Immiment Death Question

**Verruckter** · 03-26-2007, 09:57 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

I'd probably just stare in disbeleif.

**inflames07** · 03-26-2007, 10:03 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would convince the kid standing alone that he is undeserving of life and that he should die with them. Then instead of playing God, they will all die and I wouldn't feel bad about making the wrong choice.

**acknerr** · 03-26-2007, 10:05 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

Better to save more than less, unless you could tell that they were potheads. I'd pull the lever.

**GuidoHunter** · 03-26-2007, 10:42 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

The question is: by pulling the lever, are you doing evil while you do good or doing good while you're doing evil?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

**wickedawesomeful** · 03-26-2007, 10:53 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would pull the lever.

**DarkbearX** · 03-26-2007, 10:57 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

I'd probably be too frantic to do anything.

**Chrissi** · 03-26-2007, 11:03 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

This question phrased in a more reasonable manner:

There are 5 random people tied to a railroad track. You don't know them. You can't even tell who they are. A train is heading straight for them. But there's good news! You are at the station and you can pull the switch to divert the train from its present track. The bad news? One person is tied to that track.

Do you pull the lever?

For almost everyone, the answer is yes, we pull the lever. Why? You're saving more lives that way. It's pretty obvious. There are some people who wouldn't pull the lever, but they are the anomoly.

Now consider this similar situation: There are five very sick people in a small town with a doctor. These people will die if they do not get organ transplants. Each of them needs a different, vital organ, but there are none available. A wanderer comes into town and visits the doctor. The doctor finds out that this person's organs are compatible with all five of the dying people. So the doctor questions the wanderer, and it turns out the wanderer has no family, no friends, nobody knows where he's going and nobody cares that he left. He's truly a nomad.

Should the doctor steal the wanderer's organs (which would kill him in the process) and save the five dying people?

For most, the answer is no.

Think about why that is. It's the same situation, when it comes down to it: Five lives saved for the sacrifice of one. But why is it that most people would say yes to the first situation, and no to the second?

From my perspective, it has to do with being proactive or reactive. In the first situation, you need to REACT and flip the switch. In the second situation, you actually have to kill a person, thus being PROACTIVE.

**BluE_MeaniE** · 03-26-2007, 11:41 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

Here's a good blog on a similar subject. There was a recent study on people who had brain damage in certain areas and had less of a problem hypothetically killing people to save others.

**AriesMalvis** · 03-27-2007, 12:03 AM

Re: Immiment Death Question

id pull the lever and jump on the platform with that person *splat*

**DHS1** · 03-27-2007, 10:01 AM

Re: Immiment Death Question

Originally posted by Chrissi

This question phrased in a more reasonable manner:

There are 5 random people tied to a railroad track. You don't know them. You can't even tell who they are. A train is heading straight for them. But there's good news! You are at the station and you can pull the switch to divert the train from its present track. The bad news? One person is tied to that track.

Do you pull the lever?

For almost everyone, the answer is yes, we pull the lever. Why? You're saving more lives that way. It's pretty obvious. There are some people who wouldn't pull the lever, but they are the anomoly.

Now consider this similar situation: There are five very sick people in a small town with a doctor. These people will die if they do not get organ transplants. Each of them needs a different, vital organ, but there are none available. A wanderer comes into town and visits the doctor. The doctor finds out that this person's organs are compatible with all five of the dying people. So the doctor questions the wanderer, and it turns out the wanderer has no family, no friends, nobody knows where he's going and nobody cares that he left. He's truly a nomad.

Should the doctor steal the wanderer's organs (which would kill him in the process) and save the five dying people?

For most, the answer is no.

Think about why that is. It's the same situation, when it comes down to it: Five lives saved for the sacrifice of one. But why is it that most people would say yes to the first situation, and no to the second?

From my perspective, it has to do with being proactive or reactive. In the first situation, you need to REACT and flip the switch. In the second situation, you actually have to kill a person, thus being PROACTIVE.

In the first one I would pull the lever to save more people.

In the second I wouldnt kill the wanderer because he is healthy and even if the sick people got the transplants, they would probably have more problems down the road.

I look at it this way: If it were way back when, when transplants were fantacy, then those people would have died and the wanderer would have lived. It's only fair that the healthy person survives.

Im not saying that healthy people are superior to people with medical problems, I mean I myself wouldnt have even made it out of my mothers womb if it werent for c-section (spell?) And I would have died from sickness multiple times if it werent for our awesome knowledge of medicine. But if it came down to it, it's only fair that the healthy survives (unless he wants to give himself up).

**talisman** · 03-27-2007, 10:11 AM

Re: Immiment Death Question

these scenarios are supposed to test your "intellectual" vs "emotional" (quotes because decision making isn't this simple) decision-making tendencies. The second scenario is usually something like "would you push a man off a bridge into the way of the train, killing him but stopping the train and saving the other five?" Most people answer no, presumably because this situation lacks the emotional detachment of the original situation.

**Hachi86** · 03-27-2007, 10:15 AM

Re: Immiment Death Question

Originally posted by Chrissi

From my perspective, it has to do with being proactive or reactive. In the first situation, you need to REACT and flip the switch. In the second situation, you actually have to kill a person, thus being PROACTIVE.

I think thats what it is, too. IMO, if i had to react to something, i would be alot more willing than if i had to move myself and be motivated to do it.

**Kilroy_x** · 03-27-2007, 12:00 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

I'm not sure I would do anything in any of those scenarios. In all of them, before I take the action events are unfolding as they would, and the people that will die will die as a result of already determined conditions, but as soon as I react even though I'm saving 5 people or what have you I'm also killing one. I'm not sure linear arithmatic should be trusted to show that the good I've done to outweigh the bad.

Am I duty bound to try and save these people? I don't see why. I don't even know what the circumstances are for why they're there. Maybe the five people tied to the railroad tracks are criminals facing vigilante justice and the one person was just a random guy who tried to stop the vigilante and was restrained.

If I did pull the lever I would also feel obligated to make some sort of attempt to save the individual guy in each circumstance, even at the cost of my own life.

**GuidoHunter** · 03-27-2007, 12:31 PM

Re: Immiment Death Question

Originally posted by Kilroy_x

Maybe the five people tied to the railroad tracks are criminals facing vigilante justice

That makes it okay for you to personally execute them?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

Immiment Death Question

Immiment Death Question

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment