Do you push the large stranger to his death?

[dessskris]

Consider the following scenario:

A runaway train car is heading for several workers who will die if nothing is done to stop the train car.

You are on a footbridge over the tracks, next to a large stranger whose weight and bulk would stop the train car before it hits the workers.

Given that there is NO other way to stop the train car, and the train car is coming in a few seconds that you do not have time to seek for any other form of help,

Do you push the large stranger to his death?

---

I myself would push the large stranger and I will jump too, so we will both die together.

Why?

Because I do not think the stranger would be willing to sacrifice his life to save those workers. If I were him I wouldn't want to die! But it's the only way to stop the train car. It would be better to sacrifice one person's life than to sacrifice many people's lives.

If I just push him to his death, I would feel very guilty and his family would be mad at me and maybe even murder me. I actually would like to help to save those workers but I can't, so at least I die with that large stranger and I wouldn't feel guilty about killing him as I myself die too..

What do you think? What would you do if you were in this position? Do you push the large stranger to his death?

[Minuet]

The workers should be smart enough to not have been there in the first place. I wouldn't push the overweight man; I would let him be. If he, or anyone else for that matter, takes the initiative and decision to jump off and try to stop it, then it's their choice and nobody can stop them if they want to save the lives of others. Otherwise, those workers should know that their work environment is risky and should take precautions to not be on the rails when a train is scheduled to come. After all, in any normal society, trains do follow schedules...

And who knows? Maybe they're there as a suicide attempt. There's more to a person than meets the eye, and just because one man is overweight doesn't mean he should be sacrificed for the lives of careless workers.

Besides, if they were smart and experienced enough, I'm pretty sure they'd find a way out with some quick thinking. A 3-year-old girl in Argentina (I think so; correct me if I'm wrong) survived such situation by ducking under the train in between the rails.

EDIT: The driver should also be as smart enough as to push some emergency brake or something.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Minuet

[dessskris]

Minuet, you are too intelligent hahah

We had this debate in TOK class as an introduction to Ethics but I think this is more appropriate to just be a normal debate than a TOK debate.

Well I agree with you that the driver should be smart enough to try to stop the train car but it's a runaway train car which means it's out of control and you can't just stop it like that. And those workers should run away to avoid the train but then what if they don't? What if the only possible options are:

1. You push the large stranger. The train will be stopped, this stranger will die and the workers are saved.

2. You do not push the large stranger. The train will keep running, hit the workers and they die. Nothing happens to the stranger.

That's it. Let's stick with this scenario and not think about any other possible conditions.

[Minuet]

Why thank you

Sticking to the conditions you've set...

Essentially, it would be better for those dozen-something workers to die instead of the hundreds of passengers on the train. Since there is no certainty that pushing the overweight guy off the train will stop it from accelerating, then it would be better to just let the workers die instead of the possibility of the workers dying and the overweight man dying with them, as well. And I go back to what I said; the workers should have taken precautions, especially since it's a runway train It's common sense that those tracks are off-limits.

On a more technical note, I don't see how pushing an overweight guy off the train would stop it form moving. If it was a sinking ship or a falling plane, then sure, but trains...they don't ascend but rather accelerate.

[Sandwich]

We did this too, in Philosophy. There's also another version where you can change the points so that either the whole carriage of people dies as they fall off a dead end, or 3 people on the tracks get run over by the train.

Anyway! I figured it like so: Are you guilty or responsible for a passive action (inaction), or are you responsible only for your actions? If you are responsible for your actions only, then you're committing manslaughter by intervening and causing somebody's death. The crux of the matter is whether, via choosing not to act, YOU then caused the deaths of the people left.

Personally I'm going to go with fate on this one. I find myself entirely responsible only for my own actions, and only partly responsible for my inactions. Consequently I would consider myself responsible for the death of anybody I pushed, and partly responsible - only by coincidence that I happened to be there and have the idea occur to me that I might save some by killing another - for the deaths of anybody whose deaths I could have prevented with my action. Therefore I'm going to have to say that I wouldn't act. I've taken a life if I act; if I fail to act, I haven't killed anybody. Fate, an unbenevolent god, crappy traintracks etc. were the cause. I refuse to let the cause of anybody's death be me.

There's no real satisfactory answer to this one

[Daedalus]

Yeah I think Alice is in the right (in my opinion). If you had to choose between either a stranger dying or three workers dying you'd choose the former, but that's not the choice given here - your affirmative action in killing one man isn't the same as allowing the 'several' other people to die. Plus it's unlikely you can push a stranger onto traintracks if he really is big enough to stop a train (a bloody train!), which is unlikely. And if we are debating the logic of the question itself, why wouldn't you shout at the damn workers to get off the tracks? The time it takes to push is probably close to the time it takes to shout and be heard.

[Proletariat]

Logistical problems with the scenario aside, I look at it this way:

Something is wrong with this situation. Workers are not supposed to be getting hit by trains, and trains are not supposed to be hitting workers. What that something is, in this case, is undefined.

There are several possibilities:

1) The workers are at fault: they were either careless, forgot, or perhaps even attempting suicide (as mentioned above.)

2) The train is at fault: it is not running according to schedule, the conductor was careless, a switch was not thrown somewhere down the line.

3) The mechanical system is at fault: a switch wasn't thrown due to a glitch in the system, the switch didn't work as intended, a revision to the schedule wasn't delivered to the workers/conductor in time.

As mentioned, exactly what the cause for the problem in this situation is undefined. However, the only variable that could not have been a cause for the problem is the overweight man. Therefore, pushing him onto the tracks will never be the ethical decision.

[dessskris]

Well that's the scenario given so we can't really complain that it doesn't make sense (even though in fact it does not really make sense) or that if the stranger is so big to stop the train we won't be that strong to push him..

I still think that I should push the stranger to his death. Yes I will go into jail for killing him but at least those workers will be saved and their families will be thankful to me. Sometimes we should just stop being so selfish, thinking about ourselves. We should care about other people and sacrifice something to help them. Those workers were just in need of a quick help. If nobody thinks they should help the workers and everybody just lets the traincar kill the workers, I would be really guity and I would regret not trying to help them. Why? Because I actually can do something to help them but I don't do it. Imagine if the workers' families 100% depend on those workers (like the wife is not working, and the children are too young to work). Can you imagine what happen if you let them to just die..? Their families may suffer even more and it would result in a greater pain than just killing the one stranger. So we should still push the stranger to save the workers!

[Proletariat]

Well that's the scenario given so we can't really complain that it doesn't make sense (even though in fact it does not really make sense) or that if the stranger is so big to stop the train we won't be that strong to push him..

I still think that I should push the stranger to his death. Yes I will go into jail for killing him but at least those workers will be saved and their families will be thankful to me. Sometimes we should just stop being so selfish, thinking about ourselves. We should care about other people and sacrifice something to help them. Those workers were just in need of a quick help. If nobody thinks they should help the workers and everybody just lets the traincar kill the workers, I would be really guity and I would regret not trying to help them. Why? Because I actually can do something to help them but I don't do it. Imagine if the workers' families 100% depend on those workers (like the wife is not working, and the children are too young to work). Can you imagine what happen if you let them to just die..? Their families may suffer even more and it would result in a greater pain than just killing the one stranger. So we should still push the stranger to save the workers!

For me, there's a difference between regret and guilt. I say for me because, although this next bit is really just semantics, I'm simply trying to use the language to describe these emotions/feelings (ahh! Limitation of language!)

I would not push the stranger, and allow the workers to die. I would feel regret at this outcome, which I would define as wishing the situation/outcome could have been different somehow. But I suppose I wouldn't necessarily regret my action (or I guess inaction), because I wouldn't feel guilt. I would not feel personally responsible. Why should I? I had not made the train run down this particular track at this exact time. I had not made the workers stand where they are. I have absolutely no involvement in the creation of this problematic scenario. Therefore, I have no commitment to provide a solution. If I can, that'd be great! But the solution cannot come at the price of causing the death of another, because I then transition from a state of zero-involvement to one where, no matter what the output is, the input involves me killing an innocent. The entire equation doesn't matter; the scenario isn't simple math for me. In short, it's all about me; one choice leaves me with nothing (other than lifelong psychological trauma, I suspect), and the other leaves me with blood on my hands.

So I suppose this is where our approaches differ. My morality is derived from pure individualism, while yours is a bit more mixed, as it appears to have at least a bit of a utilitarian, or holistic approach.

But here's the kicker: with my ideology, I am open to the existence of a variety of different answers to this scenario, since I would encourage each individual to choose the action/inaction that would be most conducive to their personal morality. With your ideology, you would probably a bit ticked off by people like me =P

Sometimes we should just stop being so selfish, thinking about ourselves. We should care about other people and sacrifice something to help them

Here's the core of the argument. And my response would be: "why?"

Why should I care about other people? Why should I sacrifice?

If the answer is: "it's the right thing to do", then I would say that right and wrong (and similarly, good and evil) are not concrete and open to individual interpretation. Society only gives the illusion of a concrete right and wrong.

If you say: "The workers are productive to society, and the large man may be a burden on our health care system", then I would say that these production/burden values are vague and undefined, and mean nothing to me personally, and that this idea of a drop in the bucket bonus to society is never something I would sacrifice myself for.

I'm not too ashamed to admit that, although I hated Atlas Shrugged as a piece of literature, and I think Objectivism as a whole is kinda absurd, I found the tenet of ethical egoism resonated with me. I truly don't believe there would be nothing wrong with letting the workers die. That might sound cruel, or inhumane, but I don't mean to be. As I've stated, I'm sure millions of not billions of other people would disagree with me. And that's perfectly fine.

[Austin Glau]

I came across this on the Justice lecture thing, I decided the fat man i was hard to though i didn't have the option to jump off with him i would if that was an option though

anyone see anything odd at this justice episode?

[~Lc~]

no offence Desy, but if this stranger is large enough to stop a train with his mass/density how will you be able to push him surely...it's just unrealistic!

I understand the moral dilemma you're trying to discuss....

[fan]

I Know it would save a lot of workers but seriously would not have the guts to try push some else down. What right would you have to end that one persons life? it may be one person but everyone is of equal importance in the world that we live in what if the guy you push is a really kind person and those workers are snobbish thieves

[JustAnotherAsian]

If you`re going to push the fat guy and kill yourself, why do it!

Why not let the fat guy live then you can live as well.

[pumkinns]

well my opinion is that i wont push the overweight guy.

because:

train + people = chaos..... but i had no hand in it

guy dying to save these people = sad cause he dies, and he didn't do anything wrong. i'm no one to be able to inflict that kind of sacrifice. his life and death are in gods hands not mine.

SOO =

i wont push him. i'd jump but i'm too thin to have any effect.

[JoeG]

I saw another version that compliments the version here. I read it in a book, and it compared the two situations. Something similar may have been stated above, but oh well.

Situation 1:

You're in the control booth in the train, or you have some control over the train-tracks. There are two paths the train can take, and only two.

Path 1: The train will run over five strangers, tied to the tracks.

Path 2: The train will run over one stranger, who is also tied to the tracks.

You can only pick for the train to go in one direction. Also, the train is currently headed in a straight path, and the two paths fork off, like a Y shape.

This decision is entirely up to you, the train will not stop, and if you don't decide, someone will die, no matter what. Do you save the five people, killing the single stranger? Or will you save the single stranger, but killing the five others?

Situation 2

The next situation is the original one of this post.

Now here comes the conundrum; Why would (if you chose to do so) it be okay to kill the man in the first situation to save the five people, but not so in the second?

Is it because the lone stranger is already involved in the situation and the choice is much easier (only flipping a switch), or is it something else?

Edited February 2, 2011 by JoeGuff

[Proletariat]

My intellectual response, given from my personal philosophical stance, would be to do nothing, and let the train fork off in whichever direction it will. This would still stem from the same justifications I gave above; (assuming) I'm not responsible for the strangers on the tracks, or for the train to be going down this first straight path in the first place, I see no need for me to change from a passive position to an active position. No matter what choice I do, if I make it I have blood on my hands. For me personally, guilt is unquantifiable; it's not going to work for me to just reason out that exchanged one life for five lives, for a net gain of four lives! Human emotions do not work that way, for good or for bad. Therefore, I would let fate, or the physical properties of the tracks, or random probability, whatever, to decide the outcome.

Having said my theoretical answer though, I will admit that in the spur of the moment, my gut reaction will be to throw the switch to kill the stranger, saving the five others. The reason for this is the slightly different layout of this new scenario. With the original premise, in order to save the workers on the tracks I would had to have physically push the stranger, and I simply don't think I would have had the willpower. In this second premise, the choices are laid out in a dichotomous, very visual manner. Either one track, or the other. Of course, I understand that the original premise was essentially the same two choices, but it lacked the crucial ingredient of visual simplicity. And in the spur of the moment, sight is what one has to go on, and not necessarily philosophy. I think in this second scenario that you described, my reaction to save the five would be practically instinctual. The consequence, of course, will be that I will carry regret forever after the event, when, if I had simply let the train run its course, I would never regret that decision to not make a decision, even if the five are killed instead.

[Jazmine]

Why push the large stranger? Maybe the stranger would jump on their own? Give up their own life without having to be shoved. Who does that? Intentionally kills, even if its to save others? Why are those rogue workers on a train track anyway? For a reason? Perhaps it's their time to go?

Once a train hits the breaks it takes about a mile to actually stop, how is it that one person could possibly stop it? Also if this large stranger could actually stop the train wouldn't it explode or derail? Wouldn't the impact or this large stranger on the train inevitably kill the workers anyway along with yourself? There would be shards of metal and material flying about. How are you going to save these *important* workers from every bit of train debris? How are you even going to save yourself?

[James Hart]

there is no correct answer but i believe you cannot choose to take another beings life

[haley.the.great]

I came across this on the Justice lecture thing, I decided the fat man i was hard to though i didn't have the option to jump off with him i would if that was an option though

anyone see anything odd at this justice episode?

Spiderman is definitely among these Harvard ethics students! (beware..danger is near )

This past year in English, we watched this professor's seminar about ethics...it's apparently one of the most popular classes at Harvard and I can see why. It was very interesting! My teacher asked the class the same thing and I can't even remember what I replied. But now? I would not push the fat man. Firstly, my actions and the fat man's actions are independent of the situation at hand...more or less, we are innocent bystanders. The fat man should not become part of the dilemma due to proximity IMO. It is the responsibility of the workers to look after themselves. If they do not want to die, they need to monitor when the train is coming. Therefore it should not be the responsibility of an innocent bystander to sacrifice his life to save the ignorance of another's. I mean, he can if he wants, but I'm not going to be the one to push him.

I understand the point of this exercise but in reality there are too many grays to morality that assuming a black or white answer is impractical.

[Proletariat]

I came across this on the Justice lecture thing, I decided the fat man i was hard to though i didn't have the option to jump off with him i would if that was an option though

anyone see anything odd at this justice episode?

Spiderman is definitely among these Harvard ethics students! (beware..danger is near )

This past year in English, we watched this professor's seminar about ethics...it's apparently one of the most popular classes at Harvard and I can see why. It was very interesting! My teacher asked the class the same thing and I can't even remember what I replied. But now? I would not push the fat man. Firstly, my actions and the fat man's actions are independent of the situation at hand...more or less, we are innocent bystanders. The fat man should not become part of the dilemma due to proximity IMO. It is the responsibility of the workers to look after themselves. If they do not want to die, they need to monitor when the train is coming. Therefore it should not be the responsibility of an innocent bystander to sacrifice his life to save the ignorance of another's. I mean, he can if he wants, but I'm not going to be the one to push him.

I understand the point of this exercise but in reality there are too many grays to morality that assuming a black or white answer is impractical.

Actually, only black or white answers are possible. You either push the man, or you don't. People who are trying to bring in logistics issues do not understand the purposes, or perhaps even the definition, of thought experiments.

What would vary is each individual's reasoning/justification for choosing either A or B. So to future posters, please, no one really cares about whether you could push a man that heavy, or whether the train would derail from all the slippery entrails left on the tracks. Just respond to the premises given; I want to hear your arguments =P