• 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?

Y

youthpassion

New member
Joined
Mar 17, 2013
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
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.
 
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.
 
Thank you Jredbaron96. What do you think about case 3? My friends say that they at least feel less sinful when they let the fat man fall because, well, it's part of his fault to stand there in the first place. But basically it's no different from attempted murder...
Also let me clarify this: I did say all the uncertainties were eliminated, such as: can you really push a man who is big enough to stop a train? what if that man reacts and ends up falling off the subway? what if the workers notice the train and manage to escape after you push the man? ... If the two later cases happen you will be in big trouble. But here we only consider these possibilities:
* You do nothing, the fat man lives, the 5 workers die
* You push the fat man, he dies and 5 workers live

Please go on with the discussion. ^^
 
such questions cant be given answers unless we experience the event at first hand .but in case 3 ,l would warn him..

quick and vital decisions are made during the case in my opinion.
 
Whew... tough one. I really don't know.

The main dilemma here is the difference between people dying by chance, and me going out of my way to kill them -- which applies in both scenarios 1 and 2.

Is it ultimately less bad for one person to die over 5? Theoretically, if you think of people like oranges. But when did human value become a numbers game?

Until I can answer that question, I can't come up with a response that doesn't feel wrong. And as such, I have to assume I would have to let things unfold as they will.

What I think I can live with is also a consideration here, and my life has value too.
 
It is a poorly worded question. What is missing is:
1. That other people are on the subway.
2. that everyone will die if the subway isn't stopped.
3. The other error is it talks about saving lives, but doesn't point out that you are saving your own life too.

Thus, #3, inaction, can not be criticized UNLESS the question is whether a person must sacrifice his/her own life to save the life of a stranger as a 1 on 1 exchange. Would you morally have to stop the person from falling, which you didn't cause, knowing that doing so will cause your own death? In a sense, that would be pro-action suicide to save 1 stranger - and if others doomed on the train would be pro-actively committing suicide and causing many strangers to die to save 1 stranger. That would just be bizarro morality. Kill yourself and lots of other people on behalf of 1 person?

The moral dilemna could be worded better.
 
if in the unfortunate situation of piloting a train with no brakes, i'd lay on the horn and try to hurt or kill as few people as possible.

i wouldn't push the overweight man to stop the train, and i'd probably warn him that he was about to fall on the tracks, assuming i didn't freeze up from shock about what was about to happen.

the difference is that in scenario number one, i am in direct control. in the other two, i'm not.
 
joko104 said:
It is a poorly worded question. What is missing is:
1. That other people are on the subway.
2. that everyone will die if the subway isn't stopped.
3. The other error is it talks about saving lives, but doesn't point out that you are saving your own life too.

Thus, #3, inaction, can not be criticized UNLESS the question is whether a person must sacrifice his/her own life to save the life of a stranger as a 1 on 1 exchange. Would you morally have to stop the person from falling, which you didn't cause, knowing that doing so will cause your own death? In a sense, that would be pro-action suicide to save 1 stranger - and if others doomed on the train would be pro-actively committing suicide and causing many strangers to die to save 1 stranger. That would just be bizarro morality. Kill yourself and lots of other people on behalf of 1 person?

The moral dilemna could be worded better.
Click to expand...


Many thanks to your advice. I intend to use this situation for further discussion, so, if possible, would you help me make a better version of it?
I still don't get what you mean by 'saving your own life'. As far as I understand, in neither of the three cases is the life of the observer (which is us) concerned.

Also I'm not trying to put you into a dilemma here. This situation is clearly a stalemate and since many uncertainties are eliminated, it is also to some extent impractical. What I'd like to know is, if you had little time to think of a solution, would your answer be 'Yes, No, Yes' like most people's, and what makes this yes/no difference even though what you are doing is basically the same: sacrifice one person to save the lives of others.


I'm thinking that most people wouldn't push the fat man in case 2 because he is not a pro-active ; in other words, he is not willing to get involved in this accident. Railway workers, however, are well informed of the unexpected danger they may face while working in the subway, and therefore killing them (I'm referring to the one worker in the second route) seems like a better solution. What do you think about this?
 
youthpassion said:
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')
Click to expand...

(Probably) 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)
Click to expand...

No.

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?
Click to expand...

No.

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.
Click to expand...

Problem with these scenarios if you first have to define what is morally "good" versus what is morally "bad." This will change person-to-person (as is evidenced). One may think saving 5 people over 1 is "good;" another may think infringing on someone else's "right to life" is "bad." Or you can take my position which is that neither is objectively "right" or "wrong" and that those actions just are. Basically it amounts to this: It's all subjective, objectively. ;)
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Problem with these scenarios if you first have to define what is morally "good" versus what is morally "bad." This will change person-to-person (as is evidenced). One may think saving 5 people over 1 is "good;" another may think infringing on someone else's "right to life" is "bad." Or you can take my position which is that neither is objectively "right" or "wrong" and that those actions just are. Basically it amounts to this: It's all subjective, objectively. ;)
Click to expand...

Moral Nihilism is awesome
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
Exactly.
Click to expand...

I found something interesting

Error theory is built by three principles:

1.There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2.Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3.Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely chimerical

Moral nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
youthpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

My first response is - what the hell is an adolescent doing driving a subway train!!!

My answers to the questions is - in case 1 - yes - you know for a fact that your actions will save the lives of five people and there's still chance that you can save the one person on the other route, if time and circumstances permit - in case 2 - no - there is no reasonable expectation that the fat man will stop the speeding train, therefore, to push him in the way of the train is a deliberate act of murder and not an act to save the lives of others - you lacked reason/cause - in case 3 - yes - one must always attempt to save the life of someone if it is within your power to reasonably do so - again, there is no reasonable expectation that the fat man will stop the train and to risk his life in the hope it will affect the train.

I would add, in cases 2 and 3 - there is nothing noble about taking the life of someone else in such a situation - it would be far more noble for you to throw yourself onto the live cable that powers the subway train, thus blowing the circuits and bringing the train to a stop and you will be hailed a hero for giving your life in order to save the lives of others.
 
GEIxBattleRifle said:
I found something interesting

Error theory is built by three principles:

1.There are no moral features in this world; nothing is right or wrong.
2.Therefore no moral judgments are true; however,
3.Our sincere moral judgments try, but always fail, to describe the moral features of things.

Thus, we always lapse into error when thinking in moral terms. We are trying to state the truth when we make moral judgments. But since there is no moral truth, all of our moral claims are mistaken. Hence the error. These three principles lead to the conclusion that there is no moral knowledge. Knowledge requires truth. If there is no moral truth, there can be no moral knowledge. Thus moral values are purely chimerical

Moral nihilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You found Wikipedia? Great.

290simo.jpg
 
CanadaJohn said:
My first response is - what the hell is an adolescent doing driving a subway train!!!

My answers to the questions is - in case 1 - yes - you know for a fact that your actions will save the lives of five people and there's still chance that you can save the one person on the other route, if time and circumstances permit - in case 2 - no - there is no reasonable expectation that the fat man will stop the speeding train, therefore, to push him in the way of the train is a deliberate act of murder and not an act to save the lives of others - you lacked reason/cause - in case 3 - yes - one must always attempt to save the life of someone if it is within your power to reasonably do so - again, there is no reasonable expectation that the fat man will stop the train and to risk his life in the hope it will affect the train.

I would add, in cases 2 and 3 - there is nothing noble about taking the life of someone else in such a situation - it would be far more noble for you to throw yourself onto the live cable that powers the subway train, thus blowing the circuits and bringing the train to a stop and you will be hailed a hero for giving your life in order to save the lives of others.
Click to expand...

Maybe I misunderstood. Am I on a subway that is going to crash due to no brakes and that crash is going to kill everyone including me? Or am I driving the subway and thus picking a route?

If the latter, #1 is easy. Since I HAVE to pick whether 1 or 5 die, obviously a person should minimize how many die. Lack of a decision and a decision both can mean the same way. Either way, I pick how many die.

#2 is no. Under USA laws that would be murder, plus - and this just me - I don't know those people so wouldn't particularly care anyway. But, again, that's just me and many don't share my apathy.
It is important to note, though, you don't say anything about the people. For example, is it 5 children? IF you remove the criminal prosecution and civil liabilities questions (there also are others dependent on me now so liability to me is liability to them too) as strictly a moral question - sure I'd sacrifice a man to save 5 children. I might even sacrifice 5 men to save 1 child. I'm big on children not being hurt and rather indifferent to men being hurt. Again, a personal thing.

#3 is obviously no, I don't warn the fat man. Why would I do that? Because I like fat people most of all?

It is only #1 where I am proactively involved no matter what and I have a duty for that reason. Thus, easily, I mimimize how many die OR I maximize how many die. Otherwise (2 and 3) I'd not inject into it.

In the past I OFTEN COULD inject myself into events to stop people from getting hurt (or hurt more). Unless "one of my own people" or certain senses I have about children and - to a lesser extent women - I had no problem really seeing other people getting hurt. My concern was that it wasn't me. That probably was heightened because in my youth it often was. Later, as an adult, I pretty much didn't care what happened to any man I didn't personally know. He was nothing to me. Literally nothing.
 
Last edited:
Depends on the person. If the one person was my son, all I can say is that lots of mother ****ers gonna die.
 
1) yes. For this one it is a lesser of 2 evils choice. I am struggling a tad to say why this one is more clear cut than scenario 2, but either group of men are potentially in the path of the train, and as such neither would weigh on my conscience too hard as being an "innocent bystander". They are already potentially in harms way. This is a case of choosing between 2 inevitable outcomes and the lesser of 2 evils

2) no. In this scenario it would be my direct actions that cased him to be in the path of the train, he was not in harms way to begin with and as such it would not be a case of choosing between 2 inevitable outcomes, This one would be deliberate. I would be plagued with thoughts that I directly caused his death, that I murdered him.

3) yes. This also plays back to the inevitability of the situation. It was inevitable the man was going to fall (provided I did not step in) already. He was in harms way. The other factor in this decision is action versus inaction. In this case my inaction caused an inevitable outcome, where scenario 2 was dependent on my action. It would still weigh heavily on me, but nowhere near as much as had I deliberately carried out an action that created a death that would not have occurred otherwise. I would be able to live with a man dying because of my inaction much easier than I could live with my actions causing a man to die who would not have died otherwise

edit: And it really is hard for me to claim that my actions would be for altruistic reasons here. Looking at my responses it seems almost selfish that I weigh my choices according to its impact on my conscience. But it is my conscience and the framework of what I deem right and wrong that would shape the decision (I hope) in the spur of the moment as well as the very same conscience that I would have to deal with long term.
 
Last edited:
Ah, the famous train examples...

I think the idea behind the proposal is to show that consequentialism is probably false, since most people's intuitions line up as yes on 1, no on 2 (3 isn't part of the classic problem). Ergo, morality is not a matter of consequences.
 
I have the train question before, but case 3 was a new one for me. I both love and hate these kind of thought experiments. Obviously they don't transition over to the real world becasue in the real world that are far more variables than what than what is provided in thought experiments. The point is to see how your thought process works.

Case 1 - Yes.
Case 2 - No.
Case 3 - This was a new one and the toughest one. If there were no children in the group about to be hit by the train I think I would save the fat guy. He is closer to me in proximity and thus I would probably feel more responsible for taking action. Those five people died as a result of an accident. But the fat guy would die due to my inaction. That is how my brain works it out at least, I know it isn't the only way. If there was a child in the group about to be hit by the train, though, I would probably let the fat man fall.

I have heard Case 3 before, but of a different variety. The question was "There is a fat man standing next to you on the platform who could stop the train ebfore hitting the group of people. Would you push him off." Obvioulsy the vast majority of people say no.
 
youthpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes
Yes, and I'd go with him
No, I would not warn him - and I'd still go with him

Note: This is all predicated on the assumption that the result would be as given. If the outcome was less sure, the answers may not be the same - but that's another discussion.
 
Last edited:
Let's see you say you are an adolescent ready to start your own life. Here's my advice, stay home with mom and and dad and try again in ten years.
 
youthpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...


On my last deployment to Iraq, the convoy I was in was hit by an IED. The bomb hit the vehicle behind mine, which happened to be an Iraqi truck with 5 Iraqi police officers inside and carrying a load of ammo (~20K rounds). The explosion set the truck on fire which started cooking off the ammo. We got out of our vehicle to try to help and bullets were flying in every direction. It would have been suicide to try to reach the truck, since there was no way to eliminate the hail of bullets and no cover between the vehicles. As the senior ranking guy in the convoy, I had to make the decision to pull our guys back into the safety of our vehicles. This meant condemning the Iraqis to certain death. Hardest decision I've ever had to make and it still wakes me up at night on occasion. We found out later, after the investigation, that 3 of the Iraqis had died instantly from the explosion and 1 died very quickly once the ammo started cooking off. The 5th guy survived the initial incident due to being thrown clear of the vehicle and landing in a ditch, but died later from the burns caused by the explosion. That made it a little easier for me to deal with since my action prevented injury or death for our guys in what would have been a futile gesture to rescue dead bodies.
 
youthpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

Fat enough to stop a train going exactly 96 mph? Damn, that's a big fat ass! Anyway...

Case 1: yes.

Case 2: yes.

Case 3: no.

Frankly, some days I would just everyone in front of the train, hoping that it doesn't stop.

Also, if there were ever a man that fat, he would be dead before he hit the train.
 
youthpassion said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. If they're too blind, deaf and stupid to get out of the way of a train then it's Darwin in action
2. If the guy is fat enough to stop a train then how the hell are you going to push him over?
3. Grab video camera. Post video soon to go viral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom