Is Jane Morally Obligated to Intervene in Train Dilemmas?

[leopard]

A. Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?

B. Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?

 

[disregardthat]

Well, if her goal is to save the maximum amount of innocent people, then yes to both of the questions. Now, if Jane doesn't want to be directly responsible for the death of a innocent man, but rather indirectly responsible for the death of five, then no to both questions. If Jane believes in God and know that she will not go to heaven if she is directly responsible for the death of an innocent man, then of course no to both questions. If Jane existed, I doubt she would do it. Her conscience would most probably forbid it.

 

[out of whack]

Oblivious people standing on train tracks probably deserve a Darwin award. Natural selection culls as many weak links as needed to the betterment of the surviving population.

 

[leopard]

If Jane believes in God and know that she will not go to heaven if she is directly responsible for the death of an innocent man, then of course no to both questions.

Lol.

 

[arildno]

As I see it, if you happen to be in a situation in which you cannot prevent the loss of lives, then it is extremely difficult to see why a course of action bent upon minimizing that loss of life should be morally wrong.

Thus, unless Jane is at least as big an individual as the man in B, yes on both counts.

If Jane is as big as the man beside her in B, a heroic self-sacrifice is the morally best choice.

 

[leopard]

I agree. However, I doubt she would have been able to do it in both cases. People are not always able to do what is right. For instance, I think many people would rather push the button and drop an atomic bomb over a big city, than killing one person by hand.

 

[out of whack]

I won't kill an innocent to save a group who put themselves in danger by their own actions. That's not moral. And it would dilute the gene pool. So it's a "no" for the second scenario. The first scenario is less clear because I don't know if the man is aware that the switch is protecting him or not. If he knows, then it's the same as the other case, I just don't know if he knows. Also a group of five has better chances of hearing the train coming since only one of them needs to hear it to alert them all. So probably "no" for that one as well, unless I know that all are deaf and the lone man is just as oblivious as the others.

 

[leopard]

Assume they have no chance of escaping, and that they have been bound firm by islamists. Then the right thing to do is to kill as few as possible.

 

[out of whack]

Assume they have no chance of escaping, and that they have been bound firm by [terrorists]. Then the right thing to do is to kill as few as possible.

[Edit mine.]

It you create a scenario that is purely a numbers game then all moral dilemma disappear.

 

[leopard]

We're still talking about lives, not mere numbers.

 

[out of whack]

We're still talking about lives, not mere numbers.

Not really. In "5 lives > 1 life" the "life" units cancel out and you end up talking about mere numbers where 5 > 1. The thing is, you only have a moral dilemma when more than just a number of identical lives is at stake, that is, when the units are different. If you just ask "what is better, 5 lives or 1 life" then the answer is obvious. The problems arise when you add the condition that the decider must take explicit actions, when the quality of these "lives" isn't the same, and so on.

So, is it also right to kill someone to harvest their organs, transplanting which will ensure that five people, who would otherwise die, might live?

And this is where problems arise because you don't have just numbers anymore, you pit one healthy life against several unhealthy lives. That difference is what makes you scratch your head.

 

[leopard]

Some will claim that you are directly responsible only if you switch.

Is a healthy life worth more than an unhealthy life?

How many people would we need to save for it to be moral to kill someone to harvest their organs?

 

[out of whack]

Is a healthy life worth more than an unhealthy life?

A little bit, yes.

How many people would we need to save for it to be moral to kill someone to harvest their organs?

42?

It's not really a numbers game.

 

[leopard]

What makes a healthy life more valuable than an unhealthy life?

 

[out of whack]

What makes a healthy life more valuable than an unhealthy life?

My personal preference of course. Wouldn't you also prefer a healthy life than a unhealthy one? I think everybody agrees on that one.

 

[leopard]

I would also prefer a life as an American rather than as a Sudanese. Does that make Americans more valuable?

 

[out of whack]

I would also prefer a life as an American rather than as a Sudanese. Does that make Americans more valuable?

Be careful not to switch terms in mid-stream. Based on your stated preference your question should ask:

"Does that make life as an American more valuable than life as a Sudanese?"

...and you have already given your answer.

 

[leopard]

Therefore it is right to kill a Sudanese to save an American.

 

[out of whack]

Therefore it is right to kill a Sudanese to save an American.

Wow leopard, you're not very good at this.

I'm out.

 

[leopard]

OK.

I think I'm good. I disagree that I am more valuable than you because I am healthy and you are not.

 

[out of whack]

Actually I should explain.

You're changing terms again after I told you that you shouldn't change terms. I don't think you even noticed. Life as an American isn't the same thing as an American's life. If you had claimed to prefer an American's life to a Sudanese's life then you would claim justification for killing one in order to save another. But that's not what you were saying. Your tendency to miss these subtle shifts in your arguments tells me that coherent discussion is unlikely, hence my departure.

Now I'm out.

 

[leopard]

OK, I see.

But then you can't say that an unhealthy person's life is less valuable than a healthy person's life.

 

[Pythagorean]

I always thought these moral dilemmas were incomplete:

what if the 1 man was Barack Obama and the 5 men were derelict thugs?

 

[leopard]

Assuming they were all normal citizens.

 

[Pythagorean]

I guess my point was that most of us will agree saving more lives is the way to go; it's a classic utilitarian dilemma. It would be interesting to see how people would set values individual worth.

I'm also kind of interested in Captain Quasar's reasoning for his answer.

 

[leopard]

Obama is more valuable for society than most other people. Quasar hasn't answered yet.

 

[disregardthat]

To kill a person to harvest it's organs to save 2 is morally wrong I believe. The reason is that this robs the person of it's freedom to live, and if this happened on a regular basis, no one could be safe. I know I'd rather live in a society where more people died of disease than of murder to save others dying from disease. To do such a thing would perhaps even reduce the motivation to create new medical methods to save lives. However, it would though be morally correct to sacrifice ones life to safe a certain number of other lives if they could have use of your organs, given that you knew that this would be sufficient for their survival.

In this dilemma we do assume that the value of each persons life is the same, and that they did not choose to stand on the track. The dilemma is a "numbers game" as out of whack points out if and only if her goal is to save the maximum amount of lives. If other factors due to her belief comes into play she might have other values that is more important than just to save lives.

 

[bassplayer142]

Yes yes, A more interesting question is how many people would change the track if they were on the incoming one and just one person was on the other. So basically its you or him.

 

[WaveJumper]

I always thought these moral dilemmas were incomplete:

what if the 1 man was Barack Obama and the 5 men were derelict thugs?

There is no right and no wrong. There is only human subjectiveness. Having said that, i'd save the president(probably because I'm partial/subjective/ to preserving the social order in society).

 

[Georgepowell]

OOPS, just accidentally clicked the wrong one... I meant she should push the man off the bridge... Although I wouldn't have the guts to do it myself.

 

[Dale]

I think shouting a warning is sufficient in both cases. The principle I used to make that determination is that people are morally responsible for their own choices and they accept the consequences when they make the choice.

A. Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?

All 6 people are standing on train tracks. They were aware of the risk of being run over by a train when they chose to step on the tracks. It is not morally necessary for Jane to intervene to save the 5 as they deliberately took the risk of getting run over by the train, but if she did she would not be wrong since the one also took that same risk.

B. Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?

This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.

 

[WaveJumper]

This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.

What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?

 

[Dale]

What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?

They all have the right to live in all of these scenarios. (obviously)

 

[superwolf]

Opponents might assert that, since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit.

 

[Moridin]

Since these questions do not refer to values, they cannot be considered questions of morality. What if it was one Einstein versus five Hitlers? There is simply too little information to make any informed moral judgment.