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: 11 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
No! Not right in any circumstances! But then the two scenarios you mention above are hardly grey. I am sure you realised that I was not suggesting that all situations are grey, but merely that most have a certain degree of greyness about them.
I sometimes reckon that such suggestions as yours are there to bait an individual [such as me!], and I have to bite my tongue, rather than type exactly what I am thinking!
ATB from Fredrik
I sometimes reckon that such suggestions as yours are there to bait an individual [such as me!], and I have to bite my tongue, rather than type exactly what I am thinking!
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 11 March 2007 by Deane F
Fredrik
I jumped too far along my chain of reasoning. Sorry to have upset you.
Surely the problem is discriminating which problems are grey and which are not? Self-interest and ulterior motives (especially when they are not consciously held) muddy the waters too.
I believe that I must rest certain parts of my moral framework upon hard absolutes.
Deane
I jumped too far along my chain of reasoning. Sorry to have upset you.
Surely the problem is discriminating which problems are grey and which are not? Self-interest and ulterior motives (especially when they are not consciously held) muddy the waters too.
I believe that I must rest certain parts of my moral framework upon hard absolutes.
Deane
Posted on: 11 March 2007 by u77033103172058601
I am surprised that no-one has recognised that the question posed is part of a piece of research undertaken by Hauser, as briefly described in Dawkins' recent book, The God Delusion.
A set of scenarios, one of which is the railway trolley example, was given to atheists and believers to determine whether belief in a god-system gave an automatic greater sense of morality. The tests were extended to tribes with vastly different belief systems.
Unsurprisingly the views expressed were independent of having 'faith'.
In the case posed here the general response was overwhelmingly in favour of saving the five at the expense of one.
A set of scenarios, one of which is the railway trolley example, was given to atheists and believers to determine whether belief in a god-system gave an automatic greater sense of morality. The tests were extended to tribes with vastly different belief systems.
Unsurprisingly the views expressed were independent of having 'faith'.
In the case posed here the general response was overwhelmingly in favour of saving the five at the expense of one.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
The two scenarios that I described were [intended to be] very simple and straightforward, such that most people would have no difficulty identifying right from wrong...
Cheers
Don
I think you assume too much and too easily as to what is right or wrong.
It is also too easy to sit in an armchair and declaim what you would do in a given situation - in real life who knows what you would actually do.
Anyway, Don, enough of small number; 100 v. 101 - who do you kill?
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
"I think you assume too much and too easily as to what is right or wrong."
The scenarios were deliberately set so that you didn't have to make assumptions. As to what is "right" or "wrong", I have made my position clear in respect of the various scenarios described, and equally made it clear that "generalised" scenarios can't attract generalised solutions that will hold valid in all situations. So, no, I don't assume too much and I don't too easily decide what is right and wrong in all situations.
"It is also too easy to sit in an armchair and declaim what you would do in a given situation - in real life who knows what you would actually do."
Yes Rasher, that's what I would do in practice also, or at least, that's what I hope I would do in practice.
I appreciate that in real life, many of us would do all we could to warn these men or to stop/derail the trolly.
That's what I said a couple pages back, in a couple of posts.
"Anyway, Don, enough of small number; 100 v. 101 - who do you kill?"
I wouldn't intervene.
Cheers
Don
The scenarios were deliberately set so that you didn't have to make assumptions. As to what is "right" or "wrong", I have made my position clear in respect of the various scenarios described, and equally made it clear that "generalised" scenarios can't attract generalised solutions that will hold valid in all situations. So, no, I don't assume too much and I don't too easily decide what is right and wrong in all situations.
"It is also too easy to sit in an armchair and declaim what you would do in a given situation - in real life who knows what you would actually do."
Yes Rasher, that's what I would do in practice also, or at least, that's what I hope I would do in practice.
I appreciate that in real life, many of us would do all we could to warn these men or to stop/derail the trolly.
That's what I said a couple pages back, in a couple of posts.
"Anyway, Don, enough of small number; 100 v. 101 - who do you kill?"
I wouldn't intervene.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
quote:Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
"Anyway, Don, enough of small number; 100 v. 101 - who do you kill?"
I wouldn't intervene.
Cheers
Don
Why not?
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:Why not?
100 v 101 is insignificant in number terms.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
So what does the difference have to be to make it "right" to let some die and some live? In the original example it was 5.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Deane, Point noted! [Thumbs Up Smiley]! Fredrik
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by u5227470736789439
Dear Nigel,
The point is hypothetical, and the notion that any of us would actually do this or that in a real situation, which might have parallels, is merely theoretical.
Surely the point is to have done the best we could in real life and not worry too much about the hypothetical and theoretical!
My view would be that if one were forced to it as a choice it would be better to allow 100 to die than 101, but I hope I could count fast enough in the real situation! If not I guess I would probably watch in horror...
As I said earlier, under some such situation most humans will make their best efforts to do the right thing, even if evidence later shows the judgement was actually wrong. It's the attempt to do the right thing in the circumstances that counts, and not guilt being apportioned according to the failure to get it "right." Of course inner remorse at actually failing is likely to be bigger price to pay than any punishment from a justice system.
ATB from Fredrik
The point is hypothetical, and the notion that any of us would actually do this or that in a real situation, which might have parallels, is merely theoretical.
Surely the point is to have done the best we could in real life and not worry too much about the hypothetical and theoretical!
My view would be that if one were forced to it as a choice it would be better to allow 100 to die than 101, but I hope I could count fast enough in the real situation! If not I guess I would probably watch in horror...
As I said earlier, under some such situation most humans will make their best efforts to do the right thing, even if evidence later shows the judgement was actually wrong. It's the attempt to do the right thing in the circumstances that counts, and not guilt being apportioned according to the failure to get it "right." Of course inner remorse at actually failing is likely to be bigger price to pay than any punishment from a justice system.
ATB from Fredrik
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:So what does the difference have to be to make it "right" to let some die and some live? In the original example it was 5.
I have now re-read you original 100 v 101 post.
Since we are talking "Black & White" ie as per my original post....one.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Rasher
quote:
I wouldn't intervene.
You have to. The situation has arisen and has placed you to either change the direction of the trolley or let it go the way it's going. There is no option to not intervene if you are aware of the situation.
If the only consideration is damage limitation, you have to go with it, but walking away is a course of action in itself that you will have to live with.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
My I also raise again the other question I asked:
If you were related to or otherwise knew the "one" but the "five" were strangers; would you act differently?
If you were related to or otherwise knew the "one" but the "five" were strangers; would you act differently?
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Beano
Nigel,
A thought grown on an imaginary tree and as such I would become the possessor of a choice of evils, a decision made from the heart and try to use my head to work it out. Once the “what” is decided, the “How” would follow, I’d then have to live with and accept the “how” without making excuses for the “What”.
Beano
PS. Plus deciding to nothing is still a decision
A thought grown on an imaginary tree and as such I would become the possessor of a choice of evils, a decision made from the heart and try to use my head to work it out. Once the “what” is decided, the “How” would follow, I’d then have to live with and accept the “how” without making excuses for the “What”.
Beano
PS. Plus deciding to nothing is still a decision
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by JoeH
Let's face it, the chances of any of us ever being in this particular situation are slim to none. Any railway signallers here? Of course we may well find ourselves other situations that involve a choice of evils, but as someone has said upthread, none of us know how we would react in any given circumstances until those circumstances actually arise.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:You have to. The situation has arisen and has placed you to either change the direction of the trolley or let it go the way it's going.
The question as posed, had the trolley heading towards the 101.
When I said I wouldn't intervene, this obviously means I would let the trolley continue in that direction. ie your second option.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:If you were related to or otherwise knew the "one" but the "five" were strangers; would you act differently?
I presume this question was addressed to all, but let me provide my respose and hope others will provide theirs.
If the "one" was a close relative, I wouldn't intervene, ie I would let the trolley continue towards the "five".
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Beano
I wouldn't intervene either.
Deciding to do nothing is still a decision.
Beano
Deciding to do nothing is still a decision.
Beano
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by jayd
quote:Originally posted by Beano:
I wouldn't intervene either.
Deciding to do nothing is still a decision.
Beano
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
Rush had it right all those years ago. I knew it.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:I wouldn't intervene either.
Deciding to do nothing is still a decision.
Quite right
All my decisions "not to intervene" are based on this premise
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
Fredrik
Is incest not wrong in all cases then?
I was told by a friend that there are/were several tribes where the father would lovingly de-flower the daughter prior to her marriage as the father had experience and the groom to be had none. This was considered 'normal' and desirable and that therefore no one ever suffered as a consequence. I have not verified this.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:I was told by a friend that there are/were several tribes where the father would lovingly de-flower the daughter prior to her marriage
I seem to recall reading that some of these tribes inhabited Worcestershire as recently as ten years ago.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by acad tsunami
In France a chap can legally have sex with a consenting 15 year old and other chaps might think him lucky. In the UK said chap could face a jail sentence, segregation from other inmates for fear of violence and a lifetime on a sex offenders register. In the Philippines our chap would have to wait for his consenting girlfriend to reach 18 of age or face a charge of statuary rape and a long jail brutal sentence. Morals are one thing in one country and another elsewhere they are also one thing in one country and quite another in the same country at a different time. It is actually quite difficult to find any absolute law anywhere at any time. 'Thou shalt not kill' has become 'thou shalt not murder' in recent times because it is expedient for 'Christian' Presidents and Prime Ministers to give orders to Christian troops to kill.
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by Don Atkinson
quote:'Thou shalt not kill' has become 'thou shalt not murder' in recent times because it is expedient for 'Christian' Presidents and Prime Ministers to give orders to Christian troops to kill.
I think its either called "being realistic" or "hipocrisy"
But I'm never sure which.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 12 March 2007 by JoeH
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:
'Thou shalt not kill' has become 'thou shalt not murder' in recent times because it is expedient for 'Christian' Presidents and Prime Ministers to give orders to Christian troops to kill.
Yebbut the same God who said 'Thou shalt not kill' also kept telling the Israelites to go out and smite people, so the commandment was ambiguous even then