Runaway Train !!!
Posted by: Don Atkinson on 09 March 2007
Runaway Train !!!
Its night. A group of railway workers have just loaded their trolley with 2 tonnes of steel when they accidently release the brake and the trolley starts rolling silently along the track which slopes downhill for two miles. The near-by signaller observes this all happen.
A mile and a half away is a right-hand fork (diverging junction), with the points set to the right. Beyond the junction, on the right hand track is a gang of 5 railway workers digging ballast in the four-foot (ie standing between the running rails). This is the route the runaway trolley will take. The trolley is silent and it will kill all five when it mows them down.
Beyond the junction, on the left-hand track is a single railway worker in the four-foot. This is the route the runaway trolley will take if the signaller throws the switch to re-set the points to straight ahead. His fate will be the same.
What should the signaller do? Should he throw the switch to save the five. Or should he leave fate alone?
PS the signaller and others simply can't contact either set of workers.
Cheers
Don
Its night. A group of railway workers have just loaded their trolley with 2 tonnes of steel when they accidently release the brake and the trolley starts rolling silently along the track which slopes downhill for two miles. The near-by signaller observes this all happen.
A mile and a half away is a right-hand fork (diverging junction), with the points set to the right. Beyond the junction, on the right hand track is a gang of 5 railway workers digging ballast in the four-foot (ie standing between the running rails). This is the route the runaway trolley will take. The trolley is silent and it will kill all five when it mows them down.
Beyond the junction, on the left-hand track is a single railway worker in the four-foot. This is the route the runaway trolley will take if the signaller throws the switch to re-set the points to straight ahead. His fate will be the same.
What should the signaller do? Should he throw the switch to save the five. Or should he leave fate alone?
PS the signaller and others simply can't contact either set of workers.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Adam Meredith
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:
It is surprising how many mangled motorcyclists end up being donors! There is always a chance!
ATB from Fredrik
Thanks for that - due to ride from St Malo to Fumel in a day next month - you wouldn't want my liver.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
If I say that I am not lining up for your liver, you may take this as resulting from two things. I hope you keep it yourself firstly, and I am no enthusiast of transplants as I said above!
I bet you would not want mine either!
ATB from Fredrik
I bet you would not want mine either!
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
First - A bit of clarity
Railway trolleys run virtually silent, as Beano's links will no doubt reveal.
The speed at the end of a one and a half mile slope will be limited by friction and the incline of the slope, so Rasher's friends on their Saga outing will be safe.
The Boss is standing alongside the track, not part of either group.
The points can only be either left or right, not inbetween and there are no leaves on the line, or the wrong kind of snow.
Yes, this post is linked to the one about hospital waiting lists, and as Jay has spotted, I did read New Scientist this week.
Despite Beano's links, I think this is one of my more sensitive posts. And many thanks for all the feed-back.
Cheers
Don
Railway trolleys run virtually silent, as Beano's links will no doubt reveal.
The speed at the end of a one and a half mile slope will be limited by friction and the incline of the slope, so Rasher's friends on their Saga outing will be safe.
The Boss is standing alongside the track, not part of either group.
The points can only be either left or right, not inbetween and there are no leaves on the line, or the wrong kind of snow.
Yes, this post is linked to the one about hospital waiting lists, and as Jay has spotted, I did read New Scientist this week.
Despite Beano's links, I think this is one of my more sensitive posts. And many thanks for all the feed-back.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
I used to enjoy a bit of liver and bacon with mashed potatoes and onion gravey.
Funny how your tastes can change rapidly.........
Cheers
Don
Funny how your tastes can change rapidly.........
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
How do we tell Right from Wrong ?
OK. The real issue is, "How do we tell right from wrong?"
In many cases we have no difficulty in deciding right from wrong and we actually decide in a fraction of a second whether something is right or wrong.
[I have realised however, having posted my two scenarios, that asking people to make decisions is completely different to asking them whether an historic action was right or wrong. A lot of people can't take decisions or intervene, unless all the evidence, facts, probabilities, and scenarios have been studied and necessary forms completed, preferably in triplicate and signed by the manager, in line with coroprate governance procedures.]
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? No !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? Yes !
There you are. Not too difficult. It took me less than a few milliseconds to make those decisions and I know that they were right.
If someone else had made the following decisions :-
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? Yes !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? No !
Then my immediate, gut reaction, would be "Whoooow there man, this isn't right, No-way Hose !!"
Again, only a few milliseconds to decide.
Now, the article in New Scientist suggested the vast majority of people would likewise come to the same conclusions, in the same sort of time-frame ie milliseconds.
But, I have a feeling, that
a. not everyone can or is willing to identify right from wrong, especially in fractions of a second.
b. your perception of right and wrong, for a given scenario, will depend on your up-bringing
What are your views?
Cheers
Don
PS did anybody else see the tv programme about Wyatt Earp last night? Was he right to take the law into his own hands and kill the three men who had been identified as involved with killing his brother?
OK. The real issue is, "How do we tell right from wrong?"
In many cases we have no difficulty in deciding right from wrong and we actually decide in a fraction of a second whether something is right or wrong.
[I have realised however, having posted my two scenarios, that asking people to make decisions is completely different to asking them whether an historic action was right or wrong. A lot of people can't take decisions or intervene, unless all the evidence, facts, probabilities, and scenarios have been studied and necessary forms completed, preferably in triplicate and signed by the manager, in line with coroprate governance procedures.]
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? No !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? Yes !
There you are. Not too difficult. It took me less than a few milliseconds to make those decisions and I know that they were right.
If someone else had made the following decisions :-
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? Yes !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? No !
Then my immediate, gut reaction, would be "Whoooow there man, this isn't right, No-way Hose !!"
Again, only a few milliseconds to decide.
Now, the article in New Scientist suggested the vast majority of people would likewise come to the same conclusions, in the same sort of time-frame ie milliseconds.
But, I have a feeling, that
a. not everyone can or is willing to identify right from wrong, especially in fractions of a second.
b. your perception of right and wrong, for a given scenario, will depend on your up-bringing
What are your views?
Cheers
Don
PS did anybody else see the tv programme about Wyatt Earp last night? Was he right to take the law into his own hands and kill the three men who had been identified as involved with killing his brother?
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
The points can only be either left or right, not inbetween and there are no leaves on the line, or the wrong kind of snow.
Cheers
Don
Of course they go "in between." How do they get from one position to the other? Through "in between!" A bit like the act of changing gear in a car: "One gear -> neutral -> new gear..."
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Roy T
Don,
Training and planning will often lead to the right action being taken with the minimum of delay but while thinking things through while things happen will often be slower and not always lead to the right action being taken.
Training and planning will often lead to the right action being taken with the minimum of delay but while thinking things through while things happen will often be slower and not always lead to the right action being taken.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Deane F
Bump
How does the signaller know the future? How can he tell that five workers will be killed on the right-hand track when it hasn't yet happened?
While the exercise illustrates a point, the way the problem is posed is mischievous.
How does the signaller know the future? How can he tell that five workers will be killed on the right-hand track when it hasn't yet happened?
While the exercise illustrates a point, the way the problem is posed is mischievous.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Rasher
I don't see how you can decide in milliseconds and then walk away from it. No-one would leave it there without trying to further figure a way to prevent deaths, even though they had reached that conclusion. We are dealing with human reasoning here, not machine logic.
I don't accept that it's that simple.
I don't accept that it's that simple.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Jay
ah I see what Don is getting at.
the only way you can make a decision (in this case a conscious one) is according to a framework of some sort. that framework can be based on almost anything that's in your head, moral values, personal experience, "perceived" randomness, etc...
there is no right or wrong answer to the question unless you have a shared framework.
the only way you can make a decision (in this case a conscious one) is according to a framework of some sort. that framework can be based on almost anything that's in your head, moral values, personal experience, "perceived" randomness, etc...
there is no right or wrong answer to the question unless you have a shared framework.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
Strange as it may sound I never once considered killing one man in preference to five, but merely of setting the points at neither one direction or the other, and derailing the cart. As is well known, the mechansism of points involves, even today a long handle [working on actuating rods to the points] pulled forward or pushed back though perhaps 18 inchches or two foot. Therefore holding it directly in the centre, so the points were effectively "held" in "neutral" would stand the chance of derailing the buggy, or making such a bang as to warn the men.
Does that make me a one in a milion genius? I think not, but the fact that this is not at least the second thought of most people shows how bloody stupid even people who pass as intelligent really are! Maybe what I am describinng is native rural common sense which I do have. Certainly conscience would have nothing to do with it till afterwards on the part of the points opperator. If the outcome was terrible no doubt he would be very hard to console, but I would say completely blameless in any case.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Does that make me a one in a milion genius? I think not, but the fact that this is not at least the second thought of most people shows how bloody stupid even people who pass as intelligent really are! Maybe what I am describinng is native rural common sense which I do have. Certainly conscience would have nothing to do with it till afterwards on the part of the points opperator. If the outcome was terrible no doubt he would be very hard to console, but I would say completely blameless in any case.
Kindest regards from Fredrik
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by SciDoctor
I beleive it is impossible for the points to be held in the center possition, the moving peice of track passes through the center point but the action of the lever in the signal box 'throws' between the two set/defined possitions.
This is a supposed safety feature (as long as the points are in serviced/good working order)to avoid the possibility of the points being set/forced center and causing a derail.
This is a supposed safety feature (as long as the points are in serviced/good working order)to avoid the possibility of the points being set/forced center and causing a derail.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
If I were a points opperator I would know this, and would throw the points at exactly the moment the wagon passed, in which case a derailment would be assured assuming the timing was good between the axles...
Fredrik
Fredrik
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by garyi
Oh have a stop in St Malo for me, one of my favourite places of all time. Apparently rebuilt after the war so not actually old, but what a wonderful town anyway.
Sigh I must get over again.
Sigh I must get over again.
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Apparently rebuilt after the war so not actually old, but what a wonderful town anyway.
Not apparantly - definitely. But you would be hard pushed to realise this just by looking.
Beautiful place.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Runaway Train !!!
Its night. A group of railway workers have just loaded their trolley with 2 tonnes of steel when they accidently release the brake and the trolley starts rolling silently along the track which slopes downhill for two miles. The near-by signaller observes this all happen.
A mile and a half away is a right-hand fork (diverging junction), with the points set to the right. Beyond the junction, on the right hand track is a gang of 5 railway workers digging ballast in the four-foot (ie standing between the running rails). This is the route the runaway trolley will take. The trolley is silent and it will kill all five when it mows them down.
Beyond the junction, on the left-hand track is a single railway worker in the four-foot. This is the route the runaway trolley will take if the signaller throws the switch to re-set the points to straight ahead. His fate will be the same.
What should the signaller do? Should he throw the switch to save the five. Or should he leave fate alone?
PS the signaller and others simply can't contact either set of workers.
Fredrik,
The signaller (who controls the points) is located close to where the men were loading the trolley. Its night - so its dark. The points are a mile and a half away. The signaller can't see them at that distance.
Points are designed to lay either "normal" or "reverse". Sure, they take time to move from one condition to the other - about one second if they are purely mechanical, about 2 or 3 seconds if the are operated by an electric motor.
I don't believe you could get either type to swing to the mid-position, or even enough to get the switch-blades to open up a gap, away from the stock rail.
The question is obviously contrived (or mischievous) to simplify the options.
There are only two options. Do you allow 5 men to die by doing nothing. Or do you deliberately intervene to save 5 men, knowing that the consequence is to definitely kill another. But only one.
I would intervene. It took less than a second to make that decision.
I appreciate that in real life, many of us would do all we could to warn these men or to stop/derail the trolly. It is certainly reassuring IMHO that quite a few posts in this thread concentrated on a better solution than simply intereve/don't-intervene. If do/don't was you ONLY choice, would you throw the switch, or not? and how long would you deliberate? that is the question............
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Bump
How does the signaller know the future? How can he tell that five workers will be killed on the right-hand track when it hasn't yet happened?
While the exercise illustrates a point, the way the problem is posed is mischievous.
Deane,
Its a hypothetical question (= mischievous)
In real life, the situation as described, could happen (as Beano so helpfully illustrated).
The signaller knows there were two groups of workers, one large, one small. The balance of probabilities crops up.....
Of course, I can just picture the post-accident inquest.....
Barrister: " Mr Deane, you are the signaller at Topbank signal box, are you not?
Mr Deane: " Certainly"
Barrister: " Now, Mr Deane. On the night of the fatal accident, when 5 track workers were killed at bottom bank, were you on duty.
Mr Deane: "Certainly"
Barrister: "And you were aware that a rogue trolley was hurtling downhill towards these five workmen, were you not?
Mr Deane: "Certainly"
Barrister: " It was within your power to throw the switch and divert said trolley away from these five men, but towards another, lone workman, on the other branch. Was it not, Mr Deane?"
Mr Deane: "Certainly"
Barrister: " But you didn't throw that switch, Mr Deane. Why not?"
Deane: "Well, sir, I couldn't see into the future. How could I tell that five workers would be killed on the right-hand track when the accident hadn't yet happened...........?
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:I don't see how you can decide in milliseconds and then walk away from it. No-one would leave it there without trying to further figure a way to prevent deaths, even though they had reached that conclusion.
Yes Rasher, that's what I would do in practice also, or at least, that's what I hope I would do in practice.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
Just to help us get back towards the underlying question.........
quote:How do we tell Right from Wrong ?
OK. The real issue is, "How do we tell right from wrong?"
In many cases we have no difficulty in deciding right from wrong and we actually decide in a fraction of a second whether something is right or wrong.
[I have realised however, having posted my two scenarios, that asking people to make decisions is completely different to asking them whether an historic action was right or wrong. A lot of people can't take decisions or intervene, unless all the evidence, facts, probabilities, and scenarios have been studied and necessary forms completed, preferably in triplicate and signed by the manager, in line with coroprate governance procedures.]
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? No !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? Yes !
There you are. Not too difficult. It took me less than a few milliseconds to make those decisions and I know that they were right.
If someone else had made the following decisions :-
Do you slaughter a healthy man to provide organs for 5 other people? Yes !
Do you flick the switch and condemn one man to die, rather than the five who would otherwise die? No !
Then my immediate, gut reaction, would be "Whoooow there man, this isn't right, No-way Hose !!"
Again, only a few milliseconds to decide.
Now, the article in New Scientist suggested the vast majority of people would likewise come to the same conclusions, in the same sort of time-frame ie milliseconds.
But, I have a feeling, that
a. not everyone can or is willing to identify right from wrong, especially in fractions of a second.
b. your perception of right and wrong, for a given scenario, will depend on your up-bringing
What are your views?
Cheers
Don
PS did anybody else see the tv programme about Wyatt Earp last night? Was he right to take the law into his own hands and kill the three men who had been identified as involved with killing his brother?
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Trevor
I fail to understand the purpose of this thread. This was a real life avoidable accident costing the lives of 4 people and affecting the lives of many more. It was wholey avoidable caused by the use of equipment that was known to be faulty by an irresponsible company trying to save a few quid. What should have happened is the trolly should never have been used until it was in fully working order. Then the 4 people would still be alive, their relatives would not be in morning and this thread would never have been started.
Trevor
Trevor
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Don,
I think this is quite an impossible call. One would obviously try to do the best one could, knowing the plant, as the signal opperator. I still maintain that if one could one would make a supreme, even if fruitless effort to to derail the cart. If one failed one would at least be sure one did one's best at doing what is right. I am sure that if one failed one would be sticken with grief, even if this might logically be seen as irrational! I imagine it would be possible to shift the points between the front and back axle of the cart, but if it was impossible, and known as such, then clearly the best option would be to reduce the probable death count by four.
In real life people do sometimes do super-human feats which might be credited as impossible or supremely incredible under such circumstances. On other occasions catastrophe results, but that is not so much a question of right and wrong as Fate's fair hand dealing sheer bad luck on one individual or five in this particualr case. I am not sure this example clarifies by one iota what is the difference between the right and wrong, in a purely hypothetical case as presented by you.
There are those would would do better than others, but I suspect that almost every human would at least try to do the right thing in such a situation.
I am not quite sure what the purpose of the original post was, and it is probably true that it does not much matter as it is a hypothetical case, in my view.
Never-the-less the thoughts have been stimulating, so thanks from this quarter. Fredrik
I think this is quite an impossible call. One would obviously try to do the best one could, knowing the plant, as the signal opperator. I still maintain that if one could one would make a supreme, even if fruitless effort to to derail the cart. If one failed one would at least be sure one did one's best at doing what is right. I am sure that if one failed one would be sticken with grief, even if this might logically be seen as irrational! I imagine it would be possible to shift the points between the front and back axle of the cart, but if it was impossible, and known as such, then clearly the best option would be to reduce the probable death count by four.
In real life people do sometimes do super-human feats which might be credited as impossible or supremely incredible under such circumstances. On other occasions catastrophe results, but that is not so much a question of right and wrong as Fate's fair hand dealing sheer bad luck on one individual or five in this particualr case. I am not sure this example clarifies by one iota what is the difference between the right and wrong, in a purely hypothetical case as presented by you.
There are those would would do better than others, but I suspect that almost every human would at least try to do the right thing in such a situation.
I am not quite sure what the purpose of the original post was, and it is probably true that it does not much matter as it is a hypothetical case, in my view.
Never-the-less the thoughts have been stimulating, so thanks from this quarter. Fredrik
Posted on: 10 March 2007 by Deane F
I would have hoped our moderator (Adam) might have had something to say. I understood his philosophy degree involved some particular interest in practical ethics.
Posted on: 11 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
This is a question with no right answer; who is to say whether one life is less valuable than five?
What is worse, taking action which kills a person or taking no action which kills five?
Is it purely a numbers game - kill 100 to save 101?
What is worse, taking action which kills a person or taking no action which kills five?
Is it purely a numbers game - kill 100 to save 101?
Posted on: 11 March 2007 by Beano
Don,
I wasn’t having a pop at you; my post was stating that this scenario has actually happened.
Here are my thoughts on it.
The Celestial fire that a man calls conscience is the sentinel of virtue, It has nothing to do with a solicitor or judge, but it does witness against me if I do wrong and approves if I do right, acting against it is acting against reason, or, if you hold a religious persuasion against Gods law.
Conscience has guilt and remorse, it’s the moral compass that can be a curse sometimes, and it acts like a moral umpire preserving the ease and serenity within us, act against it and say goodbye to a tranquil mind.
Right from wrong in the blink of an eye also known as blind impulse; I don’t think I could make a blink decision like throwing a switch in such circumstances not without weighing up the options first. I’d probably choke on my thoughts, and then consult wisdom to distinguish the dangers before doing what was correct, which would be to save the five track workers.
Beano’s conscience is sometimes like a Mother-in-laws visit that never ends!
I wasn’t having a pop at you; my post was stating that this scenario has actually happened.
Here are my thoughts on it.
The Celestial fire that a man calls conscience is the sentinel of virtue, It has nothing to do with a solicitor or judge, but it does witness against me if I do wrong and approves if I do right, acting against it is acting against reason, or, if you hold a religious persuasion against Gods law.
Conscience has guilt and remorse, it’s the moral compass that can be a curse sometimes, and it acts like a moral umpire preserving the ease and serenity within us, act against it and say goodbye to a tranquil mind.
Right from wrong in the blink of an eye also known as blind impulse; I don’t think I could make a blink decision like throwing a switch in such circumstances not without weighing up the options first. I’d probably choke on my thoughts, and then consult wisdom to distinguish the dangers before doing what was correct, which would be to save the five track workers.
Beano’s conscience is sometimes like a Mother-in-laws visit that never ends!
Posted on: 11 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Beano:
... before doing what was correct, which would be to save the five track workers.
What if the lone worker were your father or brother or son or best friend and the five were strangers?