Philosophical question (part 2)?

Question

(Please see part 1 before you answer this question)
(http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070611081232AA8ToED&pa=FYd1D2bwHTHwLLtjE.48RNruT3j91qLSn6iuuxQuku339Q--&paid=asked&msgr_status=)

Imagine the same situation as in part 1 but this time you are an observer on a bridge that the train goes under before it hits any of the men. Next to you stands a very fat man that could stop the train if you pushed him off the bridge onto the tracks but he would die in the process.

The question is, would you push the man to save the majority?

Is your answer different to that in part 1? If so, why do you think you have answered differently??

Answer 1

No

This time it is a little bit too much. At some point we crossed over that grey line. I guess we don’t feel so responsible this time for the people on the trolley. There is also this direct act as opposed to an indirect act of killing business. Doesn’t feel so responsible for people loitering on trolley tracks but does for pushing people on to them. We could still jump into the river and see if we could save some….

Answer 2

Now I see where you are going with this...
In the original case you had a choice of 1 or 6 but all you could do is change the direction of the tram. You are essentially a passive participant. In the second case you are now becoming an active part in the scenario by deciding to take the life of a bystander. The situations are not comparable. I would let the driver steering the tram make the decision (as in the first case) because I could not be sure that any action I took would change the course of events. If I murder the fat man to save the rest, how could I have known that in the time between the two events that there would not have been other outside intervention.
So the scenario is patently ridiculous.

Answer 3

well, i wudnt throw the fat man off the bridge. I think there's a difference between part 1 and part2. in part 1 it's either the 6 or the 1 that i have to choose between to hit. "the thing is in my hand" it is my choice. The one man and the 6 men are already in MY WAY. And i think that even in first case it's more different than thinking to save a majority, i think that at that point we perceieve that alot of people are infront of us and we want to avoid the accident so we look around and we see a more empty space that cud save the damage.. I dont think that we cud realize all the situation that fast.. u just want to avoid the crowded place.. so u act fast and turn to the *more empy* space.

but in this case, i can't go and choose for that person to be thrown off a bridge... and also in this case I am an observer not the one who will hit the men and make the fast choice...(Fast choices can intrude the choices of others) but since im not in that situation, i think that's why I wud not throw the man off. (But of course if any other way possible to stop the accident, i wud've done it) What im trying to say is that being an observer gives me more time to think in a way that cud save lives with minimum risks and intrusion.

Answer 4

What your asking is whether we are utilitarian. I would steer right and hit the solitary man for the first question but i dont think id have the heart to push our fat friend off the bridge as that would involve me commiting murder directly. Its like if another plane was flying for the empire state building, the us airforce would shoot the plane down before it could get there, thus saving the majority.

Answer 5

No. As the train operator I MUST make a choice, but as an outside observer I can choose NOT to act.

If I were the operator (and alone in the train car), I would try to make the turn onto the second track with as much speed as possible with the hope of tipping the car to a stop and risking only my life.

Answer 6

It's the same damn question- would you, by your own choice and free will, choose to kill one person or three people? The only interesting answer that could come out of this is if someone said they would save the 1 life and gave a good reason for it - not possible. Only exception is if the 1 person you could save is a loved one, that's interesting.

Answer 7

I would not push the fat man in front of the train. I would say, "Hey, fat man, check it out, those folks are about to be totally deaded.

Answer 8

Saint-Exupery pondered similar question, and concluded since human life is the most valuable thing (like "infinite" in mathematics,) you cannot say two human lives is more precious than one human life. You asked really good question, and I feel so relieved I don't have to make such terrible decision now :-)

Answer 9

No, since the people on the track have put themselves in this risky situation, and while I would not wish them to die, I have no right to sacrifice an innocent bystander in order to prevent their deaths.

Answer 10

That would be murder. Let the tram driver deal with the problem.

Besides, I don't think any human can be fat enough to stop a tram.