you're a train operator on duty.
up ahead you see 6 kids playing on the tracks.
you can't stop in time to avoid crashing into them.
your only other option would be to switch tracks right before you'd hit them.
but, on the other track, you see 1 kid playing on the tracks.
split-second decision: would you switch tracks?
think about who knew they were in troubled territory.
would your answer change if the 6 kids were in persistent vegetative state?
thanks :)
2006-10-07 11:46:43 · 11 answers · asked by eggygee 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
You asked for a thoughtful answer to a spit-second decision. That alone invalidates you question. You also include criteria (vegetative state) that could not be known in a split second. It question is 'screaming' hidden agenda. Next time, just ask your real question and you may receive honest answers.
2006-10-07 14:03:42 · answer #1 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume that switching tracks would in no way cause injury to the riders of the train. Everything being split second, I would have to switch tracks. The odds are better for the one child to get off the track. 50/50. And how would I know if the 6 kids were in a vegetative state? There is the chance that one or more of the 6 kids on the track could survive due to the cushioning of them with other bodies. But still the rule of numbers here applies. And even if they were in vegetative states, they also have the right to live.
2006-10-07 18:59:15 · answer #2 · answered by Al s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Response to Carla about the euthanasia-why doesn't that ONE child have a right to live? Why do you get to play God? I think one child who has the chance to live a quality life (as far as they may save the world, cure cancer...etc.) is more "important" to society. In the case of a poor conductor having to make that horrible decision, I'm guessing he would never look at one or the other as the right way to go.
As for it being like an abortion issue, I disagree. That's completely a seperate issue, but while its brought up, why is it ok for people to kill others in order to prevent killing? Its a little hypocritical don't you think? I don't care which side of abortion or euthanasia you are on, why is it anyone else's decision who's life is more important than the other? I know this is a little off track, but it is something that I think is ridiculous.
Oh yeah, if they were perfectly fine children, change tracks and sacrifice the one life, I truly think that, ethical or not, it would be much less painful on everyone. However, another question to think about, would those kids me traumatized knowing the child died so they could live? Its an impossible choice to make, and I do not think that anyone would know what the "right" decision shoul be.
2006-10-07 19:24:47 · answer #3 · answered by s 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Train operators, or engineers as they are properly referred to, do not have remote control of track switches. If kids are on the tracks, all the engineer can do is attempt to stop the train before striking them. I think your question is foolish and not well thought out, or perhaps you are in a persistent vegetative state.
2006-10-07 18:57:31 · answer #4 · answered by rico3151 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you were to keep writing in additional criteria to consider - like vegetative states, etc - things that could not be known or even anticipated when making the decision of what track to take, the answer doesn't matter anymore. Regardless of the answer, another criterial change is (maybe) planned to change the perception of the answer. The question spoke of 'split second' decision, not split second plus a few days of re-assessment after hearing of hospital treatment feedback.
So my answer is: Doesn't matter - either answer can be condemned.
2006-10-07 19:06:18 · answer #5 · answered by nothing 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Doesnt matter if the 6 were in a vegatative state they still have a right to live just as Terri Schaivo,whats next euthanizing elderly?I would switch the track and hit the one.
2006-10-07 18:52:52 · answer #6 · answered by halfbright 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the six kids playing were in a 'persistent vegetative' state, they could not be playing. I'm not sure what your question is about: The number of lives involved or whether some were brain damaged?
2006-10-07 19:04:58 · answer #7 · answered by beez 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Very difficult decision to make either way, I am not quite sure what you mean "persistent vegetative state," but I would change tracks to avoid hitting the 6 kids.
very very difficult decision
2006-10-07 19:03:29 · answer #8 · answered by rpjc 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
lol This sounds like an abortion or euthasia question. The hospital aide who put beds of the six brain damaged children on the track is "ethically" responsible for whatever happens. Such an analogy to real life! Better to debate real life cases to make your point.
2006-10-07 18:49:45 · answer #9 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'd blow the whistle and get all the brats off the tracks!
2006-10-07 20:18:46 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋