Re-visiting the screet-car dilemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter Serious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Serious

Guest
The problem was stated a few times before, but it is worth to bring it up again.
  1. The scenario is this: “there is a street-car in San Francisco, and the driver is incapacitated. You are at the controls, but the breaks are not operational. The street car approaches a Y-fork. You can see that there are 5 people standing on the tracks on the right-hand side, and there is one person standing on the track on the left hand side. If you do not do anyting, the tram will hit the 5 people. If you switch to the other track, it will hit the single person. What will you do?”.
  2. Would your decision be different, if you knew that the tram will jump off the rail and after hitting the 5 people, it will also kill the single person?
  3. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be the pope and 4 cardinals and the single person would be a well known criminal, a public enemy #1?
  4. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be 5 children and the single person would be an old person at the very end of his life?
This is the dilemma. None of the above is negotiable. You cannot “wiggle out” from the circumstances. If you do not wish to reply, that is your business. But do not try to derail the problem by whining about the dilemma, that it is not likely, or whatever. A thought experiment does not have to be likely. Of course, none of this is your fault, but sometimes we find ourselves between a rock and hard place, even though we did nothing improper.

Unfortunately it is not possible to posit 4 different votes. So use your own words to describe your decisions - and please give reasons for your decisions. .
 
Serious said:
The problem was stated a few times before, but it is worth to bring it up again.
  1. The scenario is this: “there is a street-car in San Francisco, and the driver is incapacitated. You are at the controls, but the breaks are not operational. The street car approaches a Y-fork. You can see that there are 5 people standing on the tracks on the right-hand side, and there is one person standing on the track on the left hand side. If you do not do anyting, the tram will hit the 5 people. If you switch to the other track, it will hit the single person. What will you do?”.
  2. Would your decision be different, if you knew that the tram will jump off the rail and after hitting the 5 people, it will also kill the single person?
  3. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be the pope and 4 cardinals and the single person would be a well known criminal, a public enemy #1?
  4. Would you act differently, if the 5 people would be 5 children and the single person would be an old person at the very end of his life?
  5. Would you act differently, if one of those 5 children would be your child?
This is the dilemma. None of the above is negotiable. You cannot “wiggle out” from the circumstances. If you do not wish to reply, that is your business. But do not try to derail the problem by whining about the dilemma, that it is not likely, or whatever. A thought experiment does not have to be likely. Of course, none of this is your fault, but sometimes we find ourselves between a rock and hard place, even though we did nothing improper.

Unfortunately it is not possible to posit 4 different votes. So use your own words to describe your decisions - and please give reasons for your decisions. .
Click to expand...
 
Let’s add one more case:
  1. Would you act differently, if one of those 5 children would be your child?
 
My own solution would be the same in all the cases: choose to save the 5 people. If there would be a 6th case, where the 5 people would be psychopaths, then I would allow the tram to mow them down. The explanation is: “inaction and action are the same: both have consequences”. No one can hide behind the “excuse”: it is the tram that causes the incident.
 
What is wrong with all those people? Why are there so many people standing on the track? Can’t they see the street car coming? Darwin’s law…
 
The only moral answer is to warn the people on the tracks by sounding the horns, anding get everyone on board shouting/screaming. One must also attempt to disable the street car’s power supply or drive train from within if possible, or attempt to jam the cars wheels where the track splits.

Merely “not killing” one person or five is not enough. Morality require actively trying to save both parties, even if accidentally running over one of them is inevitable. If these actions are taken, it doesn’t really matter which track is chosen.
 
Two nonsense posts and one attempt to evade the dilemma. Is that the best you guys can do? The circumstances are NOT subject to change. You do NOT have an option to deviate. Of course this is a hypothetical scenario (a thought experiment), but in real life you cannot avoid making a decision, and you cannot change the setup to suit your preferences. Sheesh.
 
These questions are always silly. They are not real life. In real life, you grab a cell phone and call the cops and professionals who take care of it.
 
Serious said:
Two nonsense posts and one attempt to evade the dilemma. Is that the best you guys can do? The circumstances are NOT subject to change. You do NOT have an option to deviate. Of course this is a hypothetical scenario (a thought experiment), but in real life you cannot avoid making a decision, and you cannot change the setup to suit your preferences. Sheesh.
Click to expand...
Then I suggest you fix your questions. Question 2 assumes that the responder will automatically default to hitting the group of 5. Same with questions 4 and 5. Questions 2,4, and 5 simply reinforce the concept that 1 death is less tragic then 5 deaths. Why exactly do you think the deaths of 5 is somehow more acceptable then the death of 1 [as implied by how you worded 2,4 and 5]?
 
Castello said:
These questions are always silly. They are not real life. In real life, you grab a cell phone and call the cops and professionals who take care of it.
Click to expand...
Anything except taking the matters in your own hands, and accepting responsibility for your actions? Sometimes you do not have your precious cell-phone and you cannot shovel the responsibility into someone else’s lap. You must do the “dirty work”.

These types of questions are widely used (in psychological profiling) to assess people’s responses in some hypothetical scenarios. They are very revealing, too. The reluctance to answer such questions also reveals a lot about the non-responsive person’s attitude. The result so far (in this thread) is the unwillingness to face a serious dilemma, the cowardly withdrawal from thinking the problem through. I am just surprised that so far no one had the courage to actually give an answer. I thought higher of you.
 
I am many things, but I am not a coward.

I would refuse to do anything that will murder another person. I am a Christian.
 
Armyvet007 said:
Then I suggest you fix your questions. Question 2 assumes that the responder will automatically default to hitting the group of 5.
Click to expand...
Nothing is assumed. The questions are open-ended. But in other threads the option of “inaction” was chosen, and the excuse was that changing the tram’s course would be a positive act and the person who acts must take responsibility for the action, while the one who simply allows the events to fold out as they may are somehow not responsible for the results of their inaction.
Armyvet007 said:
Same with questions 4 and 5. Questions 2,4, and 5 simply reinforce the concept that 1 death is less tragic then 5 deaths.
Click to expand...
Yes, in my eyes that is the case. If I would be faced with two possible outcomes, I would choose the one with less severe consequences. I am interested if you would share this opinion. But since there are no replies, I have no idea.
Armyvet007 said:
Why exactly do you think the deaths of 5 is somehow more acceptable then the death of 1 [as implied by how you worded 2,4 and 5]?
Click to expand...
I don’t think you even understood the problem if you think that the wording “implies” anything of that kind…
 
[BIBLEDRB]John 15:13 [/BIBLEDRB]

You throw yourself in front of the trolly and hope for the best. 😉
 
Castello said:
I am many things, but I am not a coward.

I would refuse to do anything that will murder another person. I am a Christian.
Click to expand...
So, if you are not a coward, would you admit that you would simply allow the tram on its course, since it is not your doing - after all you cannot be held responsible for the incapacitated driver, nor the unfortunate settings of the rail. In this case no one could could accuse you of “murdering those 5 people” - after all you merely allowed the laws of physics to do their mindless work. While if you would flip the switch and forced the car onto the other track, it would be your action which would lead to the death of the lonely guy? Is this what you insinuated? I do not want to make incorrect assumptions about your mindset, so that is why I asking.
 
  1. I’d avoid hitting the 5 people.
  2. I’d avoid hitting the 5 people
  3. I’d avoid hitting the 5 people
  4. I’d avoid hitting the 5 people
My intention is to save and not to kill, but killing someone is a consequence of my action of steering the street-car in order to save the 5 people. If it’s the wrong thing to do (I’m not saying it’s not), I’d be interested in the reasoning. Even if it is wrong, I’d do it anyway, though.
 
ChesterBeach said:
You throw yourself in front of the trolly and hope for the best. 😉
Click to expand...
That is not an option. Why do you guys try to change the scenario? No one forces you to participate, but the OP explictly stipulated that the circumstances cannot be altered. If you do not wish to stay within the parameters, then do not pollute the thread. Please !!
 
Serious said:
So, if you are not a coward, would you admit that you would simply allow the tram on its course, since it is not your doing - after all you cannot be held responsible for the incapacitated driver, nor the unfortunate settings of the rail. In this case no one could could accuse you of “murdering those 5 people” - after all you merely allowed the laws of physics to do their mindless work. While if you would flip the switch and forced the car onto the other track, it would be your action which would lead to the death of the lonely guy? Is this what you insinuated? I do not want to make incorrect assumptions about your mindset, so that is why I asking.
Click to expand...
If your utterly preposterous impossible situation exists - and I am unable to suggest my own way to resolve (call for help, ring the bell so the people will get off the tracks, shout at a passer by to warn them, pull out my sonic screwdriver to fix the brakes), then I throw myself off the front of the car. It hits me instead of any other person.
 
kch86 said:
Steer the street-car to avoid hitting the 5 people.

If doing so were somehow wrong, so be it.
Click to expand...
Ah at last the voice of reason! Thank you!! I knew I can count on you. 🙂

*** Edited*** I made my reply before you amended yours. But your new version is just as proper as the older one.
 
Castello said:
If your utterly preposterous impossible situation exists - and I am unable to suggest my own way to resolve (call for help, ring the bell so the people will get off the tracks, shout at a passer by to warn them, pull out my sonic screwdriver to fix the brakes), then I throw myself off the front of the car. It hits me instead of any other person.
Click to expand...
Very noble, but that is still not an option. These problems are not real-life scenarios. You do not have to participate. But if you choose to participate, please stay within the parameters. Of course I understand that you would prefer to sacrifice yourself and hope for the best. But life does not allow you to choose the circumstances. You must play the hand that was dealt. You cannot ask for a different hand. As the old saying goes: “S&^T happens”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top