Ethical question for theists and atheists?

Question

Two questions, really.
1. You are riding in a trolley. A mad philosopher has tied five people to the tracks ahead of you. You can flip a switch to move the trolley onto another set of tracks, but there is a single person tied to the tracks there. Flipping the switch will kill that single person, but not flipping the switch will allow five people to die. The trolley has no brakes.

2. Similar situation, but now you are on a trolley with no switch. Instead, there is a really fat guy there with you. You can either do nothing and let the trolley run over five people, or you can push the fat guy overboard and use his girth to stop the trolley. This will result in you killing someone, but you will save five lives.

Is this second scenario different from the first scenario? How so?

In a third scenario, you can stop the trolley to save five people only by crashing another trolley into it. Doing so will cause them both to fly off the tracks and kill a sleeping bystander. Okay?

But for the 1000 character limit, I would have clarified in the original that the third scenario is certain to result in the death of exactly one innocent bystander, who is currently sleeping in a hammock in his back yard.


I see several interesting answers. It's notable that some people want to know more about the state of the people tied to the track (healthy, old, or what?).

Answer 1

I'd hit the brakes and hopefully dave them all. If that was not an option I would still do what I could to save them all, even if it meant giving up my life. I would not feel comfortable making the choice for anyone to die.

Answer 2

In the first and third scenarios I would kill the one to save the five. In the second scenario, I admit I wouldn't push the fat man, even though it would be one person for five. It feels closer to being murder than the other scenarios. I think because in the other scenarios the action is to get out of the way of the five tied people (which unfortunately results in the death of another) while in the second scenario my action is to deliberately push a man under the wheels of the trolley.

Answer 3

Oh, yes. Richard Dawkins sites these scenarios in The God Delusion.
Generally speaking (and I'm with the majority here) people believe it is moral to save the five people at the expense of one person in the first scenario. You acted to save five lives and it is not your fault that one person was tied to the other side of the tracks.
The consensus on the second scenario is that it's immoral to use the fat man to stop the train. It would kill him and treat him as nothing more than a useful object. The distinction between the first two scenarios is that the man tied to the tracks is just there. He's not being used in any way to save the other lives.
The third scenario is closer to the first than the second. Again, on one is being used against their will to save the five lives.

Answer 4

Find an alternate solution.

Failing that, kill the one to save the many in all situations. And then try to learn to live with failure to find a viable alternative solution.

The interesting thing is the different answers to 1. and 2. people have given. 3. is just a slight variation of 1.

In both cases you are taking an action that will kill one to save five. People seem to be happier with an indirect action of pressing the switch, compared to the direct action of throwing the guy overboard. But both are action you take to kill someone. To me there is no difference.

Answer 5

I agree with bad squirrel. In case one I would flip the switch to save the 5.

But in case 2, it seems that it's not my choice to make that guy a hero. He has to choose to become a hero on his own I think. If he was willing, then ok.

I guess in case 1, the choice is all on me (the one person on the other track doesn't have the opportunity to speak and volunteer to be a hero). In case 2, the fat guy seems to have an opportunity to choose to be a hero or not.

in case 3, I would save the 5, at the cost of the 1, as in case 1.

EDIT:
On second thought, in case 2, the fat guy really ought to choose to make himself a hero! Just because of his selfishness, 5 people shouldn't have to die! So maybe I'd push him. But by now, the accident would have already happened. sigh.

Answer 6

wow that is quite the question and I do not think I can honestly answer it without being in the situation. BUT for the sake of answering I will make an assumption as to what I would do.

1) Flip the switch if there is no other options then that or the five
2) I don't think I could push someone, that is murder, where the other is an accident that you have little or no choice to avoid

Answer 7

1 flip the switch, scream in horror. just one dies
2. do nothing, scream in horror

The difference is that I would be actively taking fat guy's life by pushing him out. The first death is passive.

3. How many people will be seriously hurt?

Answer 8

In all cases, I kill the one to save the five, assuming all six persons are of equal human potential. If the one is a young man with a PhD and the five are a bunch of bed ridden elderly people who have little time left to live, they're not of equal human potential, and I kill the five to save the one.

All comes down to which choice preserves the most human potential.

Answer 9

1. I would flip the switch and save the five.
2. I would not push the man off. That is simply murder.

Answer 10

Wow, that question made my head hurt.

In all instances, I would kill the single person to save the five. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.