#1 Thought experiment - "The Trolley Problem"

[Aroura]

Aksi, what if I don't push hard enough and the dude just falls and gets his legs chopped off?

It needs to be made more personal so it differs from the first experiment on that level, but more certain so it stays the same in that aspect, otherwise you don't know if people are refusing in the second because of the closeness of the killing, or the uncertainty of it working.

At least that's my problem with the second scenario. Maybe I just have too much imagination to take it at face value, lol.

[bennyboy]

Shitty things happen to people, sure..but I don't know that women are getting raped -because people do nothing, that babies are getting burnt up in fires -because people do nothing, or that people are being stabbed and bleed out on the street -because people do nothing-.  Must be some cases like that, but probably not enough consider them representative.

Actually, this inaction in a group setting is a well-studied phenomenon in psychology. It is especially common in large groups where there is no clear leader-- everyone kind of looks around for direction, and nobody takes the lead. This happens all the time with things like heart attack or seizures: someone will clearly be in serious trouble, and passers-by will literally walk right past them, pretending not to notice. However, if ONE, just one person, takes action, a dozen more will immediately jump in to help.

Women, by the way, are told to shout "fire" if they are being raped, because the chance of being saved if they shout "rape," even in an alley off a busy city street with many passers-by, are very poor indeed.

[bennyboy]

If I 100% knew that killing one person would save 5, yes. The first experiment, where you flip a switch is clearer, and easier not only because of the switch, but because it lacks ambiguity. You flip a switch, the train changes tracks. No what ifs.

The problem I've always had with the second is this assumption that a fat guy would stop a train. I know, I know, its a thought experiment. But I simply cannot imagine how I would know the fat guy stops the train, so I have a hard time when I.try and actually imagine myself in the situation. I've never seen a human body stop.a train, even a huge one, have you? I think I also detect some issue with a fat person being worth less because they are fat.

But in scenario 1, where you flip a switch, yes I'm sure I would because even though I'm killing a person, I'm certain that their death actually prevents 5 others. In scenario 2, that is not the case. I always feel like the train will chop up the fat guy and go on to kill the 5 as well. The sentence " and you know his body will stop the train" is meaningless to me, because I know no such thing, whereas I know how train switches work.

Yeah.  For me, personally, there's no other way to interpret either of those situations, giving the wording of the OP.

Although. . . as an aside. . . nobody yet has mentioned the joy of having an excuse to carry out the comically grisly murder of an excessively obese person. I mean. . . surely, we're all thinking it, right? It's not just me? Youtube fame, here I come!

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

I think this Moral problem really boils down to:

1) Have an indirect hand in saving 5 people but a direct hand in murdering some poor bastard,which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.

2) Have a direct hand in "saving" one person, since you're choosing not to murder the poor dude, but have an indirect hand in murdering 5 people, which you'll have to live with for the rest of your life.


So essentially, you can either kill someone but not enjoy the direct benefits of saving 5 others since your involvement is indirect but have to deal with the consequences of your murder anyway since your involvement was direct.
Or,you can "save" a person by choosing not to kill him but have a hand in killing 5 others,although indirectly. In this case however you do not get any backlash for killing 5 others since your involvement was indirect but you'll have satisfaction of mind since you choosing not to kill,ie,"save", the fat dude was direct.

[Aroura]

Cabin in the Woods is just a giant reimagining of this thought experiment. Lol. Would you let demons brutally murder 5 teens to keep the world safe? Would you push one into the room with the demon if it wasn't working?

And Spock is logical and correct, and Kirk is an emotional idiot. Well, except they voluntarily risked their lives to save one life, so that changes the dynamic.

Hmm. Trying to think of any other pop culture occurrences of this killing few to save many theme.

[Athene]

I don't think a total of five individuals is necessarily sufficient enough to warrant the act of killing an individual in the name of "the greater good". I believe far fewer people would be willing to 'flip the switch' and effectively murder twenty innocent men in order to save a hundred.

[brewer]

I'm still killing the trolley driver. They are the cause of the dilemma.

[The Valkyrie]

I'm still killing the trolley driver. They are the cause of the dilemma.

Didn't think of the trolley driver!

Get the bastard!

[Athene]

Btw, "Clang, clang, clang went the trolley..." Totally stuck in my brain, now.

[ErGingerbreadMandude]

@Thena,
You're of the opinion that you would prefer to do nothing, right?

The most fascinating thing about this Morality thought experiment is when you slightly change the variables, it completely changes the scenario.

What if you had 6 children ,5 of your children are at the tracks and one of your children is the fat man. What would you do then?

Would you kill one of your child to save 5 of yours or would you choose to do nothing and inevitably kill 5 of your children(Although indirectly,but can you live with that?) ?

Morality is fascinating, even more fascinating when your actions will have direct impact on the rest of your life. :-)