Immiment Death Question

[MixMasterLar]

Read some of the last few post. If I couldnt ran in time (like five secs choose) then I would be forced to pull the level and beg God for forgivness

In real life, I probably just stand there dazed

[Cyanite]

You guys are completely missing the point now.

This isn't a challenge as to "How do you save the people in time?". It's an ethics question that brings up the topic of some lives being more "valuable" than others, and if it's worth it to intervene to kill one person for the sake of 5 or vice versa.

The whole "instantaneously" point was put in there to ensure nobody came up with little strategies to save everyone, that's not the point of the thread.

[Tokzic]

Originally Posted by Tokzic

You realize that you're just dodging the actual question? There's no "nobody days yay" option in any of these because it's an ethics question.

EDIT: Dammit Cyanite!

[Shambo]

I'd pull it, 5 people worth more than one although you can't put a price on life...



unless it's slavery

[MixMasterLar]

Originally Posted by Cyanite

You guys are completely missing the point now.

This isn't a challenge as to "How do you save the people in time?". It's an ethics question that brings up the topic of some lives being more "valuable" than others, and if it's worth it to intervene to kill one person for the sake of 5 or vice versa.

Then to give a final answer: I would pull the level. I would either be guilty of killing five people with the action of standing there or I would be guilty of one. It's no easy choice, At first I thought the way kilroy said (your not apart in it if you dont pull the level) But somehow I doubt that's what God thinks.....in the end you gotta pull that level.

[darkdragoness]

I have a question aimed at those who would let the 5 die for whatever their reason:

What if someone you knew (a parent or close friend) was with you when you had to pull the lever? Would you feel more obligated to save the 5?

[Sera13]

Originally Posted by darkdragoness

I have a question aimed at those who would let the 5 die for whatever their reason:

What if someone you knew (a parent or close friend) was with you when you had to pull the lever? Would you feel more obligated to save the 5?

As i said before, I would not pull the lever Regaurdless of who was there to watch me let these people die. They are people i dont know, There for reasons i dont know. Fate has brought them that far, and though fate has brought me to the lever, I do not feel it is myplace to make such a choice for who lives and who dies.

What if the 5 people on the platform were not strangers but very close friends, And the one other person was your "one and only" or perhaps even your mother?


When you bring into play the fact you know these people closely, It makes the whole question change. You start to use a more emotional approach.

[Izzy-chandess]

I would pull the lever mainly on the very, very slim possibility that the mechanism is too slow to be able to move thus said victim under the falling ball of steel and miss everyone entirely. If it moves too fast, wouldn't it hurl its person(s) off of the platform in the first place...?

As for the train, I would pull the lever and jump onto the tracks to save the guy's life. One is easier than all five.

As for the organs, I'm not sure what I would do. That would require more thinking. Kill a (most likely) innocent man that could maybe change the course of history? Hmmm...

However, in all of these situations, realistically, I would be a little nervous to leap out onto a limb to save these people. I would gawk in awe, like a lot of you.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cyanite

The way I see it, neglecting to take any action when you have the option to right in front of you is an action in itself.

Please explain why. As I've said before, the only way I can see for this to be an action in itself is if you're duty bound to take it and by not taking it you break your covenant. I see no reason why I'm obligated to maximize life, therefore I see no reason why neglecting to take an action is an action in itself.

I'm not missing any point, I'm just not agreeing with your interpretations. You say that you're innocent only if you let those 5 people die. By altering the course, you're directly guilty because you interfered with the original state to cause harm to someone that otherwise wouldn't be harmed.

I understand that completely. I just don't agree with it.

I don't think you understand the surrounding arguments, specifically the ones from deontology.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by MixMasterLar

At first I thought the way kilroy said (your not apart in it if you dont pull the level) But somehow I doubt that's what God thinks.....in the end you gotta pull that level.

How would you know what God thinks?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by darkdragoness

I have a question aimed at those who would let the 5 die for whatever their reason:

What if someone you knew (a parent or close friend) was with you when you had to pull the lever? Would you feel more obligated to save the 5?

No.

[chuckey]

what if the one person is black and the five are white? then would you still pull the lever?

this would be harder if race was involved.

[Hepcat06]

Not for me. I still wouldn't pull the lever. I don't care the race, the sex, the crimes they might have commited, whether I'll be rewarded or not, but I am not killing anyone.

[ledwix]

It's not harder if race is involved, unless you believe some races are inferior to others. I don't tend to think like that, though.

[Sprite-]

i would not pull the lever because then that person's death is my fault, making me a murderer and possibly having lots of jail time

[sk8mastr]

i would let the 5 die because it is not my choice of who lives or dies
no one has any right to say the single person die or the 5 die

[GuidoHunter]

It most certainly can be your choice of who lives or dies.

You're applying that to the one person, in which case you're determining if you should allow them to die.

But what about the five people? You DO have the choice of whether they live or not. You can save them all!

If you saw someone standing on the sidewalk directly underneath a falling piano, would you not try to save that person? You know, what with your not having the ability to decide who lives or dies? Would you reject medicine?

I agree that killing someone is not to be taken lightly, and I could never make the choice to do so for any reason up to even saving my own life. However, saving the lives of five people is something I think that you can weigh against it.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[RandomPscho]

But what about the five people? You DO have the choice of whether they live or not. You can save them all!

If you saw someone standing on the sidewalk directly underneath a falling piano, would you not try to save that person? You know, what with your not having the ability to decide who lives or dies? Would you reject medicine?

Guido, I think you are missing that by choosing to save the 5 people, you are killing, as in it is your fault, the other person. If you choose to not pull the lever, it is not your fault anyone dies. If you were not there, the 5 would still die, it is not your fault they die. When you pull the lever though, you are killing a person.

I must say though, I would probably pull the lever. And who wouldn't save the person with the piano falling?

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by GuidoHunter

It most certainly can be your choice of who lives or dies.

That doesn't mean it should be.

You're applying that to the one person, in which case you're determining if you should allow them to die.

I'm not sure "allow them to die" is the proper phrasing. If the train were heading towards the one person to begin with and five people were on the opposite track then that phrasing would make sense. You may say "I only switched the tracks, the train ran him over and that was beyond my control altogether", but that's about the same as saying you only pulled the trigger on a gun and the bullets killed the person.

But what about the five people? You DO have the choice of whether they live or not. You can save them all!

The means by which you can do so are murder.

If you saw someone standing on the sidewalk directly underneath a falling piano, would you not try to save that person? You know, what with your not having the ability to decide who lives or dies?

The act of saving this person has no human cost. Also, you have the ability to decide who lives or dies, that's the point of this thinking exercize, but it isn't ethical to cause a persons death, even to prevent the death of others (except perhaps in cases where the person who's death you were causing was themselves attempting to cause the death of others.)

Would you reject medicine?

I'm not sure how this is relevent.

I agree that killing someone is not to be taken lightly, and I could never make the choice to do so for any reason up to even saving my own life. However, saving the lives of five people is something I think that you can weigh against it.

--Guido

I think any attempt to weigh human life is disgusting and fallacious.

[RandomPscho]

Killroy, would you kill Hitler if you knew what he would do?