This feels very similar to the trolley problem: a trolley is bearing down on 5 people tied to a track, you have the option to push 1 person in front of the track to stop it dead. Do you?
My answer is always no, do nothing. I don’t have the power to decide who lives and dies.
Obviously the whole point of it is that it’s supposed to be a hard to answer question and there is no answer righter than the other. It’s all down to personal philosophy and morals.
Theoretically the way I see it is if I do nothing then I’ve taken no part in the death of any person, which again isn’t my decision to make. If I push the person or pull the lever, then I’ve actively participated in killing somebody.
Now in practice, if I was actually presented with this scenario in real life the outcome could be different. It’s simple maths at the end of the day, either 1 person dies or 5. Maybe I would pull the lever because knowing that I could’ve saved 5 people would probably play on any sane persons conscience.
The variations of the trolley problem are where it gets truly interesting, for instance what if to save the 5 people you had to kill 1 child? Killing a child is obviously seen as much more heinous than killing an adult, quite rightly. So how many adults is a child’s life worth? 10? 20? How many does it take for someone to pull the lever?
What if it was a dog? Their lives are seen as not being as valuable as a humans, so would you kill a dog to save a person? What about 5? 10?
Would you push the man who is going to cure cancer to save 5 thieves and other petty criminals?
The ends do not justify the means.
This feels very similar to the trolley problem: a trolley is bearing down on 5 people tied to a track, you have the option to push 1 person in front of the track to stop it dead. Do you?
My answer is always no, do nothing. I don’t have the power to decide who lives and dies.
You could argue you have two choices.
Do nothing or pull the lever.
Doing nothing seems like your removing yourself but you are still making a decision.
Obviously the whole point of it is that it’s supposed to be a hard to answer question and there is no answer righter than the other. It’s all down to personal philosophy and morals.
Theoretically the way I see it is if I do nothing then I’ve taken no part in the death of any person, which again isn’t my decision to make. If I push the person or pull the lever, then I’ve actively participated in killing somebody.
Now in practice, if I was actually presented with this scenario in real life the outcome could be different. It’s simple maths at the end of the day, either 1 person dies or 5. Maybe I would pull the lever because knowing that I could’ve saved 5 people would probably play on any sane persons conscience.
The variations of the trolley problem are where it gets truly interesting, for instance what if to save the 5 people you had to kill 1 child? Killing a child is obviously seen as much more heinous than killing an adult, quite rightly. So how many adults is a child’s life worth? 10? 20? How many does it take for someone to pull the lever?
What if it was a dog? Their lives are seen as not being as valuable as a humans, so would you kill a dog to save a person? What about 5? 10?
Would you push the man who is going to cure cancer to save 5 thieves and other petty criminals?
Such an interesting philosophical question.
I think the reason you are opposed to pulling the lever in the trolly problem is relevant.
You don’t think it’s acceptable to kill some innocent people to save some innocent people.
Which I mostly agree depending on the hypothetical scenario.