Interesting Moral Dilemma

[Twa Cairpets]

Following on from the "Assisted Suicide" thread, I though this might be an interesting thing for people to ponder. I cant remember where I go it from, or if all the details of the dilemma are spot on, but the gist of it is there. (If anyone has a link to the original text I would be grateful, because its bugging me).

Anyway, Here is the dilemma.

1) You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of young children on holiday is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that any of the kids would survive.

The only way to save the kids is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three workers on the branch line track clearing rubbish on the line. They are all wearing earphones and are facing away from the train. if you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival. They will definitely die if you divert the train.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do?

(Point (2) of the dilemma I'll post if there are any replies to this one).

[Phil D. Rolls]

Following on from the "Assisted Suicide" thread, I though this might be an interesting thing for people to ponder. I cant remember where I go it from, or if all the details of the dilemma are spot on, but the gist of it is there. (If anyone has a link to the original text I would be grateful, because its bugging me).

Anyway, Here is the dilemma.

1) You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of young children on holiday is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that any of the kids would survive.

The only way to save the kids is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three workers on the branch line track clearing rubbish on the line. They are all wearing earphones and are facing away from the train. if you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do?

(Point (2) of the dilemma I'll post if there are any replies to this one).

Don't divert the train, the kids die. Divert it and the workers might die, or they might escape. I think I would opt for the latter.

[Twa Cairpets]

Don't divert the train, the kids die. Divert it and the workers might die, or they might escape. I think I would opt for the latter.

No. if you divert the train the workers will absolutely, definitely die. They are only 20 feet up the branch line, between two platforms.

Same answer?

[Sergio sledge]

Don't divert the train, the kids die. Divert it and the workers might die, or they might escape. I think I would opt for the latter.

:agree: Exactly what I would do.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Following on from the "Assisted Suicide" thread, I though this might be an interesting thing for people to ponder. I cant remember where I go it from, or if all the details of the dilemma are spot on, but the gist of it is there. (If anyone has a link to the original text I would be grateful, because its bugging me).

Anyway, Here is the dilemma.

1) You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of young children on holiday is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that any of the kids would survive.

The only way to save the kids is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three workers on the branch line track clearing rubbish on the line. They are all wearing earphones and are facing away from the train. if you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do?

(Point (2) of the dilemma I'll post if there are any replies to this one).

That's not exactly how I've heard it, but it's Phillippa Foot isn't it?

And I imagine 'point two' will be the Judith Jarvis Thompson's alteration?

[Scouse Hibee]

Walk away, forget everything, get help with an assisted suicide. :greengrin

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'll pre-empt Two Carpets here.

The usual follow up to the utilitarian argument of acting to kill less people than would be killed if you didn't act is the J.J. Thompson example.

Instead of standing on the points you are now stood on top of a bridge overlooking a railway track the train is moving unstoppably towards five people tied to the track. The train can only be stopped by dropping a large object onto the track infront of it. Next to you is stood an enormously large man who it is possible for you to push onto the track to stop the train and save the five men.

What do you do now? :greengrin

[fergal7]

One of those pesky kids would pull the emergency pull cord, the train would come to a halt.

The kids would get ice cream.

The workers would get overtime.

No one is killed.

Hooray!!!

[ancienthibby]

I'll pre-empt Two Carpets here.

The usual follow up to the utilitarian argument of acting to kill less people than would be killed if you didn't act is the J.J. Thompson example.

Instead of standing on the points you are now stood on top of a bridge overlooking a railway track the train is moving unstoppably towards five people tied to the track. The train can only be stopped by dropping a large object onto the track infront of it. Next to you is stood an enormously large man who it is possible for you to push onto the track to stop the train and save the five men.

What do you do now? :greengrin

Since he is wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with 'Liverpool Hibs' all over there is no moral problem at all!!:devil:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Since he is wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with 'Liverpool Hibs' all over there is no moral problem at all!!:devil:

Ouch...

:greengrin

[Hibs Class]

I'll pre-empt Two Carpets here.

The usual follow up to the utilitarian argument of acting to kill less people than would be killed if you didn't act is the J.J. Thompson example.

Instead of standing on the points you are now stood on top of a bridge overlooking a railway track the train is moving unstoppably towards five people tied to the track. The train can only be stopped by dropping a large object onto the track infront of it. Next to you is stood an enormously large man who it is possible for you to push onto the track to stop the train and save the five men.

What do you do now? :greengrin

Surely in the initial case where there is a direct choice, choosing to not act could be regarded as culpable as acting and potentially causing fewer deaths than not acting.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Surely in the initial case where there is a direct choice, choosing to not act could be regarded as culpable as acting and potentially causing fewer deaths than not acting.

Yeah. That's part of the argument Foot addresses

Whether inaction can be construed as as much of a moral stance as action, and whether it's immeasurably worse to intentionally cause harm (by pushing the man onto the track) to save lives than it is to cause it as a side-effect (by diverting the train) of saving lives.

[The Green Goblin]

I think you can rationalise a choice here in a quite straightforward way (even in 10 seconds!)

Not acting results in the largest number of deaths, therefore by that premise, choosing not to act is not an option.

Therefore, finding yourself in a situation where you accept you must act, you are faced with a choice which has negative consequences regardless of what you do.

By what criteria do you make your choice then? The base factor lies in the question: which outcome is worse - the deaths of a large number of people or a very small number?

There is no choice to make. You must divert the train and accept that you made the only acceptable call in a lose-lose situation. It is not your fault that the train is hurtling towards its doom, or that the men working on the line are endangering their own safety by ignoring basic safety procedures. The responsibility for the inevitable disaster is not yours, therefore your conscience will justify and eventually you will be able to live with it.

However, the really interesting thing would be to change your predicament to the following:


You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of commuters is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that anyone would survive.

The only way to save these people is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three children on the branch line track messing around in the rubbish on the line. They are all wearing i-pod earphones and are facing away from the train. If you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival. They will definitely die if you divert the train.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do? :greengrin:greengrin

GG

[ArabHibee]

I think you can rationalise a choice here in a quite straightforward way (even in 10 seconds!)

Not acting results in the largest number of deaths, therefore by that premise, choosing not to act is not an option.

Therefore, finding yourself in a situation where you accept you must act, you are faced with a choice which has negative consequences regardless of what you do.

By what criteria do you make your choice then? The base factor lies in the question: which outcome is worse - the deaths of a large number of people or a very small number?

There is no choice to make. You must divert the train and accept that you made the only acceptable call in a lose-lose situation. It is not your fault that the train is hurtling towards its doom, or that the men working on the line are endangering their own safety by ignoring basic safety procedures. The responsibility for the inevitable disaster is not yours, therefore your conscience will justify and eventually you will be able to live with it.

However, the really interesting thing would be to change your predicament to the following:


You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of commuters is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that anyone would survive.

The only way to save these people is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three children on the branch line track messing around in the rubbish on the line. They are all wearing i-pod earphones and are facing away from the train. If you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival. They will definitely die if you divert the train.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do? :greengrin:greengrin

GG

No brainer. The kids are obviously neds/chavs/pikeys and are probably up to nae good. Divert the train.

Simples.

[Hibs Class]

No brainer. The kids are obviously neds/chavs/pikeys and are probably up to nae good. Divert the train.

Simples.

VG :greengrin

[Twa Cairpets]

I think you can rationalise a choice here in a quite straightforward way (even in 10 seconds!)

Not acting results in the largest number of deaths, therefore by that premise, choosing not to act is not an option.

Therefore, finding yourself in a situation where you accept you must act, you are faced with a choice which has negative consequences regardless of what you do.

By what criteria do you make your choice then? The base factor lies in the question: which outcome is worse - the deaths of a large number of people or a very small number?

There is no choice to make. You must divert the train and accept that you made the only acceptable call in a lose-lose situation. It is not your fault that the train is hurtling towards its doom, or that the men working on the line are endangering their own safety by ignoring basic safety procedures. The responsibility for the inevitable disaster is not yours, therefore your conscience will justify and eventually you will be able to live with it.

However, the really interesting thing would be to change your predicament to the following:


You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of commuters is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that anyone would survive.

The only way to save these people is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three children on the branch line track messing around in the rubbish on the line. They are all wearing i-pod earphones and are facing away from the train. If you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival. They will definitely die if you divert the train.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do? :greengrin:greengrin

GG

Add in "one of them looks very much like your little brother". and its gets even more difficult.

There isnt a right or a wrong here.

Personally, if it was the first set of circumstances, then sadly the workers are the ones to get killed. If it was the Goblin Variation (with or without Carpet Complication), then I reckon that it would be impossible to make a decision that would actively kill them rather than cause death by passive inaction.

[LiverpoolHibs]

(If anyone has a link to the original text I would be grateful, because its bugging me).

The original example given by Foot is...

Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime, threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a certain section of a community. The real culprit being unknown the judge sees himself as able to prevent bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Besides this example is placed another [...] To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supported that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one on the other; anyone working on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both cases the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five. The question is why we would say, without hesitation, that the driver should steer for the less occupied track while most of us would be appalled at the idea that the innocent man could be framed.

And she goes on to talk about the Doctrine of Double Effect by way of explanation for the innate response we have to the two cases,

It is one thing to steer towards someone forseeing that you will kill him and another to aim at his death as part of your plan.

But then questions whether this actually important...

...the question is whether the difference between aiming at something and obliquely intending it is, in itself, relevant to moral decisions; not whether it is important when corrolated with a difference of certainty in the balance of good and evil

As found in, 'Virtues and Vices' and Other Essays In Moral Philosophy by Philippa Foot.

Good old meta-ethics... :greengrin

[Killiehibbie]

Does health and safety not dictate that line workers need look outs and detonators on the line?

[The Green Goblin]

Add in "one of them looks very much like your little brother". and its gets even more difficult.

There isnt a right or a wrong here.

Personally, if it was the first set of circumstances, then sadly the workers are the ones to get killed. If it was the Goblin Variation (with or without Carpet Complication), then I reckon that it would be impossible to make a decision that would actively kill them rather than cause death by passive inaction.


Good thread. Would you divert the train if it was full of huns? HAHA

The phrases in bold sound like the title of a Frederick Forsyth thriller.
Matt Damon stars in "The Goblin Variation"....:greengrin

GG

[HibsMax]

Here's a little twist (http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9568145) to the tale. How do you feel about being a good samaritan now?

[RyeSloan]

Good thread. Would you divert the train if it was full of huns? HAHA

The phrases in bold sound like the title of a Frederick Forsyth thriller.
Matt Damon stars in "The Goblin Variation"....:greengrin

GG


:thumbsup: :faf:

[Twa Cairpets]

Here's a little twist (http://www.ktnv.com/Global/story.asp?S=9568145) to the tale. How do you feel about being a good samaritan now?

Blimey!

(Mind you, it is stretching the definition of Good samaritan the acy of killing 100 children by ommission of action or three kids by positiver action, but there you go...:wink:)

[Phil D. Rolls]

No brainer. The kids are obviously neds/chavs/pikeys and are probably up to nae good. Divert the train.

Simples.

You're right, where are their parent? Obviously these kids are going to be a drain on our resources in future through their use of social services, DSS, NHS and co. If they were worth saving they wouldn't be on a free expenses paid holiday provided by you and me.
:agree:

ps Are the children immigrants, or native born chavs?

[Jack]

I just love all these things where you're put in a position that will never ever happen then have to justify your response …. What a waste of time. :bitchy:




























So there you are lying sleeping in your bed when you're woken by a tugging at your toe. :faf:

Its an angel!!! [aaaahhhhhh!!!!!!] :hide: (with a paper bag on her head because we dont have an angel smilie but believe me there is an angel there :agree:.

In her fairly like angelic voice she tells you that Hibs will win the Scottish Cup this year :cup:. ‘Ya flippin’ beauty’ you think to yourself and just as you're about to get up and celebrate POOF! The angel has gone and the devil appears. :angeldevi [groan]

He says that for what the angel has said to come true you must agree to his conditions being met. [awe naw!]

His demand is that in the league Hearts will beat Hibs on all 4 occasions (aye, they were lucky to get in the top 6 in this), even worse in one of our home games we get beat 0 – 8. :devil:

Its up to you my great Hibby friend. :thumbsup:

Do we win the Scottish Cup?:worried:

[Woody1985]

I just love all these things where you're put in a position that will never ever happen then have to justify your response …. What a waste of time. :bitchy:

So there you are lying sleeping in your bed when you're woken by a tugging at your toe. :faf:

Its an angel!!! [aaaahhhhhh!!!!!!] :hide: (with a paper bag on her head because we dont have an angel smilie but believe me there is an angel there :agree:.

In her fairly like angelic voice she tells you that Hibs will win the Scottish Cup this year :cup:. ‘Ya flippin’ beauty’ you think to yourself and just as you're about to get up and celebrate POOF! The angel has gone and the devil appears. :angeldevi [groan]

He says that for what the angel has said to come true you must agree to his conditions being met. [awe naw!]

His demand is that in the league Hearts will beat Hibs on all 4 occasions (aye, they were lucky to get in the top 6 in this), even worse in one of our home games we get beat 0 – 8. :devil:

Its up to you my great Hibby friend. :thumbsup:

Do we win the Scottish Cup?:worried:

Not unless it involves beating them 9-0 in the final.

[Killiehibbie]

I just love all these things where you're put in a position that will never ever happen then have to justify your response …. What a waste of time. :bitchy:




























So there you are lying sleeping in your bed when you're woken by a tugging at your toe. :faf:

Its an angel!!! [aaaahhhhhh!!!!!!] :hide: (with a paper bag on her head because we dont have an angel smilie but believe me there is an angel there :agree:.

In her fairly like angelic voice she tells you that Hibs will win the Scottish Cup this year :cup:. ‘Ya flippin’ beauty’ you think to yourself and just as you're about to get up and celebrate POOF! The angel has gone and the devil appears. :angeldevi [groan]

He says that for what the angel has said to come true you must agree to his conditions being met. [awe naw!]

His demand is that in the league Hearts will beat Hibs on all 4 occasions (aye, they were lucky to get in the top 6 in this), even worse in one of our home games we get beat 0 – 8. :devil:

Its up to you my great Hibby friend. :thumbsup:

Do we win the Scottish Cup?:worried:

Somebody put magic mushrooms in your cocoa I think. They haven't got 8 goals in them. I'll wait until next season for the cup.

[ArabHibee]

You're right, where are their parent? Obviously these kids are going to be a drain on our resources in future through their use of social services, DSS, NHS and co. If they were worth saving they wouldn't be on a free expenses paid holiday provided by you and me.
:agree:

ps Are the children immigrants, or native born chavs?

Freudian slip of the tongue? :wink:

[Pete]

I prefer the thread on the bounce years ago:

"Would you take it up the arsenal if it meant hibs winning the Scottish cup?"

I still haven't decided...but that's really taking one for the team!!

[RyeSloan]

I prefer the thread on the bounce years ago:

"Would you take it up the arsenal if it meant hibs winning the Scottish cup?"

I still haven't decided...but that's really taking one for the team!!

Hmm it's a bit concerning that after years you are undecided..this one is easy.....I ain't seen Hibs win the Scottish in over a hundred years and I ain't going to start now!!!

[sleeping giant]

Hmm it's a bit concerning that after years you are undecided..this one is easy.....I ain't seen Hibs win the Scottish in over a hundred years and I ain't going to start now!!!

Ive been trying the Arsenal thing for a few seasons now. Its not worked yet but you never know:greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

I think you can rationalise a choice here in a quite straightforward way (even in 10 seconds!)

Not acting results in the largest number of deaths, therefore by that premise, choosing not to act is not an option.

Therefore, finding yourself in a situation where you accept you must act, you are faced with a choice which has negative consequences regardless of what you do.

By what criteria do you make your choice then? The base factor lies in the question: which outcome is worse - the deaths of a large number of people or a very small number?

There is no choice to make. You must divert the train and accept that you made the only acceptable call in a lose-lose situation. It is not your fault that the train is hurtling towards its doom, or that the men working on the line are endangering their own safety by ignoring basic safety procedures. The responsibility for the inevitable disaster is not yours, therefore your conscience will justify and eventually you will be able to live with it.

However, the really interesting thing would be to change your predicament to the following:


You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of commuters is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that anyone would survive.

The only way to save these people is to divert the train onto a branch line where it will be able to come to a halt.

The only problem is that from your signal box, you see three children on the branch line track messing around in the rubbish on the line. They are all wearing i-pod earphones and are facing away from the train. If you divert the train they will stand no chance whatsoever of survival. They will definitely die if you divert the train.

You only have ten seconds to decide, and no other outcome other than those detailed is possible.

What do you do? :greengrin:greengrin

GG

Disagree violently that the Goblin Variation is in any way a different predicament from the OP's original. The fact that three children would be killed rather than three adults does not in any way make the choice harder. It would be a childcentric conceit to assume that a child's life is somehow, percy, more valuable than an adult's. A conceit that in our society may be thought to go hand in hand with a shocking disrespect for the elderly.

The Carpetian Complication - where you think you might recognise your little brother on the line - also seems to play into this assumption that young people's lives are intrinsically more valuable, or desirable to save. A railway maintenance man, a fully grown adult, might still be your little brother.

lapsedhibee is 97.

[NYHibby]

Disagree violently that the Goblin Variation is in any way a different predicament from the OP's original.

I agree. The debate between the value of a child's life versus an adult is an entirely different question. As an economist, its a hard question to answer, but the adult's life can be worth more. You just can't answer that question without providing additional information or making a lot of assumptions.

An actual variation would be to introduce some element of uncertainty in the outcome. Something like if you make the switch, the workers will defiantly die, but the kids on the train may or may not be saved. Do you commit one group to a certain death for the chance to possibly save a larger group?

The problem with the original dilemma, and its variations, is that it is simply do have X die or do you have X+Y die. As I think someone else pointed out, the action versus inaction really doesn't come into play.

[NYHibby]

By the way, I may or may not be around to reply so it's probably best to not direct anything solely at me.

[ArabHibee]

By the way, I may or may not be around to reply so it's probably best to not direct anything solely at me.
:tee hee:

On another note, why the heck are you moving from NY to Stirling? :confused:

[The Green Goblin]

Disagree violently that the Goblin Variation is in any way a different predicament from the OP's original. The fact that three children would be killed rather than three adults does not in any way make the choice harder.

All well and good, however, you seem to forget that the original poster wrote his moral dilemma exactly as follows:


1) You are the points controller in a railway station. A train carrying hundreds of young children on holiday is coming through the station at speed, but, far too late for the train to stop, a wall crumbles down onto the track. If the train hits the wall it will come off the track and plummet down an embankment into a deep pit filled with water, and there is no hope that any of the kids would survive.

The phrase "hundreds of young children on holiday" is loaded to the hilt and is inevitably there to make sure the choice at first glance is a complicated or difficult one. If it had said "train carrying hundreds of people", then this would have been a more neutral situation and crucially, the moral dilemma itslef would have been altered. That was my point.

GG

[Dashing Bob S]

Graham Rix and Wee Airdrie jambo are on the train with the kids...

[Twa Cairpets]

All well and good, however, you seem to forget that the original poster wrote his moral dilemma exactly as follows:



The phrase "hundreds of young children on holiday" is loaded to the hilt and is inevitably there to make sure the choice at first glance is a complicated or difficult one. If it had said "train carrying hundreds of people", then this would have been a more neutral situation and crucially, the moral dilemma itslef would have been altered. That was my point.

GG

I was actually originally going to say orphans on their first ever holiday.

But thought that may be pushing it:greengrin