One of the most famous thought experiments in ethics is "the runaway trolley." It aims to clarify how we should distinguish right from wrong. I have read it before and heard it before, but here is how it is presented on the BBC's website. Read the experiments and then weigh in with your opinion.
Here is the scenario:A runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track. In its path are five people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it on to another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?
Now here's another version of the problem--with a twist:
The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved. Do you jump?
Now here's yet another version--with (of course) a twist:
Right before your leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you, a fat man is standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the track below. No one would ever know. Should you push him?
4 comments:
First case: I would flip the switch because less people die.
Second case: I would not jump because I don’t know the people that need to be saved, and I’ll feel not as bad since it is a lack of action that caused their death.
Third case: I would push the fat man because less people will die (5>1).
In both scenarios, your action results in one person dying instead of five, or your lack of action results in 5 people dying instead of 1. However, there is a small difference. With the fat person scenario, you are pushing him which is directly killing him, but with the first scenario you are flipping a switch that leads to someone’s death, so it’s indirect.
It seems the question didn’t ask about the 2nd case, but most people would not kill themself in order to save 5 people (unless they knew one of the 5 people), because it requires action and death.
In the first scenario, I would undoubtfully flip the switch, given fewer people die. However, in the second scenario, I wouldn't, for the same reason William said. I don't personally know the people whose lives would be taken away, and quite frankly, I wouldn't take my life for theirs. In all honesty, I am not a heroic person and if that situation were to happen in real life, I would be too "shook" to take action in helping the people that were in danger. Nevertheless, in the third scenario, I would push the fat man in the way given it's his life, in comparison to 5 others. Many people may argue that it's unjust to push the fat man given that he didn't necessarily give you permission to push him in front of a train... Anyway, what was he doing on the ledge of a bridge anyway?? In both scenarios, you will most definitely end up killing someone, whether it's one person or a group of 5. Clearly, it's obvious that killing one person is not as bad. Yet, both situations are very similar due to the fact that you are sacrificing a group of people's lives in exchange for one.
In the first scenario, I would flip the switch to save the five people despite the fact that it would kill one. I would also push the fat man into the train in the third scenario to save the five people, despite the fact that it would kill him. However, I would not kill myself to save these five people. I feel that it is more acceptable to kill one person in comparison to five because the number of lives lost is much less. The tragedy of their death won’t be as bad as the tragedy of the deaths of five people. It was easier to say I’d pull the lever than push the fat man down because it was less personal. When pulling the lever, I am disconnected, making a decision to save people. When pushing the man, I am acting directly, and his blood is on my hands literally. Both of the acts are sure to take a toll on your conscience. However, deliberately pushing the fat man would have a worse affect than the lever. The difference lies in your direct involvement and action in the situation. The core questions of this experiment are: Are five human lives worth more than just one? Does saving five people make you any less guilty in killing the one person? In my opinion, five lives are worth more than one (of course depending on who they are and if they’re good people), and killing one person to save others makes you slightly less guilty.
This post is now closed.
Post a Comment