Moral dilemmas

[iamaelephant]

I have two moral dilemmas that I'd like to share with you. Please vote for your answer in the poll, and post with a reason for your answer. If there is a discrepancy in your answers (yes for one, no for another) please state the reason, if any.

First dilemma:
A runaway train is hurtling down a track towards a group of 5 people. If the train is allowed to continue down this track, all five of these people will certainly die. You have the option to flick a switch which causes the train to veer onto another track, but there is an innocent man standing on this track who will be killed. Do you flick the switch? Ignore hypothetical situations involving the man being a great scientist or a family member/friend etc.

Second dilemma:
Five patients are in the same hospital, all suffering organ failures, each person a different organ. They will certainly die if a donor can't be found. There are teams of world-class surgeons waiting for donor organs and their lives would certainly be saved, but there are no organs available. A healthy man is seen in the waiting room. Would you kill this man to take his organs? Again ignore hypothetical situations involving the man's family, history etc.

 

[lyssword]

ban

 

[Fullmetal Chocobo]

No to both. Fate obviously wasn't on their side, and being in the position to make the decision, I would make no decision, other than to try to rescue them. But I wouldn't decide anothers death.

EDIT: And on #2, I'd kill one of the doctors...

 

[amol]

No & No.

1) Fate's a bitch. Too bad. Either run or accept it.
&
2) It's most likely that those patients did something to put themselves there. Like I said, don't mess with fate.

 

[thelanx]

Are you studying moral reasoning or something?

 

[akshatp]

Yes #1

No #2

Reason - Because I know that picking two opposite answers will spark the better debate

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: thelanx
Are you studying moral reasoning or something?

It's just something I'm reading about in a book and I thought it would be interesting to see ATOT's take on it

 

[I Saw OJ]

No on both, pretty easy answers really.

 

[rubix]

i'd actually like some kind of option where i can kill all of the people you mentioned.

 

[dxkj]

Why not add 2 more options where flicking the switch would kill you, and where youd kill yourself to give up your organs.


#1 I said yes to, because of purely numbers, all being equal, 4 less will die

#2 I said no, because whereas the first group of people were simply victims of happenstance, this second situation they have actual life threatening issues while the individual appears healthy.



Plus from a legality standpoint if you said yes to #1 youd be a hero, if you said yes to #2 youd be a monster who is playing god

 

[George P Burdell]

#2 is no dilemma.

 

[chambersc]

No, No.

The switch is set that way for a reason and who am I to mess with it.

#2 is laughably outlandish.

 

[Turin39789]

First dillemma - No . The OP states that flicking the switch will cause the train to hit an innocent man. He never said that the group of 5 people were innocent, so if he pointed it out about the single man it implies that the group of 5 people are obviously mass murderers.


Second dillema - I just watched 5 people die. You think I'm too lazy to grab a cooler and collect spare parts?

 

[j00fek]

lil too much for a monday morning

 

[slsmnaz]

In your 2nd dilemma wouldn't only 1 person die either way? If they are all different organs then the 1st one to die gives his good ones to the remaining 4 people. Just don't finish last and you live.

 

[Rogueverve]

for #2 id first ask if there was a lawyer in the hospital somewhere.

 

[Lonyo]

#1 - Yes. Less is better.
#2 - No. There are 5 people, all going to die. So when one dies, I take organs from him for the other 4. That way 5 people live, one dies, and the one who dies was dying anyway. Almost everybody wins.

 

[FoBoT]

no to both
let the chips fall where they may

 

[TecHNooB]

#1- The innocent guy clearly stood on the tracks knowing that the train wouldn't suddenly come around and hit him. I'll bet he's trying to warn the other 5 idiots to get off the track. But clearly they are trying to commit suicide. More coal on this train!

#2- LOLOL Hilarious! I guess you could ask the guy outside if he felt like dying. Maybe he's a member of PETA.

We can actually use Darwin in both of these situations.

 

[lokiju]

No and No.

I don't see if right to flip the switch and have the other guy die when he was in a safe location just because 5 people are dumb enough to be standing on the tracks.

Your second question is just laughable, I'd think a better choice would be to just harvest from the first one to die and use their parts for the remaining 4 that are still alive.

 

[TecHNooB]

Originally posted by: lokiju
No and No.

I don't see if right to flip the switch and have the other guy die when he was in a safe location just because 5 people are dumb enough to be standing on the tracks.

Your second question is just laughable, I'd think a better choice would be to just harvest from the first one to die and use their parts for the remaining 4 that are still alive.

haha I like your idea. Wait for one of em to die, then take his parts. Genius.

 

[iamaelephant]

Originally posted by: Turin39789
First dillemma - No . The OP states that flicking the switch will cause the train to hit an innocent man. He never said that the group of 5 people were innocent, so if he pointed it out about the single man it implies that the group of 5 people are obviously mass murderers.


Second dillema - I just watched 5 people die. You think I'm too lazy to grab a cooler and collect spare parts?

We are disregarding assumptions for this survey - the fact that I mentioned one man was innocent has no bearing on the innocence (or lack thereof) of the other 5.

 

[Cdubneeddeal]

#1 Yes - Duh
#2 No - Even more duh

 

[Garet Jax]

It would have been much more interesting to answer the first one before tainting it with the second one.

 

[SonnyDaze]

1. No.
2. Pointless, but no.