What would be the moral choice in this situation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrandonR
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrandonR

Guest
Hi, In my biology course we do alot of discussion about morals and ethics. During lecture on friday the instructor gave a scenario in which there are two sets of railroad tracks. Standing on one of these is one person, but on the other track is four people. Now there is a train coming, and the conductor must make one of three choices
  1. take the track that has one person standing on it
  2. take the track with 4 people on it
  3. Not make a decision and take whichever path the train was originally on. (We don’t know what track this would be)
Now, I understand that the ends do not justify the means, however, this scenarios got me thinking because either way people are going to die.

If I was put on the spot, I would probably have chosen option three. I can’t judge anyone, and I don’t think I would have the authority to say the life of the one is worth the four or vice versa.

What choice would be the ethical one?

P.S. you can’t do things like brake or derail the train 😃
 
Option 1. I can’t think of any situation in which we shouldn’t try to save the greatest number of lives possible.
I have a hard time understanding option #3. While we can’t make a judgement about the state of a person’s soul, we definitely can make a judgement on the number of souls (1 vs. 4). Life is a great gift that should be protected, and less evil would result in a train killing one person versus killing 4.

An interesting twist on this scenario would be to ask should a train hit 4 murderers with no friends or family instead of one holy man who has small children to provide for. I would still argue that one life is less than 4, and in this instance the lives of the 4 should be spared. It might be even more important in this case that the 4 murderer’s lives be spared in order to give them time to repent. Just a thought.
 
Let’s complicate it. What if the four are handcuffed together and wearing prison jump suits and the one standing alone is a two year old.
 
  1. Sound the warning horn and stop the train.
Maybe someone in the RR business could enlighten further, but can conductors even operate switches from a train? Is this a valid hypo?
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
  1. Sound the warning horn and stop the train.
Maybe someone in the RR business could enlighten further, but can conductors even operate switches from a train? Is this a valid hypo?
Click to expand...
theyre controlled from the switch house.
 
BrandonR said:
Hi, In my biology course we do alot of discussion about morals and ethics. During lecture on friday the instructor gave a scenario in which there are two sets of railroad tracks. Standing on one of these is one person, but on the other track is four people. Now there is a train coming, and the conductor must make one of three choices
  1. take the track that has one person standing on it
  2. take the track with 4 people on it
  3. Not make a decision and take whichever path the train was originally on. (We don’t know what track this would be)
Now, I understand that the ends do not justify the means, however, this scenarios got me thinking because either way people are going to die.

If I was put on the spot, I would probably have chosen option three. I can’t judge anyone, and I don’t think I would have the authority to say the life of the one is worth the four or vice versa.

What choice would be the ethical one?

P.S. you can’t do things like brake or derail the train 😃
Click to expand...
Id tell the people to get off the track. 😛

This is one of those no-win type scenarios. The only way to win is to not play.

In my opinion, one should choose the lesser of two evils. I would choose the option that would result in the least amount of life lost.
 
BornAgain2010 said:
Id tell the people to get off the track. 😛

This is one of those no-win type scenarios. The only way to win is to not play.

In my opinion, one should choose the lesser of two evils. I would choose the option that would result in the least amount of life lost.
Click to expand...
Even then, how to know? Maybe your consist is 100 tank cars carrying nitro-glycerin and the track with four persons on it runs through the middle of Orphanage Row, and the track with one person crosses a lake. If the train derails after hitting the person(s) …
 
(1) Assuming that you’re the person in control of the switch (whether that be the conductor or someone else), and you can either do nothing, and have four people die, or act, and one other person dies, the appropriate thing to do is to act. Here, the principle of double-effect applies. You intend a moral good (saving four lives), and the death of the other person is unintentional.

In contrast, try this hypo:

(2) A train is headed towards a group of four children. You’re standing by an overweight person, and you know that if you push him onto the tracks, it’ll stop the tain (throwing yourself wouldn’t do anything helpful, because you’ve been dieting). So do you do nothing, and let the four children die? Or act, and have one person die?

Despite the similarity to #1, the appropriate thing to do here is nothing. Purposely killing someone to stop the train is evil and impermissible. We can’t do evil so that good comes about (Romans 3:8). What makes it different than #1 is intent. In #1, you don’t intend to kill the person. It’s an unintended bad result in a good action. #2 is the opposite, in that you attempt to lead to a good result via a bad action.

I’d suggest reading up on the principle of double-effect if you find this sort of moral reasoning interesting. It’s solid stuff.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
  1. Sound the warning horn and stop the train.
Maybe someone in the RR business could enlighten further, but can conductors even operate switches from a train? Is this a valid hypo?
Click to expand...
But what would you do if there were no option 4, and you were the person tasked with making the choice? I applaud your thinking outside the box with your comments, and it’s possible that this is a false choice, but what if it’s not?

Let’s change the hypo slightly. You’re in the switch-house. You have a switch, and that’s it. You can either pull the switch to move the train onto the track with one person, or leave it on the track it’s on with four people.* What then?
  • In the switch-house, you know exactly what’s laid out in the hypo, nothing more. You don’t know the contents of the train, or what’s a few miles down the road, or the contents of the train, or how good or evil the people on the tracks are, or anything else. Trying to leave the switch-house to tell somebody else isn’t an option because that train is coming – fast. It’s just you, in a switch-house, with a switch.
 
Belloc_Fan said:
…

I’d suggest reading up on the principle of double-effect if you find this sort of moral reasoning interesting. It’s solid stuff.
Click to expand...
The problem I have with hypos is that they inevitably posit a facts to be assumed in a way that does not accurately reflect reality. Sure, you can know there are people on the track, and know a locomotive is headed towards one or the other group, but you can’t know – with the kind of certainty that the hypo assumes – that the people won’t get out of the way, or that the fat man will derail the train, or that it won’t stop or that of the four, all will escape with minor injuries but the single person on the other track will have a heart attack at the close call he just had.
 
BrandonR said:
Hi, In my biology course we do alot of discussion about morals and ethics. During lecture on friday the instructor gave a scenario in which there are two sets of railroad tracks. Standing on one of these is one person, but on the other track is four people. Now there is a train coming, and the conductor must make one of three choices
  1. take the track that has one person standing on it
  2. take the track with 4 people on it
  3. Not make a decision and take whichever path the train was originally on. (We don’t know what track this would be)
Now, I understand that the ends do not justify the means, however, this scenarios got me thinking because either way people are going to die.

If I was put on the spot, I would probably have chosen option three. I can’t judge anyone, and I don’t think I would have the authority to say the life of the one is worth the four or vice versa.

What choice would be the ethical one?

P.S. you can’t do things like brake or derail the train 😃
Click to expand...
You should forever after avoid this professor. (Or is he/she merely an instructor? Worse! Report him/her to the Dean.)
  1. What does this have to do with the subject (biology!) you are paying him to teach?
  2. Does he have any more expertise in the area of human morality than does the janitor or any student in the class?
  3. This sort of moral dilemma is designed to force a decision to do evil: to kill either one or four innocent people. The “exercise” therefore is in itself evil. Such exercises are rooted in moral relativism, and ought to be avoided like the plague that they are. They are poison in the conscience, because there is no good that is given as an option - only evil.
    “We must not do evil so that good might result.” This is seeking to justify evil means to some good, which is never permitted of a Catholic Christian.
CCC 1756 … One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
 
Belloc_Fan said:
But what would you do if there were no option 4, and you were the person tasked with making the choice? I applaud your thinking outside the box with your comments, and it’s possible that this is a false choice, but what if it’s not?

Let’s change the hypo slightly. You’re in the switch-house. You have a switch, and that’s it. You can either pull the switch to move the train onto the track with one person, or leave it on the track it’s on with four people.* What then?
  • In the switch-house, you know exactly what’s laid out in the hypo, nothing more. You don’t know the contents of the train, or what’s a few miles down the road, or the contents of the train, or how good or evil the people on the tracks are, or anything else. Trying to leave the switch-house to tell somebody else isn’t an option because that train is coming – fast. It’s just you, in a switch-house, with a switch.
Click to expand...
Assuming no other relevant factors and the situation isn’t governed by operating rules, I’d do nothing, because of the uncertainty. But, at some point if the harms were more quantifiable, (e.g., the stalled Orphan, Puppy and Kitten Express is on one of the tracks) I’d change my mind, but as stated, no.
 
Reservoir_Dog said:
The problem I have with hypos is that they inevitably posit a facts to be assumed in a way that does not accurately reflect reality. Sure, you can know there are people on the track, and know a locomotive is headed towards one or the other group, but you can’t know – with the kind of certainty that the hypo assumes – that the people won’t get out of the way, or that the fat man will derail the train, or that it won’t stop or that of the four, all will escape with minor injuries but the single person on the other track will have a heart attack at the close call he just had.
Click to expand...
It strikes me that this is something which makes the hypo more realistic, not less. After all, in the real world, we can’t know perfectly what the results of our actions will be. We can predict to a reasonable certainty what will happen. Here, four people die or one does. But you’re right, in the hypo as in real life, any number of crazy and unforeseen things could happen. But if we waited until we’d sorted out every contingency and possibility in a moral question (no matter how absurd or remote) before acting, when could we ever act?
 
Belloc_Fan said:
It strikes me that this is something which makes the hypo more realistic, not less. After all, in the real world, we can’t know perfectly what the results of our actions will be. We can predict to a reasonable certainty what will happen. Here, four people die or one does. But you’re right, in the hypo as in real life, any number of crazy and unforeseen things could happen. But if we waited until we’d sorted out every contingency and possibility in a moral question (no matter how absurd or remote) before acting, when could we ever act?
Click to expand...
I disagree with your first sentence, after all, that’s the basis of every late night bull session on whether you’d go back in time and kill the baby Hitler. Our concept of ethics and morality isn’t based on absolute knowledge of the future. You don’t know for certain who would die or if switching a fast train might just derail it and detonate the bombs its carrying. My choices in the runaway train reflect this uncertainty, but I would try to assess the likelihood and gravity of harm and act to minimize harm.
 
There was a thread on this very topic about 2 years ago; in the end, the Mods. killed it and in fact erased the whole thing.

Exercises such as this do no one any good; nor do the older ones involving throwing people out of lifeboats, etc. Most of us will never face a choice involving the sacrifice of human life, thank GOD! And if some of us ever do, having though about it beforehand will not make it any easier. In fact it SHOULD NOT in any way be made easier.

Let’s everybody drop this topic and use our brain cells toward working off our Purgatory, instead!

GOD Bless and ICXC NIKA.
 
fide said:
You should forever after avoid this professor. (Or is he/she merely an instructor? Worse! Report him/her to the Dean.)
  1. What does this have to do with the subject (biology!) you are paying him to teach?
  2. Does he have any more expertise in the area of human morality than does the janitor or any student in the class?
  3. This sort of moral dilemma is designed to force a decision to do evil: to kill either one or four innocent people. The “exercise” therefore is in itself evil. Such exercises are rooted in moral relativism, and ought to be avoided like the plague that they are. They are poison in the conscience, because there is no good that is given as an option - only evil.
    “We must not do evil so that good might result.” This is seeking to justify evil means to some good, which is never permitted of a Catholic Christian.
CCC 1756 … One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
Click to expand...
I guess I could have expanded on the nature of the course, but the course is Human Biology with a emphasis on the ethical issues involved in Biology, Abortion, stem cell research, etc…

I’m taking the course because there are certain requirements you need to get a degree. anyhow, the teacher actually believes in God, seems like she is opposed to abortion and whatnot. I’m assuming christian of some sort. She doesn’t support moral relativism or anything, (well at least she hasn’t stated that she does yet). I actually am interested in what her actual beliefs are regarding religion, hopefully she reveals more about her beliefs…

I disagree with your statement

3) This sort of moral dilemma is designed to force a decision to do evil: to kill either one or four innocent people. The “exercise” therefore is in itself evil. Such exercises are rooted in moral relativism, and ought to be avoided like the plague that they are. They are poison in the conscience, because there is no good that is given as an option - only evil.
“We must not do evil so that good might result.” This is seeking to justify evil means to some good, which is never permitted of a Catholic Christian.

She did not say which choice she believes to be correct. But you can’t say it forces a decision to do evil, because what if someone is put into the situation? It can’t be sinful and for sure not mortally if you happened to be the train conductor. You cannot condemn the conductor for having people walk onto the tracks. He didn’t put the people on the track himself. It is possible for a situation like this to happen. Maybe a slighty revised situation would be necessary, but mine gets the point across.

You say that no good is given as an option, but I can’t think of any directly good options for someone in this situation, I’d like you to tell me a “good thing” someone could do in this situation, braking will not slow the train in time.
 
GEddie said:
There was a thread on this very topic about 2 years ago; in the end, the Mods. killed it and in fact erased the whole thing.

Exercises such as this do no one any good; nor do the older ones involving throwing people out of lifeboats, etc. Most of us will never face a choice involving the sacrifice of human life, thank GOD! And if some of us ever do, having though about it beforehand will not make it any easier. In fact it SHOULD NOT in any way be made easier.

Let’s everybody drop this topic and use our brain cells toward working off our Purgatory, instead!

GOD Bless and ICXC NIKA.
Click to expand...
Hello, actually the situation I gave is slightly different than the lifeboat dilemna. In my hypothetical situation there is no possibility that noone will be hit by the train. In the lifeboat noone is killed directly, the resulting deaths would be indirect; however, in the train situation either choice would be a direct death, it isn’t an impossible scenario, unlikely yes, but impossible no.
 
Any number of scenarios could be constructed to ask the same thing…and the morally correct response would be to choose the option that would, in the opinion of the person making the choice, cause the least harm i.e. the loss of the fewest lives.
 
BrandonR said:
Hi, In my biology course we do alot of discussion about morals and ethics. During lecture on friday the instructor gave a scenario in which there are two sets of railroad tracks. Standing on one of these is one person, but on the other track is four people. Now there is a train coming, and the conductor must make one of three choices
  1. take the track that has one person standing on it
  2. take the track with 4 people on it
  3. Not make a decision and take whichever path the train was originally on. (We don’t know what track this would be)
Now, I understand that the ends do not justify the means, however, this scenarios got me thinking because either way people are going to die.

If I was put on the spot, I would probably have chosen option three. I can’t judge anyone, and I don’t think I would have the authority to say the life of the one is worth the four or vice versa.

What choice would be the ethical one?

P.S. you can’t do things like brake or derail the train 😃
Click to expand...
Doesn’t anyone do searches. This exact same hypothetical example comes up regularly.
Its getting boring.
The source (not the OP) is usually someone who is anti-Catholic trying to catch us out.

Its normal if anyone is on a track that the brakes are applied. Conductors are on board not off the train looking on.
What would happen if the one person was the conductor’s son or daughter???
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top