To leave or let die?

[Ollie]

You're standing at a junction by a railway line. A high speed train is approaching from your left in the distance.
You notice that further along the track is a tunnel where 40 workmen are busy working, unaware of the train coming towards them. If the train continues they'll all be killed.
You then notice that if you pull the lever in front of you you'll send the train down a separate train into a different tunnel. Although here there are only 5 workers.

Now if you were in this position, would you pull the lever to allow less people to die? Knowing that by doing so you are playing god and sending people to their death? Or would you leave it alone and let the train continue knowing for the rest of your life you could have prevented that many people being killed.

I probably haven't worded it properly but basically, is it better to pull the lever meaning less deaths but then becoming responsible for taking peoples lives, or would you leave it and let the same outcome occur even if you hadn't of been there? Is it right for people to take on the 'role of God' and have the choice over who lives and dies?

Lots of people have the opportunity to help but don't. Almost all of us wish we could help. But how many of us actually do?

This is a question designed to make you think so no putting "option 1 because, I dunno".

 

[Novas]

I don't get it. Sounds like an absolute no brainer to me. I'd take any/every oppertunity avaliable to play God.

 

[Hixee]

I'd pull the lever. 'The greater good' and all that stuff.

However, lets be realistic here, if you can see the train and the workers the odds are they're going to have seen it too. They're also very likely to be able to feel the vibrations that the train causes in the track. Even if they didn't see it, you could easily alert them. I suspect it would be easier to pull the lever and then try to warn the smaller number of workers.

But, IF killing people was the ONLY option, then obviously pull the lever.

 

[jayjay]

This is a very difficult question. Do I kill lots of people or not many? So difficult to choose. :roll:

 

[Uncle Arly]

I'd shout to alert the workers that a train is coming, (not that they wouldn't notice, they're railway workers after all. They would ALWAYS be on the lookout) thus saving everyone and feeling good about myself.

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

Instead of saying "I'd yell at the workers and tell them to watch out," I'll follow what the poll is asking and say I'd pull the lever. I'd feel equally as responsible for the deaths of 40 people if I didn't warn them, so I'd rather be responsible for 5.

 

[Mr Nash]

Pull the lever,I'd rather see 5 people die than 40.

But I'd try everything possible to warn the five,at least then I could say I did everything possible to save them.

 

[Snoo]

Pull the lever, clearly. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.. although that statement makes no sense.. lol

 

[kimahri]

Round here when they do maintainence on train tracks they close off that section...

And they have drivers... and they're loud.

 

[Ollie]

I wasn't asking about stuff like 'its their fault for being in the tunnel' and 'they'd feel vibrations and stuff'. It's meant to be a philosophical question and make you think if you'd rather be responsible for the 5 deaths or pretend you never knew that you could avoid a bigger death toll but know you weren't involved and it would of happened even if you weren't there.

 

[Rush]

I hate these types of questions, just like "the would you kill your best friend to save two others" topic, I'm not going to answer. Especially seeing as the author of the topic hasn't given us his answer anyway.

 

[kimahri]

Fine then, pull the switch at the right time for epic 2 track drifting taking out both groups of workers. Score multiplyer if there is a wall inbetween 2 tracks which end up splitting the train takeing out the people inside, the workers and the rest of the train.

 

[Dave]

If a train is approaching high speed towards any work they sound the horn, even if they are about to go into a station. So this situation would never happen.

 

[LiveForTheLaunch]

Oh my God, sometimes I think you guys are retarded. Can't you just answer the damn question? It's not meant to be literal.

 

[tks]

It's hard to answer a question when it's basically retarded in the first place.

I'm quite sure the workmen would hear the high speed train coming.

 

[nealbie]

You're all missing the point spectacularly.

With direct regards to your proposal Ollie - I'd leave the train, as I'd feel guiltless. It was going to happen anyway.

In real life - I'd still leave it. But shout at the 40.

 

[davidm]

Google "Trolley dilemma" if you are interested in this sort of thing.

("Trolley dilemma" being the general term for this sort of philosophical/ethical problem)

 

[Pokemaniac]

Pull the lever... halfway through. Then, find a rock of the right size, and stick in the track switch so it won't fall back or continue to switch. Jump aside, and watch as the train derails epically.

On a more serious note, it's difficult (though, another version of the dilemma is a lot worse to decide on). The 40 might not have gotten the messages right, as the train is headed down their way. Perhaps they are death row prisoners. The five in the other tunnel might have heard that they are safe, as no trains are set for their tunnel that day. I might be acting against a plan if I pull the switch, or perhaps I will if I don't...

I'd turn around and run away, pretending I didn't see anything.

 

[kimahri]

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/multi-track-drifting

FTW

 

[furie]

The problem with the question is that it's badly written.

The option is let nature take its course and strike 40 people dead, or you can step in and divert the cause and kill five "innocent" people instead.

By wording it in a "real world" situation, you allow people the chance to participate in "free-thought". People can see other possible outcomes and don't want a simple black or white choice.

In truth, life very rarely falls into simple black or white choices, so philosophical questions like this are fundamentally flawed. They're unrealistic, so the results gained from an answer are irrelevant. Those looking for an alternative answer are probably the most correct - because they have spotted the flaw and the posit allows them room for imagination to develop other results.

A better question would be this:

You are in a prison with a death sentence on you along with 45 others.

You're led shackled tightly to a shooting ground. The warden gives you the choice. You can choose.

1. Let 40 of the prisoners be shot in front of you now and you and the five others go free
2. Shoot the five remaining prisoners yourself and the 40 prisoners and you go free.
3. You will be shot dead in ten seconds by the guard behind you and you will never know what happens to the other 45.

The discussion is, of course, about would you actively take fewer lives to save the majority. The truth is you should always go for taking the fewer lives yourself as you are responsible both ways.

However, nobody is ever going to be in that situation - so it's pointless...