Valhalla Legends Archive

Quote from: Grok on November 09, 2003, 06:01 PM
You're ALL wrong.  It doesn't matter what choice you make, you cannot influence the outcome.  Run for your life.  The train is "out of control".

I agree with Grok.

It's a surpise to see that the votes are now tied.

Kill the ten people, because it's the fault of the 10 to be so stupid as to have a picnic on the tracks in the first place. Plus the world is already over populated, so think of it as killing 10 people (assuming 5 women and 5 men) and save the world from having to deal with possibly 5 more people (5 being the outcome if each pair had a kid together).

What if there are only 11 people left on earth, 6 males, 5 females. Then five of the men and 5 of the women are killed by the train. Assuming there are no sheep, what will the remaining man do?

Quote from: iago on November 09, 2003, 04:45 PMAnd for the purposes of the example, the train tracks were abandoned; it's only by accident that a train ended up out of control going down them.

Well, assuming that the railroad tracks were abandonded, that'd probably make you a person with an occupation that isn't related to railroad mechanics, because there'd be no reason to be at that train track with your equipment. On every modern railroad track you'd have to have the proper equipment, knowledge and ability to toggle the switch on the track. You should probably include in your 'toy' question that you're also an equipped railroad technician, otherwise you wouldn't be able to switch the tracks either way! So I guess I voted for leave it, and let 10 die.

I refuse to believe any of you would leave the switch for the simple reason of purifying the gene pool. Oh it's their own fault for being on the tracks, they deserve to die. No; everyone makes mistakes. Have some decency and try to help out.

The situation with the doctor is different. The man can decide whether or not to give his life for the many. It'd be a selfish decision to let 10 die, but it's his to make.

Quote from: iago on November 09, 2003, 04:45 PM

Quote from: Adron on November 09, 2003, 04:36 PM
Naa, it's not too late for another man to walk in and save the day. It also has to do with expectations, if he's risking his life willingly by walking somewhere he's not supposed to, or if he's just around. About the train: Try putting the switch between the tracks and let the train derail, with some luck it'll slow down enough that everyone makes it.

I said that there's "no easy way out" for a reason.  It's a toy problem; something that can't really happen, but is still useful to discuss.

And for the purposes of the example, the train tracks were abandoned; it's only by accident that a train ended up out of control going down them.

And what do you mean that it's too late?  The 10 people have 24 hours to live, unless the doctor kills the one man; how is that any different from the train hitting the 10 people instead of the 1?

As you put it, killing the one man would save the 10 people. But if you don't decide to kill that one man now, you may still have some other man appear later, who's willing to sacrifice himself.

The difference in the train case is that people shouldn't be walking around on railroad tracks without looking out for trains - they've all got themselves to blame.

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.

That happened to me, also.

If this were to take place in Quebec, you'd be more likely to be charged if you didn't pull the switch. Not giving help to others in need is against the law. Of course, I'm about life/death situations.

Quote from: warz on November 09, 2003, 07:32 PM
That happened to me, also.

Sucks doesn't it?  I didn't go back to the beach for two years after that.

Grok is quite right.

It's equally as much murder if you don't pull the switch, in fact, moreso, since there's more dead people as a result. If you don't pull the switch, you're murdering the 10 people via inaction. You're proceeding on the assumption that the person who doesn't pull the switch makes no choice - that by not pulling the switch, they have allowed random chance to take it's course. That's not valid, IMHO. Not pulling the switch is equally as much a choice as pulling the switch, therefore, the outcome is equally as much that person's responsibility. Therefore, I'd pull the switch.

Yeah, hate it when that happens. That's the main reason I picked up snow boarding. I wanted to get as opposite of the beach as I could.

To those of you with the 'stupid people' comments... As iago said, this is a philosophical question, it doesn't matter the situation of the other people, or how they got there, simply your decision. (I think I'm learning)

I'm changing my answer.  I want to kill iago for asking the question, then I'm going to kick a puppy.