Moral/Ethical Dilemma

Post Reply New Topic

Found this on some other board and thought I'd bring it over here. I also debated this with some of my fellow peers as well.




Scenario 1:

You are in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. You are standing near a switch that will send the car along a different track, where it will only kill one person. You cannot warn them or otherwise influence the outcome — your only choice is to throw the switch or not. There are no legal or other ramifications to your action or inaction.

Do you throw the switch? Why or why not?


Scenario 2:

You are again in a hilly city, like San Franscisco. A cable car has broken loose and is running down a track toward a group of five people, who will certainly all be killed. A person larger than you is standing near you, and with absolute certainty, you know that pushing that person into the path of the car will derail it, sparing the five, but killing that person (throwing yourself in front will not accomplish this). That is the only way to alter the cable car's path and the outcome.

Do you push? How does that decision compare to scenario 1?



Those are the only considerations — it's not an exercise in trying to find a loophole, or pointing out the unrealistic circumstances inherent in the situations

Tough choices eh?

Firstly, i would not consider any difference between the two scenarios.
Change the wording from certainly be killed to almost certainly (which would be more 'realistic'), then i would have to make distinctions.

So the dilemma is reduced to; do you choose to kill one person or five people?
Assuming we know nothing about the people involved. I would choose to kill one person ( even though i am a misanthropist. )

But, like i say, if there is an element of doubt in the equation, then i would answer diffferently.
In the above cases, i would live with the choice i made; knowing perfectly well that there was only two possible outcomes.
Given some doubt, then some responsibilty would be left 'to the hands of fate.'
In particular, i would be reluctant to push the large man into oncoming death.

They're good questions, but there's a problem with the analogy, if you're to give a clear reason as to why you'd make your deicision. Since there is no way, realistically, to know for certain that pushing someone in front of a car will save five other people, there's no way to know, realistically, if it's the moral thing to do. When, as the guy is hurlting into the path of the car, can he look up and know that he'll be saving a number of other people? No, all he knows is that he's been pushed, and that's all he can know. Therefore, I'd flip the switch but not push the guy.

In both cases, I would kill the one to save the five.

I'd hardly call this a moral dillema.

Scenario I : 5 dead is better than one. I don't see any dillema here.

Scenario II: Although I may be disturbed by the existence of the larger person in my proximity, I'll still go for killing 5. It was a much harder choice though - as that person is more likely to be a personal annoyance. If they stink, I'd definitely give them the shove.

i let everyone die in both cases.


with the fat man, i don't see how i could shove him fast enough in the way....i mean.....have any of you guys tried to push fat people around? it's not easy!

I can see myself switching tracks in the first scenario to save the majority, but I don't think I would be able to get myself to push somebody off the train.

5>1 qed