I am reading a book that touches the issue of moral dilemmas. I thought it was a very interesting read so I figured I'd recreate it here. Some of you may be familiar with these situations.
What follows is a little quiz of sorts where you answer each dilemma with a response of whether the given action is morally 1)Required 2)Permissible or 3)Forbidden.
The fun part is trying to figure out why you answer like you do. Try and answer each one without comparing to the others. I know this may be impossible, but the results will be more interesting. Go ahead and answer in comments then add whatever insight or ideas or questions you had.
OK here we go.
The runaway trolley/train
There is nobody on this trolley
Situation 1
You are at a switch and see a trolley is going to hit and kill 5 people down the track. However if you switch the track the trolley will be diverted down another fork and the 5 will be saved. Should you switch the track?
Situation 2
Same as the first but there is 1 person hiking on the other track that will die if you switch the track. Should you switch the track?
Situation 3
Same as the first but there is no switch now, however you are on a bridge over the track and if you can push a large weight onto the track you can stop the trolley and save the 5 people. The only problem is that the only weight is a sleeping fat man. Should you use him to stop the trolley?
Situation 4
Same as 3 but now that fat man is actually a villain that placed the 5 on the track and sent the trolley to run them over.
Situation 5
The track now has a loop on it that causes the train to loop around and then continue on to the 5 people. This way if you flipped the switch the people would still die but the train would travel the loop first. However there is a fat man on the loop that would stop the train but die. Should you send the train on the loop?
Situation 6
Same as 5 but now the fat man is replaced by a boulder on the track that would stop the train. However there is a random hiker that will be trapped between the boulder and the train and he will die. Should you send the train on the loop?
Situation 7
5 people are dying in a hospital. They each need a different organ to live. They will go on to live long happy lives if they get this organ. There are no organs available. However, there is a healthy man in the lobby that is a match for all 5. If his organs were harvested the 5 patients would be saved. Should his organs be harvested?
You can search these dilemmas on the internet to get more discussion on them.
6 comments:
Situation 1: 1
Situation 2: 2
Situation 3: 3
Situation 4: 3
Situation 5: 3 I'm not sure I understand this one. Sounds like the 5 would die but you could kill the fat man as a bonus.
Situation 6: 3
Situation 7: 3
on #5 the fatty stops the train and saves the other 5 but he dies.
1: save the people I would say this is morally required.
2: save the people sacrifice the man. This would be permissible I guess.
3: Let the 5 die. Is it permissible to push the man? I don't think so. Why was it ok to kill him in #2?
4: Save the 5 by pushing the bad man. I think this is morally required. If you can save 5 innocent lives you should, even if it means killing one guilty.
5: Let the 5 die. Once again why is this forbidden when #2 was permissible?
6: Save the 5 sacrifice the hiker. Similar to #5 but now I think it is permissible. hmm.
7: Let the 5 die and do not harm the man in the waiting room. How is this different than the other situation in which I sacrificed one person to save 5?
I find it interesting that I think that in some situations it is ok to save 5 people at the price of sacrificing one, while in others I do not.
What is the difference in situation 2 and situation 5? Can anyone tell? There is an answer that makes sense.
Why is it more ok to sacrifice a man on a track but not one in a hospital waiting room to save 5 other people?
1 and 4 are required I think.
2,3,5,6 are all the same, you kill a person to save 5. How you kill that person is different but you still do it. If you look at the numbers then it is permissible to save the five by killing the one I think.
7 is different because you can give the man in the lobby a choice in the matter and let him decide to sacrifice his life for the others. But if you have to chose for the man then this is the same as 2,3,5,6.
When I first encountered these my thinking was a bit different then the averages shown for number 2 specifically. Most people switch the track saving 5 and killing one. But I thought that I wouldn't switch the track, because by doing so I would have acted to kill the hiker. I guess I felt that the lack of action would be more permissible than acting to kill.
1-1
2-2, Permissible, but I don't think I would switch it.
3-3. I don't know why this different than 2, 5 and 6 for me.
4-1. A person who is willing to kill other people for no reason should be killed.
5-2. But again, I don't think I would do it.
6-2. Same.
7-3
This reminds me of the seminary video where the man sacrifices his son (or was it himself?) to save the train of people.
Post a Comment