The Train Problem -

[Horse Boots]

I was listening to a podcast today and they were discussing a sort of morality puzzle they referred to as The Train/Trolley Problem.

Scenario: You are on a train that is headed towards five people tied to the track. You cannot stop the train, but you can throw a switch which diverts the train's path. This will send you down a track where one person is tied to the track. Simply put, you have the option of doing nothing and killing five people, or taking action and killing one person. What do you do?

 

[Niachu]

I want to say the more people that live the better...but who knows what someone would actually do under that kind of pressure? Yes, I know it's a hypothetical moral dilemma, but it's still an interesting thought.

 

[LM 697]

As the Hulkster says, TRAIN, take your vitamins, and say your prayers, brothers!

 

[Trombonista]

Then there's the problem with Train: Pat Monahan's batshit stupid lyrics.

 

[KatsuKitty]

I was listening to a podcast today and they were discussing a sort of morality puzzle they referred to as The Train/Trolley Problem.

Scenario: You are on a train that is headed towards five people tied to the track. You cannot stop the train, but you can throw a switch which diverts the train's path. This will send you down a track where one person is tied to the track. Simply put, you have the option of doing nothing and killing five people, or taking action and killing one person. What do you do?

Throw the switch halfway, jump out of the train, nail the fork head-on, everybody lives.

 

[Horse Boots]

Throw the switch halfway, jump out of the train, nail the fork head-on, everybody lives.

Cheater...

 

[Oglooger]

the free market will fix it

 

[Holdek]

I was listening to a podcast today and they were discussing a sort of morality puzzle they referred to as The Train/Trolley Problem.

Scenario: You are on a train that is headed towards five people tied to the track. You cannot stop the train, but you can throw a switch which diverts the train's path. This will send you down a track where one person is tied to the track. Simply put, you have the option of doing nothing and killing five people, or taking action and killing one person. What do you do?

Is this really a problem?

Obviously better to have one person killed than five.

Or am I missing something?

 

[Judge Holden]

 

[Alec Benson Leary]

Throw the switch halfway, jump out of the train, nail the fork head-on, everybody lives.

...Except at least a good chunk of the people riding the train.

 

[Hyperion]

I'm with Katsu. Derail the train and hope for the best.

Any situation like the one described has been planned, and you are just the unlucky patsy. Take a third option, refuse to comply and sacrifice yourself.

 

[BlockyStyle]

Is this really a problem?

Obviously better to have one person killed than five.

Or am I missing something?

Some ethical theories hold that morality is about rules rather than consequences. These theories would say that even though killing one person is a better consequence than killing five, if you have to break serious moral rules to get the better consequence, you shouldn't do it. I don't agree with those theories myself, but a lot of philosophers take them seriously.

One intuitive moral rule is "never intentionally kill a human being." You can make the argument that if you do nothing and roll over the five people, you haven't intentionally killed them: they would have died anyway if you weren't there, so you haven't caused their deaths. On the other hand, if you throw the switch, you can't argue that way. You caused the one person's death, and you even intended for them to die, since you knew they'd die if you took action.

Another way of looking at it is to ask "Am I a murderer if I pull the switch?" and "Am I a murderer if I don't?"

 

[Holdek]

Is this really a problem?

Obviously better to have one person killed than five.

Or am I missing something?

Some ethical theories hold that morality is about rules rather than consequences. These theories would say that even though killing one person is a better consequence than killing five, if you have to break serious moral rules to get the better consequence, you shouldn't do it. I don't agree with those theories myself, but a lot of philosophers take them seriously.

One intuitive moral rule is "never intentionally kill a human being." You can make the argument that if you do nothing and roll over the five people, you haven't intentionally killed them: they would have died anyway if you weren't there, so you haven't caused their deaths. On the other hand, if you throw the switch, you can't argue that way. You caused the one person's death, and you even intended for them to die, since you knew they'd die if you took action.

Another way of looking at it is to ask "Am I a murderer if I pull the switch?" and "Am I a murderer if I don't?"

People really take the option of killing five instead of one seriously? I mean, it seems the utility of this thought problem is pretty limited in its application to the real world.

 

[Tim Buckley]

Give someone else the responsability and then find the responsable for the inevitable deaths.

 

[TL 611]

Well. If the train is hurtling out of control towards 5 people, I am not likely to be the driver.

I would take no active role, those deaths arent on my back. Why didn't anyone else on the train do it?

 

[Picklepower]

I'd save the 5, but causing 1 guy to die, would probably scar me for life. Unless the 1 guy was James Holmes, or anyone like that, then I would not feel bad. I know to some people that might sound horrible, that's fine with me.

 

[Trombonista]

I'd save the 5, but causing 1 guy to die, would probably scar me for life. Unless the 1 guy was James Holmes, or anyone like that, then I would not feel bad. I know to some people that might sound horrible

Who cares what the Holmies think?

 

[Some JERK]

it is better to only have to defend yourself against one wrongful death lawsuit than five.

 

[Lady Houligan]

Question why the operators aren't doing their jobs? Are we on that train in Spain that derailed? Or the one on the Quebec-Maine border?

And what is it with trains getting into shit in places that rhyme with the word "train" in the last couple of months?

 

[Holdek]

Question why the operators aren't doing their jobs? Are we on that train in Spain that derailed? Or the one on the Quebec-Maine border?

And what is it with trains getting into shit in places that rhyme with the word "train" in the last couple of months?

I heard the accidents happened in the rain too.