I would appreciate an answer from everyone to this question on ethics?

Question

Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Islamic, atheist, pagan, etc, I want to know what you would do in the following two situations. Please explain why. Also, state your religion, so that we can compare the mindsets of different ideologies:

1) You are standing on a small bridge over looking a railway. You see behind you a train heading towards you, full of people. In front of you the track splits. One direction leads towards a sink hole that has opened and that will certainly kill most if not everyone aboard. The opposite direction is safer, but a single person is standing on the tracks and will certainly be hit and killed if the track is diverted towards him. The switch to change tracks is right next to you.

Do you...

a) Allow the train to fall into the sink hole killing everyone on board.
b) Switch the track so that only the single person gets killed.


2) You are standing on a small bridge over looking a railway. You see behind you a train heading towards you, full

of people. In front of you, the track leads directly to a sink hole that has opened and that will certainly kill most if not everyone aboard. There is no other track. Standing next to you is a 300 pound individual standing on a trap door that if opened, will drop the person onto the track only to be hit by the train and slowing it down enough to stop before the sink hole swallows everyone aboard. The trap door switch is right next to you.

Do you...

a) Allow the train to fall into the sink hole killing everyone on board.
b) Pull the switch dumping the 300 pound person onto the track.

I'm an atheist.

To me, in the first situation, I would pull the switch. Everyone has a chance of living. The guy has a chance of seeing the train coming and getting out of the way. If he doesn't, well I DID just save 300 lives. I would probably still be guilt ridden for the rest of my life, though.

Second question is a bit tougher. The guy who goes through the trap door has NO chance of survival. But I would still pull it.

There is also another difference: By pulling the switch in #1, the casualtywould already be in the way of the tracks. In #2, you are putting the guy in danger and in the way. Its a subtle point (most people don't even see it), but its still there if you think about it.

Answer 1

Let them fall into the sinkhole in both cases (both cases are pretty much the same)

It is not my place to decide to sacrifice someone else. The train is already heading towards the sinkhole, without my help. If I switch the tracks, it is my doing that places that one life in jeopardy


I am an Atheist

Answer 2

It's amazing...so many people have never been in an ethics class. This is a typical question from any college course on ethics.

#1....b,
#2....c. I'm about 260...if 300lbs can do it...so can I...I'll push hard.

but in ethics class...
What is the ethics of making a choice for someone else? The choice seems easy if you simply look at ethics as a process that allows you to weigh what is best for a population, or society. The questions are interesting for what they leave out. What if the 300lb guy is there because he's finalizing a safe and effective vaccine for cancer? Is losing 1 life in exchange for 300 better if that one life can save literally millions?

These are always interesting. here's one from my class I can recall:

40 people go to a grotto at the sea. it has a long, low entrance that is too long to swim through under water. They stay too late, and the tide comes in, trapping them. The only escape is a hole towards the back of the grotto, near the top. The fattest person gets there first and gets stuck. They cannot go forward or back. The water is advancing. They have a 6" knife....what do you do? Do you have the 39 people die, or do you cut the other one out of the hole?

That got a real response from our class...it was interesting!

Answer 3

1.) b, switch the track

2.) a, let the train fall


The difference is that in the first question, it is the track, not the person, that is being used as a tool to save the train full of people. This would be the case even if he were not there, and he has the unfortunate luck to be standing on the track. Why the hell is he standing on a railroad track anyway?

In the second question, the person IS being used as an tool to save the train full of people, not the track nor any other object. Were he not available, the everybody on the train would die anyway, and this is not his fault. He should not be dragged into this disaster as a result of his misfortune to be heavy enough to slow down the train.

Answer 4

I believe on Star Trek II they called this scenario the Kobyahsi Maru.

Unless I'm employed by the railroad, I leave the switch alone. What if the 300 pound man is Bill Gates, and his family sues me for everything I have if I throw the switch to save more lives than one?

I would believe that if god didn't want to see all the people on the train die, he would make it run out of fuel and hit the brakes b4 the sinkhole.

Actually, I'm a fan of the Adam's family, and I wouldn't mind seeing a big train wreck, so on that note, I'd leave the switch alone too.

Have you been on an Amtrak train lately? They're never full of people!

Answer 5

1. Yell and wave at the person on the tracks before I pull the lever. Or if there's a stop light switch near me, I'd turn it to red so the train would stop.

2. I'd push the 300 pounds person off and drop myself onto the tracks.

A situation is rarely as limited as you are positing. There's always a third way out.

And oh yeah, I'm a rationalist.

Answer 6

I am a Deist who hates organized religion since it corrupts+destroys peoples' souls, and is responsible for the majority of evil in the world. My God is a being that we are merely part of like red blood cells are part of us.

1) I switch track to head train for the one person while screaming at person to get out of way and after switching trying to push said person out of way if the slaphappy idiot doesn't move....but better the one person die than train full of people


2) **Assuming 300 lb guy doesn't volunteer and train will not stop if I take fatty's place**
I would hit the switch to stop the train and kill the individual...I would then turn myself in for murder and plead guilty because while maybe lives were saved I killed someone who was not a danger to anyone else.
**Assuming 300 lb guy volunteers**..I do same thing
**Assuming guy does NOT volunterr but I CAN stop with my body**....I would like to think I would take the hit and sacrifice myself

Answer 7

Religion: Agnostic (but grew up Roman Catholic)

This is my honest answer. I'm not proud of what I'm saying, but this is what I would truly do...

1. Although I realize that if I shouted to the person on the tracks they probably wouldn't hear me, I would probably try to call to them anyway. If I saw that they were moving out of the way, then I would try to hit the switch. If he / she weren't moving out of the way, I would not want to test fate, and instead let the train head to the sinkhole.

2. I could not pull the lever to dump the 300 lb. person onto the track.

Answer 8

the 1st human beings to have a ritualized type of conflict have been the Greeks and this is from them that we can hint ethics in conflict. Homer's Iliad instruments the muse of guy or woman wrestle that could be accompanied for 1000's of years, the knights interior the midsection a while did not opt to combat against the peasants by using fact they weren't worth annoying situations. The Church additionally affected ethics in conflict as during the midsection a while they set limits of conflict and weapons and who grew to become right into a combatant. This evolution is going each and each of how as much as the Geneva Conventions and the in basic terms conflict concept.

Answer 9

Christain, 1b. switch the track but try like heck to warn the person on the track to get out of the way. 2. pull the lever and kill the 300 pounder. Have to ask God to forgive me but I couldn't let a train full of people die.

Answer 10

You are asking a question concerning the ethics, or morality, or some other value of judgement and trying to tie it to religion. It is the individual person that determines the answer. If you take any number of people you will see a division between them. The decision is determined by the individual personality, not religion. I notice you aren't distinguishing between a strong religious faith, just practicine or by name only. If you want to compare religions, get a question that deals with religion.pp