Comments on: What would you do?

By: Europe Buddy Sonia

Europe Buddy Sonia — Sun, 29 Apr 2007 21:51:16 +0000

in terms of analyzing the difference between the 2 situations…it really comes down to the notion of an innocent life. It’s a powerful notion since it traverses cultures like Mike said. We all have a drive to minimize loss like in the first example, but not when it comes at a price. The price in the second medical situation is that the person who can save the individuals is not initially part of the situation. Whereas the people who are on the train track have put themselves in a possibly adverse situation. So, the medical situation puts us in the seat of being the life-or-death decision maker for that innocent healthy person. But in the train example, we can “justify” that the situation was beyond our control. Of course, then when it gets down to the reasoning behind the decision, it’s more personal to each person.

but i like how you said the “logical choice in the second situation is abhorant”. it think it’s a good example of how many things and decisions aren’t just based on logic itself. Logic and rationality would say, minimize loss. but there’s a strong set of beliefs that skew logic. i think it’s the belief system (values) that is common to different cultures, religions, etc.

ok that was long, i told you a long one was coming, i just had to study for my artsie course to put me in the mood!

By: Paul

Paul — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 04:38:47 +0000

Yeah pretty much. It sounds cruel, but it’s the same situation as the medical one. Really what do numbers matter anyway when principles are at stake. Althouth I just thought of it some more, and in either situation, what if it wasn’t 5 people you were saving, what if it was 5 million? Would numbers start to justify something you knew was wrong THEN? I think that logic would point to saving the 5 million, but my principles/morals would still make me pause and think, and probably feel real shitty afterward, if not stop me altogether.

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:39:06 +0000

An interesting perspective Paul. So your perspective seems to be more of one where they were on the track so they were destined/fated to die and it would be unfair to take another’s life. That about right?

By: Paul

Paul — Mon, 23 Apr 2007 07:23:34 +0000

Maybe I’m just different, but in the first situation I chose to stay on the tracks and kill the 5 people. I thought about it in the same way as the medical situation (before reading it) – the lone person is like the innocent healthy person in that he/she has no reason to be run over, being on the unused portion of track. However, the 5 people walking on the useful portion of track are doing so at their own risk. Imagine trying to explain to a judge that you veered off course to hit a person, and your only defence is that you were trying to avoid 5 others that probably ran off anyway. Having said that, who knows what one would do in a split-second decision…