Scenario: how altruistic are you?

[Cyberman]

It's a bit like the old trolley problem; the out-of-control mine cart speeding towards a set of points - a 'switchtrack', I believe you USians call it - leading to two tracks, with a single person and a group of people respectively. Do you kill one to save the many, sort of thing.

The best answer was posted on my FB wall a while ago. The dad of a little kid set it up on his son's toy train set. The kid took the single figure and put it on the line with the group - then drove the train straight at everyone in one go.

[Fireball]

In this case, no. I'm not going to place myself or the driver of the other vehicle into possible mortal danger. Too many variables- what if they swerve, and go through a crowd of people, etc.? I could make an endless list of "what ifs". I'd have to judge for myself, if or when an actual case presents itself.

[Edwardo Piet]

In theory I would only kill one to save the many if I could kill the one in a less painful way than any of the many I saved would suffer had I failed to save them. I never aggregate suffering between conscious creatures (and I do believe this is the major mistake that utilitarianism makes) due to the reality of the consciousness barrier.

The way I like to put it is: Every person is their own little world.

[brewer]

How do I know if the kid isn't committing justifiable euthanasia and they just picked a really shitty method.

If that's the case, then that kid has also a shitty disregard for others. I believe that everyone has the right to end their life if they choose, but they absolutely do not have the right to involve innocent people.

I'm sure I've spoken about the incident relayed to me by a former friend who works as a railway signalman. A driver friend of his was doing his job as usual, when he caught sight of a figure standing on the track in front of his speeding train. It was far too late for the brakes to do any good; the only thing he could do was to sound the horn, try and warn the guy off. But he simply stood there, head bowed. Then at the very last instant, the guy looked up, right into the driver's eyes, and smiled. That driver has never worked since.

Agreed. But when people/kids want to kill themselves how often do they think of the others involved?

[Cyberman]

Suicide is always a deeply personal decision and act. Of course other people are going to be affected. That's not at all the same as forcing them into active participation.

[Minimalist]

The easiest way to commit suicide is to point your finger at a cop and say "bang, bang."  They'll be so "afraid for their lives" that they will handle the rest for you.

[Aoi Magi]

The other car might miss, I won't

[brewer]

Suicide is always a deeply personal decision and act. Of course other people are going to be affected. That's not at all the same as forcing them into active participation.

In this scenario the driver about to hit the kid is probably not an active participant. Neither is the parent/spouse that buys the bottle of Tylenol/Paracetamol, or ethylene glycol, or rope, or ...........

This is guilt felt by association to the person/act. I'm not sure that the possibility of someone feeling that guilt can ever be removed.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I know what I'd like to do, but I also know that after 30+ years as a driver, at sixty mph behind the wheel I have a set of autonomic responses. They've saved me from enough shitsplats that I'd feel bad for the child but happy to be alive. I think I'd do my best to avoid the child and not do any calculations about the other vehicle at all.

[Little lunch]

I'd find it easier to die than to live with the knowledge that I could have saved a child and didn't.
It's almost a selfish reason to save someone.
I just know it would eat me up and life wouldn't be worth living if I didn't at least try.
That's the main concern, more so than the safety of the child.
Child living to a ripe old age is a bonus afterthought.