Asimov Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 So, this is a slight variation of the "would it be ok to kill one person to harvest their organs and save 7?" There is someone strapped to train tracks, but the train that is coming is on a different track and this one person is ok. However, there are 7 more people who are trapped on the same track that the train is on. You are in front of the switch that shifts the track so that the train will avoid those seven people. However, the track the train will switch to is the one with the single person strapped to it. You cannot save both groups. You do not have time to unstrap anyone in the group of seven, they are too far away. You do not have time to unstrap the one person and then run and hit the switch. Question: 1. Do you actively kill the one person to save the seven? 2. Is it better to actively kill one person than allow these 7 to die? 3.What do you think is the right thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 3, 2006 Share Posted May 3, 2006 Can you hit the switch and then unstrap the one, assuming the switch is behind where the one is? If so, and you could unstrap the one, but bungled half way through and ended up without enough time to finish and had to jump out of the way, would you be wrong for having switched the train to that one person? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 3.What do you think is the right thing to do? Say fuck it and go have a beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 WWAD? What would Asimov do? If I were in that situation, theoretically I would switch the track... but in emotion and confusion of the moment, I probably would spend too much time freaking out and the seven would be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 Can you hit the switch and then unstrap the one, assuming the switch is behind where the one is? If so, and you could unstrap the one, but bungled half way through and ended up without enough time to finish and had to jump out of the way, would you be wrong for having switched the train to that one person? No, I told you your options. 1. Actively kill one person and save 7 people. 2. Allow 7 people to die and do not actively kill one person. WWAD? What would Asimov do? I would let the seven die, I am not going to actively kill someone to save 7 people, just like I wouldn't actively kill someone and harvest their organs to save 7 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 You have a good point... but are the two situations necessarily equatable? Just let fate take precendence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 You have a good point... but are the two situations necessarily equatable? Just let fate take precendence? They are not equal situations, but they are similar in that you are killing one person to save 7 more. I do not think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that is the equatable point. Do you mean by "let fate take precedence" not interfering in the situation and seeing what happens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I'd jam something in the tracks and force the train to jump. The people inside are less likely to die from an overturned train than the ones outside are from being run over . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 I'd jam something in the tracks and force the train to jump. The people inside are less likely to die from an overturned train than the ones outside are from being run over . The train blows up and kills everyone including you within a 300 mile radius. It turns out that the train is full of armed nuclear missiles that detonate on impact. You're responsible for the deaths of millions of living beings and the mutated masses that emerge from the fallout in the area. Way to go, asshole. That's what you get for trying to change the rules, you lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Why would anything but a transport vehicle such as a rocket be filled with ARMED nukes, unless the intent was to kill everyone within a 300 mile radius? And wouldn't the train have an appreciable likelihood of jumping upon collision with the 7 bodies? Additionally, there are rough points in the travel of any train which would present a danger to the nukes if they were armed. The only probable course of action would be to arm them just before reaching their destination, which is to say that those people would be near where the bombs would be detonated anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandora Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 You have a good point... but are the two situations necessarily equatable? Just let fate take precendence? They are not equal situations, but they are similar in that you are killing one person to save 7 more. I do not think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, that is the equatable point. Do you mean by "let fate take precedence" not interfering in the situation and seeing what happens? Pretty much.... not interfering and letting happen what would have happened anyway if you hadn't known of the predicament or that you could change the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 Why would anything but a transport vehicle such as a rocket be filled with ARMED nukes, unless the intent was to kill everyone within a 300 mile radius? And wouldn't the train have an appreciable likelihood of jumping upon collision with the 7 bodies? Additionally, there are rough points in the travel of any train which would present a danger to the nukes if they were armed. The only probable course of action would be to arm them just before reaching their destination, which is to say that those people would be near where the bombs would be detonated anyway. An oversight, I never said terrorists were smart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 You never said terrorists either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 You never said terrorists either. I also didn't say that you had more than the given choices, since you decided on going off on some strange tangent away from the two available options your protestations are void and null! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Not at all, seeing as you didn't say I didn't have any other choices. I just wanted to point out that your premise was flawed. I mean, it's not unthinkable that you might switch the junction if you had a chance of saving the one person. And you didn't say that was impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted May 4, 2006 Author Share Posted May 4, 2006 Not at all, seeing as you didn't say I didn't have any other choices. I just wanted to point out that your premise was flawed. I mean, it's not unthinkable that you might switch the junction if you had a chance of saving the one person. And you didn't say that was impossible. No, I told you your options. 1. Actively kill one person and save 7 people. 2. Allow 7 people to die and do not actively kill one person. If you hit the switch, you don't have time to save the 1 person. If you don't hit the switch, you don't have to save the 1 person. You don't have time to save the seven people without killing the 1 person. I said this in my OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 You said unstrap the one, then hit the switch. I posited that you might hit the switch then rescue the one. Reversing the order of action. You never said anything about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entgegen Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 You hit the switch at the last instant. Realizing what you just did, the one person who previously thought he might get out of the situation, screams in terror, begging and pleading for you to do something. But there is no time, the train comes, and in one horrible moment the one person is reduced to mounds of leaky bits. You collapse on the ground and the agonizing guilt is so overwhelming you fail to notice a second train on the tracks with seven people coming towards them from the opposite direction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 First and foremost, who's to say any of that happened beyond the switching of the junctions? Second, unless you feel like ad-libbing that there's only the conductor on that second train of yours, then those stupid fucks operating the rail system have more than a few problems, and by switching the junctions, you probably saved more than 8 people, by preventing those two trains from colliding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I'm with Dhampir. I'd use the switching mechanism to derail the train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Dave Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I pray to the Lord Jesus Christ that His Father perform a miracle and bring the train to a halt. Whatever the end result, I comfort myself that it is God's will and not my decision to make. (I also thank God that real life rarely boils down two simple choices with fixed assumptions and narrow consequences. The one person may be the sole provider for a large family and the seven people drug-dealing, pornography-peddling, murderous gangsters who actively wreak havoc upon our society, for all we know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 The one person may be the sole provider for a large family and the seven people drug-dealing, pornography-peddling, murderous gangsters who actively wreak havoc upon our society, for all we know.) Or vice versa. Or all 8 of them could be upstanding citizens. And wait. Wtf is wrong with pornography-peddling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deacon Dave Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 Or vice versa.Exactly. The decision is not ours to make in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 If Asshatimov would just restate his premise with wording that eliminates these flaws I keep catching, I could answer in a more straighforward, less assholy way. Until then, his wording indicates that there's something that could be done in the time remaining. Ergo, I'd switch the junction then attempt to rescue the one. If at that point I ran out of time, I'd have to say I would not feel wrong in my actions. Now of course I know that his intent was to provide a scenario wherein nothing is possible but the choices offered, but then again, he himself put out a third choice that he didn't list. Again, his logic is off. But I digress. Deacon, by choosing to do nothing, you are making a decision, additionally, I might be inclined to do nothing myself, if for no other reason than to not have to deal with the family of the one. Of course, I'd have to deal with the families of the other seven, making it a no win sitch. realistically, I'm not sure there is a moral dilemma here either way. Either I do nothing and 7 people die, or I do something and 1 dies. I suppose it's a matter of how one deals with the ramifications of inaction as well as action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Shiva H. Vishnu Posted May 4, 2006 Share Posted May 4, 2006 I would do as Our Lord And Holy Blessed Baby Savior Christ Jesus In A Manger would do and throw myself in front of the train in the hopes the train would magically disappear at the moment of my tragically and ethereally meaningful demise. Oh wait, you mean in real life? Well, I'd probably get a little high and while I was considering all the possibilities some random folks would be liquified by a train. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts