Philosophical Question - Kill 1 to Save 5?

The animal cruelty thread reminded me of this one for some reason, so...

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Yep, the Trolley scenario is just as clear-cut as the original question. You send the runaway trolley in the direction that causes the least damage. I'm surprised people struggle with these decisions.

I must have missed this when it was originally posted or gotten too busy that week or something.

So according to the positions you've taken in this thread:

In one case it's ok to intervene with the "natural order of things" to save 5 people while condemning one to death by your own hand.

In the other case, it's not ok to intervene in the "natural order of things" to save 5 people while condemning one to death by your own hand.


- In both cases, if you do nothing 5 people die while 1 person lives, while if you intervene, you kill one person so that 5 may live.


Perhaps some people struggle with these questions because they realize the above - that those two scenarios are asking the same question, yet society has ingrained them to feel that one answer is more "right" than the other, and thus many people then end up holding diametrically opposed stances to the same question. And if you hold opposing views with respect to the same question, it's likely not as clear cut as it may originally seem.

Quote:

Originally posted by Demo

Ok if we're gonna go that route, if the 5 were cosmically doomed, or suppose to die at that point in time, I wold not have had the option to change tracks. Or, if I try to change tracks there would be a malfunction that would prohibit the tracks from changing...

See, I believe when it's your time to die, it's your time to die, no matter who or what may try to save your life...

So that being said, I guess there must have been a reason that I might be able to save the five by changing tracks...

But you're doing the same thing as b-dubs up there. You think it's ok for you to intervene to save those five guys by choosing to kill the one man on the tracks, while it's not ok for the surgeon to choose to save five guys by choosing to kill one.

Why are the situations different?

Awe man, I had forgotten about this thread and the many sleepless night's it caused me

But in answer to your question, as of now I can't think of a good explanation as to why the 2 above situations are different, just don't seem right

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

In one case it's ok to intervene with the "natural order of things" to save 5 people while condemning one to death by your own hand.

In the other case, it's not ok to intervene in the "natural order of things" to save 5 people while condemning one to death by your own hand.

- In both cases, if you do nothing 5 people die while 1 person lives, while if you intervene, you kill one person so that 5 may live.

I think this is what you're missing. In the trolley scenario, regardless of what the person on the switch does, the runaway trolley is the instrument of death, not the person at the switch.

In the 2nd scenario, if the doctors does nothing, the cause of death will be whatever already ailed the people, but if the doctor cuts the healthy person up for parts, he is the instrument of death.

I'm not missing it, I just don't buy that distinction, as it seems to me a sophistic argument framed in a way that allows you to take two opposed positions while sounding consistent.

I would say the moment the person at the switch changes the direction of the trolley he becomes the instrument of death. He made a conscious decision to act in a way that will result in the death of a man.

Action = action, regardless of whether that action is surgery or train-switching. In both cases the man has to choose between doing nothing and allowing 5 people to die, or doing something and causing one man to die. It's the same situation.


To use your interpretation, I could just as easily say that "organ loss" is the instrument of death for those five people if the surgeon doesn't act, and "organ loss" is the instrument of death in the one man if he does. The man merely decides whose organs will be lost, in the same way as the man at the switch decides who will be in the path of the trolley.

Probably.

I don't know if I would be able to live with myself...but, the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few...or the one.

/nerdyasfuck.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

I'm not missing it, I just don't buy that distinction, as it seems to me a sophistic argument framed in a way that allows you to take two opposed positions while sounding consistent.

The situations are very different despite your attempts to portray them as being the same. In the trolley scenario, all 6 are already on the tracks, who dies depends solely on the position of the switch. In your doctor scenario, the healthy guy isn't anywhere near the train track until the doctor sees the train coming, drags him to the tracks against this will, and turns the switch so the train hits him. Not to mention, only one of the scenarios involves premeditation.

Ah yes, "premeditation" That to me would make the doctors decision different than the trolley switcher guy who is simply reacting to a situation, where as the doctor is "making" the situation in saving the lives of the five and killing the one...

Brownell, excellent reply. I was thinking that one over, and you worded better than I could have hoped. I was heading down the road of "I'm driving a car, and for whatever reason am faced with a "kill a crowd vs kill a jaywalker" scenario. Wouldn't have come close to your explanation.

This is an awesome thread. Of course it's wrong to kill the 1 for the 5, and the murder in the house scenario bares no resemblance at all, but this is a damn good question for discussion.

Even the Hippocratic Oath does not preclude the surgeon from making this decision, for, in part, it says " Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given to me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty."

However, the sentence immediately following states " Above all, I must not play at God." For me, this answers the question, but I can see where it may not for another.

Perhaps Forrest Gump said it best. "Shit Happens". In poker, when you are the dealer, you need to let people play out their shitty hands. It's not right to stack the deck in favor of a few short chip stacks just to keep the game going.

I think the actual dilemma would bear much greater consideration if the scenario were changed to say "...The young man has suffered a severe injury to his pancreas, the bleeding cannot be stopped, the life cannot be saved, but it will take him 3 days to die. Too late for the 5 patients down the hall. Does the surgeon take his life early?"

I still say no. Aside from my own moral misgivings, I do not believe it possible for Supersurgeon to perform 5 organ transplants in the time frame allowed for organ survival. I would have to look at each procedure and organ survivability a llittle closer to answer that one, but we aren't talking about a C-section and a few dozen stitches here. Once the procedures are taken out of the hands of Supersurgeon, the equation changes again.

What if the next person through the emergency room door, after killing the young man, had just died and could have saved them all? Sometimes you just have to put your hope in the River Card.

First rule of test taking is that you can't alter the hypothetical question to answer it the way you want to answer it...

For further exploration of this topic I suggest picking up the book "Justice" by Michael Sandel or if you are Lindros, just sign up for his class at Harvard.

First rule of secondary commentary.... understand what you are commenting on, first.

I answered the question as presented, then suggested an even more difficult question.

No biggie.