Ethics test

[MplsBison]

A train is about to run over three people tied to a railroad track.

A fourth person is tied to a parallel railroad track.

You know nothing about the 4 people.


It is within your ability and time to switch the railroad track from the track with three people to the track with only one person.

All other possible options are not within your ability or time.

The switch will work 100%.



Do you:

1) do nothing

2) switch the track

[Morality Games]

If I had no immediate knowledge of the type of character each of these four persons embody, I would move the train to run over the lone individual, since, on basis of the knowledge available to me at the time, I made the best decision possible. Quality usually trumps quantity, but in life-or-death situations where quality is uncertain, quantity is a suitable estimation of who deserves to live more.

[lsbskins1]

Given that the variables of the situation are infinite even as presented (start spinning them in your mind now - 1) switch is faulty, makes train jump track and everyone on train dies 2) single man is brilliant research scientist who would have found cure for cancer 3)one of three men on other side was Hitler like character that goes on to murder millions because you save him) and no human could ever be expected to calculate or anticipate every possible outcome, I go with throwing the switch and hoping to minimize the pain and suffering of the day. All you can do is the best you can with the options given. Save the three.

[MplsBison]

Ok I edited it to consider both of your excellent points.

[Chancellor]

So, since this is supposedly an "ethics test," who gets to decide which answer makes a person more ethical or less ethical?

[MplsBison]

Neither answer means you're more or less ethical than anyone else.

[Muckraker]

I would let the train run over the three people, then I would flip the switch, radio the train engineer, and ask him to back up.

I don't like to play favorites.

[Walrus]

I would probably go for the greatest good for the greatest number approach and save the three, but that doesn’t mean I would always support that ethical doctrine.

[caphis]

I've done this one before. My decision was to throw the switch, and kill one person vs. three, for the reasons stated herein. I don't know any of them, and I'm just as likely to be saving Hitler as I am to be killing him. It's a quantitative decision entirely since I have no other information to go on.

The best argument against this decision was that by throwing the switch, you are no longer passive in the situation, and you are taking action to kill one person. If you did nothing, you could better argue that you aren't responsible for their deaths because you didn't take an action against them.

My view, though, is that using that argument is a cop out. In that scenario, you are *choosing* to take no action -- thus, you've actually taken an active role in making the choice, while trying to justify the outcome.

So, I'd throw the switch, and close my eyes.

[Muckraker]

What if it was a choice between three strangers on the default track and your beloved family dog tied to the alternate track?

[Michael Raizer]

The question when it is taken to the core level is, should lives be weighed on a number scale? Is three lives worth more than one? Does that one person have any less of a right to live than the other three people combined? The other core question is is it ethical to kill one to save many, because it is arguable that by making a decision to flip the switch to save the three, you also make the decision to kill the one. This hypothetical ethical riddle has been around for ages, but there is also a second part to it that further delves into the core question. Please don't linger on the the ridiculous situation proposed: There are three people tied to the tracks, and one man walking beside the tracks. If for a fact that if you pushed that man onto the tracks, it would stop the train before killing the three would you do so? Once again an even more ridiculous scenario, but it just boils down to the basic question should you kill one to save more than one.

[jumph1gh]

I would pick the 3 people to save and 1 person to die. I think of it more as would I save the 1 person and make him/her burden the fact that 3 people died because of him/her? It WOULD be better in my perspective to carry a burden of 1 person death on 3 serperate people rather than 3 people's death on 1 person.

[caphis]

Quote by: Michael Raizer The question when it is taken to the core level is, should lives be weighed on a number scale?

Absolutely, when you know nothing else at all. Since this hypothetical bars us from knowing anything qualitative about the people involved, our only choice is to make a quantitative decision.

Is three lives worth more than one?

I'm not content to say this universally, but in general, I think so.

Does that one person have any less of a right to live than the other three people combined?

They all have an equal right to live. But if one or three must die, it's much harder to make a case for killing three.

There are three people tied to the tracks, and one man walking beside the tracks. If for a fact that if you pushed that man onto the tracks, it would stop the train before killing the three would you do so?

Probably not. I seem to have misread the OP's scenario slightly -- the version I'm more familiar with defines you as the driver of the locomotive, thus forcing you into a decision making role. If you're a bystander to the situation, I don't think you have a moral responsibility to impose yourself on the scenario and take action, but I don't think I could judge anyone who would take action as being any "less moral." After all, even as a bystander, one could argue that by choosing not to act, you're choosing to allow the other three to die.

That decision, though, I think is better left up to the individual walking along the track. Would I push someone? Most likely not. Would I jump? Probably, *if* I knew that a) I would be successful in stopping the train and b) the only other loss would be the train itself (ie: no other passengers aboard, not carrying secret launch codes for nuclear countermeasures... you get the idea).

[Domino]

It might be interesting to try variants with leading descriptives: the single guy is wearing a suit and tie, while the three guys are dressed like hobos... or vice-versa. I wonder just what it takes for people to make a judgment based on appearance.

[Compugasm]

You mean, there wouldn't be enough time, to free the person on the single track, AND throw the switch to the now empty track?

[chrisphd]

If one flips the switch to kill the single person, could he be charged with murder?

[thx1138]

What should I do in the mean time?

Nothing.

[Morality Games]

Quote by: chrisphd If one flips the switch to kill the single person, could he be charged with murder?

It would be difficult to charge them with any crime, since they could claim not to have known there was a single person on the other track, and convinction requires convincing evidence. Anyway, the state and families would be far more likely to pursue charges against the person or persons who tied the people to the tracks, not the person who made the obvious moral choice.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: chrisphd If one flips the switch to kill the single person, could he be charged with murder?

Possibly.

That would be a risk you would have to consider in your decision.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Compugasm You mean, there wouldn't be enough time, to free the person on the single track, AND throw the switch to the now empty track?

That's not up for debate.


The scenario is exactly as it's read.