• 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!

The Murder Dilemma (an ethics question)

What would you do?

  • Total voters
    26
newpublius said:
The decision is a no brainier.
Click to expand...

Not for me, it's not. It would all depend on how clearly I can see the person tied up on the tracks. If I can see their eyes, looking at me, especially if it's a very young person, there's no way I'm pulling that switch. At that point the people on the train are abstract entities. The person on the tracks, however, is very real.
 
I wish freshman classes would shoot everyone that refused to switch the tracks and get on with the semester.
 
I don't know what I would do.

Perhaps if the train was traveling very slowly, I'd let it derail....but that's still a ****-ton of momentum.

Thinking about it at this moment, I think I would probably switch the track and hate myself for the rest of my life for killing that guy, no matter how reasonable it was.

But I have no idea how I would react in that situation.
 
Let the train continue. I'd feel less guilty about it, and would be less likely to be held legally liable.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Consider the following scenario:

You are in a tower at a rail yard where you can control one switch. A train full of passengers is approaching the fork in the tracks with that switch. You cannot leave the tower or call anyone until the train passes.

On one track, a person is tied to the rails. The other track is damaged. If you do nothing, the train will continue onto the damaged track and derail. Many of the passengers and crew will be killed as a result.

If you switch the train onto the other track, it will pass safely onto its destination, but it will kill the person tied to the tracks.

It's your decision . . .

[Additional details: (1) Once the train passes the fork in the tracks, it can’t be stopped until it hits the person who’s tied up or derails. (2) Switching the tracks isn't actually your job; you just happen to be in the tower because of a set of random circumstances. (3) The person on the tracks was already tied to them when you got there.]
Click to expand...

Not enough information. Who is on the tracks? Who is on the train? Where is the train coming from? Where is it going to?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Consider the following scenario:

You are in a tower at a rail yard where you can control one switch. A train full of passengers is approaching the fork in the tracks with that switch. You cannot leave the tower or call anyone until the train passes.

On one track, a person is tied to the rails. The other track is damaged. If you do nothing, the train will continue onto the damaged track and derail. Many of the passengers and crew will be killed as a result.

If you switch the train onto the other track, it will pass safely onto its destination, but it will kill the person tied to the tracks.

It's your decision . . .

[Additional details: (1) Once the train passes the fork in the tracks, it can’t be stopped until it hits the person who’s tied up or derails. (2) Switching the tracks isn't actually your job; you just happen to be in the tower because of a set of random circumstances. (3) The person on the tracks was already tied to them when you got there.]
Click to expand...



I have no idea how this ever became an ethics problem or how "murder" got involved. It is not murder in any court in the land unless there is pre-determinned intent.

Secondly, this is actually a logic question used in psychological testing. There is no "correct" or answer free from some personal onus, and as a moral question where it is designed to test psychological reasoning. It is not designed to be a "yes" or "no" answer, but one in which the participant must explain his choice.
 
Dont shift the tracks. The people on the train have a fighting chance, there's no way to estimate the harm, and lots of "miraculous survival stories" always emerge. The 'power of life and death' here is in the hands of physics and God, not me. Each of those people has a chance.

Shift the tracks and kill the single person and altho the authorities wont likely charge you, the family will bring a civil suit if they can IMO.
 
I'd do nothing...since my great, great, great, great............great grandson would appear from the future - having fulfilled my request in my will that when future generations develop time travel and a teleportation device, that they would come back and save this person - and untie and remove the lone person from the tracks.

Problem solved.


Then he would give me all the NCAA/NFL football scores for the weeks I requested so I could bet on them and become a billionaire.
 
Last edited:
DifferentDrummr said:
The only way the answers to those questions can matter is if you're placing different amounts of value on the lives of different people.
Click to expand...

People I care about. Sub-humans like Liberals and other socialist types, not so much.

If the train was going from Dallas to Phoenix, I might save it. If it was going from LA to San Francisco, I would go get some drinks and party as it burned.
 
Fearandloathing said:
I have no idea how this ever became an ethics problem or how "murder" got involved. It is not murder in any court in the land unless there is pre-determinned intent.

Secondly, this is actually a logic question used in psychological testing. There is no "correct" or answer free from some personal onus, and as a moral question where it is designed to test psychological reasoning. It is not designed to be a "yes" or "no" answer, but one in which the participant must explain his choice.
Click to expand...

The fact that this question tests psychological reasoning doesn't necessarily mean that it has no ethical component to it.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Consider the following scenario:

You are in a tower at a rail yard where you can control one switch. A train full of passengers is approaching the fork in the tracks with that switch. You cannot leave the tower or call anyone until the train passes.

On one track, a person is tied to the rails. The other track is damaged. If you do nothing, the train will continue onto the damaged track and derail. Many of the passengers and crew will be killed as a result.

If you switch the train onto the other track, it will pass safely onto its destination, but it will kill the person tied to the tracks.

It's your decision . . .

[Additional details: (1) Once the train passes the fork in the tracks, it can’t be stopped until it hits the person who’s tied up or derails. (2) Switching the tracks isn't actually your job; you just happen to be in the tower because of a set of random circumstances. (3) The person on the tracks was already tied to them when you got there.]
Click to expand...

switch the track and sleep well at night, I caused the least harm.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Technically, if you flip that switch, you're murdering the person on the tracks, no matter how you look at it.
Click to expand...

No, not even "technically". The person who tied the victim to the tracks is on the hook for murder. All the switcher is, is a person with a mildly tough choice.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Consider the following scenario:

You are in a tower at a rail yard where you can control one switch. A train full of passengers is approaching the fork in the tracks with that switch. You cannot leave the tower or call anyone until the train passes.

On one track, a person is tied to the rails. The other track is damaged. If you do nothing, the train will continue onto the damaged track and derail. Many of the passengers and crew will be killed as a result.

If you switch the train onto the other track, it will pass safely onto its destination, but it will kill the person tied to the tracks.

It's your decision . . .

[Additional details: (1) Once the train passes the fork in the tracks, it can’t be stopped until it hits the person who’s tied up or derails. (2) Switching the tracks isn't actually your job; you just happen to be in the tower because of a set of random circumstances. (3) The person on the tracks was already tied to them when you got there.]
Click to expand...

Give Popeye his can of spinach.
 
Switch the track if there were no other options e.g., stopping the train. One would be minimizing harm by doing so.

A decision not to switch tracks or "walking out" (in effect a decision to maintain the train's current course) would be a choice to maximize harm.
 
when a Sargent sends his men to fight is it murder when you know it is a no win situation.. is it murder when we drop bombs on an army and innocent people get killed in this case it is collateral damage
 
DVSentinel said:
Until you find out that the next Hitler, Stalin or similar was on board at the time.
Click to expand...
That's kinda a bull**** argument though - how could you possibly know that the future Hitler 2.0 was aboard, let alone that he/she WAS such?
 
plutonium said:
when a Sargent sends his men to fight is it murder when you know it is a no win situation.. is it murder when we drop bombs on an army and innocent people get killed in this case it is collateral damage
Click to expand...
"Collateral damage" is a bull**** term.

Call it what it is - "acceptable killing".
 
plutonium said:
when a Sargent sends his men to fight is it murder when you know it is a no win situation.. is it murder when we drop bombs on an army and innocent people get killed in this case it is collateral damage
Click to expand...

War itself is a murder contest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom