An uncomfortable ethics question.

[Tiberius]

There are several ethics questions the involve choosing to save 1 person vs 10 people. The classic is a train hurtling down the tracks towards 10 people, who are unable to escape. You can divert the train onto another set of tracks, but this set has 1 person on it, who is also unable to escape.

Such questions are sometimes hard to answer, but most people come to some sort of rationalisation; after all, we are dealing with other people.

So the other day, I came across a much more uncomfortable question; one which I have had trouble answering, and I'm not even sure if any answer I come up with is really honest.

The question is: if you had to choose for either 10 random people in the world to die, or yourself to die, which would you choose?

Or perhaps an even harder one; where you have the choice between 1 (or 2) random people, and yourself.

Are our own lives worth as much as 10 people? How would you answer the question?

[Shell B]

I think if I forced myself to answer the question honestly, I would have to choose myself. In the heat of the moment, you never know what you will decide. I know that there are important people in my life who literally need me there. I know I don't want to die in lieu of complete strangers, so it is probable that I would choose myself.

I would like to think that I would be able to play the hero, but that's most likely not the case. I might risk my life to save them, but to give it over in a choice like that, I just don't know if I have it in me. Now, if I knew those people, my answer may be different.

[theVOID]

This is an easy question if you subscribe to desire utilitarianism.

1) Desires are the only things that drive action.

2) A person with good desires has desires that tend to promote more desires than they thwart

3) Assuming nobody has the desire to die, and also taking into consideration that nobody wants members of their family to die, A person with good desires would chose the option that thwarts the least number of desires.

In this instance the death of one person thwarts less desires than the death of ten.

Therefore the moral action is to prevent the death of the ten.

Dilemma solved.

The one with you or a stranger is much harder, but because they are a stranger the only desires you should assume is their desire to live. However you know for certain that your death will thwart more desires than that where as you can only guess that their death will thwart the same. Given that this instance is reliant on informed probability therefore i believe it is moral to save yourself.

The two strangers is not so much of a problem, i would say that it is more moral to die than to allow two others to die because two desires to live are greater than one and unless you assume that your life will fulfill more desires than the two opposing, say if you are a doctor or the president, then desire utilitarianism states that it is more moral to save yourself.

You may believe incorrectly that your death will thwart less other desires than the death of the two strangers, however given the circumstances and s long as one has a sensible epistemology and an ability to promote many other desires, the moral decision would be self-preservation.

[Watson]

I would have to say I would sacrifice myself for those few strangers, for a variety of reasons, one of which I will admit as being somewhat selfish.

First is that one of those random strangers could be someone I know or love. If it turned out to be that way, I don't know how I'd live with myself knowing I lived and they died. That's the 'selfish' reason, so to speak.

The other reason is that I could not knowingly send anyone to their deaths unless I was willing to risk myself the same as them. Say I was the general of an army, I wouldn't send troops on 'suicide missions' that I myself would not undertake if need be. I would be a coward and a hypocrite to do so. So if the choice between me and a collection of strangers was offered to me, I could not feasibly sacrifice lives if I knew there was a way of avoiding it- even if that way meant that I had to die.

@theVOID- Dilemna not solved. It is not so easy as you make it sound in the heat of the moment.

[ABierman1986]

What if you knew you were the person to be killed (in a 1-1 scenario)? What would you want the person making the decision to do? Would you want them to sacrifice themselves to save you, or kill you to save themselves? After I thought about this one for a while I think I decided I would save myself. I looked at it as, for whatever reason, this is now in my hands, but it could have been anyone else, and I could be in the other position just as easily, and from the other perspective, I think I would understand if the person saved himself/herself. I don't think I can expect myself to be so altruistic in the heat of the moment as to give up my own life.

[theVOID]

@theVOID- Dilemna not solved. It is not so easy as you make it sound in the heat of the moment.

No it's not, that's because emotions are not rational and cannot be informative of the overall social good, Think of everyone who did something bad because they 'just knew' or 'felt strongly' that they were right in an introspective sense, like Hitlers conviction about the Jewish threat, or Jenny McCarthy promoting anti-vac, these methods for arriving at moral truths are no where near as effective or as reliable as Desire utilitarianism.

Looking at it from afar it stands to reason that the morally good action can be determined.

If you want to demonstrate a flaw in my reasoning then do so, else stop asserting shit.

[krazedkat]

Myself, honestly, I still wish to procreate etc. and I would not be DIRECTLY effected by the deaths of strangers.

[ib.me.ub]

Interesting array of questions.

The classic is a train hurtling down the tracks towards 10 people, who are unable to escape. You can divert the train onto another set of tracks, but this set has 1 person on it, who is also unable to escape? A. 1 person.

If you had to choose for either 10 random people in the world to die, or yourself to die, which would you choose? A. Myself.

The choice between 1 (or 2) random people, and yourself. A. Myself.

Are our own lives worth as much as 10 people? A. Yes & No.

How would you answer the question? A. As above.

However, I would like to add that this is entirely differnt to the real world. I have been placed in situations where I have had to risk my own life to help others. But this is different from the questions above.

[Rayaan]

I agree with theVoid in that from a utilitarian perspective, the right thing to do in such a dilemma, would be to sacrifice yourself for the 10 random people. But if I was asked this question, then I would choose to live and let the 10 people die. Why? Because I don't know the future. It might be the case that there is something more valuable that I could offer to the world if i were to live instead of allowing the ten people to live (but most likely not, of course).

Maybe apply Kant's categorical imperative? For example, first you have to ask yourself, "Is it a morally good choice to sacrifice your life for 10 random people?," Then ask yourself, "Would it be a good thing if every single person in the world was asked this question and said that they would die in order for the ten people to live?" I think the answer should vary on this question, depending on the person's future accomplishments and/or helpfulness to others.

However, the main reason for my answer is not because of the categorical imperative, but rather, because of my selfishness.

[Tiberius]

It might be the case that there is something more valuable that I could offer to the world if i were to live instead of allowing the ten people to live (but most likely not, of course).

This doesn't seem like good reasoning. If you are accepting that the chances of you being more valuable that 10 random people are "most likely not", then what reason do you have for making the decision to save yourself?