Can you answer this moral question? (just saw this problem on tv)

These are recycled old questions from a well-known study on ethics and morality. If you are interested, the whole series can be found on line. There is no right answer – it’s a projective test, to present you with an ambiguous situation, and then to probe the way in which you respond for psychodynamic content.

Situation 1:
Sit back and enjoy the show.

Situation 2:
Sit back and enjoy the show.

It wouldn’t be my decision to play god. I would not act in either situation, although I may turn my head and decide Not to watch the show.

Kill 1 person instead of 4? How could anyone not choose this decision?

I saw this situation the other day on TV as well, but it was 1 baby vs 10 adults.

I’d like to meet this fatman who can stop a train with his fat.

i’d fix the kobayashi maru. i don’t believe in “no win” situations.

I would kill the guy and save the four.

What if there was a strong burst of wind and the fat man was blown over and landed on top of the four guys? Then you would just be a dick.

Ask yourself WWJDD?

What would John Dillinger Do?

what would a fluther mod do?

And what time was the train due to arrive at the next station?

2. if he’s that fat, I doubt I could push him. Just pointin’ out.

We’ve done this one before.

It’s called “Natural Selection”,
If four people are working on train tracks and NONE of them notice a 17 000 tonne train coming at them then…ya

@tyrantxseries What if a time-traveling villain from the 1920s came and tied the 5 men onto the tracks?

@Sarcasm Good point..
But why doesn’t Superman save these people? Why do I have to?

@tyrantxseries
because he was killed by Son Goku with a Cho Kamehameha.

@ragingloli I thought he killed Batman

@tyrantxseries
batman can’t be killed
because
He is the GODDAMNED BATMAN

I choose not to answer those questions, because they’re so ridiculously constrained.

Why the flip would a train be approaching on a working railway?

So there’s men working on the track, implying that the track needs maintenance and a train shouldn’t be traveling on it in the first place…so in either scenario the workers are going to be killed, a train (full of people?) is going to de-rail, plenty of carnage, and yeah if you feel like being a dick one fat guy dies. do the guy a favor… when his life flashes before his eyes he will get to see his penis one last time

I would Doctor Manhattan hand Zap the train

I agree with those who say there are too many constraints. But if there were some situation of the many Vs. the few I’d go with the many most of the time, and the few if they could do more good for mankind than the many could collectively.

I would have the train Removed by Fluther moderators.

This is the correct answer: http://ravingatheists.com/kamikaze189/2007/08/26/the-lever-fucking-broke/

@ragingloli: This is easy; you dangled a participle, so the train will kill only the railroad.

“A train is approaching. 4 People are working on the railway, which will surely be killed by the train.”

Why can’t you warn the 4 workers? No bullhorn? The person is mute? Laryngitis? Doesn’t speak the same language as the workers? Too much background noise?

Situation 1: Depends on if I know anybody. If my brother or my wife is the person by themself on the one side.. sorry but… RIP you four.

Situation 2: Too preposterous to consider. I’ll take option C.

@Bluefreedom
because that is the situation.

It is not a moral question, but more of a practical one of how to minimize damage. Plus alternate scenarios exist, so the situations are flawed.

@ragingloli. It’s a nonsensical situation.

i think you just don’t want to answer this hypothetical question because you are afraid of it.

@ragingloli. You’re exactly right. I’m absolutely terrified of answering this question. ROFL

The situations are just too ridiculous.. lol… might as well ask “If purple were the handle dog foot, then twice would the many go morning?”

@Bluefreedom
If you are not afraid, go ahead, answer the question, and stop nitpicking on details.
Such questions are specifically designed to see how people would handle the tough choices.
When people start nitpicking about them, it is usually because they don’t want to align with either choice.

It’s a nonsensical situation. (I could have sworn I’ve read that somewhere before). Nitpicking…...laughable (again).

@Bluefreedom
It is not nonsensical, not at all. It is restrictive in regards to choices and possible events, but that is the point of the question.

@NaturalMineralWater
The only thing that is ridiculous is your response. The amount of sense your example makes (none) is parsecs apart from the sense the given situations make ( a lot).

The specific situation is strange, but honestly if you’re incapable of choosing, and stuck on “Why is this situation being played out,” you should legitimately get your head checked.

The question is whether you would allow something bad to happen to multiple people, with complete inaction, saving one person. Or if you would take action and PERSONALLY cause somebody’s death, while saving multiple people.

I don’t get how this is so hard.

@ragingloli. I’m having a great evening and thanks for asking. You have a nice night also. Thanks for humorous give and take on this profound and very crucial morality test that I failed miserably. My life is irrevocably changed. =)

@Bluefreedom
Indeed you failed miserably.
You failed miserably by being presented with a question, refusing to answer it and then responding with cheap excuses and misplaced sarcasm.

@Bluefreedom when you were in math class as a youngin’, you were most likely presented with a problem such as this: You have 5 friends and 3 apples. How many of these apples does each friend get?

When given that question, how did you react? Did you refuse to answer it, stating that, “If I had 5 friends, I would have brought 5 apples. Thus, this question is nonsensical and I refuse to answer it”?
Or did you answer the question?

@Sarcasm: Not a parallel example, because you can cut the apples into sections and apportion them fairly. Cut each apple into 5 sections, making 15 pieces. So each person would get three segments.

Similarly, you can pull the lever and condemn one person to death while saving four, instead of allowing 4 people to die for 1.

@gailcalled
The apple example is just as restrictive.
You can not throw away an apple.
You can not buy additional apples.
You can not exclude one of the friends from getting apple.
You can not change the distribution á la “i get one whole apple and the rest goes to the others”

All things that you could do in reality.
The apple analogy is more fitting than you think.

@ragingloli The only thing that is ridiculous is your response. The amount of sense your example makes (none) is parsecs apart from the sense the given situations make ( a lot).

Really? This situation makes a lot of sense? Are you mad?

Even if you were a wandering mute who just happened to mosey toward such a ridiculous situation.. you would still be able to alert the fat man (being close enough to be able to push him into the path of the oncoming train) who could yell at the four people to get out of the way… unless of course you’re just going to make everyone mute and retarded in this scenario… xD it’s hilarious how much sense this makes that there is a man in the world large enough to stop a speeding train.. really?... really? xD

This is the standard question of “the greater good” which has been tossed around for ages.. only worded horribly. Whatever tv show this came off of is one I’m sure to miss.

Alot more than your rambling, that is certain.
The how’s and why’s are completely irrelevant to the question.
When your physics teacher asks “You have a barometer, how do you find out the height of a building?”, do you ask “Why can’t i just call the architect and ask?” ?

@ragingloli Is there a retarded fat man near this building? Cuz that changes everything.

Can one find the height of a building with a barometer?I thought it measured atmospheric pressure. Well, I am going to leave now and eat my 3/5 of the apple.

@gailcalled
yes.
atmospheric pressure is dependent on height. by measuring the pressure and doing the necessary calculations, you can find out the height. and no, you can’t have the apple, because i rejected the scenario and stole them all.

@ragingloli: There are many simpler methods using trig, shadows, sextants, etc.

@gailcalled
you see, that is exactly the attitude that would make the physics teacher give you 0 points.

Situation #1 is asking, “Would you sacrifice 1 man for 4?”
Situation #2 is asking the same.

Here’s what’s happening:
If you do nothing, 4 people might die. If you act, one person will die.
I am not going to act in such a way where my actions will cause a persons death in an attempt to save people that might die or might not die.

There is no way a person in that situation knows with any certainty that the 4 men are absolutely doomed. If the premises presume imminent death, then the situation comparison is inherently flawed.

@The_Compassionate_Heretic
it is not exactly the same. situation 2 would have you physically touch the person, situation one would just have you pull a lever, this being much more distant. In the documentary (about the human and animal brains and their functions) the test participants answered differently for each situation.
Also, if the premise didn’t presume imminent death, then it would be flawed, as the scenario would provide an escape route that would be contrary to the purpose of the question. It would be like the Kobayashi Maru with Kirk’s tinkering inbuilt.

furthermore, if you want to change the scenario to “the 4 might die”, why restrict it to that? why not change the scenario to “the other one might die”? after all he could jump out of the way too.

Its an easy answer, either let four people die because they are too stupid to see/hear a train coming, and leave the fucking switch alone so that the workman can actually fix some shit. In the second scenario, let the fat guy live, because he will see the carnage of the dead four, feel a need to take care of himself, diet, exercise and become slim and invent a warning device so that no one has to die on the railway ever again, or perhaps we all can simply turn the page and find a new problem to work with. To Hell with the idiots on the rail line.

I like how you stereotype the fat guy as useful only as a fleshy brake for the train. That’s really nice.

And like Bluefreedom said, these are some pretty outrageous and pathetic scenarios, but hey, I gave you your answers, so please, don’t insult me like you did everyone else on here, because if you make me cry, I’ll feel really really bad because you were mean to me.

I did not insult anybody. In fact, the opposite is the case.
And the part about the fat guy was stated that way in the documentary. Not my idea.

Sometimes, good or bad, the answer may not be what one is expecting, but in making statements that somebody’s answer is“rambling”, “irrelevant” or “failed miserably”..etc then I believe the discussion becomes weakened..I suggest these are judgmental attributions, and show a lack of consideration for people’s feelings, counter productive to getting the question given the best effort form those who feel inclined to answer it. It was a good question too, in my opinion, I only humblyI can suggest patience of mind to get a more satisfying response.

if you consider @NaturalMineralWater ‘s comments and the style in which they were written, “rambling”, while a regrettable choice of words, is quite mild.
“irrelevant” was not used to describe any of the comments, but the how’s and why’s to the scenario’s restrictons. It is like asking, why I only have 3 apples.
And the failed “miserably part” was @Bluefreedom ‘s own choice of words. I merely picked them up.

also, why do you single out me and not comment on bluefreedoms and evelyns belitteling writing style?

Thanks for reading and responding to my answer. I stand by my observation, though.

Let me ask you, why do you not criticise bluefreedom’s , water’s and evelyn’s choice of words as well? According to my observation, their style showed considerably less consideration for people’s feelings than my style.
Also I find it hard to classify their questioning of the scenario itself as answers. A math teacher would not accept questioning the apple problem as an answer either.

save as many as you can… that’s all one can hope to do.

Actually, it was not a criticism, just an observation. Also, it was general response, not targeted to you or anyone in particular, just from an overall reading of responses. I see your point about the scenarios, but it is “their” answers, just that you think them illogical, that is fine. But their answers are true, to them at least. I had responded that the question was not moral, but more one of damage control, which also may not be an answer to follow the logic, but sometimes an answer can be somewhat obtuse. In any case, I mean no offence, I was liking the question and saw it steer to other things and presented my opinion, which is, after all, just mine, and not meant to be taken as gospel.

I think there is a difference between an answer and a comment, the latter of which they wrote. One can respond to “what is 5+5” with an answer: 10, or a comment, like “that is too simple”.
As to your comment about it not being a moral question: don’t you think it is both? I mean, it is about sacrificing human life, which I would see as a moral problem.

In all scenarios you sacrifice human life, thus, in my mind, the only correct answer would be minimizing the lives lost, assuming, all human live’s are valued as equal. I agree that comments are different. Perhaps one might postulate that flipping the switch to a different direction might swerve and cause a noise which might alert the single railway guy to the impending doom, giving him the opportunity to move out of the way, thus saving all…again it is about odds, chance, and judgement, not morality, at least to my mind.

The part of the documentary that featured these scenarios was specifically about how the brain automatically makes moral choices. Most people in it chose to sacrifice the 1 guy in the first scenario, but refused to push the other guy off the bridge in the second scenario.
The first scenario was just about pulling a lever and was this more abstract and therefore more subject to a rational decision. The second scenario involved actively pushing someone to his death, was thus on a personal level and that is where the part of the brain that controls moral decisions jumped in and said “no”.
I should have worded it accordingly, but it really was about the first gut feeling one has.

Wesley Crusher was given a similar problem in his Psych test for his entrance into Star Fleet Academy.
Save the injured man and yell at the coward to save himself or lose them all.

For the record, evelyns answer is by far the best. xD

Apologies to any one who is offended by my rather crass and sarcastic modus operandi… but .. i just happen to think it’s a weak and incoherent question .. feel free to sue me. xD

The issue is that the fat man is not involved in the train incident at all, but the conductor already is in a sense because he is employed by the same company and thus is related to trains in some way. It is not ethical to include a person who is not involved in order to remedy problems that exist outside of his control or influence. Anyone who would use the fat man, I volunteer you for organ donations RIGHT NOW because obviously it would benefit far more people to have all of your organs donated to people on waiting lists, right?

I would extend the above logic to exclude pulling the lever and killing the one guy. It’s not his fault the others are complete idiots.

Ignoring all the holes in your scenario (such as why the people can’t see a fucking huge train coming down at them, nor move, but I believe the original question has the people tied onto the tracks unable to move), I would proceed pretty much like @evelyns_pet_zebra – not do anything! Why should I get involved in this at all? It’s not my problem. I didn’t put these people on the tracks. I didn’t hire idiots who can’t use their eyes to see a train. I would feel much less guilty by not acting than by acting in any way that caused any deaths beyond those which were intended to happen, which is to say the four idiots on the track.

These kinds of accidents are supposed to help our species become stronger over time. Natural selection, the concept that the stronger survive to breed and the stupider ones, well, they get hit by a huge loud train! Sadly natural selection is long since dead thanks to modern day society. But we can still reminisce about the good old times :)

Let’s say you and your family are captured by evil dudes. They provide you with a very sharp dagger and offer you this choice:

If you personally slit your son’s throat, then you, your wife and daughter will be set free. If you kill yourself, your son will go free, but your wife and daughter will also be killed. If you do nothing or if you attempt to kill yourself and fail, you will all be killed.

They provide iron-clad security that whatever you choose, the consequences will be carried out as promised.

You could compare this to an alternate scenario. If you personally kill your son using the knife, you, your wife and daughter go free. If you choose to let them kill you, your son goes free, but your wife and daughter are also killed.

@daloon kill your son.

this questions are designed to make the most logically answer the most difficult to give. But honestly what else are you supposed to do? Killing yourself means you, your wife and your daughter die. doing nothing means you all die, killing your son means three of you live.

@ABoyNamedBoobs03 You would personally slit your son’s throat? I don’t think you can have it so easy. What if your wife dies, but you and your daughter live? What if the consequence is that you die, but your wife and daughter live? In all cases, you must personally slit your son’s throat. If you don’t have a son, imagine slitting the throat of someone else you really love.

if my daughter and my son are the same age(meaning one isn’t a child while the other is a grown adult) what other choice do you really have? I’m not saying it wouldn’t be difficult to do, but when those are your only options, in my mind you don’t really have a choice. save two or save one.

Oops. I forgot I’m asking for answers, not an argument. Anyone else think they would behave the same way? Or differently?

Again, @daloon, it’s such a ridiculously constrained argument that the choice is morally meaningless.

It’s obvious that the point of the question is to force the answer of “I’d slit my son’s throat,” followed by agonizing over how evil and difficult it would be. Well, the answer’s forced, but I’m not going to agonize.

Actually, the point was to show that people would do anything except kill someone else themselves. They’d rather kill themselves than kill their son. Even if it meant their other loved ones would die, too. I mean, could you really bring yourself to kill someone with your own hands? Really?

@daloon if it meant a greater chance of survival for my family and myself, then yes.

To be honest, I’m about as likely to kill someone with my own hands as I am to result in a situation where my wife, my son, my daughter and I are all in the clutches of eeeeeeeeeevil people playing bizarre power games.

What if there were no hypothetical questions?

Hypothetically speaking, there would be no hypotheses.

as @zendo said, I would have the train removed by Fluther moderators.

That way everyone wins.