Yes, the people likely to be put in these decisions have already been prepared, prepared to the point where they aren't even making moral decisions anymore. Doctors doing mass-casualty triage aren't going to be debating ethics, they're just going to follow accepted process. Society does not expect untrained people to make these decisions either, as most of us would either freeze or run around trying to save everyone, even if it's logically impossible. When there was no time left to think, we'd just go on instinct. This is, of course, a descriptive analysis.

If you take the other approach and try to derive a proscribed solution, what we should do, then it becomes an analysis of underlying values. I suppose this is the whole point of the exercise. Do you value 5 lives over 1, decisive action over passive acceptance? Who should benefit from your moral choices: people, animals, society? A person that valued all life equally could justifiably argue that saving 5 dogs warrants killing 1 person, though probably not in a human law court. If 2 reasonable people come to different conclusions, then there's some underlying difference in values that accounts for this. An Afghan warrior and a Wall-St. businessman are probably going to come to significantly different conclusions. Of course, I'd say both were horribly wrong

That's why you need to smoke a joint.

Drug induced psycosis.

***

This isn't a test and it is not based on any known reality. So judging people based on their response is just as foolish as the response may seem.

Commanders and Physicians aren't trained on how to handle situations like this because they never exist. You are never given or can process information so detailed and so specificbefore being required to make such a decision.

The fact is most people will do all they can to save everyone they perceive to be in danger and as a result any value decision will be made at the last possible moment and at that time it will be instinct or rote that determines the outcome. The details usually come after the fact just as we can change the moral balance after the fact with various what ifs like "What if your wife was the one person on that track. Would you still save the other 5?"

In the reality of a situation like this no one is asking you anything. You do the best you can and what you think at the time, is the right thing to do.

Human beings are capable of so much and their response in times like these is unpredictable and often surprising. People have taken a bullet for a stranger of covered an explosive with their own body in order to save others.

However, if someone requires you to answer how you would respond before such a situation occurs, you should look them square in the eye and say: "Either light up or leave me alone, dude."

are you suggesting i'd encroach on psychology without sufficient tokage? duuuuuuude! i aint bailing out planes without my parachute!

Not Saving =/= Killing

If I don't interfere my hands are clean and so is my conscience.

You think they'd notice the strangle marks, the unnecessary surgery and the fact that he's missing 5 vital organs. And then there's the surveillance cameras they likely use to keep mal praxis suits away.

Ahem. 2 lives are equal in the eyes of the law because law is blind and meant to work in all circumstances. But given a choice between using train with criminal or using train with Einstein, well, basically criminal burgers.

I don't know how many people are worth an Einstein. Or what kind of people.

Maybe in the eyes of the law. No, wait, law says if you choose, choose the murderer over the police officer, over the victim, basically if you hold a gun at someone you just moved yourself to the top of the list.

Also, during a high-risk arrest, raid, etc, I strongly recommend you don't even POINT a gun at an officer or hostage. You might just forfeit your right to live.

Then who? Religion? How do I put this so I don't get dragged into a religion dispute?

I don't. I don't have to.

Personal morality, maybe. Of a few select people. Not that I know any. Really. I don't know anyone who would choose a stranger over an important to them person.

But you do, under many legislations. Which, to me, is silly, if well intended. I really, REALLY don't want the first person to see something to immediately intervene with deadly force.

This is why I disagree with the duty of all drivers to know and apply first aid in a car crash. I might have something broken and dolt #32184 thinks they should raise my feet. Keep off and call an ambulance. I'd bet a large sum of money not 50% of drivers that had mandatory courses could make a good decision.

I agree with the rest though.

This is not only legal, but frankly, if it weren't, I couldn't care less.

In this situation, all other moral and legal directives have been rescinded.

Because legality is not an invention, but a derivative. Law, when designed the first time, embedded local law, local custom, morality, religion, common practice, as well as ideals, wishes, etc.

This became the basis of law, it's not a coincidence that most of the commandments were translated into law. And it's not coincidence that ideals were translated into first books for several people (If you think first books were given, I'm cool with that, I won't try to convince you, don't try to convince me).

Law is basically what people have accepted to be correct and moral. Some of the laws have since evolved and were expanded to include other activities for which no morals were defined, or were adjusted for new morality.

Additionally, I'm in Romania and, like most of Europe and some of the world we base out system in Roman Law. This works quite differently from Common law in US and UK. Yet I made reference to it because Common law is directly adjusted by historic references to other cases. These cases are decided by a jury in most cases (judge can overrule) and the decision of people is basically a reflection of morality.

Our law system is similar in form, but since it's not obtained directly by morality of the many, I skipped it.

The reason why I brought up law is because in most cases law is nothing but pre-made decision, since one, as a citizen, is expected to adjust his actions according to it, bypassing personal morality or upbringing. IMO it's one of they few arguments when it comes to opinions on morality. Having the same direction as the law means in most cases having the direction of the masses.

Agreed. Perhaps with less strong words, but yes, if anyone would look me in the eye and say that "yes I let them die. What, move a muscle and save them?" I'd have the urge to strangle.

And detachment is not what I find infuriating. What I find infuriating is that someone values a concept like personal content with oneself rank above 4 lives.

So, what, now that I'm dead along with my family you can sleep soundly at night? Who equates life to feelings? Is that what's keeping people from killing each other? A good night sleep?

If he's good. :)

You and I don't really disagree, per se, ndi; except that I am thinking at an objective level.

As I said before; nothing makes Bundys life inherently "less" than Einsteins life. 1==1.

Now, as I said before, we are all human and add a personal weight to the equation. And that is a point in which every individual decides for themselves who is more or less important. (IE: A child over an adult? A woman over a Man? A pregnant woman over ... etc.)

If you did nothing BY CHOICE, then it WAS your will. Your argument is faulty in terms that in that case even if there was NO person tied to the alternate track, it's still cool not to flip the switch. The scenario, as encountered, has nothing to with you...until you choose to participate, right ? The moral dilemma stems from you WANTING to interfere and help people but being forced in a choice while doing that.

I can do better than that ! By what authority, cosmic gift or perspective did you choose chicken over beef, or brokkoli over carrots for your last meal, actively contributing to the overall death toll of that species ? You could have done nothing and no life would have ended !

Pray to God for help. There is nothing you can do alone.

honestly if the guy is fat enough to stop a train, theres no way i can push him

And one last thing - you’re mixing two questions into one. The question of (in)action consequences, and the question of comparing values like lives, that are NaN by definition.

This alone makes the morality dispute problematic. Let me suggest another scenario for your morality test. You had five people on the tracks, one in a runaway accelerating train, and have a choice of switching to an alternate track and/or triggering the brakes (for which you KNOW it will late for the people on the track or to stop the train from falling in to the abyss). Thus choices would be a) flip switch so train goes into an abyss, the people on the tracks live, b) hit the brakes, person on the train lives, or c) do nothing and everybody dies.

Surely letting everybody die is not less an affront to humanity than the other two choices ?