Two Hypothetical Moral Questions (taken from Dawkin's latest book)?

Question

i) If you were at the points of a railway junction, and you saw that the oncoming train was going to kill the 5 workmen on the track (and there was no way to alert them or the driver) and the only other option was to send the train down the other line, where 1 person would be killed. Would it be justified to, essentially, kill the 1 person - to save the 5 ?

ii) If 5 people in a hospital all needed an organ transplant to survive, and there were no suitable donors. And a visitor happened to have the suitable organs for all 5 people - would the killing of the visitor to save the life of the other 5 be justified ?

Answer 1

Interesting questions - as a pair.

The answer to the first one is that morally, you have to send the train down the other line. I wouldn't say you are 'killing 1 to save 5'. You are simply choosing whether to allow 1 person or 5 people to be killed by the train. It is an unfortunate accident, all you can do is minimize the damage.

The interesting thing about that of course is that it suggests that perhaps the second scenario has the same answer. It goes against my gut. Part of me thinks that it is a little different, but maybe it isn't. So maybe my answer would be this - morally it might be justifiable, but legally, it wouldn't be. We have an agreement in society not to kill each other for body parts, even though in a certain sense its 'self defense'. In the first case, the railwoad worker (or whoever is at the junction) would probably be commended for minimizing casualties, in the second, they'd be arrested for murder. So long as that represents the social agreement codified in laws, that would be 'just'. But perhaps we could say that in this case, murdering one to save 5 might be in some ways 'moral'.

Answer 2

Question 1 is a very simple question. You are essentially asking is it better to kill 5 people or 1 person. All things being equal, I would think that the obvious answer is to minimise the loss of human life and to direct the train towards the single person. In addition, if there is any chance of either option not resulting in death, the probability is much greater that the single person option will result in a non-fatal outcome.
Question 2 differs from question 1, in that it does not concern immediate death. On a logical level, the 5 patients are currently alive, due to some medical intervention. Medical ethics forbid the termination of a human life, to provide organs for the treatment of other patients. There are exceptions to this e.g. where a pregnant mother's life is in danger and it necessary to terminate her pregnancy to safeguard the mother's life. In this case however, the 5 patients and potential donor have lead natural lives and arrive in this hypothetical scenario simply as random members of the world. It would be unnatural and medically unethical to sacrifice the healthy donor, in favour of the 5 patients.

Answer 3

What if the people in the hospital were all in their eighties and nineties and the visitor was a young man with three children would that make it any less or more right.
Is there a chance something else might avert the accident what if the workmen spot the train just after it was sent down the other line, would it make it more murderous if the accident was then going to be prevented anyway?

Answer 4

i reckon
i) You gotta make the switch and save the 5 workmen rather than the one guy. I disagree the guy who said that this would be murder, cause surely you are just as guilty if you stand by while 5 people are killed when you couldve stopped it? hmm
ii)You really shouldnt kill the guy for his organs but it would be tempting. Shame the guy i just killed with the train didnt have them

Answer 5

i'd could say the financial business enterprise robber. Granted that's his fourth offense; besides the undeniable fact that, in my opinion poses much less of a probability to the community than the youngster molester. Granted, an elderly woman died as a results of the theft, besides the undeniable fact that, his purpose became to scouse borrow from the financial business enterprise (this is insured) and to no longer harm every person in the financial business enterprise. besides the undeniable fact that it rather is unhappy a guy or woman died for the period of the cost of the theft. the youngster molester, on a similar time as a known time criminal poses an enhanced probability to the community. Even after launch he will extra beneficial than in all probability locate procedures again into touch with babies and locate procedures to envision infant porn. besides the undeniable fact that for the time of accordance to the project has in no way harmed a infant, it is not that rather extra of a bounce to bypass from the delusion online section to the actually molestation section. additionally, in my opinion, the fact that he would be required to sign up as a intercourse criminal isn't various a deterrent. He can honestly substitute his call or circulate to a sparkling community or perhaps bypass away the country and proceed to his infant porn behavior. i assume what it boils right down to is that the youngster porn guy will continuously be a probability, because of the fact babies are somewhat trusting and he can use that to his benefit.

Answer 6

Damn, those are hard ones.

i) Kill the one in the first instant. Unfortunately, it is a numbers game.

ii) Let the five die. The precedent created by the action would lead to further harvesting.

Answer 7

Hypothesis rules out all of the elements of the real world - which is why I suspect that people who live in a 'hypothetical universe' have an agenda.

Answer 8

i) send it down the other line (but would still be mortified)

ii) a person shouldn't be killed to save others (in that situation I may add)

Answer 9

utilitarianism is theoretically desirable, however, by killing the one person to save the others, you are using that person as a merely a means to and end, which is morally unjust.

Answer 10

i simply believed that life is the most important thing, no matter the number is... irradicating someone's life cannot be justified.

the means cannot be justified by the end, so as the end cannot be justified by the means.