Poll: Question on morality

[HomeAliveIn45]

Recently, I heard on interesting question on Radio Lab [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Lab] (which might sound familiar to you) It has 2 parts to it, so bare with me:

1) You're at a train station. You see 5 men working on a track, oblivious to an oncoming train that will certainly kill them. Next to you is a lever that, if pulled, will re-direct the train onto another track where there is only 1 man working on the track who will also be killed. Do you pull the lever to save the 5?

2) Here, the situation is almost the same. Except you are viewing the train tracks from atop a ledge there is no lever (and so only 1 set of tracks). However, there is a large man standing next to you. And you realize that you could push the man over the ledge in front of the train and save the 5 men. Do you push him?

This is a relatively well known question used by Dr. Joshua Greene of Princeton to determine how the human mind makes morale decisions. In an international test, Greene found that 9/10 people would pull the lever, but 9/10 people would also NOT push the man. Why? What makes the two situations different? Do you know of a similar question?

 

[Susano]

I think I would do both, but since you've given the results to the question, you may have swayed people's (including my) answers.

 

[Dragonrabbit]

I would do both simply because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Although, and maybe I'm over analyzing the second question, couldn't I jump of and stop the train? If that was an option, I would probably do that, on paper anywayz. But I guess if you think about it, it's all well and good on paper to push the man, but actually seeing the face of a human being, and knowing that your killing him, that might change your actions.

Now one for you: if you had an idea for a topic, would you check the search box to see if it had been done before or just post away?

 

[Markness]

how would pushing the man save the five, and I would do both

 

[traceur_]

I would pull the lever and look away before the 1 man was hit, but I wouldn't be able to make the choice to push the man in such a small time.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

This is a relatively well known question used by Dr. Joshua Greene of Princeton to determine how the human mind makes morale decisions. In an international test, Greene found that 9/10 people would pull the lever, but 9/10 people would also NOT push the man. Why? What makes the two situations different? Do you know of a similar question?

The difference is that pushing the man directly makes you his murderer. The pulling of the lever might make you the killer of the single man on the track, but you kill him as a consequence of trying to save the other five.

One case can be viewed as a direct sacrifice, which isn't my call to make.

The other can be viewed as an unfortunate accident while trying to save someone else.

I know this is just a point of view, but at the end of the day morals are just that.

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

and maybe I'm over analyzing the second question, couldn't I jump of and stop the train?

Interesting you'd say that because a lot of the research had to do with how self-preservation effects the decision.

Now one for you: if you had an idea for a topic, would you check the search box to see if it had been done before or just post away?

Hmmmm, quite the morale conundrum. This is not a 'do the needs of the few...' topic, but a specific morale question which I decided was unique enough for a new topic.
You shouldn't assume I didn't search, just assume I want a new, fresh discussion.

how would pushing the man save the five, and I would do both

It stops the train (derails it). I guess the conductor doesn't get killed too.

 

[Gerazzi]

I would yell at them until they got out of the way of the freaking train.

either that, or do nothing, because I'm going to assume that if I pull the lever or kill the men, then the families of the two men would sue me.
And win.

 

[Capo Taco]

What makes it different? Well, first of all my reality based brain kicks in and says that if I were in that situation I wouldn't KNOW if the fat man would stop the train when I pushed him in front.

And when viewed logically, why push THAT man? Why not the one next to him? Why not jump in front yourself to save five?

But in this morality question they've tried to construct a situation where pushing the fat man will certainly save the other five and nobody else is fat enough to be worth throwing in front.

I think it would be morally right to push the man and pull the lever, but my experience with human morality on other people also would make me do neither when I would be put in the situation. Certainty of the result is never there in practical reality and there's a good chance that the judge would see things differently, which would have rather unfortunate results on my life.

 

[bjj hero]

The difference is that in the first test the man dies as a consequence of your actions to save the 5. The charming phrase used by the yanks is "collateral damage". In the second your action is to actually kill the man, the consequence is that the 5 survive.

People will stop short of purposefully killing others. For me, Id think of how much Im saving the national health service and my taxes whilst I pushed.

There is no point having a poll if you will tell them how they will answer it in your original post. It affects the results.

 

[Abedeus]

1 life in exchange for 5 lives?

Count me in.

Seriously, if they all are strangers, I would try to save the most of them.

 

[Cpt_Oblivious]

Well firstly I can pull a lever and pretend I saw no man.
Secondly if this guy's so big I don't think I'd be able to push him, also how would 1 man stop a train?

 

[Iron Mal]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I would sacrifice the one man in both cases, it may sound cold and ruthless but at the end of the day it strikes me as the lesser of two evils.

 

[Johnn Johnston]

I would do both. One is impersonal, and one is direct, but either way, it ends up with the saving of five lives rather than the saving of only one.

 

[Deacon Cole]

This is a relatively well known question used by Dr. Joshua Greene of Princeton to determine how the human mind makes morale decisions. In an international test, Greene found that 9/10 people would pull the lever, but 9/10 people would also NOT push the man. Why? What makes the two situations different? Do you know of a similar question?

I am more interested in answering this question than the actual moral quandaries. I would do nothing, let the five people die, then kill the sixth person by beating them to death with a shovel.

First, I went and looked up these things because it seemed that some relevant details were absent, like how pushing a man off a ledge would save anybody. So I found it here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem] Here is the text from Wikipedia:

A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, you can flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch?

and the other:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

Now, why would someone pull the switch but not push the fat man? Probably a number of reasons. For one, pushing the fat man is a bit more personal than flipping the switch. It's easier to press a button and launch a nuclear missile at a city than shot one person in cold blood.It's easier to shoot them than to stab them. It's easier to stab them than to strangle them. I am not entirely certain what this means but an increased closeness to a victim and increased effort in dispatching them make killing them more difficult. Even with weak moral justification. You may save five people, but you will feel that one live you doomed a bit more if you have to do it yourself.

There is also an uncertainty factor. These examples use a trolley while you used a train. A train would plow right through the fat man and then right over the other five people. A trolley might, conceivably, be stopped by a large weight. More likely than a train, but it's still uncertain if the ploy would be successful. So it could be that if you do nothing, five people die but if you push the fat man, now six people die.

So, I think that is why most people would pull the switch but not push the fat man. It would take too much direct personal involvement and effort with uncertain results. As a though experiment, they could say that the fat man will stop the trolley all they want. It's still not as certain as the switch.

 

[bodyklok]

Now one for you: if you had an idea for a topic, would you check the search box to see if it had been done before or just post away?

I would post anyway because useing the search bar takes about 5 seconds which in my mind (and many other people's) is to long. /sarcasm

 

[Space Spoons]

This is a relatively well known question used by Dr. Joshua Greene of Princeton to determine how the human mind makes morale decisions. In an international test, Greene found that 9/10 people would pull the lever, but 9/10 people would also NOT push the man. Why? What makes the two situations different? Do you know of a similar question?

The difference is that pushing the man directly makes you his murderer. The pulling of the lever might make you the killer of the single man on the track, but you kill him as a consequence of trying to save the other five.

One case can be viewed as a direct sacrifice, which isn't my call to make.

The other can be viewed as an unfortunate accident while trying to save someone else.

I know this is just a point of view, but at the end of the day morals are just that.

Very well put, I agree completely.

 

[Gladion]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I don't think you can apply this rule to that situation. "You can't compare one genocide to another" is a little more appropriate. None of those two decisions is a good one.

Personally, I'd ask myself whether the man standing next to me would be an important person for humanity. If he's the next Da Vinci, I certainly would not push him. Sounds like Nietzsche, but I'd do it that way. :S

 

[ParkourMcGhee]

Neither. Have you SEEN how funny Gmod is with all those ragdolls? Well this is just a step up, and you can't get charged with murder!

 

[HuCast]

I would push the guy, make some photos with my cellphone, sell the pictures and story of his heroic jump to save others lifes to the newspaper and give all the money I get out of that to his family.