![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 28. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 16:38:12
Lets say that you are on a train and the brakes are failing. There is no way that you can stop the train.
On the track in the distance ahead of you are six people. If the train continues along the track then six people will die.
You can divert the train to run along a different track. There is 1 person on the other track. If you divert the train then 1 person will die.
(a) Should you do nothing and let 6 people die?
(b) Should you divert the train and kill 1 person in order to save 6?
PS. You are not allowed to alter the details of the case. The point is that there are NO OTHER OPTIONS aside from (a) and (b).GIVEN THAT there are no other options, what should you do???
Posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 17:13:35
In reply to (1) One or Six???, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 16:38:12
sorry but Id have to ignore the given options and jump out of the train. That is way too scary to think about
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:24:46
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 17:13:35
So you jump out of the train, and by doing nothing 6 people die???
Don't worry. I am not asking what you *would* do if you ever found yourself in such a situation. I am asking what you think you *should* do all things rationally considered...
Posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 17:31:27
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:24:46
As creepy as this sounds I think I would divert the train BUT I would HONK THE horn soo many times as to give the guy a chance:) what would you do? I also think I would not be able to live with myself for making that decision if the person died.....
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:36:34
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 17:31:27
One of the main moral theories is Utilitarianism. According to this theory we should act in such a way as to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number of people.
It is clear that at least one person is going to die. What we are required to choose between is one death, or six deaths. Assuming death is a bad thing, then it would seem that utilitarian theory would require us to divert the train thereby saving five lives.
Does this sound reasonable??
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:42:37
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:36:34
According to another moral theory (Kants moral law) it is a moral law that killing people is wrong (as a blanket law - no exceptions). On this theory it would be wrong to kill one and it would be wrong to kill six.
You would be doing the wrong thing either way.
According to utilitarianism if you kill one person then you are doing the right thing GIVEN THE AVAILABLE OPTIONS. And given that you do not need to feel guilty. Sad that they have died - yes. But guilty that you did the wrong thing - not at all. Instead you should feel guilty if you do nothing (thereby killing 6 in effect) where GIVEN THE SITUATION YOU ARE IN the morally correct thing to do would be to kill 1.
Posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 17:50:23
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six???, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:42:37
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 18:00:38
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six???, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 17:42:37
I think that in most cases we should not kill other people. As a moral law, if you like. But that there are exceptions.
Given the case - where we are basically required to choose between the death of 1 or the death of 6 then I think the morally right thing to do (given the case) is to divert the train. Killing 1 to be sure - but also saving 6.
5 less people die as a consequence of diverting the train. That is why I believe it is the right thing to do given the nature of the situation.
Posted by Mark H. on February 28, 2005, at 20:23:12
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 18:00:38
There's also the legal aspect: to do nothing makes the resulting deaths the fault of the six people standing on the tracks; to take any action that you know for a fact will cause a person's death (in this case by diverting the train to avoid hitting the six) creates liability for your actions, potentially both criminal and civil.
Of course there are lots of qualifiers that would come into play in a real-life situation, but your scenario specifically eliminates those. As a result, it comes down to "do nothing and *allow* six people to die" versus "do something and directly *kill* one person."
In our litigious society, there may not be much room for utilitarianism in this example.
Mark H.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:32:35
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six???, posted by Mark H. on February 28, 2005, at 20:23:12
> Of course there are lots of qualifiers that would come into play in a real-life situation, but your scenario specifically eliminates those.
Yes, it is somewhat contrived ;-)
>As a result, it comes down to "do nothing and *allow* six people to die" versus "do something and directly *kill* one person."
Yes.
The reason for this is that we try to come up with moral theories that are acceptable to us and that seem to prescribe the *right* course of action. We test the worth of moral theories against cases such as these.
It is one thing to come up with a moral ideal..
It is another thing to be able to show people what a good ideal it is (to show them why they *should* adopt it)..
And it is another thing again to figure out what that theory tells us we *should* do in different cases..
So much can depend on the way in which we describe the case..> In our litigious society, there may not be much room for utilitarianism in this example.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ETHICS AND LAW.
Some laws are immoral e.g., the laws that allowed slavery.
Some laws prohibit things that are not immoral all by themselves e.g., stop at a red light.
Most often it is considered one of our moral duties to obey the law but our legal and ethical duties can come into conflict.I am not worried about whether the actions are legally reprehensible or not..
Just whether they are morally reprehensible or not..What is the right / wrong thing to do?
Is a different question to
What is the legal / illegal thing to do?Does that make sense???
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:34:46
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » Mark H., posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:32:35
People in prison camps in Nazi Germany were sometimes given choices such as 'shoot your son' or 'we will shoot your son and 6 other people as well'.
So cases like this are not wholley contrived...
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:38:23
In reply to Re: (1) A real life example:, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:34:46
With the above case Kant's moral law would say that one should feel guilty for choosing to shoot your son. You did the wrong thing because you killed him and 'killing is always wrong'.
Utilitarianism allows us to say that you are not obliged to feel guilty. Given that horrible, horrible situation you saved 6 lives. You did the right thing given the situation. Sadness yes. Guilt no. You did nothing wrong - given the available options.
It is the people who made them choose who are immoral IMO.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:44:35
In reply to Re: (1) A real life example:, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:38:23
Posted by Larry Hoover on February 28, 2005, at 22:00:54
In reply to (1) One or Six???, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 16:38:12
> Lets say that you are on a train and the brakes are failing. There is no way that you can stop the train.
>
> On the track in the distance ahead of you are six people. If the train continues along the track then six people will die.
>
> You can divert the train to run along a different track. There is 1 person on the other track. If you divert the train then 1 person will die.
>
> (a) Should you do nothing and let 6 people die?
> (b) Should you divert the train and kill 1 person in order to save 6?
>
>
> PS. You are not allowed to alter the details of the case. The point is that there are NO OTHER OPTIONS aside from (a) and (b).
>
> GIVEN THAT there are no other options, what should you do???Wake up, shake my head, and declare, "That was some dream!".
Lar
Posted by Rach on March 1, 2005, at 3:57:44
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on February 28, 2005, at 22:00:54
What if the six people were men who broke out from high security prison, and were all serial murderers? And the one person was Mother Teresa? Or Ghandi? Or the guy who finds a cure for depression?
Surely, then, it would be better for the human race to kill the murderers...
I would do nothing. Because if I changed the course of that train, then I would be choosing to kill that one person. It would be MY fault that the one person died. By doing nothing, I personally have not created or caused the situation.
Posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 5:44:02
In reply to (1) One or Six???, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 16:38:12
Being a sociopath, I would barrel down on the six and shoot the one as I sped by. There's too many people on this earth anyway...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:40:00
In reply to Six, posted by Rach on March 1, 2005, at 3:57:44
> What if the six people were men who broke out from high security prison, and were all serial murderers? And the one person was Mother Teresa? Or Ghandi? Or the guy who finds a cure for depression?
That would be changing the case... But what if that one person was going to donate millions of dollars to a feed the children charity the next day thereby saving thousands of lives...???
Changing the case might change our answer with respect to what we *should do*, yup.
> I would do nothing. Because if I changed the course of that train, then I would be choosing to kill that one person. It would be MY fault that the one person died. By doing nothing, I personally have not created or caused the situation.Ok. So we are morally responsible for our 'actions' but not our 'inactions'?? Is that the rationale?
'Letting die' is okay?
What if you are standing on the bank of a river. You are a strong swimmer. A child is drowning. If you jump in you can save the child, if you do not then the child will die. Is it morally acceptable to 'do nothing' in this case???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:44:42
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 5:44:02
That might be what you *would* do, but is it really what you *should* do???
Isn't that why we often morally condemn sociopaths???
Aaah. 'There are too many people in the world anyway'.
You could justify your act by appealing to Aldo Leopold's Land Ethic. For him our moral obligation isn't to people, it is to the ecosystem or the biotic community. From the perspective of the land ethic 'massive human diebacks would be good' and it follows from this that it would be our duty to cause them!
Many have taken this to be a reductio ad absurdum of the Land Ethic, however. (That is when the conclusion is so absurd that we can use that as an argument to deny the theory that results in that conclusion).
Callicot is one philosopher who tries to fix it up by talking about 'degrees of care'. We have an obligation to close family first, the rest of humanity second, the ecosystem third - or something like that.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 15:27:32
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by Larry Hoover on February 28, 2005, at 22:00:54
> Wake up, shake my head, and declare, "That was some dream!".
:-)
If only we could always do that...
Posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:01:19
In reply to Re: Six » Rach, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:40:00
Ok. So we are morally responsible for our 'actions' but not our 'inactions'?? Is that the rationale?
'Letting die' is okay?
What if you are standing on the bank of a river. You are a strong swimmer. A child is drowning. If you jump in you can save the child, if you do not then the child will die. Is it morally acceptable to 'do nothing' in this case???
No, it's not acceptable to me to do nothing in this case. The difference is, that by acting in the train case, I deliberately cause death. By acting to save the child, the result is positive. I wasn't saying that we aren't morally responsible for our inactions - instead we are responsible for the consequences of our actions.
In the train case, by changing course, it means you're responsible for taking a human life.
Posted by rainbowbrite on March 2, 2005, at 1:15:01
In reply to Re: (1) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 18:00:38
if I am the one person....I think hit the other six
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:20:09
In reply to Re: Six, posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:01:19
> No, it's not acceptable to me to do nothing in this case. The difference is, that by acting in the train case, I deliberately cause death.
Yes. Though you are also fully aware of the consequences of your inaction... You could say that you deliberately cause their death via inaction.
I agree that there is an intuitively appealing difference between pulling a trigger - and standing by and letting someone else pull a trigger, for example. But I don't know... Is there really a morally relevant difference? Do we (morally) condemn those who stood by and watched less than those who pulled the trigger themselves?? If so then how much less? If you could work out a weighting for 'how much less' you could figure that in to a utilitarian calculation. If we decided for instance that standing by and watching is half as bad as committing the deed oneself then can we go 1+1+1+1+1=2.5 (because 1 person being allowed to die = .5) While committing the deed oneself is 1=1? Does this seem overly silly???
What would that imply for the train case???
>instead we are responsible for the consequences of our actions.
Are we also responsible for the consequences of our inactions when there is something that we could have done to save them but didn't??
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:23:03
In reply to Alexandra! » alexandra_k, posted by rainbowbrite on March 2, 2005, at 1:15:01
> if I am the one person....I think hit the other six
> :-)Heh heh. You would get on well with my office mate the egoist :-)
We may well be allowed to take a special interest in our own survival.. It would seem 'rational' to do so, and some (though not many) have argued that it may be ethical as well...
I am the opposite. If I am the one I say 'hit me!'. But then I don't see why my clinicians won't take pity on me and give me a lethal injection :-(
I am half-joking...
Posted by rainbowbrite on March 2, 2005, at 9:42:24
In reply to Re: Alexandra! » rainbowbrite, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:23:03
>Heh heh. You would get on well with my office mate the egoist :-)
HAHAHAHA That is the theory I believe HAHA
>We may well be allowed to take a special interest in our own survival.. It would seem 'rational' to do so, and some (though not many) have argued that it may be ethical as well...
If I am the one it is absolutely the most ethical decision LOL
interesting though, youd think it would the most ethical decision in that situation. Especially if Im the one HAHAHA>I am the opposite. If I am the one I say 'hit me!'. But then I don't see why my clinicians won't take pity on me and give me a lethal injection :-(
I am half-joking...
Alexandra don't say that... I hope your joking :(
Posted by Damos on March 2, 2005, at 16:49:41
In reply to Re: (1) A real life example:, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:34:46
> People in prison camps in Nazi Germany were sometimes given choices such as 'shoot your son' or 'we will shoot your son and 6 other people as well'.
>
> So cases like this are not wholley contrived...Sorry it's taken me so long to find it but I think that this example is best described in "Man's Search for Meaning" by "Victor Frankl"
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.