A Moral Dilemma for you?

Question

Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do?
Here is the first scenario:
A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?
Now, the second scenario:
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.
Just before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would also die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?

Dear kiss.james
Where in the rules does it say that "you should not post questions that are not your original idea?"
It's my comment on the answers that's going to be original.

There's really no "right" or "wrong" answer
If you chose Yes Yes or No No, you weren't hypocritical, but if you said Yes for the first but No for the second, I'd say you were. Why? Because in both cases, you're faced with the choice of killing one to save 5. The only difference is you'd have a greater degree of involvement in the 2nd case when you'd have to physically push the fat man, rather than just flipping the switch.
In the "real world", pilots drop bombs from 1000s of feet that kill dozens, hundreds or more, and then they land, and most have little trouble sleeping. They're "divorced" from the consequences. But an infantry soldier who kills one of the enemy in a face-to-face encounter will
likely carry that with him/her the rest of his/her life.
It's the "intimate involvement" we shy away from; if we are sufficently separated from the consequences of our action or inaction, it rests much easier on our consciences.

Answer 1

no i wouldnt switch it to kill the one to save the five and i wouldnt push the fat guy in to save the five...your logic can be taken to a horrible conclusion as anyone whos ever taken a philosophy class will tell you (probably something to do with taking organs from a healthy guy, to save 10 sick guys)

it is morally wrong to sacrifice anyone to save more people....i wouldnt kill one guy to save a thousand.

Answer 2

Each person that confronts this case would have to act according to ones thoughts for that particular time. Your choice now by reading this, might be different when you really have to choose. If your in a position of lordly trust with decision matters that society selected you with that life choice then you might trade life for life even your own...
How do you know that the people on the trolley where not all planning to die from cancer. And the person you sacrifice was the link for the cure.

Answer 3

Yes, I would priobably flip the switch in the first scenario. Why kill 5 people when only one has to go? In the second scenario I would neither jump in front of it myself OR push someone else. I would just let the trolley take its course.

Answer 4

I hear a story like this in church. I believe the moral thing to do in the first one is to flip the switch and save 5 lives. I believe the moral thing to do for #2 is let the 5 die. Why is that? That's a very good one.

Answer 5

Sitting down and thinking about it from the comfort of an armchair it's easy to moralise and say you'd do this or that but in reality most of us react instinctively one way or the other, it's so unpredictable. Very often those who would say they'd save their own skins first are the first to save others and likewise those who say they'd sacrifice their own life in real life may just as likely do the opposite. You can never tell in a real situation. A hypothetical scenario remains just that.

Answer 6

No, no, no and no.

Maybe stick in family members, spouses or children and I might have to scratch my chin a bit, but on the whole, no to everything. Who's to say those five lives are more important than that one? Who's to say that fat man isn't going to find a cure for cancer, or that he would have any chance of stopping a trolley car anyway.

By the way, what's a trolley car?

Answer 7

WOW! I'd say I'd do nothing. I'd stand back and see what's going to happen. It's not my fault that I happened to be on the scene, and it certainly is not my position to sacrifice a life for the sake of more lives. I'm no God so the moral thing to do is to not act God. Which brings me to think: why not let God solve the problem? This is his own doing so let him solve it. I can live with that; I guess it will haunt me for some time but I'll get by.

Answer 8

In #1 I would flip the switch then yell to the single person to get off the tracks. If they don't, oh well.

In #2, I would tell the fat guy of the issue. Let him decide if he wants to jump or not.

Of course, in both cases wouldn't it be logical to yell to the people and tell them to get off the tracks, then let them decide their own fate? After all, if they are dumb enough to stand there in the first place, are they really worth the effort, or our problem?

Answer 9

social darwinism. The fools on the tracks have put themselves in danger and are being idiotic, they are asking for it. The man on the bridge used his intelligence to put his fat butt in a logical safe place.
Why does he then deserve to die? He is smarter, let him live and pass on his genes. The idiots on the tracks would just live another day to go stand in the road and get killed elsewhere, or make a bunch of cross eyed babies who also sit on the railroad tracks eating dirt.

I think let natural selection do its thing.
Of course its easy to say that while all this is hypothetical. in real life it would be extremely upsetting to be faced with that to say the least.

Answer 10

In these scenarios, I doubt if I'd intervene. Anytime I can save a life I should do what is humanly possible. In my opinion, it's not my call to kill someone even to save others. But it's an interesting question!

Answer 11

Your Deep -
I cant answer that. Only when im in that situation would i know.
I'd like to think i'd save the 5. But what if the 1 was my sister??
Still that is the BEST question i've read on here.
Peace n Luv x