Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    1, 1. I'd like to think otherwise, kind of, however I think this is how I would act. Not sure on the first one though, (I know it's the same situation, but one is direct action one is sort of indirect)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    do note cus i ant got time 4 that
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't do anything in either scenario.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    1
    1


    i dont believe in omissions liability


    #TeamGlanville
    Offline

    13


    Video is much better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Would smoke a zoot in both situations
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Impressive)


    Video is much better.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i reckon pushing the man off would be more direct than pushing the lever
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ihatePE)
    i reckon pushing the man off would be more direct than pushing the lever
    That's the whole point of the thought experiment.

    In both cases, 1 is sacrificed to save 5. But people are more likely to say yes to the first one but no to the second one.

    Cognitive dissonance.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by ihatePE)
    i reckon pushing the man off would be more direct than pushing the lever
    In real life, would you have enough strength to push him? It's a very LARGE man.

    Spoiler:
    Show
    jokes


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    2 and 2

    The fat guy was probably going to die from something caused by his overeating anyway, might as well make their death count for something.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    2 and 1
    Although my action of pulling the lever in the first one results in one person being killed, it's an indirect action and technically the trolley that killed the person, and thus a net of 4 people were saved.
    For the second one, it would involve me directly and physically hurling the fat guy in front of the trolley which would kill him. I'd rather just not be involved.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    1,1
    we did this in our first critical thinking lesson lol
    don't think it would be my place to decide who dies and who doesn't
    plus taking lives as just numbers, 5 against 1 is still not a reason to let that 1 person die for the others...
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I'd kill the one person & the fat man, tbh this is exactly what we covered it class, utilitarianism is stress
    Offline

    17
    Big guy jumps off bridge to make train stop

    2

    2

    :dontknow:
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by jamestg)
    2 and 2

    The fat guy was probably going to die from something caused by his overeating anyway, might as well make their death count for something.
    PRSOM

    :rofl:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    2 and 2
    1)The guy should know better than to stand on a rail track. He's dumb, i'm just basically a intermediate for Natural selection.
    2)He's probably gonna die from diabetes, heart attack or many other various health problems anyway so i might as well save the five guys.
    Also, I like to be involved in killing people. I'm adventurous like that.


    p.s. girls slide in my DMs, i'm also adventurous in many other ways
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    Spoiler:
    Show



    Open the situations one at a time and type your answers below before opening the other situation. Don't change your answer.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

    (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

    (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
    Spoiler:
    Show
    As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

    (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
    (2) Push the fat man.
    2 and 2. Diverting the trolley to track with only one person on it, and pushing the fat man, tends to be the only logically consistent people that people take, unless one is really willing to let millions die, or indeed every human being on the whole planet die, simply because one was not willing to kill one person for the greater good. Of course, if one is prepared to kill one person to save one million, there's no reason why one shouldn't be prepared to kill one person to save five.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    2 and 2. Diverting the trolley to track with only one person on it, and pushing the fat man, tends to be the only logically consistent people that people take, unless one is really willing to let millions die, or indeed every human being on the whole planet die, simply because one was not willing to kill one person for the greater good. Of course, if one is prepared to kill one person to save one million, there's no reason why one shouldn't be prepared to kill one person to save five.
    I'd say your argument is slightly flawed.

    5 people does not equal a million lives. This is a logical fallacy known as appealing to extremes. Plus realistically speaking, as great and bold as we like to think of ourselves, I don't think anyone with a functioning amygdala would kill the one person without hesitation. If you are plunged into an alien scenario where you have to quickly pick between the lives of strangers, I doubt you'd be able to act "logically consistent". I think you're forgetting to factor in the stress, duress and time taken to think the situation through. It's not a case of 2 + 2 = 4. You're going to have all these consequences running through your mind, you'll be attempting to reason all the while the train draws nearer. I'd say most people, including rational and logical people, wouldn't push the lever, nor the fat man.

    Maybe Spock would.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    if one is prepared to kill one person to save one million, there's no reason why one shouldn't be prepared to kill one person to save five.
    Yes there is. The lives of five are likely to have far less value than the lives of a million. One is also more likely to be affected by the deaths of a million than the deaths of five. It could also be the case that one knows something about the one individual or the five specific individuals that makes allowing their deaths easier/harder, e.g. they are violent criminals. There are many reasons.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by High Stakes)
    I'd say your argument is slightly flawed.

    5 people does not equal a million lives. This is a logical fallacy known as appealing to extremes.
    Where do we draw the line, then? 10 people? 100 people? 1000 people? It isn't logically fallacious to take an argument to its logical conclusions and then criticise the result - it's a valid method of argument: a reductio ad absurdum.

    (Original post by High Stakes)
    Plus realistically speaking, as great and bold as we like to think of ourselves, I don't think anyone with a functioning amygdala would kill the one person without hesitation. If you are plunged into an alien scenario where you have to quickly pick between the lives of strangers, I doubt you'd be able to act "logically consistent". I think you're forgetting to factor in the stress, duress and time taken to think the situation through. It's not a case of 2 + 2 = 4. You're going to have all these consequences running through your mind, you'll be attempting to reason all the while the train draws nearer. I'd say most people, including rational and logical people, wouldn't push the lever, nor the fat man.

    Maybe Spock would.
    I'm simply referring to what we ought to do, not what we would realistically do. As it happens, though, most people would push the lever according to surveys and studies, and I see no reason to believe that people realistically would not push the lever. I'm extremely confident that I would push the lever without hesitation.

    Surveys and studies have admittedly found that only a minority of people would push the Fat Man, and I would concede that very few of these people would actually realistically push the Fat Man. Personally, as a committed utilitarian, I think it's possible that I would be able to, given that, when I think about doing so, I feel happy at the prospect of saving five people's lives, not anguish at the prospect of having to kill someone. I suppose I do feel slight trepidation due to the daunting task of having to push a Fat Man off a bridge given how weak I am.

    Joshua Greene, a moral psychologist at Harvard, has found that people who make the utilitarian judgements in these scenarios (saving the five people instead of the one) tend to use the parts of the brain associated with rational decision-making whilst doing so, whilst those who do not tend to be using the more emotional parts of the brain, including the amygdala as you mentioned. However, he also, intriguingly, found that a majority of people were willing to pull a lever to open a trapdoor in the bridge which would cause the Fat Man to fall and stop the train. So, it's people's aversion to physically having to kill someone which seems to be the problem here.

    For more discussion of this and moral philosophy in general, I would highly recommend the excellent book Moral Tribes, by Greene.

    (Original post by george-90)
    Yes there is. The lives of five are likely to have far less value than the lives of a million. One is also more likely to be affected by the deaths of a million than the deaths of five. It could also be the case that one knows something about the one individual or the five specific individuals that makes allowing their deaths easier/harder, e.g. they are violent criminals. There are many reasons.
    You're changing the scenario, now. In the scenario, we're meant to know nothing about the identity of the individuals, meaning that there's no reason to suppose that the five people or the one person are violent criminals. All things being equal, therefore, we ought to save the five people.

    The point is that even though the lives of five have less total value than the lives of a million, they still have more value than the lives of one. And, where do you draw the line? Do you kill one person to save 1000 people? If so, why not 999? And if 999, why not 998?

    You also say that one is more likely to be affected by the deaths of a million, but isn't that an incredibly selfish thing to say? The only reason you'd save the million isn't because you're saving one million lives, but because you're more likely to be affected by it?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.