|
|
#1 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
Situation:
A gigantic metal ball is in freefall in the sky, headed straight toward a party of 5 people who stand unprotected on a platform. When it lands on them in a few seconds, they will surely be crushed. On another platform, one person stands alone safely. You stand 100 feet away from each platform with no equipment. A lever is at your side. If you pull it, the two platforms will instantaneously switch positions, putting the previously safe person in grave danger and freeing the five people from any danger. You do not know the identities of the people. They could be strangers, friends, celebrities, family, enemies, etc, but you do not know. Question: Would you pull this lever? Why/why not? |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
FFR Player
|
I'd probably just stare in disbeleif.
__________________
Truth lies in loneliness, When hope is long gone by -Blind Guardian, The Soulforged Image removed for size violation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 | |
|
FFR Player
|
I would convince the kid standing alone that he is undeserving of life and that he should die with them. Then instead of playing God, they will all die and I wouldn't feel bad about making the wrong choice.
__________________
![]() ![]() Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: On My Friggin' Computer, Where Do You Think?!
Age: 29
Posts: 551
|
Better to save more than less, unless you could tell that they were potheads. I'd pull the lever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
is against custom titles
|
The question is: by pulling the lever, are you doing evil while you do good or doing good while you're doing evil?
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Carls, Girls, & Drugs
|
I would pull the lever.
__________________
http://dozemusic.com/ |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Shimose
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Where you live
Posts: 1,995
|
I'd probably be too frantic to do anything.
__________________
im gay SRL Page Castlevania IV, Super Metroid, and Cave Story speedruns D e e R F o r C e Leaderboards |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
FFR Player
|
This question phrased in a more reasonable manner:
There are 5 random people tied to a railroad track. You don't know them. You can't even tell who they are. A train is heading straight for them. But there's good news! You are at the station and you can pull the switch to divert the train from its present track. The bad news? One person is tied to that track. Do you pull the lever? For almost everyone, the answer is yes, we pull the lever. Why? You're saving more lives that way. It's pretty obvious. There are some people who wouldn't pull the lever, but they are the anomoly. Now consider this similar situation: There are five very sick people in a small town with a doctor. These people will die if they do not get organ transplants. Each of them needs a different, vital organ, but there are none available. A wanderer comes into town and visits the doctor. The doctor finds out that this person's organs are compatible with all five of the dying people. So the doctor questions the wanderer, and it turns out the wanderer has no family, no friends, nobody knows where he's going and nobody cares that he left. He's truly a nomad. Should the doctor steal the wanderer's organs (which would kill him in the process) and save the five dying people? For most, the answer is no. Think about why that is. It's the same situation, when it comes down to it: Five lives saved for the sacrifice of one. But why is it that most people would say yes to the first situation, and no to the second? From my perspective, it has to do with being proactive or reactive. In the first situation, you need to REACT and flip the switch. In the second situation, you actually have to kill a person, thus being PROACTIVE.
__________________
C is for Charisma, it's why people think I'm great! I make my friends all laugh and smile and never want to hate! |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Here's a good blog on a similar subject. There was a recent study on people who had brain damage in certain areas and had less of a problem hypothetically killing people to save others.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,345
|
id pull the lever and jump on the platform with that person *splat*
__________________
![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 | |
|
FFR Player
|
Quote:
In the second I wouldnt kill the wanderer because he is healthy and even if the sick people got the transplants, they would probably have more problems down the road. I look at it this way: If it were way back when, when transplants were fantacy, then those people would have died and the wanderer would have lived. It's only fair that the healthy person survives. Im not saying that healthy people are superior to people with medical problems, I mean I myself wouldnt have even made it out of my mothers womb if it werent for c-section (spell?) And I would have died from sickness multiple times if it werent for our awesome knowledge of medicine. But if it came down to it, it's only fair that the healthy survives (unless he wants to give himself up).
__________________
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Resident Penguin
|
these scenarios are supposed to test your "intellectual" vs "emotional" (quotes because decision making isn't this simple) decision-making tendencies. The second scenario is usually something like "would you push a man off a bridge into the way of the train, killing him but stopping the train and saving the other five?" Most people answer no, presumably because this situation lacks the emotional detachment of the original situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
FFR Player
|
I think thats what it is, too. IMO, if i had to react to something, i would be alot more willing than if i had to move myself and be motivated to do it.
__________________
**Proud Member of the Breaking AUP Club** 250 in the Un-Catfish Pact of 2007 Class: Spread (Sub class - ASKL) HP: 225 (16th stream combo speed) Strength: 190 (max jack speed) Defense: 165 (16th jump stream speed) Speed: 280 (pass stream speed) Accuracy: 89 (average percent of marvs) Stamina: 250 (consistent 16th stream survival) Evasion: 679 (comfort scroll rate) |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
I'm not sure I would do anything in any of those scenarios. In all of them, before I take the action events are unfolding as they would, and the people that will die will die as a result of already determined conditions, but as soon as I react even though I'm saving 5 people or what have you I'm also killing one. I'm not sure linear arithmatic should be trusted to show that the good I've done to outweigh the bad.
Am I duty bound to try and save these people? I don't see why. I don't even know what the circumstances are for why they're there. Maybe the five people tied to the railroad tracks are criminals facing vigilante justice and the one person was just a random guy who tried to stop the vigilante and was restrained. If I did pull the lever I would also feel obligated to make some sort of attempt to save the individual guy in each circumstance, even at the cost of my own life. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
FFR Player
|
It doesn't make it ok, but it does right some wrongs in the process
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 | |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
How the hell did you come to that conclusion? By NOT taking any action I'm not responsible for the outcome of the situation either way. By Flipping the switch I'm responsible for PERSONALLY MURDERING ONE PERSON. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
FFR Player
|
Thats really not what the question is asking guido. You arnt personally executing anyone since its not your metal ball. All in all i think the whole idea of the question is blatantly obvious. If you had to youd save more then less. If someone could come up with a more relistic situation this question might be more relavent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
The problem is that what you are describing is an action most people would take based on emotion and instinct. It is natural to assume that value comes in quantity and that to save more lives at the cost of one has a greater weight of good.
However, the idea of weighing the value of human beings one against the other is not only philosophically objectionable but morally repugnant. How can we even hope to perform such calculations? Would our instinct serve us more efficiently if we knew the one man was someone society rejects, like a homosexual or a criminal or a mental invalid? Would our instinct serve us differently altogether if the 5 individuals were hitler youth and the one individual was a pregnant woman doctor? The types of questions made in this thread reflect only on where the poorness of judgement lies in each individual and in turn where their emotions compensate for an inability to weigh factors which cannot be weighed but by ignorance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 | ||
|
is against custom titles
|
Quote:
If you throw the switch and doom the one guy, it's because you think, "I'm sorry, but I'm trying to save five people, here," you're weighing the consequences and trying to do the most good. Vigilante justice is illegal. Killing a guy just because he was really bad and the law hadn't yet gotten him is still murder. The issue here is with saving lives. If you're only consideration is doing the most good, your actions aren't morally reprehensible. If, however, you consider who those people are, personally deem them worthy to die, and then let that happen, you're no longer trying to do the most good; you're trying to do the least evil. You're taking it upon yourself to kill someone instead of save them, and that's committing an evil act. EDIT (ninja'd): Quote:
--Guido http://andy.mikee385.com |
||
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|