What would you do?

Rabies

I'm reading The God Delusion here and there lately. I remembered something in the book last night. Will throw it out here, sorry if it isn't word for word. The book isn't infront of me.

You are near a train track and there are 5 people on the track. A train is coming towards them. You have the chance to save them by switching the train to a different track. On the other track is one person.
What do you do. Allow 1 person to die so 5 can survive, or allow 5 die because you cannot flick the switch.

---

You are a doctor. There are 5 patients terminaly ill. Each needs a new organ, without it they will die. In the hospital waiting room is perfectly health person with the organs needed by the patients.
Could you take that person's life so 5 can survive, or do you let the 5 patients die?

---

Leave out "what if" questions. Answer the questions the way they are. Don't introduce a new donor to the hospital question, or he posibility of stopping the train before it hits.

If anyone has an exact copy of these from the book it might be better than my slimmed down version.


I would allow all 5 patients to die and the 5 on the track

Rb

Rabies wrote:

I'm reading The God Delusion here and there lately. I remembered something in the book last night. Will throw it out here, sorry if it isn't word for word. The book isn't infront of me.

You are near a train track and there are 5 people on the track. A train is coming towards them. You have the chance to save them by switching the train to a different track. On the other track is one person.
What do you do. Allow 1 person to die so 5 can survive, or allow 5 die because you cannot flick the switch.

I'd quickly flick the switch.

Rabies wrote:

---

You are a doctor. There are 5 patients terminaly ill. Each needs a new organ, without it they will die. In the hospital waiting room is perfectly health person with the organs needed by the patients.
Could you take that person's life so 5 can survive, or do you let the 5 patients die?

Let the five die.

killbillvol2

Same as above ^^

MrJoeSoap

If, as you say, the five patients in the hospital are "terminally ill" (i.e. - will die within the year) then I agree with the first two replies. Actually, even if they would survive their illness with the transplants I'd be inclined to agree with Rb_ie and killbillvol2.

monkeyfudge

In a situation like those the decision wouldn't be made purely on numbers. Age would be a very important factor, if it was one young child and 5 octogenarians then that would greatly affect your decision.

Also the two situations aren't the same. The person in the waiting room isn't putting their life in danger, the person carelessly walking on the tracks is.

RoadSweeper

1. Let the 5 die. Unlucky for them.

Why should the poor lad on the other track get punished for being in the right place?

2. Let the 5 die, unlucky for them.
Health person deserves his own organs before anyone else!

MrJoeSoap

monkeyfudge wrote:

The person in the waiting room isn't putting their life in danger, the person carelessly walking on the tracks is.

The six people walking on the tracks have all put their life in danger. You can either save five or save one.

However, saving the five does make you responsible for the other persons death. Arguably, leaving the situation as it is also leaves you in a way responsible for the five people dying.

Its a very interesting dilemma.

monkeyfudge wrote:

Also the two situations aren't the same.

I'd say that was done purposely. I'm sure Dawkins has an interesting response to both.

andrew

save the majority each time, whats wrong with you people! of course, assuming the saved people are fairly young and will survive for a while. Also, Neither the persons on the track or the patients are in danger due to themselves (i'm assuming ignorance on behalf of the ppl on the tracks that they are on tracks with a train coming toward them)

I'd flick the switch and the pull the one person off the track, much easier than trying to shift 5 people.

You can't "murder" someone to harvest their organs.

Adam

Don't mess with either situation i.e. let all five die in each case.

There are really three possible answers to each dilemma.

a)save 5

b)save 1

c)do nothing

I know c looks like b theoretically, but the point is you're not choosing to end anybodies life, merely staying out of the dilemma altogether.

It's not on your head then as the situations they are presented in are not implied as being your fault in the first place. For example maybe one of the guys needs a new heart because he's an obese cúnt! And ditto on the eejits standing on the wrong track. Just stay out of it I say!

InFront

Rabies wrote:

You are near a train track and there are 5 people on the track. A train is coming towards them. You have the chance to save them by switching the train to a different track. On the other track is one person.
What do you do. Allow 1 person to die so 5 can survive, or allow 5 die because you cannot flick the switch.

I wouldn't flick the switch (he says sitting on a chair in his bedroom)

You are a doctor. There are 5 patients terminaly ill. Each needs a new organ, without it they will die. In the hospital waiting room is perfectly health person with the organs needed by the patients.
Could you take that person's life so 5 can survive, or do you let the 5 patients die?

You mean murder for organs? No, I can't even imagine that being an issue.

Exit

Mirror wrote:

Don't mess with either situation i.e. let all five die in each case.

There are really three possible answers to each dilemma.

a)save 5

b)save 1

c)do nothing

I know c looks like b theoretically, but the point is you're not choosing to end anybodies life, merely staying out of the dilemma altogether.

It's not on your head then as the situations they are presented in are not implied as being your fault in the first place. For example maybe one of the guys needs a new heart because he's an obese cúnt! And ditto on the eejits standing on the wrong track. Just stay out of it I say!

Yeah, I think that's what I'd do. Just let nature take its course just like it would if I wasn't there.

latenia

I'd let the 5 die-more pockets to ransack for valuables.

Or maybe get my camera phone ready to stick the footage on youtube

shoutman

As above, also I'd probably take the organs out of the healthy person but just to have spare if anything bad happens to me in the future, touch wood.

Ireland is getting fierce crowded these days anyway...

Ruu_Old

Same as Mirror, I would have nowt to do with either issue.

shoutman

Ruu wrote:

Same as Mirror, I would have nowt to do with either issue.

Grow some balls Ruu.

Ruu_Old

I'll keep mine...away from you, organ thief! *cups sack* I won't play god, ain't up to me.

Rabies

Deleted User wrote:

I'd flick the switch and the pull the one person off the track, much easier than trying to shift 5 people.

You can't save them all. One or five must die

On the doctor choice.
Is it not similar. The doctor has the power to step in and end the life of one to save five. If he does nothing, five will die.

With the train option. The person has the option to do nothing and allow five to die, or step in and allow one to die so that five may live.

Take the word doctor out of it and it becomes different but the same. If people do nothing, then five die.

When a doctor is mentioned it changes how we think about things.

Gordon

I'd see if I could flick the switch and then when the engine car runs over the track-change thing I'd flick the switch back again hence causing a catastrophic train crash in which some carriages may veer off to the 5 people and the engine would kill the one person. Then all of the people on the train would die.

As for the organ donors, I'd poison the one person with some sort of radioactive substance that would render their organs undonorable. And then hopefully his radioactivity would kill everyone in the hospital. And if that didn't happen he would at least turn into a super-hero and save everyone, including the train crash.

Hagar

Train scenario, I would do nothing except gather all the bodily parts after the accident and get them over to the doctor's office pronto.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

monkeyfudge

Rabies wrote:

When a doctor is mentioned it changes how we think about things.

It's actually more of a time factor. There is a lot more immediacy in play with the train. For a doctor to go about harvesting organs would be a completely premeditated act.

And as I've said, the person in the first instance shouldn't be standing around on the tracks either and he's preventing you from saving the 5 other people through their stupidity. The person in the waiting room has done nothing as irresponsible and the decision to give over organs is really theirs not the doctors, and as this decision doesn't require a split second to decide it can be passed on to them to decide for themselves.

Dave!

More profound stuff in AH!?! Are you trying to reform the forum, OP?

I'm reading the God Delusion too and I've just finished the chapter you got that from, as it so happens I can't say I've given the details much thought (I haven't chosen myself what I would do in the situation), but the conclusions drawn from it are quite interesting.

*goes off to get the book*

Ahh yes, the experiment was by Marc Hauser, and the summary starts on page 222 of the God Delusion.

Hauser carried out the experiment on atheists, religious people, and primitive tribes (the Kuna tribe of central america -- adjusted for their understanding, ie. with no trains or anything), and got roughly the same results from each group. Most people are drawn to an answer by their gut but aren't really able to justify it logically or morally.

The experiment shows that religion is not necessary to be good -- or evil.

Hagar

Train Scenario - Why save five stupid people? Surely saving one stupid person is bad enough? The best thing to do would be to encourage the lone idiot to join the other five before the train arrives thereby wiping out all six of them. You owe it to our species to let the stupid die off thereby raising the average IQ of the human race. Darwinism at it's best.

Dave!

Hagar wrote:

Train Scenario - Why save five stupid people? Surely saving one stupid person is bad enough? The best thing to do would be to encourage the lone idiot to join the other five before the train arrives thereby wiping out all six of them. You owe it to our species to let the stupid die off thereby raising the average IQ of the human race. Darwinism at it's best.

Eugenics at its best!

Winters

I think the *real* question here is:

What would Jesus do?

monkeyfudge

Winters wrote:

What would Jesus do?

Pffft... It's easy for him. He could cure the sick people and turn the train into wine so everyone could get drunk.

Hagar

DaveMcG wrote:

Eugenics at its best!

I had to look that one up. Even Darwin needs a little help sometimes.;)

Sangre

I don't like the question, although I'm clearly not supposed to. To simplify the sitution to the above train scenario is an insult to the complexity of humanity and morality. It leaves out too many details that one needs to take into account.

However while in any real world application I try and avoid utilitarian views, in such a simplified version I might do so. Who knows what I'd do on the day. Ideally I'd switch it the train and desperately try and alert the lone person. Both parties have put themselves in danger by being on track, either consciously or recklessly. The same can not be said for the 2nd scenario where someone's faith would be decided by proximity to a maniacal doctor.

Although I guess I've clearly missed the point of the questions by not answering properly. But to suggest a situation where people's lives are in the balance and all we would do is flick a switch is insulting. I think most would try and alert them or save them some other way, even if it was futile.

chrismon

id walk away from it, wud have nothing to do with me and wudnt want to get in the way, cud tell the people to get off the track and stop being numbskulls :cool:

Pherekydes

If the one guy on the train track (or the healthy guy in the hospital) was Richard Dawkins then the decision would make itself!!:D

haunted-room

I wouldnt do anything...I think. Its hard to say not having ever been in a situation like that

Alter-Ego

Let the 5 people on the tracks die, they're stupid enough to be on the tracks and unlucky enough to be on the particular track that the train is on.

Let the 5 sick people die, its not the healthy persons fault that they're sicky and he's healthy.

Feral Mutant

Don't know what I'd do for the train one. For the sick people, I'd leave it and let the five die. To all the people who said the healthy patient should die, how many of you are going to kill yourselves and donate your organs?*











*I reserve the right to flee from all responsibility should this post lead to mass suicide.

User45701

Rabies wrote:

You are near a train track and there are 5 people on the track. A train is coming towards them. You have the chance to save them by switching the train to a different track. On the other track is one person.
What do you do. Allow 1 person to die so 5 can survive, or allow 5 die because you cannot flick the switch.

I would let the train contuine tward the 5 but i would if possible try to get to the track if even to save one

Rabies wrote:

You are a doctor. There are 5 patients terminaly ill. Each needs a new organ, without it they will die. In the hospital waiting room is perfectly health person with the organs needed by the patients.
Could you take that person's life so 5 can survive, or do you let the 5 patients die?

Let the 5 die, unless the person themselves is willing to make the sacrifice which i doubt they would be so then ye the 5 would die.

Rabies

DaveMcG wrote:

More profound stuff in AH!?! Are you trying to reform the forum, OP?

I'm reading the God Delusion too and I've just finished the chapter you got that from, as it so happens I can't say I've given the details much thought (I haven't chosen myself what I would do in the situation), but the conclusions drawn from it are quite interesting.

Profound. Nope. Little different for AH, yes

Decent book, not one I can pick up and read for long lengths of time. Don't have the attention span. Interesting read mostly. Some parts I find a little dull, but worth a read none the less.

Mrs_Doyle

Rabies wrote:

I'm reading The God Delusion here and there lately. I remembered something in the book last night. Will throw it out here, sorry if it isn't word for word. The book isn't infront of me.

You are near a train track and there are 5 people on the track. A train is coming towards them. You have the chance to save them by switching the train to a different track. On the other track is one person.
What do you do. Allow 1 person to die so 5 can survive, or allow 5 die because you cannot flick the switch.

Flick the Switch

You are a doctor. There are 5 patients terminaly ill. Each needs a new organ, without it they will die. In the hospital waiting room is perfectly health person with the organs needed by the patients.
Could you take that person's life so 5 can survive, or do you let the 5 patients die?

---

Let 5 patients die.

Sam Vimes

Feral Mutant wrote:

Don't know what I'd do for the train one. For the sick people, I'd leave it and let the five die. To all the people who said the healthy patient should die, how many of you are going to kill yourselves and donate your organs?*

i can picture a lot of people walking out of hospitals saying "i feel lighter somehow, as if i'm missing something. hmm....."

c - 13

Let the five on the train track die.

Then if theyre not too badly smashed, use their organs to save the five in the hospital, everyones a winner \0/

Seriously though,
Do nothing in either situation, the 10 that die are unlucky but thats just the way it is, I dont feel it justified that one healthy/semi lucky person should die to save the other cases.

r3nu4l

Train tracks - Save 5, Kill 1

Organs - Let 5 die Save 1

Firstly, it's inconceivable that one persons organs would match 5 donors in the same hospital (Too many possible MHC molecule combinations and high odds of host-versus-graft disease and graft-versus-host disease)

Secondly, of the five there is a high possibility that at least one is a George Best type and would continue the behaviour that caused the need for transplant in the first place so I wouldn't want to help that person!

Sam Vimes

quite a number of people are missing the point of the question and ignoring the OPs instructions

Rabies wrote:

Leave out "what if" questions. Answer the questions the way they are. Don't introduce a new donor to the hospital question, or he posibility of stopping the train before it hits.

its a hypothetical moral dilemma question. details such as the age of the people or their intelligence etc are irrelevant

Dragan

monkeyfudge wrote:

Also the two situations aren't the same. The person in the waiting room isn't putting their life in danger, the person carelessly walking on the tracks is.

Thats the whole point, both question are based off different moral situations.

monument

Winters wrote:

I think the *real* question here is:

What would Jesus do?

I think – bullishly and geekishly – the real question is what would Captain Kirk would do.

Change the rules of the no-win scenario, I’d guess.

haunted-room

To the people that said they would flick the switch; I wonder how many would really do that? The way I see it, its murder. Where as if you do nothing, its just a terrible accident. What right do we have to decide who lives and who dies?

Besides, those 5 could be all rapists for all we know:eek:

Sangre

Its technically not murder.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Pighead

The Scientist wrote:

On further thought, i've come up with the conclusion that i would most likely do nothing, because of the nature of person i am. I'd probably just sit near the tracks and smoke some cannabis and let God's harvest take care of it.

Hopefully Gods harvest would entail the train suddenly derailing and crushing your goofy giggling head into a million itty bitty little pieces.

haunted-room

Sangre wrote:

Its technically not murder.

Manslaughter then.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

monkeyfudge

I'm sure I could easily convince the police and myself that I didn't see the sole person on the other track as I was too busy trying to save the lives of 5 people to be paying attention to that type of thing.... maybe they'd give me a medal.