Thread: Tough Questions

Kill the one man and smother the baby. Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and such. The baby is presumably so young that it isn't at the point of having conscious memories anyways and since it has no family left it's not as big a loss as the group of people. The act itself wouldn't be as difficult to do because of the relatively minor amount of struggle the baby could put up as well as the darkness of the shed.

I am not exactly sure how the five men couldn't be aware of the train as it gets closer, but again; the one man would have to die.

1. I would let the five men die and then go murder the other guy myself.

2. Kill the baby and then give up the other people in hopes that I would be let off with a less severe punishment.

Btw the baby thing has been done. I heard testimony from a woman who was put into a concentration camp once upon a time, but at one point they were hiding and the mother smothered her baby to protect the other people (the mother wasn't jewish but she was helping the other people.)

No question on the train: Don't touch that dial! People standing on a track where a train is coming will likely see it in time. On the other hand, if you redirect the train, the person on the track is much less likely to notice in time. Not to mention that if the train is up to speed, a track switch could cause it to wreck, killing and injuring people on board as well.

For the baby, you cover as best you can without killing and hope for the best.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Btw the baby thing has been done. I heard testimony from a woman who was put into a concentration camp once upon a time, but at one point they were hiding and the mother smothered her baby to protect the other people (the mother wasn't jewish but she was helping the other people.)

It was also a storyline in an episode of M*A*S*H* in the early 80s.

Originally Posted by skysaw

It was also a storyline in an episode of M*A*S*H* in the early 80s.

Damn MASH I hate that show blugh.

I'd redirect the train to kill the one man instead of five, but I don't think there's anyway I could kill a baby.

Why kill the baby in the first place? Just cover its mouth so that it can't cry.

But if it came to the moral issue, I would kill the one man and kill the baby. Although it would be a lot nicer if I could tell the person next to me to push the switch and kill the baby .

You dont mess with the tracks because it can cause some big problems. For example another train comming down the other track. Anyway, you run over and you wave your arms in the air and you scream and they will hopefully hear you, or notice the train.

For the baby I will just cover its mouth and hopefully it will remain quiet. I am not going to kill it. Plan B, is try and kill the guards. Also have the other people help, a group of people can take out a few guards.

Your all Pussies, I say kill them all.

Originally Posted by Vance

1. You see a runaway train heading down a rail. Further down the rail, you see there are five men standing in it's path, oblivious to the train. You are standing by a switch that could divert the train onto a track with only one man standing in the way. They are out of earshot and assume there is no way that they could get out in time. The train track was supposed to be closed, so the men are not at fault for standing there. Do you want to do nothing and let 5 men die, or do something so one man dies by your hand?

2. You are a war refugee, hiding in a shed where enemy guards are searching nearby. You are with many other survivors of the war, under persecution. An orphaned baby starts to cry next to you. If you continue to let it cry, you are absolutely guaranteed to be found, and everyone will be immidiately executed. If you smother the baby, everyone else will survive and escape the war. The baby has no living relatives. What do you do?

Leave the train alone.

Sumtha the little mutha.

I'm sorry but I have a problem with each question. What sort of people stand on a train track, six of them, each being unaware of oncoming trains; on a train track.

Secondly, why do you need to kill the baby can't you just cover its mouth.

Originally Posted by psychology student

I'm sorry but I have a problem with each question. What sort of people stand on a train track, six of them, each being unaware of oncoming trains; on a train track.

Secondly, why do you need to kill the baby can't you just cover its mouth.

The baby will still make noise, because if you cover its mouth the noise comes out its nose, and if it comes out the nose you have to cover the nose, and even then the baby can still make noise which means you'll have to suffocate it to death.

Originally Posted by Sandform

The baby will still make noise, because if you cover its mouth the noise comes out its nose, and if it comes out the nose you have to cover the nose, and even then the baby can still make noise which means you'll have to suffocate it to death.

Is that from personal experience? Or scientific studies?

Originally Posted by psychology student

Is that from personal experience? Or scientific studies?

Well, lets see..scream really loud and then place it over you mouth and see if you don't still make noise. And yes, I said earlier there has been a real scenario which has actually happened and baby died during the nazi scandal.

Stop looking at the specifics!

I will call teh peplz and tel dem to getz out of de way cuz a trainz a'comin!

I wud alzo find it harde to beliv dat dey cudnt hear de train.

By de way, Plato's teeree of de cave is screwed cuz how can pplz be born into bondage it wud be impozible and dey wud get bedsorez



Okay, I'll make it easier to visualize.

In the train scenario, the men on the rail are at a deaf & blind convention, and do not know the party has ended and everyone but them has left.

In the baby scenario, the guards made camp outside, but they will not find you if you quiet the baby. However, the baby is starving, so it will continue to cry, or yell through it's nose unless you plug both. The guards will be outside until next morning.

Where is this thread going...?

Originally Posted by Vance

1. You see a runaway train heading down a rail. Further down the rail, you see there are five men standing in it's path, oblivious to the train. You are standing by a switch that could divert the train onto a track with only one man standing in the way. They are out of earshot and assume there is no way that they could get out in time. The train track was supposed to be closed, so the men are not at fault for standing there. Do you want to do nothing and let 5 men die, or do something so one man dies by your hand?

Kill one to save five. You are choosing between one and five, and one is the better option. That is exactly the type of philosophy that justifies some war efforts. If you do that, be prepared for some people to scream, "You can't do that! Kililng is wrong!"

Originally Posted by Vance

2. You are a war refugee, hiding in a shed where enemy guards are searching nearby. You are with many other survivors of the war, under persecution. An orphaned baby starts to cry next to you. If you continue to let it cry, you are absolutely guaranteed to be found, and everyone will be immidiately executed. If you smother the baby, everyone else will survive and escape the war. The baby has no living relatives. What do you do?

Bye bye, baby.

Folks, please don't nitpick the hypotheticals to death. You know what they are asking. They are about moral dilemmas, not whether the terms of the hypothetical should be accepted.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Folks, please don't nitpick the hypotheticals to death. You know what they are asking. They are about moral dilemmas, not whether the terms of the hypothetical should be accepted.

That might be true, but theres no reason you have to accept other peoples hypothetical situations. If you can find a valid answer to the question, that doesn't compromise your morals, then more power to you.

I say I want to go kill the guards. Under that situation its perfectly valid. If you are able to take out the guards the baby and everyone else lives. Sticking something into the babies mouth so it can suck on it and not cry, another valid answer. If a person is able to cover its mouth and muffle the sound enough that its not heard, then thats also a good answer.

People ask hypthetical questions like that to force you into picking an option where you kill people, or feel guilt for not saving them. What happens if we believe theres always a third option where you can save everyone? Its not always obvious and some times it can be risky, but theres always an option.

Originally Posted by Alric

That might be true, but theres no reason you have to accept other peoples hypothetical situations. If you can find a valid answer to the question, that doesn't compromise your morals, then more power to you.

I say I want to go kill the guards. Under that situation its perfectly valid. If you are able to take out the guards the baby and everyone else lives. Sticking something into the babies mouth so it can suck on it and not cry, another valid answer. If a person is able to cover its mouth and muffle the sound enough that its not heard, then thats also a good answer.

People ask hypthetical questions like that to force you into picking an option where you kill people, or feel guilt for not saving them. What happens if we believe theres always a third option where you can save everyone? Its not always obvious and some times it can be risky, but theres always an option.

It is just that the question is about what you would do when you absolutely have to choose between two, and only two, situations. The issue is about what you would do when faced with such a hypothetical dilemma. Trying to find ways around the dilemma does not answer the question. It is difficult to pose the questions in a way where there are zero alternatives other than the two options, but that is the idea. I have posted questions like that, and most of the responses I got involved trying to find ways around the dilemma. That defeats the purpose. My swerve and dodge a cat thread is a good illustration of what I am talking about.

Vance is asking what you would do if you had two choices and only two choices. Presenting the question in a way that shows that, short of flat out saying that there are no other options, is not just that easy.

Originally Posted by Alric

That might be true, but theres no reason you have to accept other peoples hypothetical situations. If you can find a valid answer to the question, that doesn't compromise your morals, then more power to you.

I say I want to go kill the guards. Under that situation its perfectly valid. If you are able to take out the guards the baby and everyone else lives. Sticking something into the babies mouth so it can suck on it and not cry, another valid answer. If a person is able to cover its mouth and muffle the sound enough that its not heard, then thats also a good answer.

People ask hypthetical questions like that to force you into picking an option where you kill people, or feel guilt for not saving them. What happens if we believe theres always a third option where you can save everyone? Its not always obvious and some times it can be risky, but theres always an option.

You're new to philosophy, aren't you?

UM has the right of it.

Well what if I asked the question what would you do if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to make a choice? Massacre a 100 children or eat one baby while it was still alive? I am sure most people would go "Eww thats gross!" Which is the correct answer because its pretty disgusting and a horrible question to ask someone.

Talking about murdering a baby while not as disgusting as the above question is just as horrible. Of course people are going to look for ways around it.

People are not avoiding the question to be jerks or anything. Obviously you want them to answer, but its a question people don't want to answer. What they are basicly saying, is they dont want any part in it.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well what if I asked the question what would you do if someone put a gun to your head and forced you to make a choice? Massacre a 100 children or eat one baby while it was still alive? I am sure most people would go "Eww thats gross!" Which is the correct answer because its pretty disgusting and a horrible question to ask someone.

Talking about murdering a baby while not as disgusting as the above question is just as horrible. Of course people are going to look for ways around it.

People are not avoiding the question to be jerks or anything. Obviously you want them to answer, but its a question people don't want to answer. What they are basicly saying, is they dont want any part in it.

Then don't ever take a an ethics class. You will have to deal with a bunch of those if you do, and you might be required to take ethics if you major in philosophy.

Well I take the third option in that as well. You might say you either have to answer the questions or fail the class but I disagree. I think you could get away with argueing a third option every time, if you gave a well worded arguement based on the theme of the question.

Originally Posted by Alric

Well I take the third option in that as well. You might say you either have to answer the questions or fail the class but I disagree. I think you could get away with argueing a third option every time, if you gave a well worded arguement based on the theme of the question.

You can't make up options if they say you hypothetically have only two or how ever many options. If they say you have option A and option B and no other options, you cannot say you choose option C.