Do you push the large stranger to his death?

[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.

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

Ahh but I didn't say black or white answers are impossible...because I know they aren't...but they are impractical. Note that right before that, I mention I understand the purpose of the exercise. I realize you're supposed to limit all other variables in your explanation (and I did, as long as the ignorance argument is part of the equation). But my point is that there are so many components that contribute to this situation, as well as ethics in general, so an in-depth evaluation that references practical aspects is more beneficial (in my opinion) than trying to reason with a fundamentally impractical situation. This kind of exercise, no matter its oversimplification, is still interesting, but I don't see much value in it unless it addresses other variables. (again, just my opinion) I'd rather read creative reasoning in addition to the controlled reasoning you suggest.

[Proletariat]

You don't understand. There are "variables" or "components" that are part of the situation, and has nothing to do with the ethical dilemma that is the whole point of the thought experiment. Those are useless to talk about. If the OP originally introduced the scenario with a purple sky, are you going to object to the infeasible colour? Other things aren't variables at all, but are in fact "constants", to keep the same terminology, and are integral to the setup.

The "value" of thought experiments, as you put it, is to examine particular maxims of various philosophical positions, and to either uphold them or to challenge them. This thought experiment is meant to challenge utilitarian viewpoints by questioning the commensurability of human life. For you, that means you're welcome to introduce variables like, "are the men married and with children?" That doesn't mean someone should try to weasel out of an answer by questioning the premise.

If I were to engage in a game of chess, I am free to move my pieces in various tactical ways, as per the rule of the game. I'm not allowed to suddenly say, "hey, it's illogical for Queens to be able to run faster than Knights on horseback, so I'm just going to suddenly zoom to the other side of the board with my Knight."

[haley.the.great]

You don't understand. There are "variables" or "components" that are part of the situation, and has nothing to do with the ethical dilemma that is the whole point of the thought experiment. Those are useless to talk about. If the OP originally introduced the scenario with a purple sky, are you going to object to the infeasible colour? Other things aren't variables at all, but are in fact "constants", to keep the same terminology, and are integral to the setup.

The "value" of thought experiments, as you put it, is to examine particular maxims of various philosophical positions, and to either uphold them or to challenge them. This thought experiment is meant to challenge utilitarian viewpoints by questioning the commensurability of human life. For you, that means you're welcome to introduce variables like, "are the men married and with children?" That doesn't mean someone should try to weasel out of an answer by questioning the premise.

If I were to engage in a game of chess, I am free to move my pieces in various tactical ways, as per the rule of the game. I'm not allowed to suddenly say, "hey, it's illogical for Queens to be able to run faster than Knights on horseback, so I'm just going to suddenly zoom to the other side of the board with my Knight."

Yes, I agree. Introducing irrelevant variables is a logical fallacy and not really productive in defining one's ethics. But there seem to be two types of extra variables regardless of the constants (or at least how I'm interpreting) : relevant and irrelevant.

Just to review some of the points aforementioned...

Is it relevant to propose that the workers should know the risk of working on a railroad prior to even taking the job? - I think so

Is it relevant to propose that because trains follow schedules, the workers should notice the timing of the next train? - IMO, yes

Is it relevant to propose that the workers could possibly be suicidal? - ehh...unlikely, but it could be relevant to your decision

Is it relevant to propose that the workers would hear a whistle/shout or the noise of the train as it approaches? - Probably not, as the point is to test ethics...so this variable should be eliminated

Is it relevant to propose that there are more people on the train? - if you're not given this information, it seems irrelevant

Is it relevant to propose that an overweight man wouldn't be able to stop a train anyway or we wouldn't be able to push him? - I say no

Is it relevant to propose that because there is a problem at all, either the train or the workers are at fault? - seems reasonable

Is it relevant to propose that the workers' families should be considered? - yeahhh..they'll be directly affected.

Is it relevant to propose a feeling of guilt or regret afterwards? - Yes

Is it relevant to propose that the workers are productive while the fat man takes our taxes? - maybe..you're considering the effects and if your personal ethics are "for the greater good of society" then it seems relevant.

Is it relevant to propose that you'd be afraid to push the fat man? - again, maybe. if it's contributing to the guilt after, yes. if it's just fear, probably not.

Is it relevant to propose that you as an individual have no right to end another's life? - I say yes.

Is it relevant to propose that in the split of the moment, we instinctually identify with simple, visual choices better than unordinary actions like pushing a man? - Possibly. It sort of defeats the purpose of making a choice, but I can see how it applies.

Is it relevant to propose that the debris from impact will inevitably kill everyone? - For this exercise no, but I like the thought process.

I should have defined my position better originally, but the variables I'm considering as extra are the relevant ones (rather than the obvious "you kill 3 instead of 1" etc). To me, those are what turn black and white to gray. Irrelevant variables, like the temperature or number of clouds in the sky or chirping birds, are unnecessary..I agree with that. But I still like to read creative reasoning in addition to constant reasoning. Even if it doesn't lie within the premises of the exercise, alternative variables can be interesting as long as a relevant reason is also addressed, imo. To ignore relevant reasoning is what I call impractical...if that makes sense...god this post looks ugly lol.

[Costello]

Ok I don't understand why would anyone kill a man and therefore sacrifice their own life (as you will be in jail and feel guilty for the rest of your life). It's his own choice if he wants to die to save the train or not. Plus, call me a psychopath, but I don't see that much value in the life of a few workers. I mean, if you think about it, people die all the time everyday for many reasons and you can save them in more easier ways, so why would you chose to save these people for such a high price? Simply because you happen to be in the moment?

You're facing the same situation everyday. There are people dying from lack of organs to transplant, you can kill one stranger and donate his organs to save more people. I don't see many people doing this, so why would anyone act differently in this train situation? Plus I don't understand the logic of killing yourself to save other people. How does it matter you did anything once you're dead? If you kill yourself now, without saving anyone, the result will be the same - you will be dead, so the world doesn't exist for you, unless you're in some sort of religion.

[TurtleR]

You don't understand. There are "variables" or "components" that are part of the situation, and has nothing to do with the ethical dilemma that is the whole point of the thought experiment. Those are useless to talk about. If the OP originally introduced the scenario with a purple sky, are you going to object to the infeasible colour? Other things aren't variables at all, but are in fact "constants", to keep the same terminology, and are integral to the setup.

The "value" of thought experiments, as you put it, is to examine particular maxims of various philosophical positions, and to either uphold them or to challenge them. This thought experiment is meant to challenge utilitarian viewpoints by questioning the commensurability of human life. For you, that means you're welcome to introduce variables like, "are the men married and with children?" That doesn't mean someone should try to weasel out of an answer by questioning the premise.

If I were to engage in a game of chess, I am free to move my pieces in various tactical ways, as per the rule of the game. I'm not allowed to suddenly say, "hey, it's illogical for Queens to be able to run faster than Knights on horseback, so I'm just going to suddenly zoom to the other side of the board with my Knight."

I agree with Proletariat, the point of this thought experiment is not to try and find an alternative answer by simply challenging the question.

In real life, if we were actually in this situation, what's the chance of us having enough time to truly evaluate the situation? If a train is suddenly coming at the workers, chances are, you only have a few seconds, maybe less. You don't have time to question "Am I strong enough to push this man?" or "Is the man big enough to stop the train?" or "Are those workers theives that deserve to die?" or "Could the workers simply move out of the way?". You have to act. True, you might not be able to push the man, but thats not the point. The point is, WOULD you push the man in front of the train?

As for my response, I would not push the man. I don't see why I should sacrifice someone's life for the sole reason that they just happened to be there. It's like saying that if I were a doctor, I would simply steal a liver from some healthy patient in the hospital because I would be able to cut up that liver and save 2 of my friends from dying from liver failure.

The man just happened to be there, but he has no obligation to save the workers, and I don't have the authority to make that choice.

[CkyBlue]

The situation is hugely generalized because as far as it goes, we know nothing about the situation as a whole, and the morals and relationships among the characters. As stated above there are variables that could affect your decision whether to push this man or not that are not mentioned. Some need explaining, and some will be given knowledge if you are already there. But as I am here typing, there is a lot that I'm missing, and what's missing is explained somewhat in the list of variables above...

If everyone was someone you did not know, I would not do anything as the above. Considering ethics, I am in no way responsible for anything (still generalizing) If they die, they die, it's not my fault, and it is wrong to kill an innocent person. Look at it in a person's perspective.

In one scenario some people die accidentally (generalizing)

In the other, you purposely kill an innocent person (still generalizing) to save other people.

No really, I do not want to be involved...

Desy, I do understand your morals, but >__< pushing someone off :/ and then killing yourself? That kinda sounds selfish even to me.

And let me justify that. I assume you are killing yourself out of guilt for that person you murdered. Your death is no substitution for the person you murdered. And if what you do is considered wrong by your parents anyway, why would you even do it? O.o Well at least you have good intentions.

I'm not going to question about your family. They seem like a bunch of strict ethics people..

I'd like to point out it is incredibly difficult to answer these types of scenarios logically given the lack of information. Realistically, the variables could change your decision, as you can't take life in a "general sense".

Edited August 21, 2011 by Pickles