Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Trolley Problem - What would you do? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Choices.
    Results hidden until poll closes.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    I think I'd have to agree with you. I'd feel awful (probably for life) though as I could have done something.




    The different people do not matter because they are all humans. It shouldn't affect your choice too much, although one is a child... Hmm... :/

    Also, do you mean a train or an actual trolley?
    Who asks this kind of question? :0

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    What if the train would kill 1000 people if you don't move it? Would you still do nothing? What about 10,000 or 100,000 people? When is turning the train justified? Would you allow a whole nation to die (assuming theoretically a very large metaphorical train )?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would operate the lever and kill the one person. It doesn't matter who they are, as you are sacrificing one person to save five. I wouldn't feel guilty 'killing' the person, as standing by and watching five people die when you could've helped them is just as bad in my opinion.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    What if the train would kill 1000 people if you don't move it? Would you still do nothing? What about 10,000 or 100,000 people? When is turning the train justified? Would you allow a whole nation to die (assuming theoretically a very large metaphorical train )?
    It's the same with other variants of the problem too, such as the backpacker with organs and the fat man. Most people don't want to murder the backpacker or the fat man to save five people, but they would do so if it saves 10,000 people, often citing utilitarian reasons as a justification. There is, therefore, a lack of consistency in most people's moral philosophy.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Doctor_Einstein)
    What if the train would kill 1000 people if you don't move it? Would you still do nothing? What about 10,000 or 100,000 people? When is turning the train justified? Would you allow a whole nation to die (assuming theoretically a very large metaphorical train )?
    So assuming that this is a very large train... :rolleyes:

    Well either way some people are going to die. For example, if there were 10,000 people on this track but only 100 on the other I'd definitely be more inclined to switch the track with only 100 people (letting them die ). However, imagine if one of those people (in the group of 100) were a loved one or someone you knew... would you turn it back to the 10,000 person rail?

    Those questions are awful. :/
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd ignore the switch and then go and kill the other guy.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd rather 5 people die through my inaction but not my fault than kill someone myself through my own actions.
    That's as delusional as claiming innocence because you standed by while a person drowned. It's a matter of decision not action. You either decide to go over 5 people or over 1.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Juichiro)
    That's as delusional as claiming innocence because you standed by while a person drowned.
    Except I wouldnt stand by while a person drowned. Unless to save that person I also had to kill someone else at the same time.. such as in this example
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Except I wouldnt stand by while a person drowned. Unless to save that person I also had to kill someone else at the same time.. such as in this example
    I put the stand by example as an example of someone dying due to your inaction. Anyway, someone is going to die so why not reduce casualties?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    Except I wouldnt stand by while a person drowned. Unless to save that person I also had to kill someone else at the same time.. such as in this example
    But the point is that you still feel at fault if you stand by and let the person die, you don't feel that because it was inaction to save the person rather than you killing them you are blameless. Essentially, in this scenario your inaction is costing 4 lives.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd let the 5 people live. The only thing that would change my mind is if they were applying to medical universities like me, then I'd kill them. Reduce competition.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion doing nothing is cowardly if it's in your power to try and minimise the damage then you have a responsibility to act. It wouldn't be your fault either way you didn't create the situation you just have a responsibility to control or manage the situation as best you can.

    I would save the five people.

    -If it was 5 OAP's Vs save 1 kid then I would save the kid, nothing against the OAP's but they have lived a full life it's more fair that the kid be given a chance at life.

    -5 OAP's Vs Criminal - It would depend on what the criminal had done if it was a murderer, paedophile, war criminal, terrorist etc... Then I would save the OAP's otherwise Inwould save the criminal.

    -5 Married OAP's with Kids Vs 1 With no family: I would still save the one with no family as the OAP's have still lived a full life and just because the one has no family doesn't mean he is any less deserving of a life. Obviously If the 5 weren't OAP's I would save them before the one.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wee.Guy)
    There is a runaway trolley traveling 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 do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life. 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.

    What would you do? please explain the reasoning behind your actions.


    The answer is simple.
    I wouldn't pull the lever, I would let the trolley kill the 5 people on the main track.

    By not pulling the lever I would have not taken any action, meaning the trolley would simply be running its course and the deaths of the 5 people would be a result of that.

    But by pulling the lever I would doing a specific action - commiting murder. By pulling the lever I would become involved in the trolley's course, directing it to a specifc target, the single person.
    This would be an act of murder, despite the 5 people being saved.


    In the end the choice really is;
    Commit murder + 5 people alive
    or
    Don't commit murder + 1 person alive
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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

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