What's the right thing to do? A question of ethical dilemma

[pusang_iring]

---

I would like to hear everybody's opinion about this. THis is a very popular ethics question and I think this will spark a lot of debate:



"Suppose you are the driver of a trolley car (a small train) and the trolley is travelling fast at 60mph. At the end of the track, there are 5 people practically on the way. You know they will die if you hit them. You tried to stop, but the brakes don't work. You feel helpless and there's nothing you can do. But you find that there's another track and the train's steering wheel works, but in the other track you see 1 person on the way, and he'll also die if you hit him. So you're in a tough choice. You could do a.) GO STRAIGHT AHEAD, which will kill 5 people or B.) USE THE STEERING WHEEL, which will kill 1 person."

What would you do and WHY?

Follow up questions:

If you choose A (go straight ahead, kill 5): Why? Isn't 5 lives more important than 1?

If you choose B (kill 1 person): THere really isn't a lot of objections for this (most people will choose this)


Now, a slightly different scenario:



"The same scenario but this time there's only 1 track which there are 5 people on the way. This time, you are not the driver but an onlooker over the bridge watching the trolley car. You saw the same scenario. You feel helpless because you know 5 people will die. But suddenly, there's a FAT MAN beside you. You got an idea that if you push the fat man over the bridge and into the way of the trolley car, it will be enough to stop the trolley car for sure and save 5 people (for the sake of argument). The fat man will die, but it will save 5 lives."


Would you do it and WHY?

Follow up questions:

If you choose NOT to push the fat man: Isn't 5 lives more important than 1? (Most people will choose this)

If you choose to push the fat man: Isn't it murder of an innocent man? (The fat man was just standing there) Doesn't this violate some natural rights, fundamental rights or human rights?



The more interesting questions:


If you choose the 2nd option of the first scenario (kills 1), but chooses the first in the second scenario (kills 5): How do you account for the discrepancy of the 2 scenarios? Didn't you just contradict yourself? (assuming you chose to kill 1 in the first scenario for utilitarian reasons)

If you choose the 2nd option for both scenarios (kills 1): Why do you think the majority of people thinks different? What about rights? Would you really want to live in a world where, at any time, they can take your possessions, money, girlfriend, and even your life for the sake of the many? (assuming you chose for utilitarian reasons)



I am aware of the philosophy section in the forums. Pero puro man gud "God" ang mga topics didto. I want science-minded people to answer these type of question kay mas rational in my opinion. But feel free to transfer this thread.

[rodsky]

You yourself said it--this is a science forum, not of ethics. To shorten a potentially lengthy discussion, I'll summarize by quoting Bertrand Russell:

"...while it is true that science cannot decide questions of values, that is because they cannot be intellectually decided at all, and lie outside the realm of truth and falsehood. Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know."

This place is a venue of knowing and learning of things factual, and NOT a venue for endless/pointless debates on things that cannot be known.

Closing the thread.

-RODION