• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would you kill one person to help many others?

Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?
I don't operate trains, your question is invalid.

Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?
A fat man wouldn't stop a train going that speed. Regardless of his mass, the tensile strength of the human body is not going to provide enough resistance to stop the force and mass of a train.

Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?
I would tell him to stop vandalizing public property. My tax dollars paid for that ****, and this town is crappy enough.
 
I said No to answer number 1--it is not immoral. It is the difference between being passive and being proactive in killing people. Besides, 1 person dead won't make the front page--5 people dead will cause them to maintain them brakes better and make it seem like a worse accident for when I sue for my whiplash.
 
I would start selling tickets to people nearby to "Watch the train crash! Any second now! Get your tickets here!! Can't watch the crash without a ticket! Only $25 for a limited time only!!"


:mrgreen: :lamo
 
I would start selling tickets to people nearby to "Watch the train crash! Any second now! Get your tickets here!! Can't watch the crash without a ticket! Only $25 for a limited time only!!"


:mrgreen: :lamo

They already have something like that, it's called NASCAR.
 
They already have something like that, it's called NASCAR.


Yeah most people watch for the crashes.

Well, I do anyway. :)
 
How about we consider some scenarios that are a smidge more realistic than pushing over men fat enough to stop trains?


There's been a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or some kind of global castastrophe of whichever flavor you prefer. You find yourself a few weeks later as the nominal leader of a small band of 25 survivors. You've scavenged as much food as you can find from the area and are planting some crops. You're doing some hunting and trapping too, but it isn't all that productive because everybody and his brother was hunting Bambi until the die-off was over.


So... you're plowing and will start planting soon, but it will be a few months before any crops are ripe enough to harvest. You inventory your food supplies... uh oh, not so good. You have enough food to provide the minimal rations needed to keep 15 people fit enough to work the fields and man the guardposts for the time that will pass until you begin to harvest... but you have 25 people. If you try to feed EVERYONE, the odds are that NO ONE will get enough food to stay healthy and do the back-breaking labor required to grow and harvest the crops and defend them... possibly everyone could die if you try to feed all.

What are you going to do?

Here are your more obvious options...

1. Kick ten people out of the group; put them on the road with a few items you can spare and wish them good luck, and try not to think about how they're likely to die horribly by starvation or disease or bandits or something.
a. if you choose this option, what are your selection criteria for who you put out? Those least able to work? (ie young children, old or sickly) Those with the least useful skills? etc?
c. You have your own 3yo child and your elderly and mostly disabled mother with you... do you use your authoritah to protect them, or are they subject to exile if they can't pull their weight?

2. Frack it, I'm feeding everybody, if we all die then we just do. We'll try to scavenge more food, or hunt more or something...
b. ...but what if after a few weeks it isn't working, and hardly anyone has the strength to tend the fields? Will you change your plan?


3. There may be other small groups out there trying to farm or something for survival... if you can locate them and find a group smaller than yours, you could raid them and take their food by force, and use it to feed your group. This is probably going to involve killing people who are essentially innocent and simply trying to survive just like you... but it if it you or them, who will you choose?

4. The 12 best workers (or most important skillsets, etc) get a full ration... everybody else gets 1/4 ration, and if they get sick and die well that's too bad, I tried.
a. How will you handle it if the people on quarter ration get so mad with hunger that they try to take more food, by force if they must?

Now question number 2... what if you WERENT the leader, and instead YOU got selected for exile or starvation-rations? Would you cooperate with the leader's decision on what was best for the group, or would you rebel and fight to take over? What if YOU were not put out, but instead your wife/husband/child/parent were selected for exile?

Now THERE's a nice dilemma... have fun... :mrgreen:
 
1. Kick ten people out of the group; put them on the road with a few items you can spare and wish them good luck, and try not to think about how they're likely to die horribly by starvation or disease or bandits or something.
a. if you choose this option, what are your selection criteria for who you put out? Those least able to work? (ie young children, old or sickly) Those with the least useful skills? etc?
c. You have your own 3yo child and your elderly and mostly disabled mother with you... do you use your authoritah to protect them, or are they subject to exile if they can't pull their weight?

2. Frack it, I'm feeding everybody, if we all die then we just do. We'll try to scavenge more food, or hunt more or something...
b. ...but what if after a few weeks it isn't working, and hardly anyone has the strength to tend the fields? Will you change your plan?


3. There may be other small groups out there trying to farm or something for survival... if you can locate them and find a group smaller than yours, you could raid them and take their food by force, and use it to feed your group. This is probably going to involve killing people who are essentially innocent and simply trying to survive just like you... but it if it you or them, who will you choose?

4. The 12 best workers (or most important skillsets, etc) get a full ration... everybody else gets 1/4 ration, and if they get sick and die well that's too bad, I tried.
a. How will you handle it if the people on quarter ration get so mad with hunger that they try to take more food, by force if they must?

Now question number 2... what if you WERENT the leader, and instead YOU got selected for exile or starvation-rations? Would you cooperate with the leader's decision on what was best for the group, or would you rebel and fight to take over? What if YOU were not put out, but instead your wife/husband/child/parent were selected for exile?

Now THERE's a nice dilemma... have fun... :mrgreen:

For question one, I'd say a combination of 1 and 3.

1a is easy, you kick out the freeloaders, the whiners, and the problematic upstarts. If they don't go quietly, you make examples of them. This is survival, not patty-cake and rainbows time. They can go plague the other groups of survivors for all I care. I won't have dissenters destroying the morale of the group, while getting fat off the labor of others. Kids stay, because they're needed to carry on after we pass. The elderly stay because they have valuable information from their advanced years. Keeping them safe and sheltered is the least we can do in exchange.

1c You're damn right I use my authority to protect them. They're blood, and every organism fights to protect their own, no matter how anyone wants to rationalize it away. My kid > than that guy's kid.

As for 3, desperate times call for desperate measures. If we can't grow the food, we would have to negotiate trade. Should negotiations fail, we do what's necessary to survive. When it's us or them, it sucks to be them.

As for question two: Kill the leader, become the leader.
 
There's been a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or some kind of global castastrophe of whichever flavor you prefer. You find yourself a few weeks later as the nominal leader of a small band of 25 survivors. You've scavenged as much food as you can find from the area and are planting some crops. You're doing some hunting and trapping too, but it isn't all that productive because everybody and his brother was hunting Bambi until the die-off was over.

What are you going to do?

1. Reproduction would be the most important aspect to consider, IMO. All women who can still reproduce would be top priority (assuming they're all also healthy enough to work) followed by younger men, since their rate of mutation is less than old men. Hopefully, children could live on smaller rations and should be given high priority as well. We're back to the old "women and children first" ideal.

Other considerations, which change from scenario to scenario, would be specialists. If there's only one farmer, even if he's old he would still be very valuable. Same goes for one medical person and so on. A sniper might even be given consideration if banditry is a problem, especially if there's a good rifle available. (Bullets may be in short supply, no use wasting them.) One of almost any very valuable specialty is good to have. More than one, not so much.


2. If I'm one of the older men and have no particular specialty (or one that can by taught in a short time) then, yes, I would volunteer to join the group leaving.
 
Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.

Ahhhhhh- good ole deontological ethics. ;)

No
No
No

I'm not one who believes that the ends justify the means, and that one man's life is worth less than the collective lives of five men.
 
Damn, that's a tough one. I'm reminded of the saying "The needs of the many outway the needs of the few."

but could I really do it? Condemn a man to death just to save some people who I don't know, or the person I'm sentencing to death may not even know?

No matter which route I took, it'd probably be my biggest regret.

It would be. Those decisions can stay with you in crystal clarity.
 
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:


Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?

If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')

Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?

If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)

Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?



Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.

Yes, no, yes.
 
How about we consider some scenarios that are a smidge more realistic than pushing over men fat enough to stop trains?


There's been a nuclear war, or an asteroid strike, or some kind of global castastrophe of whichever flavor you prefer. You find yourself a few weeks later as the nominal leader of a small band of 25 survivors. You've scavenged as much food as you can find from the area and are planting some crops. You're doing some hunting and trapping too, but it isn't all that productive because everybody and his brother was hunting Bambi until the die-off was over.


So... you're plowing and will start planting soon, but it will be a few months before any crops are ripe enough to harvest. You inventory your food supplies... uh oh, not so good. You have enough food to provide the minimal rations needed to keep 15 people fit enough to work the fields and man the guardposts for the time that will pass until you begin to harvest... but you have 25 people. If you try to feed EVERYONE, the odds are that NO ONE will get enough food to stay healthy and do the back-breaking labor required to grow and harvest the crops and defend them... possibly everyone could die if you try to feed all.

What are you going to do?

Here are your more obvious options...

1. Kick ten people out of the group; put them on the road with a few items you can spare and wish them good luck, and try not to think about how they're likely to die horribly by starvation or disease or bandits or something.
a. if you choose this option, what are your selection criteria for who you put out? Those least able to work? (ie young children, old or sickly) Those with the least useful skills? etc?
c. You have your own 3yo child and your elderly and mostly disabled mother with you... do you use your authoritah to protect them, or are they subject to exile if they can't pull their weight?

2. Frack it, I'm feeding everybody, if we all die then we just do. We'll try to scavenge more food, or hunt more or something...
b. ...but what if after a few weeks it isn't working, and hardly anyone has the strength to tend the fields? Will you change your plan?


3. There may be other small groups out there trying to farm or something for survival... if you can locate them and find a group smaller than yours, you could raid them and take their food by force, and use it to feed your group. This is probably going to involve killing people who are essentially innocent and simply trying to survive just like you... but it if it you or them, who will you choose?

4. The 12 best workers (or most important skillsets, etc) get a full ration... everybody else gets 1/4 ration, and if they get sick and die well that's too bad, I tried.
a. How will you handle it if the people on quarter ration get so mad with hunger that they try to take more food, by force if they must?

Now question number 2... what if you WERENT the leader, and instead YOU got selected for exile or starvation-rations? Would you cooperate with the leader's decision on what was best for the group, or would you rebel and fight to take over? What if YOU were not put out, but instead your wife/husband/child/parent were selected for exile?

Now THERE's a nice dilemma... have fun... :mrgreen:


I would go with a combination of 1 and 3. Send scout parties out to look for other small groups ASAP before we got too weak. Hopefully find a group(s) to raid. And then try to take their food by force. Skilled workers would be kept in reserve if at all possible. There is a good chance that casualties will be incurred by my attack group as well assuaging the existing food supply quandary a tad - even if we only attained minimal resources.

Unfortunately in a survival situation where there are not enough resources to go around our tribal instincts take full control here, those in our tribe are protected, while those outside our tribe are deemed threats to our existence. In a do or die situation then those not in my tribe are not considered innocent anymore. I would fully expect them to come at me in an effort to usurp my resources and insure their survival as well.

If raiding does not ease the problem then it is option 1. Those without vital skills are prioritized to go - but I would also recognize that labor itself can be a vital skill. As such sick and elderly (provided they do not possess a utilitarian skillset) would probably be the first chosen to go. Under no circumstances will children go, they are the future of the colony - and the heirs to the skills needed for its survival. Unfortunately disabled mother would not get an exemption (She would probably be insisting this is the case as well - I will be VERY tempted to leave with her however - others can take up the mantle of leadership if that is all I have to offer)
 
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:


Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?

If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')

Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?

If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)

Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?



Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.

Are we allowed to defy the Laws of Physics in Case #2?
 
The OP is a lose-lose situation really. Do nothing and people die. Do something and people die.

I think when it comes down to the crunch your body will take over and make you decide regardless of what your rationale might be. And frankly, this kind of semantic debate is more aptly conducted in the comfort of one's own home. In a real life or death situation, you would probably decide on a whim for completely arbitrary reasons.

Karmically speaking, doing nothing would mean you are not responsible for any deaths, and the technological error would be.
 
Last edited:
The OP is a lose-lose situation really. Do nothing and people die. Do something and people die.

I think when it comes down to the crunch your body will take over and make you decide regardless of what your rationale might be. And frankly, this kind of semantic debate is more aptly conducted in the comfort of one's own home. In a real life or death situation, you would probably decide on a whim for completely arbitrary reasons.

Karmically speaking, doing nothing would mean you are not responsible for any deaths, and the technological error would be.

The decision should be made, although it's a lose-lose, in favor of the greatest good possible, which means killing one in favor of many.

That being said however, I agree that each person's decision would be vastly altered if the one person in any scenario were a family member or dear friend, etc.

Karmically speaking, could it be bad karma to not act? I think so.
 
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:


Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?

If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')

Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?

If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)

Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?



Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.

You should have just linked the video where you got this from. Or mentioned Philippa Foot?

On a side note a longtime ago I heard the Trolley problem raised in class and a classmate offered her solution one that had never crossed my mind, she suggested that suicide was the only answer. It still boggles my mind that she came up with that as a solution to the problem. She was asked what would suicide accomplish people would die and you would be dead? She said that it wouldnt matter then now would it since the observer was dead. At first I thought her answer was stupid, but over time I have come to realize that she had a sound philosophical argument that should have been explored. I still think that suicide is stupid, but in this instance she removed the observer therefor eliminating a moral problem. Suicide in that case was a personal moral decision even though someone else still died the observer no longer was the person being affected. It is actually a solution while staying alive and needing to make a choice is void of a correct answer, either way the observer had to live with their choice. And spend the rest of that life debating whether the right choice was made. Not a moral solution at all really.
 
Last edited:
If the two later cases happen you will be in big trouble.

If you commit murder you're in trouble anyway, regardless of whether it was necessary.
 
Hi everybody,
I am an adolescence who is about to start my own life. Because of my lack of experience, I am often faced with convoluted dilemmas (some of which I do find intriguing). Here's a supposition which I'd like to listen to your advice about. I appreciate any help from the experienced. :mrgreen:


Case 1: You are riding a train on a subway with the speed of 96km/h. You realize that the brake is broken, and there are 5 workers ahead of you. As you feel helpless against the forthcoming accident, you notice another route, where there is only 1 worker. Would you take that route to prevent the death of 5 people, in exchange for the life of 1?

If your answer is 'Yes', continue reading. (If you say 'no', there is nothing to discuss here. But logically I think you should say 'yes')

Case 2: A train moving at the speed of 96km/h with its brake broken is approach. This time you are not the driver, but a pedestrian who stands on a bridge above the subway. This time there is no extra route, and the 5 workers ahead of the train are in danger. You notice that there is a very fat man standing next to you. If you push him down the bridge, he can stop the train and save the workers (you are too slim to stop the train by yourself). Would you push him?

If your answer is 'No', continue reading. (If you say 'yes', well nothing's wrong with it. But I do feel it is too much sinful an action to kill someone by your own hands. I expect that you understand me too)

Case 3: The situation is pretty much similar to case 2. But this time you notice that the fence which the fat man leans on is about to break (because of his weight, perhaps). If you stay quiet the man will soon fall off and therefore stop the train. You can still save the man by warning him. Would you warn him?



Please tell me your answer to each question and, if possible, give detailed explanation. I asked my friends and all of them said 'Yes, No, Yes', which surprises me that people tend to choose only one of two actions that ironically have the same cause and consequence. Also, this is not a real situation, which means that many uncertainties are eliminated so as for us to focus on what is right and wrong only.

Case 1: Yes.

Case 2: It would never work, I am fatter than him, and even if I was too thin, how the hell could I push him over the railing? If I were somehow granted a vision that it would work regardless, then yes.

Case 3: If he is dumb enough to lean on something that is breaking as we speak, which you would definitely feel before others would see, he's too stupid to live anyway. But, as would never work in reality, I would warn him because I am not a big fan of watching fat men be splattered in front of trains. I would sooner yell to the workers to warn them, in case they could not already hear or see the train.
 
No because, the single man was a nuclear physicist who was about to make a major breakthrough that would benefit the whole world. He was working on a paper about cold fusion. If he lives it will benefit the entire planet. Or as Jesus would say, the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.
 
No. BTW we are not supposed to be on the train, we are supposed to be at the switch by the track.

The reason to say 'no' is because tripping the switch is a conscious action, the person that died would be a direct reaction to your action. You murdered that guy. If you do nothing then no one would have expected you to murder that guy since you had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. As far as you know the 5 other guys were waiting to the last second to jump out of the way. Perhaps it is a game that they all play? Even the single guy on the other track was in on the game. You fool!
 
No. BTW we are not supposed to be on the train, we are supposed to be at the switch by the track.

The reason to say 'no' is because tripping the switch is a conscious action, the person that died would be a direct reaction to your action. You murdered that guy. If you do nothing then no one would have expected you to murder that guy since you had nothing to do with the problem in the first place. As far as you know the 5 other guys were waiting to the last second to jump out of the way. Perhaps it is a game that they all play? Even the single guy on the other track was in on the game. You fool!

Murder requires an intent to kill, or at least an intent to inflict serious bodily harm. So flipping the switch would be materially manslaughter, however such can be justified by a necessity defense.
 
Yes, I would kill someone, however, it would have to be Rich Little.
 
Murder requires an intent to kill, or at least an intent to inflict serious bodily harm. So flipping the switch would be materially manslaughter, however such can be justified by a necessity defense.

The intent of flipping the switch is to kill a innocent bystander. There is no necessity in killing a innocent bystander. If no one was at the switch the innocent bystander would not be harmed much less killed. To flip the switch you have to intentionally decide to kill a person and act on it. To not flip the switch you have to make action at all. Sure it might be through neglect people died but out of necessity to save the innocent person that would have died had you acted.


There really isnt a morally correct answer to the question and the legality is a bit gray. Of course at speed though flipping the switch might derail the train if it isnt done in time or correctly. Potentially killing many more people. Not to mention I believe it is a federal crime to screw with the switches on train tracks.

Best option yell really loud and hope they hear you, because in court that yell will show a intention to save lives. Probably no manslaughter or any charges because unless you are trained to change a train track no one would expect you to know how.
 
The intent of flipping the switch is to kill a innocent bystander. There is no necessity in killing a innocent bystander. If no one was at the switch the innocent bystander would not be harmed much less killed. To flip the switch you have to intentionally decide to kill a person and act on it. To not flip the switch you have to make action at all. Sure it might be through neglect people died but out of necessity to save the innocent person that would have died had you acted.


There really isnt a morally correct answer to the question and the legality is a bit gray. Of course at speed though flipping the switch might derail the train if it isnt done in time or correctly. Potentially killing many more people. Not to mention I believe it is a federal crime to screw with the switches on train tracks.

Best option yell really loud and hope they hear you, because in court that yell will show a intention to save lives. Probably no manslaughter or any charges because unless you are trained to change a train track no one would expect you to know how.

No, when one flips the switch in the classic hypothetical (excluding variations such as when the train is on a loop), one does not intend harm on the one person, rather one's intention is to change the train's direction away from the five, and the one person is immaterial to one's intention. Also, necessity would be a defense to federal charges regarding interference with the train track.

It occurs to me, we may be working with different definitions of murder (as opposed to manslaughter). New Mexico regards the knowing killing of a person as second-degree murder, even if no harm was intended. Most states however, regard such an act as voluntary manslaughter. So while most states I believe would considered the act justified by necessity (since the relevant charge would be manslaughter), I'm not sure about New Mexico, since the common law rule is that necessity is no defense to murder, but that rule was developed using the less inclusive definition of murder.
 
No, No and Yes, respectively. If I'm gonna play God, I ought to at least have the option of stopping the train. Denied that, I'm unqualified to weigh the value of complete strangers. Five or five million, it makes no difference. Fat boy's impending predicament doesn't fall beyond my sphere of influence; hence, there's no moral conflict, the examples being inapplicable to each other.
 
Back
Top Bottom