Printable View
Say there's a runaway train. It's hurtling out of control towards ten people standing in the middle of the tracks. The only way to save those people is to flip a switch, send the train down another set of tracks. The only problem is—there is a baby in the middle of those tracks.
Question is: is it appropriate to divert the train and kill the one baby to save the ten people?
One innocent baby > Ten stupid people
I'd tell them to get out of the way, if they don't they're as good as dead alive anyway lol.
^ My thoughts exactly, 10 people standing in the middle of a train track while a train is approaching is pretty dumb, so they just get whats coming to them.
halp gais how do i analogys?
Ok suppose they can't see/hear the train coming lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
You taking philosophy A-Level?
Hastily written, sorry.
Whenever I've heard this dilemma before it's been a person off to the side, and 5 people on the tracks, all adults. Even in that case, I say to veer it to the side and kill the one person. So in this case, of course. Kill the baby. I don't know how anyone could judge otherwise. The excuse that they're "stupid people" isn't valid. That isn't part of the question. You need to assume that they somehow didn't see the train coming or couldn't get out of the way fast enough. 10 people > 1 baby. Perhaps some parental instincts might tell some of us that a nice innocent baby is more precious than an infinite number of vile adults, but I don't think that's right.
But it is a bit of a problem to answer why. A seemingly similar situation often brought up is one in which a doctor has 5 dying patients. Each one needs a different internal organ to survive, but won't get it. Another patient comes in for a regular check-up. Should the doctor kill the patient and harvest his organs, to save the 5 other people? The answer is obviously no, even though the situations are analogous, and the answer to the former is obviously yes.
I suspect the relevant difference is that there's a trust between the doctor and patient. If doctors did this, everyone would fear to go to the doctor. But with the train example, it's a momentary thing, and a rare case. The people on the tracks haven't voluntarily stood in the train's way while trusting you to veer off the tracks upon an agreement.
Traditionally I have heard of this dilemma involving a "fat man" in place of the baby, I would imagine that the baby was added to tug at our heart strings and give the illusion of changing the context of the dilemma. But does the baby change the dilemma? Notice how Wayfaerer added "ten stupid people" to the context of the the dilemma (the OP mentioned nothing of the sort) to demonize the ten people.
Whether or not the people where in fact stupid or if the man was in fact obese or it is a defenseless baby, this doesn't nothing to change the dilemma in any meaningful way. He would have to answer the question "why is one life (the babies) intrinsically worth more than ten "stupid peoples"? Does the dilemma change at all if there where 20 people? Or 100? It is clear to me that the addition of "the baby" is a red herring causing the rational agent to make a decision based on their emotions rather than their rationality.
(On a side note I am not necessarily attacking the role of emotions in decision making. Our emotions have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years enabling us to make quick heuristic decisions; where trying to reason about what to do when a tiger is chasing you, would have been an impediment to our survival. Clearly emotions (for better or worse) play an indispensable role in our judgements and decisions.)
It is interesting to see how people would ad hoc rationalize their decisions by asserting that the 10 people "deserved it" or were stupid in some way (Although I would expect nothing less from Ne-yo).
I would think that a typical utilitarian response would be to change the track and kill the baby/fat man because 10 lives are intrinsically more valuable than one single life, regardless of whether or not it is a baby, Mother Theresa, or Ted Bundy. For a utilitarian the moral value of an action lies in the outcome so sacrificing the baby to save ten people would be the moral thing to. Letting the ten people die results in 10 women who are without husbands and several children without fathers; all of which result in more suffering for a greater number of people. Of course the question is not adequately answered (I'm not sure it can be): But what makes the lives of ten people intrinsically more valuable than one person?
But before we answer that question we must ask a rather unusual question: Do entities have intrinsic value independent of our perception or utility of that entity? In other words does a hammer have value independent of the meaning I attribute to it (its function: hammers boards together, can be used as weapon)? Using this example it is clear that we attribute value to the hammer (we created to perform a specific task) the hammer does not contain an intrinsic value independent of our conception of it. What I am trying to (long-windedly) drive at is the conjecture that objects do not have value independent of the value we attribute to them through the functional role they play in our everyday life's.
The value of entities is tied up with our very way of life, we cannot step outside of our subjectivity or humanity to conclude that human life does indeed contain an intrinsic value independent of our minds. Human life is valuable to us because we value our own life's (I realize this seems callous, even paradoxical) and because we are simply hardwired to value the life's as is evident in the tendency of mammals to live in groups. If someone has any evidence that life is intrinsically valuable (without postulating the existence of a transcendental reality or a supernatural deity) let me know...
My conclusion is that we cannot really determine what is the "right" decision in this dilemma. Yes everyone on this thread will think that there is only one right answer and a wrong one; if only it were that easy. We cannot decide whether a single human life is more valuable than ten because the very faculty (the human mind) that determines whether this value is there or not is genetically hardwired to find value in human life in the first place. We are just begging the question.
To reluctantly answer the question, I would presuppose the utilitarian position and save the ten people by killing the baby.
What I cannot do however is to justify this decision as being the right one. I can only say that the decision pragmatically seemed to be the most suitable one to me and cannot determine whether it was derived through reason or emotion. I cannot say why this is the right decision to me other than that it seems to be the best available decision but cannot independently justify it in anyway.
Anybody care to explain how Dianeva's post doesn't directly lead to the conclusion that morality isn't an objective, consistent set of principles, but rather, disjointed norms of a purely social origin?
I wont oblige you with that explanation as I am overtly skeptical of any objective morals.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
'Objective' is a bit of a vague term. But it's hard to give credence to any concept which isn't even consistent... that is the very concerning thing to me.
Standing in the middle of a train track while a train is coming is an unintelligent (stupid) decision, I was merely using the definition. The baby isn't just an emotional distraction, it doesn't know enough to move off the tracks. The people have the means to help themselves, so I think it would be best to hope they will and protect the baby who can't.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
This is still irrelevant. The thought experiment is setup in such a way that you have to choose to either kill the ten people and save the baby's life or kill the baby and save the ten peoples lives. There are no gray areas, you can’t choose to save the baby and hope the ten people move out of the way, that's not how the dilemma is constructed. Even if the people were stupid (or Nazi's or prostitutes) it doesn't change the content of the dilemma.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
You entirely missed the point of the dilemma. It is a query into how we value human life and how we make decisions based off of these values. The point of the essay I wrote above…up there…was to inquire into the basis of these values that underlie the decisions that we make.
I don't suppose replacing the word "objective" for "mind-independent" would dispel this ambiguity? Not entirely sure what you mean by "isn't even consistent".Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I know how the popular situation is set up. My answer in psychology class to this was "I can't choose one, it's too black and white for reality". I think this is why your conclusion to the classic dilemma was "we can't decide rightly" because it doesn't address reality at all lol. The only dilemma I'm seeing is the one written in the OP, which seems more open to the actual possibilities of life.
It's quite simple... in one circumstance, the death of the one is 'morally obvious', yet in an analogous situation, the death of the ten is preferable. That's inconsistency, and it shows that the system is flawed, by any measure.
Basically, in reality, I would refuse such a black and white decision because I can. I would try to help everyone, logically, helpless first. The problem with these thought experiments is that reality will always present loopholes you can attempt.
If you think about it, though, the baby is probably stupider anyway. Babies aren't usually very smart.
Not choosing is still a choice. By not choosing you are choosing to let the train kill the ten people because you could have done something to prevent it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
My conclusion was not that "we can't decide rightly because it does not address reality at all".
We must decide. What I meant is that whatever decision I make, I am skeptical of dubbing it the "right one" but I'm still making a decision. I don't think there is an easy answer to this dilemma, but that is not the main point of the dilemma. The answer does not necessarily matter; what is matters is that the dilemma calls upon us to explore underneath the surface of our ethical values by questioning the basis of these values.
We do not have the burden of making moral decisions in everyday life or "reality" as you say. When we are met by such dilemmas, we rarely have the luxury of having a myriad of possible decisions at our disposal. Often when these situations arise, we are indeed met with "a black and white" dilemma and on top of that we do not have the luxury of taking our time to reach a conclusion.
Refusing to make a decision in a thought experiment because it "does not address reality at all" is entirely missing the point and is just lazy. No offense.
The difference between you and I is the fact that you only see numbers when it comes down to any life ( i.e, 10 lives vs 1), whereas what I see is the life quality of 10 adults vs 1 infant. I'm a father so that plays a major part in my decision regarding the sensitive conditions of this scenario. Even if the 10 were not stupid or whatever, my choice is still the infant regardless. I don't think you can relate to this because you're not a parent.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
Also speaking as a Marine. One person's life could easily out-weigh 10. Where I come from no one Marine gets left behind. If 10 Marines die trying to save 1 Marine then so be it, "death before dishonor".
Oh I see. You are the final arbiter of whose life is more valuable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
If you had read my post a little bit further you would have read the part where I questioned the utilitarian position about what makes it the case that ten lives are more intrinsically valuable than one persons life? I did not come to a satisfactory answer (I never really do).
This is where I disagree, I think life is too complex for us to even imagine the amount of actions possible in any possible situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
What meaningful thought or point can come from such a thought experiment? I just think it's just a waste of time.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
But of course, who else hands are 11 lives in?Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
10 infants vs. one infant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
I really disagree. Thought experiments are extremely useful for giving insights to the truth, as has happened historically, both in science and philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
To Engage in the idealistic thought experiment, there is no right or wrong decision here, it's all very personal. If I had to save my girlfriend (if I had one) or a complete stranger, I would choose my girlfriend with no guilt. If I had to save a talented scientist or a world renowned poker player, I would save the scientist. The value of a human only exists subjectively, but would understandably make your decision. Considering the OP to be the classic idealistic dilemma, I would save 10 strangers over a strangers baby; I don't think there is intrinsic relative value in being a baby lol. If it was my baby, that would be a little more difficult.
DUH! I was talking about this specific thought experiment which I think is too simple for reality. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I want to point out that I didn't mean that it's objectively more morally correct to kill the baby. Different people will give different answers, and there isn't a correct one, because morality isn't objective (isn't independent of the mind).
I agree that it might be flawed and inconsistent. That's because morality isn't objective. We use emotion to decide what, at a core level, we think is right and wrong. As Stormcrow discussed, there is no 'right' nor 'wrong' independent of our minds. The moral choices are only right because most people feel that they are. It's disconcerting, but I don't see another way to measure morality when one doesn't believe in anything divine.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I do tend to believe that what is moral to us is largely determined by the action that will bring the most amount of happiness, on average. This might resolve the issue here. The deaths of the ten people will bring more unhappiness than the death of the baby, so it is morally right to choose to kill the baby. And the doctor murdering his patient seems wrong to us because, as a general rule, doctors shouldn't do that. If they did, people would fear going to the doctor, which would result in more sickness and unhappiness. But there are exceptions even to this, I realise. I do see the problem.
But we aren't really dealing in reality. There's a purpose to the thought experiment. It's completely irrelevant that there might be loopholes in reality. Why does the fact that there are loopholes mean you can't even consider the hypothetical situation in which there aren't?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
I'd like to add (I'm sure you know, but for other people's sakes, to clarify) that the dilemma isn't just "kill ten people or one person," it's "kill ten people who were going to die anyway or one person who wasn't." There is extra reluctance to kill the one person instead, because it involves taking a drastic measure, to go out of your way to murder someone who would have otherwise been entirely free from harm.Quote:
Originally Posted by stormcrow
I can completely respect this opinion, because morality isn't objective. If someone genuinely values a cookie more than a person, then for them, the cookie is more valuable, even though I may disagree. I'd like to point out, however, that I'd completely understand if it were your baby who would be run over. I would kill 100 people to save a single person I cared about enough, I admit, even though I'd feel it was wrong on some level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ne-yo
This will probably sound appalling to most people, and I know I likely stand alone here, but, to be honest, I value the lives of adults more than I do babies. Adults have entire lives and minds, while babies are not yet developed, not human enough. If I had a choice between killing a baby and an adult in his or her 20's or so, I would choose to kill the baby.
I want to bring up yet another of these scenarios. Imagine that you're driving along to save two people stranded somewhere twenty minutes away, about to die. For some reason, only you can save them. On your way there, you encounter a single person trapped in some way, calling for your help, who again only you can save. But, if you save the latter person, you know you won't have time to save the former two, and they will die.
Well, something not being 'objective' doesn't imply inconsistency. There are plenty examples of things which are, or at least, are conceivably, consistent, yet not objectively real in any sense. Alternate geometries, for instance. Or... the quality of music. Assigning subjective values to music isn't 'objective', but it can at least, for the individual, be done consistently. The fact that morality seems that it can't be is what is concerning. We would like to think that it is possible to create meaning.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
The only consistent morality I think I can say I know of is nihilism.
I suppose I agree, but it isn't a very big deal, because these situations rarely come up. People generally agree on what's morally correct, even though we can't always explain why in a consistent way. But when we do disagree, it is concerning. I think the issue of abortion is one of these (ignoring religious bias).Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Actually, I find the fact that all of our actions are performed to meet our desires, and that those desires have no basis other than the fact that we desire them, more concerning. (But this issue is a branch off of that one, I think).
I would disagree, I think disagreements about morality are widespread and have fundamental consequences. Capital punishment, warfare, abortion; these are contentious and important. The entire basis of society, the moral rights of collectives versus individuals; directly linked to this issue and with huge implications.
Aren't those only important issues that are focused on because of the disagreements? There are not many disagreements over whether stealing, murder or rape should be illegal, for instance.
Is taxation theft? Is war murder?
Wait, this is a philosophical discussion? I thought it was black humour.
Those are special circumstances, the situations are more complicated. Ask anyone on the street and you aren't going to hear that murder as we generally think of it is right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
It's nothing like Kenan and Kel...Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by ♥Mark
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-z45iyT2ZcY...alSpitting.png
I'm sorry. Just found this to be absolutely hilarious. Carry on.
I wish I knew what that was.
I'd probably let the train squish the baby.
Good too know I'm not the only one. :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
The entire number of lives at stake are completely identical, my answer would be pretty obvious. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Xei
Uhh... you would make the same decision as last time?
Put it this way. I'm bat-shit crazy over french silk pie, It's my favorite type of pie. I also like lemon meringue but I like french silk much more. If I had a choice between 10 lemon meringue's vs 1 french silk, of course I'm choosing french silk. Now, if I had a choice between 10 french silks vs 1 french silk, I'm choosing 10. The more the merrier babe! :goodjob2:
I'm a quality over quantity type of guy.
No; further maths, chemistry, economics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
I'm not fond of the hypothetical but I like the discussion of comparing life. Each individual life is so unique it's illogical to attempt to solve this moral paradox mathematically. Not only that but the chain of events are unpredictable and it's unknowable what kind of consequences could emerge. That baby could be Hitler, or Einstein (I'm assuming only Germans leave their babies unattended on train tracks). Those ten people could be the 49ers defensive line. Actually if that were the case I'd let it stay on course cause nothing can get past their defensive line (except maybe the falcons).
There are certain principles that can be worked out in a pretty agreeable way. For instance I think we can all agree though action is required to kill the baby and none is required to kill the 10 people, the absence of action is a decision equal to action. Choosing to let events run their course makes you just as responsible for the way events turned out as if you had intervened.
I also think we can agree that no matter which decision you make, you'll feel like shit. Even if you killed Hitler, because he'll never have a chance to grow into the wicked thing he was. For all you know, you just killed a baby.
In most situations, I would let the train kill the people, then I'd late-abort the baby. Humans suck.
OK, I know it's a philosophical question, and it's hypothetical, but I have trouble answering questions like this since this scenario is so extremely unlikely to exist. What people stand on train tracks (and what are the odds they are immediately after a switch, and someone else is on the other track, with all 11 people completely oblivious to the train coming, yet somehow I'm oblivious and unable to warn the people to run?) I like the doctor scenario that was brought up earlier, but even that is different because organs are physically a part of people...
I'd save the baby. If 10 people are unable to understand that you shouldn't stand on train tracks... we can let them take one (or 10) for the human race. Someone was clearly evil/stupid enough to leave a baby on the tracks, I don't think the baby should suffer for that evil/stupid decision.
I don't understand why it's difficult to answer.
I think that people who say it is are recognizing on some level that it is a difficult situation. It's a moral dilemma, but they make the excuse that the reason they can't answer it is because the people are stupid or something. That shouldn't come into play at all.
A little imagination can solve the 'not likely to actually happen' problem. Say a bus and a car have crashed on the tracks. Meanwhile a woman was pushing a baby carriage across the adjacent set of tracks. She got sideswiped by the bus and is dead now, but the baby carriage is sitting right on the tracks. So, no evil involved - no mustachioed Snidely Whiplash tying babies onto the tracks. Just a terrible accident laying out the pieces for this little game you must now play.
It's not a hard answer for me; I'd save the baby. I just have trouble trying to make this situation seem in ANY way possible. Because I would never be in this situation so I would never need to make a split-second decision. There are so many reasons why this scenario wouldn't exist for me.
I prefer questions with which I have even the slightest, tiniest chance of facing one day. The difficulty isn't in the response, it's that the question is designed to FORCE you to choose from A or B, when other options exist (even though this scenario would not exist.)
And to Darkmatters, I would have to be the conductor to have any control over the switch...
To all of the train engineers out there... I hope you never face this scenario. If you do... blow the whistle a few times so the people aren't oblivious. (And I apologize to the bus-riders for having a busdriver that did not follow the law by stopping before crossing.) If anyone dies, it's the bus driver's fault.
I'm sorry I said the word stupid. What I meant was that adult humans standing on train tracks should be able to help themselves, if they don't, something's wrong with them not specified in the OP.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dianeva
Wait - you'd have to be the conductor? There are switches alongside the tracks that people can push to switch the train to the other track.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePreserver
http://visual.merriam-webster.com/im...ted-switch.jpg
Also - are you saying that accidents never happen on train tracks, or that because a bus driver stops and looks both ways at the track that automatically means he can't suddenly be struck head-on by a drunk driver coming over the tracks the other way?
http://cdn2.wn.com/ph/img/86/4e/2a5b...c12-grande.jpg
Or are you simply saying that you refuse to engage in abstract reasoning?
We could do it another way... let's say you're in a real-life Saw movie... :evil:
By saving the baby, you're not killing the 10 people. The situation existed before you got there, and you had no hand in the making of it. You're not morally responsible.
On the other hand, by killing the baby, you did create the situation and thus share some of the blame for the baby's death.
Therefore, morally the best choice is to do nothing. End thread.
This, I can assuredly say is wrong. I'm pretty sure we'll all mostly agree this is wrong. Due to the complexity of life, I cannot say for certain whether 10 lives is worth more than 1, or whether 1,000,000 lives is worth more than one, but I can tell you that we are equally responsible for both action and inaction. To not pull that switch is a decision in just the same way as pulling the switch is. You are choosing who should die and you are responsible whether you do something or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by cmind
> Personal opinion
> Field of moral philosophy finished
Morality is an abstraction from instances, not an objective entity. There is no logical contradiction in disagreement upon axioms, or reacting selectively to intuition pumps. Take the following: you have inherited a vial which contains the cure to cholera. A bunch of kids in the nearby orphanage all get the disease. The person running the orphanage comes over and asks for the cure. You are immune and have nothing to gain from refusing, yet you do refuse.
Many if not most people would assign negative morality to such an action, not neutral morality because 'you didn't create the situation'.
They are not 'wrong', and the idea that simply calling them wrong is a definitive answer to these kinds of problems is simultaneously naive and very arrogant.
It's redundant to say there's no such thing as objective right and wrong. All I said was I think it's wrong and I think most would agree.
My post is clearly a response to cmind... the intuition pump I presented was in accordance with what you were saying.
I said "or something." The word "stupid" doesn't matter. You obviously aren't supposed to think that something's wrong with the people. The situation is hypothetical. Consider it exactly as it's brought up with nothing added.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer
It's like, if I asked you to think about the geometry of a triangle and the fact that the angles add to 180 degrees, and you were to disagree because there's no such thing as a perfect 'triangle'. In real life the angles never really add to exactly 180 degrees, so you might say we can't conclude that it does. But that's obviously wrong. While thinking about a triangle, we're imagining some hypothetical plane of reality in which a perfect triangle exists, even though it doesn't in real life. While thinking about the train, we're imagining some hypothetical reality in which people are standing on the tracks and can't move and you've just appeared in the situation, all for no reason in particular, even though that wouldn't happen in real life.
Assuming they can't move is adding something to the OP even more unlikely though. The thought experiment would be valid to reality if the people were irreversibly tied down, that wouldn't be overly idealized. I was referring to an overly idealized question I was asked in a class, which was "If you were in a Jewish family hiding from Nazis in a hidden cellar or something, and you had a child who didn't know not to cry, would you strangle it to death to save everyone in there?" I didn't believe you would have to do that lol.
Lol well of course not - you could stab it!! Or just tear out its vocal chords.
So are you asking Dianeva to refine the question?
I don't understand how this is a response to what I said, but w/e, I'm really tired. The one you brought up is interesting. I think that the child should be killed, if that were the only option. If the Nazis catch the family, the child will be killed anyway, along with everyone else. I don't know how anyone could choose otherwise. It would be difficult, sure, and I don't know if I'd even be able to go through with it, but it would be the correct option, in my opinion. This is all opinion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayfaerer