So imagine...

Its a nice day, you are walking home, you even have an ice cream. On your way home you have to cross a railway bridge. On the railway line below you notice a group of five kids playing on the tracks and there is a train hurtling towards them at a hundred miles an hour.

You notice there is a lever right by where you are standing, if you pull the lever the train will move onto an auxiliary track and avoid killing the five children. There is however a lone child playing on the second track who will be killed by you pulling the lever.

What do you do?

They are all wearing headphones and can't hear you

You can't use TK or come up with a 'cunning plan'

Do you pull the lever or not?

Jesus man, I'm horrible at this . I would not pull it.

I don't know. It's a really hard choice you put here. There would be more the 1 death, yes. However I picture it as he was me alone standing on that track.

who voted?

there is no right or wrong answer. I want to hear what you guys would do...

I voted yes.

Would you say Gus that 5 deaths vs 1 death is like "the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few"?

I voted know minutes ago. But it's a pretty hard choice. It's like choosing between your girlfriend and your sister-in-law.

Yes. If i knew what them maybe the choice would have been different.

Utilitarian vs Not intervening to avoid guilt

I refuse to have only two options. You can always catch 2 rabbits despite the popular belief.

Nazir98 wrote:

I voted know minutes ago. But it's a pretty hard choice. It's like choosing between your girlfriend and your sister-in-law.

thats an easy choice!

I voted no.

Firstly don't play on rail way tracks, thats the most important point! I think consciously acting to take one persons life is worse than not acting in this case. If I wasn't there they would have died anyway and I don't think one guy should have to sacrifice himself unwilling for these idiots. Its natural selection. But like R9 points out that is probably me trying to avoid the feeling of guilt.

Lets move the lever slightly...

Imagine instead you work in a hospital, there are five patients, one needs a new heart, one some new lungs, two of them need a new kidney each and the fifth one is waiting for a liver. There is one guy in a coma he probably won't come round. Would it be ok to kill that guy for his organs to save the other five?

Well yes they are pretty stupid to be playing there. And maybe the one that was alone wanted to suicide so i made him a favour! The organs thing... You cannot implant any organ to any person. The blood type needs to fit.

gustanak wrote:

The organs thing... You cannot implant any organ to any person. The blood type needs to fit.

Yep, in this hypothetical case they are all the same blood type, O negative.

Ok, i would give my own organs because i am a very gut person, gut very gut. And my sons and ddaughters would remember me as the gut person i was.

Now speaking seriously i hate this questions.

They are really tough, thats for sure. This is the kind of thing they ask you when you study philosophy or sociology at university.

You guys made me think of the first one, you are right. I would say no. At first i though i would be like m job to do something so if i said no i would feel guilty for those 5. But i now understand is just a decision like any other.

I voted no. Not that I won't do it in real life, but if I knew those kids who are a huge pain in the @$$ for everyone. What good have they done for me?
........
Exactly: Nothing! Ignore! Snicker!