A run-away train is hurtling down the tracks. Further down the line, too far away to reach, forty men are working in a tunnel. If the train reaches them, it is certain to kill many of them.
You can't stop the train, but you can pull the lever that will divert it down another track. Further down this line, in another tunnel, only five men are working. The death toll is bound to be smaller.
But if you pull the lever, you are deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If you leave it alone, it will not be you who caused death among the forty. You must either bring about the deaths of a few people, or allow even more to die. But is it worse to kill people than it is simply to let them die?
This is not a question of finding some loop-hole to save everyone. It is a question of whether it is ethically right to lessen the death toll by choosing who to kill or to let more die by not choosing to kill.
2006-10-05 18:31:18 · 15 answers · asked by haiku_katie 4 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
In my opinion, choosing to do nothing is no different than choosing to do something, when you know what the outcome is going to be.
This is a difficult question either way, though. I think I would have to pull the lever, so that less people would die. If I did not, then my inaction would kill even more.
2006-10-05 18:34:15 · answer #1 · answered by j3nny3lf 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you know about the 40 men and do nothing, you still inject your own will. By not doing anything when you know that there is a decision that could be made is the same as choosing killing the five.
The sacrifice of the few, for the many. That would be the ethic for me in this case.
2006-10-05 18:43:30 · answer #2 · answered by BuffyFromGP 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What ever happens, happens, and could not be any other way. I personally would throw the switch, because that is what I would do. Somebody else might not do the same... In that case that is what was meant to happen. Either way no regrets should come of the choice of action, or inaction. And even not throwing the switch is making a choice that results in death, so both ways are a way of killing.
CyberNara
2006-10-05 19:00:45 · answer #3 · answered by Joe K 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, you're acting either way. By making a conscious decision to do nothing and allow 40 people to die when it is in your power to prevent it, you are very much responsible for their deaths, morally if not legally. Since at least 5 people are going to get hit either way, it becomes a simple numbers game where minimizing the number hit is the most rational choice.
2006-10-05 18:39:41 · answer #4 · answered by R[̲̅ə̲̅٨̲̅٥̲̅٦̲̅]ution 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
it depends on the morality of the whole scenario. if its choosing the lesser evil of the two or not its still the same. the outcome will still be killing someone.
why look at it in a different way? have another perspective. how many people can i save if i chose to divert the train? wouldnt that be better than having to choose between who you should kill?
many people confronts this issues everyday. policemen, firemen, the military, politicians, or even us. we deal with the choices of choosing a lesser evil or the greater one. this is what is to be human. it might not be saving people but it is still a choice.
an example would be having to choose stealing a bread for your starving child. would you steal a bread and save your child but gets you into prison thus leaving your child in the streets or on some child care center OR not steal but kills your child thus bring you into depression then kills you in the process?
the choice is always yours. for me, i choose to divert the train so that i can save as many lives as i can
2006-10-05 20:58:16 · answer #5 · answered by J.C. Philippines 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I would choose the lesser of the two evils and pull the lever. It's a situation often confronted in war.
2006-10-05 18:38:31 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Life is so important...if you can save more lives in choosing to pull the lever then, do it...it will be tough..but at least you know that you save more people in sacrificing the five.
2006-10-05 19:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by atlanta 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
We are taught to choose the lesser of two evils. So Save the 40.
2006-10-05 20:40:44 · answer #8 · answered by a_phantoms_rose 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The train has to be allowed on its normal course.....
The people who should have known the trains normal route must have avoided working on the tracks. No need to penalise the people who were on safe tracks !
2006-10-07 05:04:14 · answer #9 · answered by Spiritualseeker 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on if I know anyone involved. If I do I'm going to put the train down the other way.
2006-10-05 18:33:40 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋