Subway problem

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

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?

The correct answer, imo, is to leave the switch as is. The solo guy is working on a track with the presumption that it is an inactive one. The 5 guys, otoh, should know that they are on an active track, and to act accordingly, have a chance at survival. If it's 'likely' they will all be killed by this scenario, the procedures are in bad shape.

[billvon 3,107]

>In the subway scenario, there is no way to know if the people down
>the tracks will die, no matter which option you choose.

Well, in this case you _do_ know, based on the situation chosen. I don't think that changes most people's feelings about it though. You still flip the switch to save five lives.

>You may be held legally responsible if you flip the switch and one
>man dies, but it probably wouldn't be considered murder.

Probably true. The issue is at the core of many such thought experiments - leave the injured climber behind? Swerve into a crowd to avoid a child who darts in front of your car? - but the details change people's perception of the action significantly.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

but the details change people's perception of the action significantly.

Of course they do.

Do you disagree they should?

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

[billvon 3,107]

>Of course they do. Do you disagree they should?

Nope; they are both somewhat morally ambiguous, so I'd expect details to affect people's responses to it.

It's interesting to talk to people and see their emotional response to both questions. I've spoken to quite a few people who don't see anything wrong with sacrificing the first guy, but find the second case abhorrent. I think that has something to do with the trust people have to have in doctors. It's one thing to think that an out-of-control train could cause your death (even if someone flips a switch and influences its path) - but more disturbing to think that a doctor could actively participate in someone's death.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I've spoken to quite a few people who don't see anything wrong with sacrificing the first guy, but find the second case abhorrent.

Interesting... I don't feel that way about it. The first scenario is more disturbing to me because no matter which choice I made, I'd feel guilty that anyone died, and I'd feel at least partially responsible. But if I was a doctor in the other case, the decision would be clear to me, and I wouldn't feel like it was my fault if the other five died (assuming I had done everything possible, short of killing another person, to save them).

[freethefly 6]

Quote

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.)

Road gangs have radios with them at all times so they would be well informed if a runaway train was coming their way. If there were a runaway, the dispatcher would merely reroute it by throwing the switches required to put it on a clear rail. As handthrows are locked, chances are one would not have time if a speeding train was looming down on them to unlock and throw the switch. Also, this being a subway, a runaway is highly unlikely as subway units are equipt with a deadman switch. No foot on the switch, the unit does not move.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[1969912 0]

Throw the switch in order to reduce deaths, get video for youtube, then drink myself into a stupor. Tough call though.

Hippocratic Oath would apply to the other scenario, but all I know about the oath is the "do no harm" part. Letting someone die is allowed if that's all the oath says. For some reason, I'm more conflicted about this scenario than the subway one, but it's really no different.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[pirana 0]

Quote

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

Might as well go for the gusto and form a Commission.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[KelliJ 0]

Quote

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.

I agree with your view on this. Might I add that in scenario #1 saving lives was virtually certain where in scenario #2 even if the healthy man was used for parts, there is still a high risk that the recipients will not survive.

In either case I think it is sad that our society has fallen to a state where one must consider the legal ramifications of doing the right thing.

[billvon 3,107]

>Road gangs have radios with them at all times so they would be well
>informed if a runaway train was coming their way.

These don't. It's a pretty straightforward scenario. In the first scenario, you can either sacrifice one guy to save the other five, or take no action and have the five likely die. In the second scenario, you have the same choice - but it's oddly different from a "feeling" perspective.

(And yes, I'm also ignoring the cases in which the brilliant doctor takes an hour and invents an artificial liver; it's a purposely simplified case.)

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

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.)

Butt Secks?

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

. . . you have the same choice - but it's oddly different from a "feeling" perspective.

They are different situations, and not just from a "feeling" perspective. The doctor has a professional obligation to try to save all six patients, which likely means that the five will die. The subway worker has no obligations to any of the other people involved (at least not as stated in your description), so there is no "correct" answer in his situation, and thus his is the only real dilemma of the two scenarios.

[wmw999 2,584]

I think they feel different because formalized rules for emergency management are very likely to come into play in the second one, and they don't as easily in the first one.

A doctor has well-established principles in such a situation, and by and large we respect them; a brakeman doesn't necessarily.

Medical triage when the system is overwhelmed seems to be as close as you come to making those kinds of decisions in medicine. There you can choose to treat the 5 people with lesser injuries, while deliberately not treating the one person with greater (but salvageable) injuries knowing that it gives you the resources to save the other 5.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[PLFXpert 0]

I think for hypothetical's sake, Bill might have been better in the latter scenario to swap the doctor for Joe Shmo who happens to be awesomely skilled at medicine & surgical procedure.

It's OK to do that since both scenarios are feigned anyways.

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

- Nancy Pelosi

Might as well go for the gusto and form a Commission.

Maybe they'll get around to throwing the switch sometime in, oh...the first 100 hours?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[freethefly 6]

Quote

>Road gangs have radios with them at all times so they would be well
>informed if a runaway train was coming their way.

These don't. It's a pretty straightforward scenario. In the first scenario, you can either sacrifice one guy to save the other five, or take no action and have the five likely die. In the second scenario, you have the same choice - but it's oddly different from a "feeling" perspective.

(And yes, I'm also ignoring the cases in which the brilliant doctor takes an hour and invents an artificial liver; it's a purposely simplified case.)

Holy cow, what kind of a railroad are they working for that doesn't provide radios! OK, in this scenario, I would throw the switch, providing that the railroad supplied me with a switch key. I am hoping that the one guy on the rail alone is a supervisor as it is obvious that the supervisor didn't care enough to get radios for the road gang and does not have one himself.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[billvon 3,107]

>Holy cow, what kind of a railroad are they working for that doesn't provide radios!

Comes from the same people who brought you frictionless planes, massless pulleys and ideal ropes.

[freethefly 6]

Quote

>Holy cow, what kind of a railroad are they working for that doesn't provide radios!

Comes from the same people who brought you frictionless planes, massless pulleys and ideal ropes.

Do you shop here http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ideal/ideal.htm often?

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[happythoughts 0]

Grab my video camera and submit the whole thing to Americas Funniest Home Videos.

"...look, here's where the nose of the train hits him in the groin."

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Grab my video camera and submit the whole thing to Americas Funniest Home Videos.

"...look, here's where the nose of the train hits him in the groin."

I really should had warned him of the on coming Sperry railcar (or ran over to throw the switch) but, hey a good picture is a good picture and I am not about pass up a great shot!

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[PLFXpert 0]

I was thinking of this on a larger, less hypothetical scale today.

I'm not in a position to write a novel post at the moment so...

While I can think about it all day and analyze scenarios and morals and rights & wrongs, it really doesn't matter. What matters is what one actually does "in the moment". And what one actually had to do and/or be directly responsible for.

What if it wasn't just about flipping a switch and letting the train do the work?

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

[akarunway 1]

Quote

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.)

I'd quickly break out my flask and have a quick shot of bourbon whilst thinking (and getting out of the way). Decision made. Hopefully the train will stop (by the will of some supreme benevolent being) or flip on its side and all will die. Let em all die. Who cares? Now. Ten yrs. past. They pass some sort of bad/good samaritan law and I get to spend the rest of my life w/ Bubba for killing EVERYBODY for doing nothing.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[crwtom 0]

Quote

I think they feel different because formalized rules for emergency management are very likely to come into play in the second one, and they don't as easily in the first one.

A doctor has well-established principles in such a situation, and by and large we respect them; a brakeman doesn't necessarily.

Principle and precedence is a great factor in what makes the two scenarios different - but I'd also throw in a subconscious yet caculating sense of self-preservation.

Suppose the second medical scenario sets a moral precedence. That can mean that the next time you go to your physician for a sprained ankle or an annual check-up he/she runs your data through a computer data base as a routine. What are the chances that there will be three or four patients in the US in critical need of organs for which you are a matching donor -- Very high I'd presume -- and before you know you're put in an induced coma and out come the scalpels to cut you into little pieces.

This scenario is far to common place and likely to affect everyone to bear the thought that other would be allowed to play god.

The first subway example is, by contrast, contrived and exotic. The chances of you being the lone worker on the other track in real life are next to nil. The moral decisions in this scenario will not set any far reaching moral precedence that will affect many people.

We are essentially sitting in Philosophy 101 and it is quite save to play god.

Cheers, T

*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true