Poll: Two quick related ethical questions.

[muckinscavitch]

So, here are two quick related questions, I'm curious to see what the answers will be.

1- You are at a junction in a train track where the track forks into 2. There is a train going way to fast to stop coming towards this junction. On 1 side of the fork, there are 5 people tied to the track, who cannot be easily released; and on the other side of the fork there is 1 person in the same condition. If left untouched, the train will carry on towards the fork, taking the path that leads to the 5 people, thus killing them. You have the choice to pull a lever though, and switch the track that the train will take. By doing this, the train will take the track with one person on it, thus killing him/her, yet saving the 5 people. Do you pull the switch or not?

2 - You are working in a hospital and there are 5 patients who each need a different organ transplant to become perfectly healthy again, and they are all the same blood type. If they do not receive the transplant, they will die. Now, a healthy person walks into the hospital who is a perfect blood match for each of the 5 patients. Do you kill him and take his organs to save 5 people?

Note: These are all generic people, they could be any race, gender or sexual orientation. They could be your classmates, or that random person on the street, or someone you have never met.

We are also going to, for our purposes, assume that the transplants would all work perfectly and the people would be perfectly healthy again. The people in need of transplants would die otherwise (no other transplants are available), and their needs for transplants are completely accidental reasons (not like they did something stupid or anything).

Now, I personally would pull the lever in the first instance to save the 5 people, but would not kill the person in the second situation. This seems to be the most common answer among people I've talked to, but why is that? Why is it alright to kill 1 to save 5 in the first case, but it is suddenly unethical to kill that 1 person to save the 5 other people in the second situation?

So, what would you do Escapist? Kill 1 person both times? Kill 5 people both times? Or a mix of the two? Any reasoning as to why would be great feedback. Please no stupid comments (you know what they are), they are not helpful.

 

[Radeonx]

Do another topic, these threads are overdone. And in every situation, unless it was someone I cared about, I'd do nothing, so I don't get charged for anything.

 

[lasherman]

I think I would just leave it be in both situations, because I don't think I would be able to kill an innocent person. Also, both situations are basically the same.

 

[TheNumber1Zero]

I kill them all and wear their skin,happy?

now enough of these thread topics...

 

[Vuljatar]

First question: I would pull the switch.

Second question: Of course I wouldn't kill the healthy person. Even if he was critically injured I wouldn't work the slightest bit less hard to save him. Why? Because he has a right to those organs, and the other people don't, because they're HIS organs.

 

[Pifflestick]

1 - Pull the switch.
2 - Harvest the organs of the healthy person.

 

[Vuljatar]

2 - Harvest the organs of the healthy person.

Could you elaborate on why?

 

[crudus]

I swear I have seen both of these in the last month. Just different numbers.

1. I pull the switch in such a way that didn't leave fingerprints or nobody was looking. I would not convict someone who saved those five people at the price of one and hope other people would be the same.

2. It is in violation of the Hippocratic Oath to actively kill one to save many. No medical professional would say they would do that hence this is a terrible "ethical" question. It says "imagine you are a doctor/nurse" which most people don't know everything that goes into being a doctor/nurse.

edit: I am happy to see that more people are voting to kill the 5 people in the second question.

 

[Pifflestick]

2 - Harvest the organs of the healthy person.

Could you elaborate on why?

For dinner (Sarcasm). Why do you think I would harvest the organs of the healthy person? To help the sick people.

 

[Coldsnap]

Why the two scenarios, they both ask the same question, but the second one is ridiculously implausible, hence a bad scenario.

Anyway for the first one most people won't do anything because they don't want to be directly responsible for a death even if it makes them indirectly responsible for the death of five.

 

[BonsaiK]

1. I tell the creator of this thread to stop the train, as it's his responsiblity as his thread got the train started in the first place. If he is unable to do anything in time, I throw him onto the train track, he is killed instantly but his shattered bones jam up the wheels and bring the train to a halt. All other people are saved.

2. I would find out the blood type needed and do a survey on The Escapist for the best physical blood and organ match out of all the people making 'moral dilemma' threads (which should be easy as many of you seem to uncritically give out personal information about yourselves), and then use that person's organs. If there was more than one equally good match I might share the organ donation load between the matches, quite possibly meaning that nobody has to die at all, as it's quite possible to survive with only one lung, or an artifical heart, or whatever.

 

[NBSRDan]

1. - Kill one person to prevent the deaths of five people. I value human life, and 5 > 1.
2. - Same question, same answer.

 

[Halfbreed13]

I kill everyone, then dance a merry jig.

 

[KarumaK]

1. I'd let the train kill the five and then switch the track so the next one would finish the loner.

2. I'd never work in a hospital.

 

[Satin6T]

this really depends on the people and what I can extort out of them

 

[NBSRDan]

1. - Kill one person to prevent the deaths of five people. I value human life, and 5 > 1.
2. - Same question, same answer.

So your OK being Killed for 5 others? Try not to get into any hostage situations buddy.
I wonder If you's say that for your family on the tracks VS 5 other families.

As for #2, Your an idiot. Im sure you can think of some reasons why.

I would not be okay with being killed to save five random strangers, nor would I sacrifice my family or any part of it for such a purpose.

As for my an idiot, I recognize that a distinction is attempted to be drawn, and what that alleged contrast is ("kill" versus "let die"), but I do not see a difference.

 

[Vuljatar]

2 - Harvest the organs of the healthy person.

Could you elaborate on why?

For dinner (Sarcasm). Why do you think I would harvest the organs of the healthy person? To help the sick people.

But what gives you the right? They aren't your organs.

 

[Crimsane]

Personally, I have no qualms about killing the person to save five. It's human nature - we really couldn't care less about people outside our own little circles, thus turning it into a simple math equation. 5 > 1. Of course, that apathy goes even further, to the point where unless we're forced to make the decision ourselves, most of us would probably leave it to someone else so that we wouldn't have to shoulder the responsibility.

 

[RooftopAssassin]

I know that most people will disagree with me, but as long as the ends justify the means in my eyes, then I'd probably do it. Although the doctor question is in violation of the Hippocratic oath so I couldn't do it even if I wanted to (well, I could but I made an oath).

 

[BeeRye]

To everyone who says that five lives are more important than a single life, replace the single life with the life of the person you love most in the world. If you still value the lives of the five over their life I can respect your opinion. If you have noone that you love in the world I don't think I know what to say