Ethical dilemma, part 1

[Críostóir]

Here's the situation: you're in the control room of a rail system. You can see, but not communicate with, workers on the tracks.

Track A has six workers in a tunnel with no clearance.

Track B has a single worker in a similar tunnel.

There is a train coming down track A. It shouldn't be there, and there is no way to warn the workers on the track, or for them to escape once they hear the train. The same is true of track B.

Your only choices are: leave it on track A, resulting in the death of six workers, or switch it to track B, resulting in the death of a single worker. The electronic switching prevents any half-measures, derailment etc.

YES, I know that in the real world there would be other alternatives. This is a simplified ethical dilemma. If I get enough respondents on this one, there will be a part 2 with a different dilemma.

 

[Dodger712]

It depends. How hot are the workers in either tunnel? Do any of them look like A & F models? And are they working without shirts? If the single worker looks like Brad Pitt body-wise and the six all look like Jack Black then the choice is easy. LOL
Seriously, it would be a horrible situation to be in. I guess it would be better to switch the tracks and only have the death of one person on your conscience. I think though I'd just have to walk away and let Fate take over. Perhaps there is a reason beyond my understanding that the six on Track A are meant to die.

 

[MollyontheShore]

1 person dieing is better than having 6 people die. Not much of a dilemma the way I see it.

 

[Críostóir]

Seriously, it would be a horrible situation to be in. I guess it would be better to switch the tracks and only have the death of one person on your conscience. I think though I'd just have to walk away and let Fate take over. Perhaps there is a reason beyond my understanding that the six on Track A are meant to die.

Or perhaps it was Fate that put you in that control room. "No hands but ours," right?

1 person dieing is better than having 6 people die. Not much of a dilemma the way I see it.

The dilemma is that to save the 6 people you have to take action that directly causes the death of the 1 person. And you might have to face that person's loved ones later.

 

[c750dt]

I hate playing favorites. Anyway they can all die?

 

[Críostóir]

I hate playing favorites. Anyway they can all die?

If you go down to the tracks personally.

(Shh, there's really no way. I just want c750dt to go down to the tracks.)

 

[Lumière]

This is a truly challenging dilemma. On one hand you allow 6 people to die, but on the other hand you cause 1 person's death. I've been asked the same thing before, but I could not really decide. To be honest, if I HAD to, I would leave the train on track A.

Yes, 6 people would die, I know, but I cannot decide that the one worker's life is less valuable than the others'. If I were to change the train to track B, I would be responsible for that 1 man's death. If I leave the train on track A, the 6 workers' deaths would not be as big a burden as the 1 worker's death because I did not willingly kill them (ie. I did not put the train on the wrong track).

I guess that would be the "selfish" choice (considering the burden I would carry), but I would rather allow fate to take its course. Yes, maybe I was placed in that control room for a reason, but I would not willingly kill someone to change fate.

 

[Críostóir]

This is a truly challenging dilemma. On one hand you allow 6 people to die, but on the other hand you cause 1 person's death. I've been asked the same thing before, but I could not really decide. To be honest, if I HAD to, I would leave the train on track A.

Yes, 6 people would die, I know, but I cannot decide that the one worker's life is less valuable than the others'. If I were to change the train to track B, I would be responsible for that 1 man's death. If I leave the train on track A, the 6 workers' deaths would not be as big a burden as the 1 worker's death because I did not willingly kill them (ie. I did not put the train on the wrong track).

I guess that would be the "selfish" choice (considering the burden I would carry), but I would rather allow fate to take its course. Yes, maybe I was placed in that control room for a reason, but I would not willingly kill someone to change fate.

I'm going to argue against everyone's argument in favor of their choice, in case that's not apparent here.

Your post is an example of what I call the prejudice toward inaction. You believe that choosing not to act absolves you of moral responsibility for the outcome. By that logic, you would be equally blameless if there were no workers at all on track B, and you simply chose not to act to save the workers on track A. I don't think that's right.

 

[desmond]

I would choose 1 death over 6, taking no action is really an active choice in this situation.

 

[Kyanimal]

No question! Track B! G'Bye, Dude! Sorry! NEXT!

 

[Lumière]

Well, I am obviously in the minority here, but I stand by my choice.

Your post is an example of what I call the prejudice toward inaction. You believe that choosing not to act absolves you of moral responsibility for the outcome.

Not exactly. Knowing that 6 people are dead and that I could have done something to save their lives would be a huge burden on my conscience. But I am not going to play "GOD" and decide that the 1 worker's life is expendable.

By that logic, you would be equally blameless if there were no workers at all on track B, and you simply chose not to act to save the workers on track A. I don't think that's right.

The thing is, I know that there is a worker on track B. If I knew that the track was empty or if I did not know that there was someone on track B , then I would change the train to track B in order to save the 6 workers' lives.

 

[Críostóir]

The thing is, I know that there is a worker on track B. If I knew that the track was empty or if I did not know that there was someone on track B , then I would change the train to track B in order to save the 6 workers' lives.

I assume you wouldn't switch it if the circumstances were reversed either. Why do you think you're playing God less by inaction than by action? You stand there and choose to value one life over six; you let the six workers die. Why is inaction morally superior to action?

 

[Lumière]

I assume you wouldn't switch it if the circumstances were reversed either. Why do you think you're playing God less by inaction than by action? You stand there and choose to value one life over six; you let the six workers die. Why is inaction morally superior to action?

You are right, I would not switch the train if the 1 worker were going to die on track A.

As to why I think I'm "playing God less by inaction than by action," well I would say it is because I did not place the train on the wrong track and put the workers' lives in jeopardy.

The thing is, I don't believe that I have the power to value anyone's life over another's. That is the reason why I would not change the train's path. Is inaction morally superior to action? I really do not know.

 

[torontoboy92]

Here's the situation: you're in the control room of a rail system. You can see, but not communicate with, workers on the tracks.

Track A has six workers in a tunnel with no clearance.

Track B has a single worker in a similar tunnel.

There is a train coming down track A. It shouldn't be there, and there is no way to warn the workers on the track, or for them to escape once they hear the train. The same is true of track B.

Your only choices are: leave it on track A, resulting in the death of six workers, or switch it to track B, resulting in the death of a single worker. The electronic switching prevents any half-measures, derailment etc.

YES, I know that in the real world there would be other alternatives. This is a simplified ethical dilemma. If I get enough respondents on this one, there will be a part 2 with a different dilemma.

It's an ethical thought experiment. There is no wrong answer.

 

[Críostóir]

It's an ethical thought experiment. There is no wrong answer.

Just so.

Well...more particularly there is no RIGHT answer. There's nothing you can do in this scenario to prevent someone being killed.

 

[zoltanspawn]

The thing is, I don't believe that I have the power to value anyone's life over another's. That is the reason why I would not change the train's path.

Hum, this is why I would probably choose to smoosh one person rather than six! If I'm not to make any judgements about individuals' values, quantity may be the next best qualifier. That is, if I try to think of all the smooshables equably, then a quantity of six may be more worth preserving than a quantity of one.

It'll be interesting which variations you introduce to the dilemma, Criostoir. You will eventually tell us specifically why this concerns you?

 

[Críostóir]

It'll be interesting which variations you introduce to the dilemma, Criostoir. You will eventually tell us specifically why this concerns you?

I'm testing something I heard somewhere else. To tell you more at this stage would bias the experiment.

All will be revealed in good time.

 

[torontoboy92]

Or perhaps it was Fate that put you in that control room. "No hands but ours," right?

Well, there are so many variables that could occur that result in this situation where you are the one in the control room. Not to sound like a smart ass, but what if you decided to not go to work that day? or The driver is late and the train is late resulting in people being on the tracks thinking that the train has already passed? This is why I say you can answer it, even to obsidian from voting is a decision. Regardless someone or people are going to die.

 

[Críostóir]

Well, there are so many variables that could occur that result in this situation where you are the one in the control room. Not to sound like a smart ass, but what if you decided to not go to work that day? or The driver is late and the train is late resulting in people being on the tracks thinking that the train has already passed? This is why I say you can answer it, even to obsidian from voting is a decision. Regardless someone or people are going to die.

But in this situation, YOU are the one in the control room and YOU have the choice to make.

 

[torontoboy92]

But in this situation, YOU are the one in the control room and YOU have the choice to make.

Do I? or is it my parents, the people who educated me, friends, associates, and others who influenced me over my life to form my ideas and opinions decision. Yes, I would be the direct one making it, but what would prompt me to choose 6 ppl over 1 or vise-versa?