in every situation you are commiting a homicide of the one person. In a society there is always the balance of individual versus group rights. It has to exist for a society to exist. At what point does the balance tip to the point that you can invade on one person's right to live to benifit a greater number. Six is not it. The individual's rights prevail.

nutkick_42

Six is not it.

OK, ej, what is the magic number?

ej

I imiagine it would be different for everyone. For me it would have to be pretty high. Probably a couple/few hundred. At what point do you draw the line?

Jimi

I'd yell at the people to get out of the way.

What are the chances that 6 people who are an exact match to this guy would be in the same hospital? If that happened, I'd let the guy live, and go buy a lottery ticket.

What kind of sharks are they? If they're just some reef sharks, I'd let 'em be. Do you realize how many sharks are in the water people swim in? I live on the beach, there are sharks everywhere, they just let the people be.

What is it that causes one person to need 30ml, and 6 others to need 5ml? I'd say, give it to the man, if the other 6 only need that little bit, chances are they'll be alright.

nutkick_42

At what point do you draw the line?

I don't see a need for a line. I believe that there is a solution in almost every situation where everyone can live, but I'm just an idealistic engineering student.