<p>taken from Steven Pinker's article "The Moral Instinct"</p>
<p>-Answer these questions honestly, and try to justify your choice</p>
<p>a)On your morning walk, you see a trolley car hurtling down the track, the conductor slumped over the controls. In the path of the trolley are five men working on the track, oblivious to the danger. You are standing at a fork in the track and can pull a lever that will divert the trolley onto a spur, saving the five men. Unfortunately, the trolley would then run over a single worker who is laboring on the spur. Is it permissible to throw the switch, killing one man to save five?</p>
<p>b)You are on a bridge overlooking the tracks and have spotted the runaway trolley bearing down on the five workers. Now the only way to stop the trolley is to throw a heavy object in its path. And the only heavy object within reach is a fat man standing next to you. Should you throw the man off the bridge?</p>
<p>a) personally, i would just scream at all six workers in hope that they would move before the trolley hits. (i probably wouldn't move the switch because) i don't think i could make such a serious, life-or-death decision (and i have a slow reaction time, so i probably wouldn't get there in time, anyway).</p>
<p>b) lol... for several reasons, i don't think i'd throw the man off the bridge: i probably couldn't lift him; although i might save other people's lives by throwing him, i'd still be killing someone (a case where the end doesn't necessarily justify the means). i'd just hope that someone near the trolley might be able to help better than i could...</p>
<p>p.s. i really like Pinker, i just saw him in october at my local library :)</p>
<p>honestly, i think i would just scream if this happened. i can yell really loud when i want to. that would get their attention. also, trolleys are very slow, anyway the ones that i've seen so these people have to be pretty dumb to not be able to see/feel it coming. i think that if i have time to reach the switch, then they have time to hear me and jump out of the way. if they don't heed my warning then that was their own choice. </p>
<p>but, if i had to do the question options, then
a) i'd divert it. 1 vs. 5. but i'd try to save the 1 person some other way. but then what if that persons family sues me.<br>
b) i would not throw the fat man off. first, im too weak. but even if i was strong enough, that's is playing an extremely active part in his death, too much. its murdering him. i can't go that far. yeah i know you could say i was murdering the guy in 'a' but i think its kind of different. i didn't actually throw him onto the tracks.</p>
<p>I wouldn't pull the lever or push the fat guy. To me, allowing harm to come to others by inaction is a far less indictable offense than directly causing harm by a specific action. For example, I could conceivably save the lives of a few African children by donating a hundred bucks to a charity, yet I have no qualms about not doing so. Where do you draw the line when determining what constitutes a sin of omission?</p>
<p>Another angle on this subject is that, quite simply, whether or not these six strangers live or die is of little importance to me. If I didn't happen to be at the intersection at the precise instant the renegade trolley came through, I would read about the accident in tomorrow's paper and think little of it. Therefore, I choose the option that has the least effect on my own life.</p>
<p>1) Get the attention of the workers by yelling. I wouldn't pull the lever. I would never do any action that causes the death of another person, even if it means saving five. </p>
<p>2) I think throwing the fat man would be murder or at the least manslaughter. Helplessly watching the train crash would not be a crime. I wouldn't throw the fat man for this reason.</p>
<p>i think that technically makes you a psychopath....
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Yeah, it's probably more of a detached approach than I would entertain in real life.</p>
<p>Incidentally, psychopathy indicates a complete disregard for the well-being of others. In my scenario, I would certainly save the five guys if it didn't mean directly causing the death of another. Letting them die is more of a self-interest thing than wanton coldness.</p>
<p>1) I wouldn't. Because then you'd be the one having killed the one guy. The five guys were there and it was their own fault that they were there. If you let them die, it wouldn't be your fault. Yes I know this sounds horrible but this is why I would think that way:</p>
<p>-the one person was the only one NOT in the path of the train. Clearly fate has put him there, or for some other weird reason. It's unfortunate that the 5 people are going to die, but it's actually their fault that they were there in the first place? Yes, they have no clue that they're going to die, but they were the ones that moved there and the one guy wasn't meant to die I DONT KNOW IT MAKES SENSE IN MY HEAD</p>
<p>okay think of it this way:</p>
<p>guy #1: hey everyone don't stand there you'll get crushed by a train
other guys: we want to stand here what the f
guy #1 <em>tries forcing them to get off</em>
other guys don't budge cuz they're all fat
guy #1: okay fine if you get killed it's not my fault, i'm moving</p>
<p>and if you kill guy #1 then wouldn't that just be unfair??</p>
<p>okay 2) no i wouldn't kill the fat man BECAUSE he didn't give his permission to be killed. Yes it sounds weird but it makes sense, sorta. He didn't give you permission to kill him, and he's not the one in harm's way, and he's not the one stupid enough to be in harm's way, so why the hell should he die??? Besides if you really want to save the guys, think: if YOU were the fat man would you commit suicide to stop the train? Probably not. And after you contemplate THAT question, the trolley would've crushed everyone already.</p>
<p>PS: SCREAMING at the top of your lungs is not an option!</p>
<p>you guys arnt supposed to make up alternate possibilities. you cant yell at the workers to move, and you can't miss the tracks if you were to shove the fat man off the bridge. </p>
<p>personally i would throw the switch and the fat man.</p>
<p>a) in the case described above, in an ideal world, I guess I would throw the switch. But in reality, I'd just stand there and watch it unfold...</p>
<p>b) In that case, no I wouldn't throw the fat man. I, again, would stand back and watch it unfold if it actually happened.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the men that were there were doing there job, so it wasn't their fault for being in that location.
[/quote]
but it was, just cuz they were THERE. not in the way that they purposely set out to die or anything, juus that they were fated to be in the same place that the train was headed.....FATE GUYSS</p>
<p>i still don't understand why they wouldn't be able to get out of the way of the trolley. trolley's move so slow. plus they'd feel the ground rumble when it went on the tracks. i mean when a train is coming near me i can feel it+ hear it from far away. so you can't say they don't know its there because they're blind. plus it only takes like 1-2 seconds to get out of the way. and unless they're all in a very very very close row, they'd notice the first guy who got hit by the trolley and then they'd jump off the tracks. so at most 1 guy would die either way. so i change my mind. i wouldn't divert it. </p>
<p>i also kind of feel like if they're that stupid they don't know that a trolley is coming at them then thats pretty much natural selection at work. actually now i'm kind of ****ed off at them that they're so stupid</p>