Murder vs. Accident

[Yoni]

The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?

[Eibro]

The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?

Legally guilty?

[Tuberload]

The situation is reversed - the train is about to hit 1 person, and if you pull the switch, it'll hit 10 people.

You don't pull the switch. Are you that much less guilty than either option in the previous case?

Legally guilty?

I think morally guilty fits the discussion a little better.

[Grok]

Maybe I was misunderstood.  I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control.  The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.

[iago]

It's misnomered as Murder vs Accident.  It cannot be murder if you take action to save the 10 people when an alternate action would save the other guy.

This very thing happened to me back in 1994.  I was walking along the beach on Labor Day weekend and came across a large group of people standing by the ocean, pointing and scared.  There was a very harsh undertoe, and the lifeguards had retired for the day.  In the surf were three boys, struggling to get to the shore.  I stopped this girl on her bike and ordered her to go to the lifeguard station and get EVERYONE that three kids were drowning, and she took off.  I jumped in the water and went after the boys.  The first two boys were closer to shore than the other, and were about 14 and 12.  I asked if they needed help and the 14 year old said yes.  So I grabbed his arm, he had his little brother's arm, and it took us about 5 minutes to walk the 30 or 40 feet to the sand.  Nobody on the beach would come help.  When I got those two to safety, the 11 year old boy still in the water was gone.  The lifeguards arrived about then, and about 25 of them dove in and started looking for the other boy.  His body washed up about 30 minutes later, 100 yards away.

By the standards of this question, I murdered the 11 year old by saving his older brothers first.

Well, now you've made me feel horrible for ever asking the question and arguing against commensense

Maybe I was misunderstood.  I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control.  The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.

So it's up to you to choose who lives and who dies?  Sounds like you're trying to play God!


Also, I noticed that nobody has argued FOR killing the one person in the hospital case.  Why is that so hard to do, if you're ok with the single person dying because of the train?   I don't see how you could pull the switch and NOT kill the man.  What if this man's genes held the cure for cancer, but he would have to be studied for many years, eventually dying from experiments, but as a result millions of people would be saved.  Would it be ok to force HIM to die?  Where do we draw the line, in this case?

Final part of the question
What if there were 5 people on each set of tracks; what would you do in that case?  It seems odd to pull the switch, because then you're more responsible for the deaths of the 5 people.  But if you leave the switch, you're also responsible for the deaths of 5 people.  Why does not pulling it seem so much better?



(there should be plenty more to argue now, go nuts! I'm rather impressed how this is going along much the same lines as the discussion at school did, besides Thing's CNN thing )

[j0k3r]

5 lives = 5 lives, you could pull the switch and even though that would be considered murder of the other 5 as opposed to an accident on the other 5, and you were caught by the police, you could say you were saving the life of the other people because you felt that you were drawn to them or some BS, and they probably wouldn't convict you of murder.

I'd say just turned around and walk away in that situation.

[Skywing]

Well, now you've made me feel horrible for ever asking the question and arguing against commensense

Maybe I was misunderstood.  I meant it is not murder because you cannot be held liable for this train's going out of control.  The event was by no means your fault, what you did was called 'damage control'.

So it's up to you to choose who lives and who dies?  Sounds like you're trying to play God!


Also, I noticed that nobody has argued FOR killing the one person in the hospital case.  Why is that so hard to do, if you're ok with the single person dying because of the train?   I don't see how you could pull the switch and NOT kill the man.  What if this man's genes held the cure for cancer, but he would have to be studied for many years, eventually dying from experiments, but as a result millions of people would be saved.  Would it be ok to force HIM to die?  Where do we draw the line, in this case?

Final part of the question
What if there were 5 people on each set of tracks; what would you do in that case?  It seems odd to pull the switch, because then you're more responsible for the deaths of the 5 people.  But if you leave the switch, you're also responsible for the deaths of 5 people.  Why does not pulling it seem so much better?



(there should be plenty more to argue now, go nuts! I'm rather impressed how this is going along much the same lines as the discussion at school did, besides Thing's CNN thing )

Instead of blindly attacking people for "playing God", perhaps you might consider that in your situation, regardless of what you do, you'll still (one way or another) end up determining the fate of at least one person...

[Thing]

All of you who chose to pull the switch are murderers and should be stoned to death.  Regardless of how many people are on either side of the tracks, you are changing the outcome of an event which results in the death of innocent person(s).  I'm glad I live in Texas where capital punishment takes care of people like you.  I think they should make it a spectator sport.

[j0k3r]

All of you who chose to pull the switch are murderers and should be stoned to death.  Regardless of how many people are on either side of the tracks, you are changing the outcome of an event which results in the death of innocent person(s).  I'm glad I live in Texas where capital punishment takes care of people like you.  I think they should make it a spectator sport.

Would you give your life for 10 people?

[mynameistmp]

when trains hit me they break

[warz]

I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me,  ofcourse.

[iago]

I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me,  ofcourse.

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem.  It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.

[Adron]

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem.  It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.

With old train tracks levers you'd have to take some care to make sure it's securely in the right position and not left somewhere between. Well, unless you wanted to save everyone by having the train run off the tracks instead of over the people

[Grok]

I still think what I said should be considered. I mean, how many of us can legally operate a train track? Other than me,  ofcourse.

I think that that is entirely irrelevant to the problem.  It's an old train track, and all it has is a lever that is in state one, and can ONLY go straight to state two, and that's it.

If you're going to continually rig the question so that it can only be answered to make you a murderer, this post should have been written as such:

"Are you a murderer?  (Y/Y)"

Otherwise you should accept that people other than your professor are capable of independent thought, judgment and application of their own set of weights.