digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

Would you kill 5 people to save 1 person?

news.bbc.co.uk — Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do? Such ethical dilemmas provide classic "experiments" for philosophers. Here the Magazine presents four such quandaries and asks readers to vote on what they think is right.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • sirsteveh, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12Love the title. Of course not on the title, and What Kind of Sick Person Are You? to the question. :D
    • devwal, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7Harry G. Frankfurt tackles this and a lot of other philosophical ideas using a MODERN approach to philosophy -- Get his book entitled: On ***** -- It's a great read.

      One of the great philosophers of our time.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6As far as the violinist I would not stay and help him because they kidnapped me. If they had asked me then I might do it. I might have to be in a bed for nine months which would suck but that's a hell of alot of Xbox playin'
    • jholdaway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Answer to the Title/Typo: Maybe, if the "1" person was me... :P
    • KidVicious, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4What if the violinist himself was against kidnapping you, but he couldn't stop those who did it? You'd punish him for their mistake?

      All of these questions make me feel like Vash the Stampede, trying to find the best way out of an impossible situation.
    • ophello, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5Nice going with the title, moron. I'm gonna kill five people to save one person?

      Idiot.
    • gklitt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I love the first comment on the site:

      "I feel sorry for the five people. Not only have they had a runaway trolley hurtling towards them but also got trapped in a cave. What a day!"
    • ouzel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Can't you see the prejudice in the questions? ``Would you save 1 person or 5?'' The reader is made judge by numbers. I ask, In such situation, would you think about number of people to save?
  • AJRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -7/+66Title is "Would you kill 5 people to save 1 person?" but it says "Suppose you could save five lives by taking one" in the description. Whats up with that
    • alexandreracine, on 10/12/2007, -24/+10Bad title I guess. Should we vote "innacurate"?
    • Terc, on 10/12/2007, -19/+7Ouch. Another title mistake. Good article though. Can't decide to digg or not with the title mistake and all..
    • VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -21/+16Yep, marked inaccurate here.

      As to the actual question... that would depend on the individuals involved. For instance, I would not kill Mother Theresa to save Michael Jackson, and four other child molesters....
    • blahblah, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7I agree with Vorpalk. One can't get an accurate read on the issues addressed because the questions are too situational to draw any conclusions from.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -5/+24Title is not wrong because one of the questions is would you pull the switch to save five and kill one or would you not pull the switch and the 5 would die but the one live.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@ VorpalK
      @blahblah

      The questions are for if you see random people people you do not know
    • JohntB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe, but in that case I'd be very hard-pressed to say that not pulling the switch would be killing those people and saving the other person. I guess it just demonstrates exactly what opinions and moral standards these problems are designed to demonstrate.
    • Terc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3I quote from the article "Suppose you could save five lives by taking one - what would be the correct thing to do?"
      As to why anyone that complained about the inaccuracy of the title being modded down, I don't understand. The title says "Would you kill 5 people to save 1 person?" The article has been reported as inaccurate and is under review.

      @Doggpound Yeah. Good job there. You're right. The moral question was would you kill one to save five. Which you can state as would you let 5 die and not kill one. However, the title is wrong, it asks if you would kill 5 to save 1. Why on earth your comment was dugg by so many people leaves me clueless.
  • LegendarySock, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8its like saying would you kill one walrus, to save 2 others? but that one walrus is pregnant
    hahaha simpsons joke
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If the two walrus lookin fatty's had eaten less the 3rd and 4th questions would be moot. Just goes to show that heart disease and diabetes aren't the only problems arrising from obesity.
  • FarcicalFart, on 10/12/2007, -4/+33"I'd use the dynamite to blast the trolley off the rails and then hook the violinist up to the fat man.
    Robin, Edinburgh"

    This guys comment is genius if you read the article.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9But it says only you can save the violinist
    • Mister.Joshua, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6BY HOOKING HIM UP TO THE FAT MAN--duh!
  • tidejwe, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14I love this: "To your horror, you discover that you have been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society." Why is it that anything to do with media is always portrayed as evil? My mind immediately associated this group with EVIL which then turned to RIAA.

    ANYWAY, for those of you who didn't RTA (always happens) I don't know if they can use this test in the way they are they trying to associate it. For example, in the first example, they say that you wake up kidnapped hooked up to some machine that is keeping some violinist alive. If you stay for 6 months he'll live, if you don't he'll die. Are you obligated to stay? They then twist your answer to say that it's all about pro-life verses pro-choice (abortion issue). I don't think it can be generalized that far.

    This article is determining which form of ethics you generally defer to. Do you go off of what causes the most benefit for the least amount of pain (utilitarian), or do you defer to individual choice/rights, or any of the other ethical methods?
    • apantomimehorse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The viol inst scenario is a very famous argument from Judith Jarvis Thomson's "A Defense of Abortion," written in 1971. It's meant to be an argument for abortion starting from the assumption that the dependent entity is in fact a human (i.e., something of moral worth). Though I support abortion, and though I'm all for wacky analogies in ethics, I've never found it a particularly apt analogy, nor do I agree with the idea that abortion should just be a matter of free choice regardless of the status of the fetus.
    • duagne, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I agree that the analogy isn't all that apt. Equating pregnancy to being kidnapped is silly.
    • LucasOman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The analogy isn't even very clear. She doesn't address whether the violinist was aware of the plot to kidnap or not. An unborn child would not be aware of his mother's rapist's plans (temporal issues, aside). If the violinist were completely unaware of what was going on (e.g., in a coma, perhaps), then I feel I would, in fact, be obligated to stay. If he chose to be part of a kidnapping scheme, that's where it gets a little grey.
    • frankinla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Whether or not the beneficiary of a crime is aware of the crime does not excuse the crime, just the beneficiary.
      If the beneficiary is made aware of the crime and does nothing about it, then he becomes an accomplice.

      Simply put, the ends do not justify the means... ever.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Actually the ends always justify the means. You need to expand your definition of "the ends" to include ALL of the results.
    • tony23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The violinist scenario is an inaccurate analogy to abortion. To make the analogy a LITTLE more accurate, change the condition from disconnecting yourself (passively allowing the violinist to die) to actively and intentionally killing the violinist.

      The scenario doesn't make sense as an analogy.
  • zeldafan, on 10/12/2007, -43/+8If those 5 people are terrorists (and george bush) and the one person saved is Kevin, than yes, gladly.
    • goat4, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9whos kevin
    • chinolofus, on 10/12/2007, -25/+6kevin rose...i'd rather save alex. at least he's funny.
    • Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -11/+3Alex and Kevin are great but if it was not for Kevin their would be no digg or diggnation
    • goat4, on 10/12/2007, -13/+5wow what a fag, talking up kevin rose
  • peregrine, on 10/12/2007, -11/+4I love these things...one of the reasons why I'm contemplating taking phis.

  • bryant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5It's strange how the same problem with a different face's outcome can vary so wildly...
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'm not sure that it really is the same problem. Certainly the two outcomes are the same, but your actions in the two scenarios are different. In the first trolley problem it is simply chance that governs the initial position of the switch, if it began in the position to kill the one man you certainly wouldn't switch it over to kill the five.

      The fat man problem involves violence. You are actively killing someone who would otherwise be at no risk. It could be said that it is chance that the fat man is on the bridge and not in the path of the trolley, in which case he would likely be willing to sacrifice himself to save the 4 others, but that is a much more hypothetical position to take.

      To me it seems that it would be much better to ask the person who might be sacrificed in each case to make the decision, that way it would effectively take you out of the decision, but time constraints would likely render that possibility, as well as much of this philosophical discussion moot.

      It is my experience that when hard decisions such as this crop up, most people do nothing at all simply out of fear.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@TopherT

      The two trolley problems are the same since the normal path of the trolley invoves killing 5 people, and flipping the switch involves diverting the trolley from its normal path, killing 1 innocent bystander instead.
    • edmcguirk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0The problem isn't what track the trolley is on. The problem is that you have a runaway trolley.

      You have a choice of letting people die or doing something. If you do something, you must try to save as many people as possible.
  • highwebl, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22Kill 5 people? As long as they are 5 people I don't know or they are on my "to kill" list.
    • ynggrsshppr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25You have a "to kill" list? *shocked*
    • Duston, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17@ynggrsshppr

      You don't? **shakes head**
  • vpcwiu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Now that you bring it up, I would kill everyone who diggs this if it meant the cure for Alzheimer's...
  • fohat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Only if it's Spock.
    • jgjonola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

      I'm not a Trekkie. Really. :(
    • GamingFox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1But does the needs of many old people outweighs the needs of few babies or the one baby?

      How about the needs of many mentally-handicapped outweighs the needs of few genius scientists or the one scientist?

      It's not black-and-white Spock like to view the world as. There are many more and tougher questions than I just asked.
  • Dthwish09, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3lol killing people isn't right, your ending a life...
    • VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -11/+6If it's a worthless life, say... Avril Lavigne, and it saves 5 lives worth saving... then it's worth considering.

      Put another way, if your inaction would condemn 5 people to death, and someone who is to say, Music, as CarrotTop is to fancy dress balls would be the casualty... well there's probably math involved so I guess I'm not one to judge...
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7Unless it's a baby. Then it's ok if its mother kills it.
    • VorpalK, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Apparently I've offended some Avril Lavigne fans. I didn't know you folks could read anything that wasn't spelt in retard-speak (like l8r, c u) etc.

      Y'all are on the "not worth saving" list, in case you hadn't figured that out.

      It's all situational, and the "scenarios" in the article aren't valid because they attempt to eliminate logic from the equation.

      All life is not equal. I will not save a van full of carreer criminals (as in murderers and burgulars) by running over a bicyclist who is a validictorian at her school instead of broadsiding the prison van.

  • evilbully, on 10/12/2007, -19/+5you guys are idiots
  • lupinglade, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6depends who the people are.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -15/+8All lives are equal. Who has the right to judge another fit for death?

      I guess the US admin. believes it does.

      60 state executions last year. 1,016 since 1976.

      http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/usexecute.htm
    • gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7"All lives are equal. Who has the right to judge another fit for death?"

      It totally depends on who the people are. No one really treats all lives equally on issues of life and death. Many people say such things because it sounds nice but if presented with a situation concerning a friend or family member they actions are totally skewed.
    • FlyboyP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"all men are created equal" but its the rest of their lives that makes the difference. The question should be, does a life have subjective or objective value? In other words, can society say who is worth living and who is worth dying, or should we agree that everyone has value, even potential value, and therefore no life should be harmed?
    • JackDoyle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all dimes are created equal, too... but nobody disputes the fact that five dimes are worth more one.
  • erusan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27Wow. What a smart thing to do. Get a whole bunch of Diggers spouting their mouths off about philosophy and ethics.
    • Bokista, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I was looking for a comment like this. I wanted to say that the BBC article is the reason that philosophers and not average Joes are meant to answer the question. There's no appropriate answer; the power comes from exploring the reasoning behind all the possible answers.
    • ting, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3But when average joe is in that kind of situation? This happens all the time. What than?
  • saggygrandma, on 10/12/2007, -15/+4Your Title: Would you kill 5 people to save 1 person?

    BBC: Suppose you could save five lives by taking one
  • xodex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I would kill who ever is needed unless it's someone I care about, I'd just kill myself :O) what they decide to to after wards is not of my businesses anymore.
  • jpwhitmore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Yes.... did I answer to fast?
  • slyckidiot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Certainly. If it was someone important to me.
  • Cybert, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1The singularity. Would you kill 6 billion...all else...to save 1--who would transcend humanity? Of course it's not necessary, but by definition the answer is yes.
  • epheterson, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Wrong title, but definately an interesting read.
  • mikesum32, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16What if an asteroid is hurtling toward the Earth and the only way to stop it is to have gay sex? What if monkeys fly out of my butt ?

    Blah Blah Blah.
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I'd rather watch the pretty shooting star................
  • CaughtThinking, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5life is about making the horrible, but correct choices.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9There are no CORRECT choices. There are no mistakes.

      Buddhist philosophy.
    • gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no consensus correct choice, of course.
      However, there is a correct choice given your personal core beliefs or some other standard code - it's simply the one that results in the least contradictions with those core beliefs
  • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -18/+7Any liberal would. They can kill more than that because they have this ability to do so while convincing themselves that "it's because we care".
    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7You mean like the 30,000+ killed by you and your conservative ass-bite president in Iraq?
    • HarryBauzonia, on 10/12/2007, -12/+5@jimmygoon
      Congratulations on finishing high school. It's a great beginning.
    • FluffyArmada, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3I don't know about Harry... but Jimmy is a moron.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@Jimmy

      Because everyone hates you?.....

      Posting comments on a web page

      RULE #1
      Never take Internet forums personally.
  • Kellan, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19Kid: Would you kick a pony in the face to end world hunger?
    Model: I don't believe in hurting animals...
    Kid: So...you'd let millions of people starve to death just for one stupid pony?

    --Wonder Showzen
  • PirateJaxx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I think those five people had it coming if they're standing on that side of the track, so I wouldnt touch the situation.
  • Jovan, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1I didn't fully read the article but the picture they are using there of the man thinking is from a play, when he's thinking of what kind of poem he should write. The statue is respectively called "The Thinker".

    I find it to be a bit irrelevant...
    • mer-uno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0those are "thought experiments".. RTFA
  • techmaster7b, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Her argument is flawed. You had no choice what so ever being hooked up to the violinist, but you did have a choice when you had sex. She needs to learn how to properly form arguments before giving an answer to them, otherwise they are of no use.
    • Guano, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3I believe she adresses your complaint when she says, "as long as she had taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant."
    • WiggaZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@Guano

      I think the point techmaster is trying to make is that the baby is a direct consequence of the mother's actions regardless of whether or not she was being careful (with the exception of rape), while the person who is kidnapped had nothing to do with the violinist's situation.
    • DigiNinja, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5techmaster - aside from the point that TFA specifically states "as long as she had taken reasonable steps to avoid getting pregnant"

      IMO, the whole "just don't have sex" argument doesn't really fly these days. It seems to be a religious argument at heart.
      Sure you have the choice, but if 90% of people are going to choose to have sex when they do not want children, why focus so much on that single choice?
      Am I supposed to never have sex if I don't want ever want children? I could just have gay sex instead, but is choosing to have gay sex as morally reprehensible as abortion in they eyes of God?
    • Leebert, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Am I supposed to never have sex if I don't want ever want children?

      That's about the way I'd sum it up, yes.

      See, the problem with our society today (and I don't use this phrase lightly, I believe it is *the* problem) is that people no longer feel responsible to accept the consequences of their actions.

      Actions -> Consequences. It's a universal constant. It's unavoidable.

      (Now let's hope I can make heads or tails of this captcha scribble)
  • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7This is Philosophy of Religion 101 lol.

    In my opinion, murder is never acceptable. It would be wrong to redirect the train so it runs over 5 people instead of 1 because those 5 people would still be alive were it not for your action. So, yes you murdered them, they died by your hand.

    On the other hand if that 1 person dies you are not responsible because the train will kill with no input from yourself. No murder was committed.



    On the other hand the abortion analogy is that famous BS from a radical feminist.
    Waking up in the middle of the field with an adult attached to you for 6 months or they die is not murder to remove them.

    On the other hand abortion is murder because a woman did not suddenly wake up in the morning attached to her unborn baby. She CHOSE to have sex, she CHOSE to take the risk of getting pregnant.

    If you CHOSE to attach that adult to you, fully aware it will be for at least 6 months, then you cannot morally remove them.

    Killing is demanded on the other hand when it comes to self defense.
    If those 5 were no threat to me or the person dying than it would be murder to take their life.

    If I had to kill 5 people that were going to murder someone I care about, of course.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -9/+5"really. I bet all those girls that got raped wanted to get pregnant. but don't mind me. I'm a "liberal"

      The percent of abortions that result from rape are tiny. Most abortions are on demand for the convenience of the selfish mother.

      Why do you libs want to execute the baby and rehabilitate the rapist? You have your values backwards!
      The rape already happen, killing the baby will not let the mother forget she was raped or ease her pain. Children have to learn two wrongs do not make a right, your position is immature.

      "If it weren't for the conservative a$s holes lobbying against good medicine for their own pocket books we could more readily available morning-after esque prodcuts..."

      That's a red herring... every ER will treat a rape victim with everything available... but these "morning after" shortcuts only encourage irresponsible sexual activity.
    • frankinla, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There is no philosophy of religion.. there is dogma. it is for you to accept or not. Arguing the finer points is little more then mental masturbation, and that's a sin.
    • rayzincrisp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This is a fundamental problem with the system at Digg. Otherland presented a well put together argument to what was said but was modded out of existance because of the opinions that were stated. People who won't listen to the other side of an argument don't have a stong base to stand on in the first place.
    • rogueman, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0 I just have to reply to that... "The woman CHOSE to have sex" argument sux, because (in no particular order):

      - so us men are free to ***** away guilt-free right?

      - who are we men supposed to ***** guilt-free if all women abstain from having sex until/unless they want to have a baby? Oh, SOME women should still have sex with you? Ah sorry, you're a saint. My bad.

      - what if before you were kidnapped you saw a black van with some suspicious men following you, got scared, but you really wanted to get ice cream so you went away to get some? And what if the guys organizing the kidnapping made it public the day before on TV? What if they actually said they're gonna target your small town and are looking for someone macing your characteristics? And your birth date? And given name?
      Is it your fault for really wanting the stupid ice cream?

      But anyways, my personal argument for abortion wouldn't go well with you: a baby several month old isn't valuable enough to fuss over. Yes, for the mother it is, if she wants it. But there is no magic in the creation of a life... plenty more where that came from. All the investment is by the mother, and it's her choice to continue investing or not.
      Actually I'm a bit inclined to give fathers a word to say in continuing the pregnancy. At least in the legal sense, allowing them to renounce all rights and obligations if it's early enough to discontinue the pregnancy. As far as I know that's not possible now, is it?


  • noluckmurphy, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4How did this make it to the front page?
  • jamesey, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4the article should have included the word utilitarianism and explained the philosophy it was discussing was called negative utilitarianism.
    • Spanca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3True that. We discussed almost exactly the same thing in a Jurisprudence (legal philosophy) course last year. The primary concept (in relation to this sort of stuff) was that you can't deprive one of their rights just because another may die.

      For those who say "it depends on the lives in question", that's hardly fair or justifiable. Who are you to impose your values and judge which lives are more "important" than any others? As such, it's all good to let the violinist die, it's not fair to blow up the fatty or push the fatty off the bridge, and it's no difference whether you send the trolley to kill 5 people or 1 person as no ones rights are being unfairly affected.
  • xcanadian, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9 SPOCK

    I never took the Kobayashi Maru
    test - until now. What do you
    think of my solution?

    KIRK

    Spock...!

    SPOCK

    The needs of the many... outway the needs of the few, or the one... I have been... and always will be... your friend...Live. Long. And. Prosper.
  • DaveyDeadite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Jack Bauer style? I'd do it.
  • Continuum, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4In each of the cases presented in the article, you likely do not know any of the people. The choices you are suppose to make are not "well, if A > B then A, otherwise...".
    The choice is "I have one chance to save these 5 people in the next 10 seconds (trolly) to five minutes (cave)".
    You don't have time for interviews, just action.
    Most everyone in these situations would want to save as many people as possible.
  • Oxygen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Depends whose life I'm taking.....
  • warhammerelf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3OK, this makes no sense to be because it doesn't equal out. Maybe if they say that before you were kidnapped, you were walking in known Violinist-life-saving-through-means-such-as-kidnapping-and-hooking-your-body-to-a-violinist-for-9-months country, and you thought you were safe by wearing your anti-kidnapping outfit, then maybe it would work, yes?
  • masterfuol, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Would you kill 5 people to save 1 person?

    The 5 people are taken randomly from those that are bitching about the title.

    The 1 person is someone willing to consider and discuss the philosophical implications raised by the TFA.

    Thats a tough one.
    • allenu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Yes, but what if that 1 person was Hitler?

      I invoke Godwin. I win!
  • endgame, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I have no problem killing one person to save five others. Call me crazy but I have no emotional issue with this subject.
    • gedankenus, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4No you're not, unless you're not human - humans can't detach themselves to that extent. It's real easy to say something like that when you're not actually in that situation.
    • Mister.Joshua, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How is it that moronic comments like this get upmodded? There are over 200,000 sociopaths in Canada alone; of course humans can detach themselves to that extent. Unless you're trying to dehumanize sociopaths, which makes you a bigot, I fail to see the rationale behind your comment.
  • e3mw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This article seeps with utilitarian ideologies. It's not a new dilemma.
  • SrLnclt, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Save Ferris
  • Krusz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Otherland, you got the scenario mixed up, you are not redirecting the train to kill 5 when it would normally kill 1, you are redirecting it to kill 1 in order to save 5.

    Since you seemed to say you should not, is there a threshold that makes it acceptable? If there was a train about to kill 100 people and you could switch the track so it would kill just 1, would it be okay then? 1000 people for 1? What if it was simply 1 person you deeply care for on one path, and 1 person on the other, and the default path sends the train to kill the person you care for. Would you switch the path then? What if the train was hurdling toward a stranger, would you switch it to the path containing your friend. Again, same scenario, but it is one person you care about and 100 strangers. Would you switch the default path if it killed your friend? Would you switch it if it killed the 100 people?

    Those are the more interesting questions that are derived from the simple 5 v 1 example.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Krusz@ You are right, I got it backwards, but I don't agree with utilitarianism so the balance didn't matter when I made my decision.
  • admirabumblebee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Why are there no options given to kill all 6 and steal their wallets?

    Man, new outlets are always so biased against us sociopaths, how lame,
  • yihpin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I'm digging this just because of the title...lol
  • Tien, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Hell forget the "1 person" catch, i'd kill 5 people just for the hell of it. Ethics are for those who feel guilt or care about looking like a good person.
  • Dmel, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Depends on whose life I'm saving...If it was my kid, hell yeah, I'd smoke 5 people to save my son or daughter. What kind of father wouldn't? Now, if it's some random stranger? Who knows...we all like to say we're moral and ethical but when it's on the line like that...who knows.
  • Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The pair of railcar questions highlight how big a factor the anonymity of the people involved is in a 'moral' decision.

    You're connected to the fat man because he's standing beside you and you know he's fat. You can probably smell him. However within the scope of the first question, the person standing on the rails is completely anonymous. "Person" is the only description we have.

    I would hazard to say that indicates that if people make an 'impartial' decision, they feel they're also making the 'moral' decision.
  • Mysk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Peh, switches and pushing fat people. It's a heck of a lot easier to yell, warning the group, and watch the trolly vwoosh on by. Everyone's peachy and enjoys the show.

    As for the fat fella who squeezes through the hole first, who would be dumb enough to let the big fella go first through the small hole? Everyone who agreed to that would deserve all of the water they got. :p

    As for the violinist, fark him. They should've asked. Waking up in a situation like that would torque me off something fierce and I'd probably slap him with the tubes a few times after I untangled / unattached myself. Or smash his violin in front of him. Or both.

    ~Mysk
  • supersan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6reminds me of the classic Tolstoy(?) story in which the grim reaper comes to earth and offers a man 100 million dollars for pressing a red switch. The condition is pressing it would instantly kill one innocent person anywhere in the world.. He doesn't even need know who dies - its only that somebody innocent somewhere dies after he pressed that red button. Interesting food for thought.
    • otherland, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Superscan, that was a twilight zone episode as well. Except the catch was after you got your money, the button went to somebody else, and you or a loved one could as easily be selected as the random victim.
    • Tien, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, i guess the key there is to not be innocent. Cherry Falls anyone?
    • ting, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm not sure there are innocent ppl. at all.
    • nlatimer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you pressed the button wouldn't you be inherently not innocent at that point?
  • cinder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31. Do you have an obligation to stay connected? No.
    2. Should you flip the switch? Yes.
    3. Should you push the fat man? I like to think yes, but most likely no.
    4. Should you blast Big Jack out? Yes.

    However, things aren't so black and white. For example, if the violinist was such a good musician that his/her music was bringing about world peace (extreme, I know) then I might put in the time. Flipping the switch might depend on who is in the path. I might choose to save 1 little kid and kill 5 old people who have already lived their lives.

    etc.
    • yukevster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6No, obviously, the idea is that you have to make a decision only on the information given.

      Otherwise you could invent any scenario.
  • Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2@ cinder
    heh
    My point exactly
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 108 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.