Poll: Question on morality

[Amarok]

1) I would not pull the lever - the five guys were oblivious to the train, harsh as they may sound, their impending death is there own fault, I'm not gonna be the one to make one guy die for five guys' own ignorance and stupidity.

2) Again, I wouldn't push the man. You say those guys were WORKING on the track? Then they should know if there's still a damned train running on it. If they die it's their own screw up, nobody else deserves to be sacrificed for them.

 

[neoman10]

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.

ohhhh you get claps for saying something philosphical

 

[SmilingKitsune]

There should be an option to throw yourself infront of the train, though I really don't see how one person is meant to stop an oncoming train, I said I would pull the lever but I don't know if I actually could.

 

[Micvic709]

Lol this is just really funny to me because we talked about this exact same thing last week in my philosophy class at ISU lol

 

[Kiutu]

Well, pushing the man is more directly deciding the fate of him than the lever, and I probably would follow the pattern since, I mean, I would freak if -I- was the guy and someone pushed me, even if to save others.

 

[New Troll]

You realize how much of a hassle it would be for the train to be rerouted like that. So much easier to just wash the remains off the front.

 

[Mr_spamamam]

most likely both. might need a forklift for the fat bloke though

 

[XJ-0461]

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.

Exactly. Pushing the man is a choice to end someone's life, saving five others is a consequence. However, pulling the lever is a choice to save five lives, the one man's death is a consequence.

 

[Biek]

I would do neither. Doing either would directly make me responsible for the loss of one life. With all possible consequences like being charged for murder etc. If people blame me for not pulling the switch, I'll tell them ive been tought not to pull switches and push buttons that I don't own or know the meaning of. assuming this would occur in an everyday setting and not some sort of "saw dungeon".

And besides, those 5 people should be well aware of the risks of working on a train track and shouldve kept an eye out for incoming trains.

 

[Iron Mal]

ohhhh you get claps for saying something philosphical

Actually I just quoted Spock from Star Trek (I think he's the one who comes out with the 'needs of the many' line).

 

[Lord George]

I'd do both because pushing the guy in front of the train looks like fun, I don't really care for any of the people, why should I save or not save any of them? what's in it for me.

 

[vamp rocks]

i would pull the lever and push the man... the reason i think most people would pull lever but not push is because if you pushed the man it is technically murder, although for the greater good, you would probably go to jail as some lawyer would point out that you had no obligation to do anything.. where as pulling the lever is a less direct form of murder, i.e because of your actions someone dies but you did not kill them yourself, still murder but less direct so people do not think about it...

well thats my opinion anyway..

 

[Zykon TheLich]

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.

Although I do sympathise with you, this exact question (well the 1st part) has been used as a thread starter before.

 

[Markness]

Of course I wouldn't pull the lever or push that guy. That would make me a plain murderer. The only person who can make that decision is that man, who you'd want to sacrifice.

Isn't the direct murder of someone just as bad as the indirect murder of someone? For example, if a guy was falling off a cliff and I didn't press the activate parachute button or something, then I would consider myself a murderer.

1) I would not pull the lever - the five guys were oblivious to the train, harsh as they may sound, their impending death is there own fault, I'm not gonna be the one to make one guy die for five guys' own ignorance and stupidity.

2) Again, I wouldn't push the man. You say those guys were WORKING on the track? Then they should know if there's still a damned train running on it. If they die it's their own screw up, nobody else deserves to be sacrificed for them.

I feel like I'm degrading myself by answering this, but why do you think it is their fault? If you had put some thought into your post you would quickly realise that hundreds of factors could have positioned those men on the tracks not to mention the other guy was also oblivious. If you got drunk and wandered onto the road, would you expect an incoming truck driver to avoid you or just run you down because it was your fault.

 

[hippo24]

While I'm skeptical on the physical limitations of a body stopping a train, That does not influence my final decision.

I would pull the lever because its guaranteed to save the five men, and the one man that I would redirect it to would have at least a chance of survival.

I wouldn't push the man however because he would most certainly die, and It may not have been necessarily for him to do so.

If this is a simple question of "the ends justify the means" and has no basis in the physical world, but is more of a psychological question, then I would have no problem killing the few to save the many.

 

[Amarok]

Of course I wouldn't pull the lever or push that guy. That would make me a plain murderer. The only person who can make that decision is that man, who you'd want to sacrifice.

Isn't the direct murder of someone just as bad as the indirect murder of someone? For example, if a guy was falling off a cliff and I didn't press the activate parachute button or something, then I would consider myself a murderer.

1) I would not pull the lever - the five guys were oblivious to the train, harsh as they may sound, their impending death is there own fault, I'm not gonna be the one to make one guy die for five guys' own ignorance and stupidity.

2) Again, I wouldn't push the man. You say those guys were WORKING on the track? Then they should know if there's still a damned train running on it. If they die it's their own screw up, nobody else deserves to be sacrificed for them.

I feel like I'm degrading myself by answering this, but why do you think it is their fault? If you had put some thought into your post you would quickly realise that hundreds of factors could have positioned those men on the tracks not to mention the other guy was also oblivious. If you got drunk and wandered onto the road, would you expect an incoming truck driver to avoid you or just run you down because it was your fault.

Tell you what, I'll say this. Maybe it ain't their fault, but I'd tell myself it was, because either way I'm not pulling that lever or pushing the guy, and maybe telling myself the five guys were being idiots would remove guilt?

 

[HomeAliveIn45]

If I remember correctly, the brain scans that were done in Princeton, taken at the EXACT moment the subject was asked the question showed that the brain activity in people who responded that they would kill was completely different than in the people that responded they would not kill. In the first case, the brain activity was in the cerebral cortex (where most reasoning and calculation takes place). Among those that responded no, parts of the lower brain (the R complex) responded, where many basic instincts such as self-preservation, territoriality, and possibly even empathy take place. So, if this research is correct, morality can be defined as the fight that takes place between these two parts of the brain. Whichever structure is the strongest, is apparently the one that affects your decision.

Although I do sympathise with you, this exact question (well the 1st part) has been used as a thread starter before.

Thanks for pointing that out, we all have to play the part of the repetition nazi every now and then