Subway problem

[billvon 3,107]

Moral question:

You are a worker on a subway working on the tracks. You are working on a subway line when you see a runaway subway train coming at you. There are five people further down the tracks; they will all likely be killed by the train based on which track they are on. Your only option is to throw a switch to divert the subway to another track. If you do that, one person (guy working on the other track) will likely be killed.

Which is the morally correct action? Do nothing, allowing five to die, or throw the switch such that one dies?

(And it's really a simple question; there's no "I'd hop on board and stop the subway before it kills anyone!" trick.)

[lawrocket 3]

I say both are morally correct, but only because neither one is morally INCORRECT.

Personally, I'd throw the switch. The worker on the other track would hopefully have been trained and been aware, and is paid for his acceptance of the risk.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[shropshire 0]

Morally not throwing the swich could be considered the correct course of action, as I would not be causeing the death of someone.
The subway accident is not of my making and so I'm not responsible for the accident - but I would be responsible if I throw the switch.

By throwing the switch I take an active part in the outcome by doing nothing I'm merely a spectator.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[BIGUN 1,481]

Throw the switch such that one dies.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[Glitch 0]

Depends on how well I like the "guy" on the tracks...

Seriously, I don't know how I would answer IF I knew any of the parties involved... I'm sure if I knew one of them it would skew my decision. However, all things being equal... I'd prolly try to save the 5 and offer up the singular individual as chow... for the greater good mind you...

I'd also add that I'm not addressing the possible legal ramifications of my actions... I can easily envision this happening, with the 1 guy killed and the guy who threw the switch being strung up to dry.

Randomly f'n thingies up since before I was born...

[diablopilot 2]

Gut instinct says throw the switch.


Legally it's a mess I'd not want to touch with a 20 foot pole.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[PLFXpert 0]

At face value if the question is risk one life or five, I'd risk one. It seems the obvious choice unless one is in a "the world is over-populated" sort of mood, in which case the morally correct thing to do would be to save the planet and axe the fiver.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[PLFXpert 0]

Actually that line of thought is so yesterday.

These days you're damned if you do something and damned if you don't.

Best to just do what you can live with, methinks.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[billvon 3,107]

All good answers.

Now the corollary to the question.

A runaway subway causes a horrendous accident. You are a doctor, and six subway workers are brought in. Five are mortally wounded and will die without transplants. One is moderately injured but will likely recover. Ironically (and conveniently for this example) the less seriously injured one is a perfect tissue match for the other five, and the prognosis for the five if they get transplants is good.

What is the more moral course of action? Allow the five to die and the one to recover, or use the organs of the less seriously injured worker and sacrifice him to save the other five?

[lawrocket 3]

If I was a physician, it would violate my oath to do that, bill.

"Never to do deliberate harm to anyone for anyone else's interest."

As a doctor, I'd say no.

Edited because I ain't no physician.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Para_Frog 1]

I would form a comittee to explore the weight of moral decisions based on current societal norms - and determine if indeed a decision must be made.

Then I would put together a focus group to determine which decision would be most likely to impress the 21-35 demographic.

Concurrently, I would contract an environmental impact study into the throwing of switches and the crashing of subway cars. I understand that there are certain species of alligator and mutant rat that might fall under special protections.

If I am a union switch-flipper, I would require a 45-minute decision stand down prior to the actual flipping of said switch.

THEN, I would....OOOOOh! Something sparkly!

- Nancy Pelosi

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[PLFXpert 0]

Do best to save all lives, this includes tissue-matchmaker.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Para_Frog 1]

Let them all die. Using living tissue is a sin. Besides, they're evil fornicators.

- Jerry Falwell

- Harvey, BASE 1232
TAN-I, IAD-I, S&TA

BLiNC Magazine Team Member

[shropshire 0]

O.K - which group controls the Oil?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[billvon 3,107]

>As a doctor, I'd say no.

Even non-doctors answer the same way. I find it interesting that most people see the two scenarios differently. I'm not sure why. They "feel" different to me, but again, I'm not sure I could describe how they are fundamentally different.

[Lindsey 0]

Allow the five to die and the one to recover, or use the organs of the less seriously injured worker and sacrifice him to save the other five?

The moral course of action is to treat each patient to the best of your ability short of harming another person to improve the chances of any (or all) of the others.

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[BIGUN 1,481]

Allow the five to die and the one to recover.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[billvon 3,107]

>The moral course of action is to treat each patient to the best of
>your ability short of harming another person to improve the chances of any
>(or all) of the others.

That "feels" correct - yet in the first example it also "feels" correct to take one life to save five.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>As a doctor, I'd say no.

Even non-doctors answer the same way. I find it interesting that most people see the two scenarios differently. I'm not sure why. They "feel" different to me, but again, I'm not sure I could describe how they are fundamentally different.

It's why I view "feelings" and "thoughts" as different. "I felt like I aced that test." Well, what do you think now? "I did get a D."

It's just one of those things.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

They "feel" different to me, but again, I'm not sure I could describe how they are fundamentally different.

I see how they are not different.

I think the difference is the "feeling".

It would seem in the former one believes they have control whether one or five lives are at risk. Technically five lives are already at risk, but in the former it "feels" like the choice is yours.

In the latter it "feels" like the choice is not yours. Five have already suffered life-threatening injuries (vs. the five that were not yet injured, but would no doubt have been in the former) and one has a very good chance at life. It would "feel" more like you were killing someone intentionally (in the latter) vs. saving five people intentionally (in the former).

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I find it interesting that most people see the two scenarios differently.

The two scenarios are different. The doctor knows that the one man will die if his organs are used to save the others, and the doctor would effectively be committing murder.

In the subway scenario, there is no way to know if the people down the tracks will die, no matter which option you choose. You may be held legally responsible if you flip the switch and one man dies, but it probably wouldn't be considered murder.

[Lindsey 0]

Quote

>The moral course of action is to treat each patient to the best of
>your ability short of harming another person to improve the chances of any
>(or all) of the others.

That "feels" correct - yet in the first example it also "feels" correct to take one life to save five.

If the second scenario involved 6 people who were equally critically injured, and 5 would survive with the transplants from the 6th person, that issue isn't quite as clear, at least to me. In that situation I could see letting the one guy (the potential donor) die so that the others could be saved.

I think in the first, there's something (though I can't quite put my finger on it) about them all being equally...or nearly equally victims. You're just deciding which way it's gonna go. Hmm...

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[labrys 0]

In the first case the decision is being made under more of a time constraint than the second. I think that influences the gut reaction to pull the switch.

Morally, I think both cases are equal. And the uncontrolled vs controlled environments make it feel different.

Owned by Remi #?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Allow the five to die and the one to recover, or use the organs of the less seriously injured worker and sacrifice him to save the other five?

The doctor's oath includes "First, do no harm". Killing the one to benefit the other five is doing him harm. If the other five die without the transplants, that is just "fate". That's too bad, but it's no-one's moral responsibility to kill another to benefit the greater good. And if we ever get to that point, then gosh help us...

[BIGUN 1,481]

The first says that if an action is obligatory, it is also permissible.
The second says that an action is permissible if and only if it is not forbidden.

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.