The Runaway Train Problem

Post Reply New Topic

So there's a train going down the tracks and it's going to run over 5 people if it keeps going down the track it's on.
But if you hit a switch, it'll go onto a side-track, and only kill 1 person.

Let 5 people get run over or let one person be killed...Easy! I'd choose the 5 people, because if it only runs them over, then, of course, they could just get back up when the train pulls away.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtkMrYQOTqw[/youtube]

The 5 people will be killed, that's the nature of the question!

This is a moral dilema. There is a similar VR one where volunteers had to decide where to move a man who was shooting people.

It is an awkward question but after thinking I reckon the people on the track want to commit suicide so I would leave the train to go ahead and kill the most rather than the one.

I think you have to throw another twist into the equation to make it more than a matter of algebra.

For example, introduce uncertainty: if it continues, it MIGHT kill up to 5 people, and will leave the non-dead maimed and handicapped for life. Or introduce an element of guilt -- 5 kids are trespassing, vs one employee doing his job. Or both:

A train is running out of control down the tracks. Three pedophiles are brutally raping a pair of 12 year olds on the tracks, oblivious to the approaching danger. The Meanwhile, on the side tracks that are officially out of service, a deaf employee is doing maintenance work on a signal. He's on a ladder next to the tracks, facing away from the direction the train is coming. The employee's autistic daughter wants a Keepon Pro for Christmas, so he's working overtime to raise the cash to buy one. Company policy states that employees should never work in a situation like this alone, and should always have a spotter (which also enabled them to hire a deaf maintenance guy). The guy's boss sent him out anyway, because the district supervisor is coming next week & he wanted to get the maintenance work done before the supervisor arrived. Meanwhile, it turns out that the 12 year olds getting getting raped actually broke into the pedophiles' group home to rob them and were caught, and the pedophiles decided to rape them on the tracks for kicks and to both terrorize & humiliate them. The 12 year olds are bound and gagged, and there's a chance that the pedophiles will notice the approaching train & run away in time, leaving only the 12 year olds to die.

Oh, and a hundred feet down the tracks from one of the two groups, a mother cat is nursing her 4 adorable kittens -- two tuxedo, one pure black, and a tabby. You don't know which set of tracks they're on, but if you believe the two tracks are equally bad ethically, you can choose to send the train down whichever track the cats aren't on.

There ya have it... two unpleasant options, and an easy tie-breaker:

* Totally 100% innocent guy doing his job, put in a position of danger by his supervisor, guaranteed to die if the train gets diverted.

* Three adults and two kids, none of whom are particularly wholesome or good, but don't really deserve to die, with the three most evil being the least-likely to actually die.

* A litter of beautiful newborn kittens and their proud, adoring mamma cat to break the tie if you can't bring yourself to choose betwen the human victim(s).

Oh, please, don't be silly. Trains do not exist. They are a fiction designed to keep the people oppressed. How can a non-existent thing kill people?

(Also, I kind of agree with dr01dguy, but not with his solutions. I assume you still want to track similar variables, consequences vs rights, so I would suggest switching to the variation where you push somebody in the way of the train to get them out of the way.)

The needs of the Many outweigh the needs of the Few, or the One.

ruveyn

I would just let nature takes its course. So I voted no. I don't attribute moral values to kinetic energy.

Depends on the people on the tracks. Is the one guy a living saint and the five a bunch of jerks? These things matter to me when making this type of decision.

Assume you know nothing about the people involved. What do you do?

ruveyn

People are going to die in the scenario no matter what. I'd flip the switch because it would reduce the amount of casualties.

Correct. All other things being equal fewer deaths is preferable to more deaths.

ruveyn

I always found ceretus paribus to be too convenient an escape hatch in economics.

If all the train does to the five people is run over them, then no one has to die.

I would leave the train as is, better to kill through inaction than to kill through action.

I'm pretty confident this is one example of a question that you cannot answer. In the situation you would do something but what you would do may be unknowable beforehand.

I'd jiggle the switch and let God decide.