Death Train

[MindOverMatter]

A train is speeding down the track, and the track splits in two. A baby lies on the right track and there is a broken bridge on the left track. If you let the train go down the right track, the baby will die. If you let the train go down the left track, the passengers onboard will die. Which way should the train go?

The left track in my opinion. If i was among the passengers of that train, this would seem to me to be the greatest good. I would give my life for the child and give last rites to the passengers. Thats what good people would do in my opinion.

 

[s4angel]

I can’t that is what I was trying to say. Would I make the decision to run the baby over? I can’t in all honesty say I would. Assuming you are one of the passengers what is it you would have me do? Would I do everything I could to preserve all lives? Yes, yes,yes but if I was forced into that decision then God forgive me if I am wrong but I am going to miss that baby, hit the breaks and pray that that train stops before I hit the bridge.

 

[James_S_Saint]

My personal decision making philosophy is the third one (C).

 

[MindOverMatter]

My personal decision making philosophy is the third one (C).

Sorry. The OP didn’t state that we had the option of performing miracles.
You would not run over the baby, and you know it!!

 

[James_S_Saint]

Sorry. The OP didn’t state that we had the option of performing miracles.
You would not run over the baby, and you know it!!

You do not know me. And yes, …I would (most probably).

But what does that have to do with miracles??

 

[MindOverMatter]

You do not know me. And yes, …I would (most probably).

But what does that have to do with miracles??

You would run over the baby? Then what is the point of your existence?

 

[James_S_Saint]

You would run over the baby? Then what is the point of your existence?

As I explained before, to see that such a situation gets prevented for sake of the 1000’s of future babies and passengers. It is basic evolutionary principle and is why life builds against entropy.

Eternal harmony is the goal. You cannot just jump to it, but you can hedge toward it by ensuring it has a chance.

The baby is far more likely to grow up, changing nothing. The passengers will spread the word and maybe even insist that such a situation can never be tolerated again. The baby was the cost for prior stupidity. Don’t let it continue by not having anyone left to stop it.

And even if the passengers don’t. I will.

 

[s4angel]

umm knowing which one is going to be able to prevent this in the future? how do you know it won’t be the baby grown up to be an adult?

 

[James_S_Saint]

umm knowing which one is going to be able to prevent this in the future? how do you know it won’t be the baby grown up to be an adult?

As with all of life and with every life, when in doubt, do the best you can.

To “pray” actually means “to seek”, as in carefully consider all hints and sources. If from that, you gain no solid evidence, you can’t do any more but to give it your best shot from the evidence gained thus far (assuming time has run out).

I wouldn’t know that the baby wasn’t the eventual and final cure for all things. but I wouldn’t know that Jesus wasn’t one of my passengers either.

 

[s4angel]

I would say most probably one half would choose right and one half would choose left. One half would yell out to God in prayer for help and one half would grit thier teeth and face what they don’t feel can be changed.

To me prayer is communing with God, It is the way that I beg for help, feel his presence or just speak to him. Sometimes it is for me at least giving in to him and admitting I can do nothing. I am not very good at defining what this word or that word means, in my heart I know what certain things are though I can’t articulate them.

So in Philosophy what does each choice say about us? What does this question really ask? What is the point of asking such a question?

 

[James_S_Saint]

I would say most probably one half would choose right and one half would choose left. One half would yell out to God in prayer for help and one half would grit thier teeth and face what they don’t feel can be changed.

To me prayer is communing with God, It is the way that I beg for help, feel his presence or just speak to him. Sometimes it is for me at least giving in to him and admitting I can do nothing. I am not very good at defining what this word or that word means, in my heart I know what certain things are though I can’t articulate them.

So in Philosophy what does each choice say about us? What does this question really ask? What is the point of asking such a question?

To “commune” means to “communicate”. It was intended to mean “request guidance”, not “request intervention”, but in light of miracles and the manner in which God functions, a request for intervention isn’t a bad idea either. Still the act of praying is to communicate or seek help.

What each choice says to me about others is merely how much they have thought about it as well as how much they understand Jesus and/or God.

The point in asking the question is merely to find out what principle is most popular usually in order to justify an action already taken.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

To “commune” means to “communicate”. It was intended to mean “request guidance”, not “request intervention”, but in light of miracles and the manner in which God functions, a request for intervention isn’t a bad idea either. Still the act of praying is to communicate or seek help.

What each choice says to me about others is merely how much they have thought about it as well as how much they understand Jesus and/or God.

The point in asking the question is merely to find out what principle is most popular usually in order to justify an action already taken.

Well, let’s see. I proposed several probable and possible choices based on my engineering knowledge. This first and most obvious is to HIT THE BRAKES.
Now, I am curious about YOU – at any time prior to this post did you say HIT THE BRAKES?

I mean, it almost sounds like, even if you could stop – well you’d run the child over or drive off the bridge because either accident will likely produce outrage that will cause people to “fix” the problem. So, ethically to save the many — do you murder at least one?

One may believe an outcome inevitable, when in fact it isn’t. I find your evolutionary perspective to be a rather shallow one.

And prayer is also asking for intervention; because it is in the face of the impossible that miracles happen. Those who believe in God ought to hit the breaks — not kill based on what they think will cause the most “harmony” yada yada.

Hit the breaks, throw the engine into reverse, flip a coin over which path to take.
No one except God can know how the future will actually play out in terms of harmony.

So, where did you hit the brakes??? I just want you to restore my faith in your goodness…

 

[James_S_Saint]

Well, let’s see. I proposed several probable and possible choices based on my engineering knowledge. This first and most obvious is to HIT THE BRAKES.
Now, I am curious about YOU – at any time prior to this post did you say HIT THE BRAKES?

The entire point of the scenario is to propose a situation where you HAD to make the choice. The question was asking of your philosophy regarding which of the only 2 choices you would pick.

Trying to get out of the situation by wrecking the train or stopping the train are all irrelevant. It wasn’t intended to be an actual real event, merely an limited analogy.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

The entire point of the scenario is to propose a situation where you HAD to make the choice. The question was asking of your philosophy regarding which of the only 2 choices you would pick.

Trying to get out of the situation by wrecking the train or stopping the train are all irrelevant. It wasn’t intended to be an actual real event, merely an limited analogy.

But you still haven’t restored my moral esteem for you – rather, you are trying to get out of it by pointing the finger. Would you at least hit the brakes?

Besides, I have seen many moral “dilemmas” in real life – such as my mother having PKU so severe she was told to abort. Guess what – she told them go to hell – and she AND the baby are here today. I just don’t really believe in these totally no win situations – To preplan a response with a murderous solution is to set one’s self up to be a smug murderer. I don’t really like those kind of thought games …

So again, did you EVER suggest at LEAST hitting the brakes – or is that irrelevant in your view too? Philosophy is love of wisdom – not love of entrapment of those less prepared.

 

[MindOverMatter]

As I explained before, to see that such a situation gets prevented for sake of the 1000’s of future babies and passengers. It is basic evolutionary principle and is why life builds against entropy.

Thats a fallacy. We are not talking about evolution. We are talking about an ethical situation. If there were a baby on the tracks, nobody with an ounce of moral sensibility on that train would choose to run it over to save their own skin.

Preventing future problems does not necessarily require there survival as people the aftermath of the event would deal with that. So i think that this is an assumption that people on board the train really don’t have a right to make. Its an excuse from moral responsibility.

Eternal harmony is the goal.

Participation in the Eternal act of love is the goal.

You cannot just jump to it, but you can hedge toward it by ensuring it has a chance.

Sorry I’m not in to evolutionary survival of the fittest ethics.

The baby is far more likely to grow up, changing nothing.

Thats an assumption. The point of life is to act in love and according to love.Your arguement denies the value and moral good of having the child grow up to live a full life on the basis that he or she might not change anything. However, the Child will have the dignity of having a chance at life and may be instrumental in helping others to grow in virtue. Your on to something by saying that the passengers might also be instrumental to some greater virtue. For instance it may be the case that the passengers on the train are the key to heaven and their survival is absolutely necessary if people are to have any chance of going to heaven. In which case you would be correct that the train would have to run over the baby since a greater good is at stake, i.e the salvation of everyone. But i don’t think that the passengers have any reason to think that they are such people or have that level of importance. The information you speak of would not be evident to the passengers, and so given that fact it cannot be used in decided the fate of the child. The real question is do you value the child’s live to such degree that you would sacrifice your own life for the child.

The passengers will spread the word and maybe even insist that such a situation can never be tolerated again. The baby was the cost for prior stupidity. Don’t let it continue by not having anyone left to stop it.

Again this is a fallacious arguement. I can also say that the passengers sacrifice for the sake of the child will inspire moral virtue in the minds of witness’s and bring the greater good of God closer to peoples hearts, not to mention give virtue to the souls of those who chose to give their own lives so that a child could live.

And even if the passengers don’t. I will.

Then i think that you have fail to see the point of it all. I am not saying that you’re an intentionally bad person, i just think that your view of things is a little distorted and irrelevant to the OP as far as i understand it. You have to see each moral act in light of the eternal salvation of souls and the greater good of God.

 

[nice2000]

A train is speeding down the track, and the track splits in two. A baby lies on the right track and there is a broken bridge on the left track. If you let the train go down the right track, the baby will die. If you let the train go down the left track, the passengers onboard will die. Which way should the train go?

I would save the baby because the baby has not had a chance to make any choices/decisions of how they would live their life here on earth. Then I would pray many many rosaries so that the people on the train who end up in purgatory would be released and live the rest of their lives in heaven!

 

[James_S_Saint]

MoM,

I am the kind of guy they hire to push that button that NO ONE wants to see pushed. If you don’t want it pushed, make sure the situation doesn’t arise.

Your sympathy for the baby, your moral stance, is all the more reason to choose the passengers.

For the situation to become intolerable to the point of certain disablement, there must be a deeply felt cause (blood). In your mind, which is more deeply felt, the death of a bunch of people on yet another train, or the death of an innocent baby?

Even if no one from the train, including me, were to do anything to prevent the situation again, anyone who tried, would have to have a serious injustice that he would have to use as his “cause” else he would not gain the attention and sympathy needed.

That is the Reality/Truth/God. Deny God and you live eternally in folly, struggle, and frustration (more commonly known as Hell).

Above all else, love God/Truth/Reality and obey it. The alternative is endless misery for all.

Even Jesus chose the innocent one, but not before he was certain that his passengers would ensure the situation would not arise again. I would not be able to be certain of the other passengers, but I can be certain of my own aim if not theirs.

Convince me that the baby and/or the witnesses are more likely to prevent the situation, and I will change my decision. Until then, I, as all people, must do the best they can with what they have. Our goals are not different, just our understanding of it and how to get to it.

 

[Della]

MoM,

I am the kind of guy they hire to push that button that NO ONE wants to see pushed. If you don’t want it pushed, make sure the situation doesn’t arise.

Your sympathy for the baby, your moral stance, is all the more reason to choose the passengers.

For the situation to become intolerable to the point of certain disablement, there must be a deeply felt cause (blood). In your mind, which is more deeply felt, the death of a bunch of people on yet another train, or the death of an innocent baby?

Even if no one from the train, including me, were to do anything to prevent the situation again, anyone who tried, would have to have a serious injustice that he would have to use as his “cause” else he would not gain the attention and sympathy needed.

That is the Reality/Truth/God. Deny God and you live eternally in folly, struggle, and frustration (more commonly known as Hell).

Above all else, love God/Truth/Reality and obey it. The alternative is endless misery for all.

Even Jesus chose the innocent one, but not before he was certain that his passengers would ensure the situation would not arise again. I would not be able to be certain of the other passengers, but I can be certain of my own aim if not theirs.

Convince me that the baby and/or the witnesses are more likely to prevent the situation, and I will change my decision. Until then, I, as all people, must do the best they can with what they have. Our goals are not different, just our understanding of it and how to get to it.

Firstly, to claim that “Jesus chose” is presumptuous. He never spoke to such a philosophical question meant to challenge thinkers not doers.

And secondly, if you don’t think a train hitting a baby or going into a ravine due to the bridge being out wouldn’t attract attention, you are the one who is not living in the real world, my friend. Either scenario would get the powers that be to act. There’d be investigations and newspaper articles and no end of lawsuits.

Philosophical questions are all very well, but they are only analogies not real life. We can learn things from them, but when push comes to shove, it’s our moral core that tells us what to do not ivory tower thinkers who never have to face any real situation of this kind. It’s why Chesterton never trusted the so-called experts.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Convince me that the baby and/or the witnesses are more likely to prevent the situation, and I will change my decision.

There is no basis for believing that running over what we “know” to be an innocent child is a greater moral good then sacrificing ourselves for the sake of an innocent. You are adding irrelevant straw man into the situation in order to avoid that sacrifice, things that the passengers have no means of knowing in the scenario. They have know way of knowing that their living is going to prevent future deaths and neither can they be absolutely certain that their sacrifice is going to bring greater virtue. But what they do know is that their is an innocent baby on the tracks, and they have to decide with limited knowledge whether there lives are more important then an innocent child. Nobody in their right mind would ever run over a child based upon the speculation that their lives will be better served stopping future deaths. Its an excuse. God is concerned not with the finite concerns of this life alone, but is concerned with such events only in so far as they exist as a foundation upon which the salvation of humankind can be expressed and offered. If the passengers sacrifice is going to make their salvation more likely, which I’m willing to bet that it would, and would also ensure that the baby had a fair chance at life, then it seems to me that the greatest good would be that the passengers gave their lives so that an innocent could live, since this would be a perfect expression of Gods love.

If you think otherwise, then you go right a head and run over that poor innocent little baby to death so that you can pretend that some great good has been achieved by complaining to some business board about the state of the railway service; but it won’t be congratulated by me.

Convince me that the baby and/or the witnesses are more likely to prevent the situation, and I will change my decision. Until then, I, as all people, must do the best they can with what they have. Our goals are not different, just our understanding of it and how to get to it.

This idea that their wouldn’t be any witnesses or people to argue for better regulations and human rights, is just a fallacy that you have invented to save your own skin. There are going to witnesses and media attention, and human right activists regardless of whether or not the passengers live or die.

I am not trying to say that i am a better person then you, but i think one should rather die then live the rest of their lives knowing that they ran over little baby.

 

[James_S_Saint]

There is no basis for believing that running over what we “know” to be an innocent child is a greater moral good then sacrificing ourselves for the sake of an innocent.
So you say that I must be wrong because I cannot know that I am right?
MindOverMatter;5717883:

You are adding irrelevant straw man into the situation in order to avoid that sacrifice, things that the passengers have no means of knowing in the scenario.

You have that condemning “knee-jerk” presumption that everyone disagreeing with you is merely being selfish and offering excuses for it. Sounds like a “strawman” to me. Or is it that you are being judgmental and finding excuses to condemn others, inventing a perception of guilt in others to justify your righteousness?

You would kill the passengers because you believe adults to be excuse making selfish people. Why do you presume that Jesus wasn’t on the train?

If you think otherwise, then you go right a head and run over that poor innocent little baby to death so that you can pretend that some great good has been achieved by complaining to some business board about the state of the railway service; but it won’t be congratulated by me.

This idea that their wouldn’t be any witnesses or people to argue for better regulations and human rights, is just a fallacy that you have invented to save your own skin.
You appear to be a hate filled person all too willing to condemn others based on your prejudice. That is why they don’t hire people like you to push that button.

You haven’t offered a logical argument but rather merely accusation and condemnation. You are one of the reasons people don’t want Christianity (not that they have a better option).

To many Christianity is the train and the unborn future is the innocent baby. Would you still choose the innocent?