Brain Tickler

[Bargainfluger]

I have two questions. It works best if you read and answer the first question, THEN go on to the second.

Q1: You are standing by the train track. There is a fork in the track and on the right fork there are five people tied up, on the left, only one person. Bags are covering their faces, they are all tied up and helpless. You know nothing of their backgrounds, family situations, etc. The train is barreling down the track, heading for the right fork. The five people will all die (100% chance) if you don't divert the course of the train to the left track with the lever. If you switch the lever to the left track, the five people will live, but the one guy on the left track will most assuredly perish. Do you interfere and spare 5 lives for 1, or do you let it run its course?










Q2: You are in a hospital. There sre at present five people awating translants. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and one another kidney. There is, in a separate part of the hospital, a person sedated for operation on a rather mild hangnail. Other than his/her nail, he/she is in perfect condition, and all organs are healthy and donatable. The hospital is of late depleted of organ donors. Without the crucial transplants, the first five patients will assuredly all die. Would you harvest this person's organs, sacrificing the one, sparing 5, or would you let all five die, and let the last person leave in one piece?



What, if any, difference is there between the two scenarios? (assume the operations work.)

 

[Zalnavris]

Q1: I would devert the track as so the one would die and the 5 would live.

Q2: I would take what i could from the hang nail person, all that would not kill him, and have the rest taken from me, even if it means death.

 

[Bargainfluger]

Ok. Now assume your body parts were unusable for some reason. Different blood type, weak, family history, unhealthy... What would the answer to the second one be now? And is there any difference between the two?

 

[Zalnavris]

ahhhhhhhh ok that makes it dificult. ill have to think about it and get back to you. and yes i think there the same.

 

[porcupine]

I have two questions. It works best if you read and answer the first question, THEN go on to the second.

Q1: You are standing by the train track. There is a fork in the track and on the right fork there are five people tied up, on the left, only one person. Bags are covering their faces, they are all tied up and helpless. You know nothing of their backgrounds, family situations, etc. The train is barreling down the track, heading for the right fork. The five people will all die (100% chance) if you don't divert the course of the train to the left track with the lever. If you switch the lever to the left track, the five people will live, but the one guy on the left track will most assuredly perish. Do you interfere and spare 5 lives for 1, or do you let it run its course?

Track 2.

Q2: You are in a hospital. There sre at present five people awating translants. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and one another kidney. There is, in a separate part of the hospital, a person sedated for operation on a rather mild hangnail. Other than his/her nail, he/she is in perfect condition, and all organs are healthy and donatable. The hospital is of late depleted of organ donors. Without the crucial transplants, the first five patients will assuredly all die. Would you harvest this person's organs, sacrificing the one, sparing 5, or would you let all five die, and let the last person leave in one piece?

In order to transplant a heart, one must kill a living human being. Transplanting of vital organs is nothing more than neo-cannibalism. None of the 5 get transplants. They get prayer and the best medical care they can without stealing parts from other people.

What, if any, difference is there between the two scenarios? (assume the operations work.)

If I had bitten on the second and made a choice, I would not have taken the parts anyway. The difference is that the 5 had terminal conditions INHERENT in their bodies. Transplantation is not as successful as many think and very often does not work. You would not be trading the life of the 1 for a sure bet of the life of 5. It is very likely that 2 or 3 of those 5 would die with the transplant within a very short time.

 

[CrownCaster]

I have two questions. It works best if you read and answer the first question, THEN go on to the second.

Q1: You are standing by the train track. There is a fork in the track and on the right fork there are five people tied up, on the left, only one person. Bags are covering their faces, they are all tied up and helpless. You know nothing of their backgrounds, family situations, etc. The train is barreling down the track, heading for the right fork. The five people will all die (100% chance) if you don't divert the course of the train to the left track with the lever. If you switch the lever to the left track, the five people will live, but the one guy on the left track will most assuredly perish. Do you interfere and spare 5 lives for 1, or do you let it run its course?










Q2: You are in a hospital. There sre at present five people awating translants. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and one another kidney. There is, in a separate part of the hospital, a person sedated for operation on a rather mild hangnail. Other than his/her nail, he/she is in perfect condition, and all organs are healthy and donatable. The hospital is of late depleted of organ donors. Without the crucial transplants, the first five patients will assuredly all die. Would you harvest this person's organs, sacrificing the one, sparing 5, or would you let all five die, and let the last person leave in one piece?



What, if any, difference is there between the two scenarios? (assume the operations work.)

I would not play God in either situation, deciding who should die and who should live. I would do my best to free the ones on the track but would never decide that one life was less important then five.

As far as the person on the operating table, same thing applies. If it is God's will for these people to have organs, then they will. It is not my place to take His role. He will provide a set of organs if He so chooses but it is never my place to take a life.

 

[CrownCaster]

Transplanting of vital organs is nothing more than neo-cannibalism

What?

 

[GreenDragon]

I'd switch the track. The second one is a little harder... Stealing organs seems different than switching tracks. You are directly killing them instead of indirectly (through the redirection of the train). I guess it should be the same, but they don't seem like it. Legal problems would also arise from the organ transplants, families will sue the hospital etc. Where as in the train track situation it will be played off as an accident (because it kind of was).

Still not sure though

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

In the first scenario I would go with track 2, though it is a hard decision. But more will suffer a loss if five die, than if one dies. On the second scenario I would not take the organs of the person because the five who need transplants do not have a 100% assurance of survival, and killing another when the five may die anyway is just short of irresponsible.

 

[AdJesumPerMariam]

I have two questions. It works best if you read and answer the first question, THEN go on to the second.

Q1: You are standing by the train track. There is a fork in the track and on the right fork there are five people tied up, on the left, only one person. Bags are covering their faces, they are all tied up and helpless. You know nothing of their backgrounds, family situations, etc. The train is barreling down the track, heading for the right fork. The five people will all die (100% chance) if you don't divert the course of the train to the left track with the lever. If you switch the lever to the left track, the five people will live, but the one guy on the left track will most assuredly perish. Do you interfere and spare 5 lives for 1, or do you let it run its course?

I would try to untie them as best I could, I could untie one, then with the help of the one, we could untie more...all working together, we could get all of them.

Q2: You are in a hospital. There sre at present five people awating translants. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a kidney, one a liver, and one another kidney. There is, in a separate part of the hospital, a person sedated for operation on a rather mild hangnail. Other than his/her nail, he/she is in perfect condition, and all organs are healthy and donatable. The hospital is of late depleted of organ donors. Without the crucial transplants, the first five patients will assuredly all die. Would you harvest this person's organs, sacrificing the one, sparing 5, or would you let all five die, and let the last person leave in one piece?

What, if any, difference is there between the two scenarios? (assume the operations work.)

I would never consider taking the organs of a healthy person. I do believe in transplants, but only if the peson agrees upon their death.

 

[Bargainfluger]

Good responses. Keep in mind, though, that untieing people is not an option. Maybe the train is almost to you or something. The two outcomes of the first scenario are a) 5 people die, or b) 1 person dies. There are no other options.

 

[CrownCaster]

Good responses. Keep in mind, though, that untieing people is not an option. Maybe the train is almost to you or something. The two outcomes of the first scenario are a) 5 people die, or b) 1 person dies. There are no other options.

Then I would preach Jesus Christ to them and hopefully there would be five new souls in heaven and a plethora of rejoicing angels.

 

[MJ421]

Then I would preach Jesus Christ to them and hopefully there would be five new souls in heaven and a plethora of rejoicing angels.

So, instead of helping them, you're going to try and convert them? You've got your priorities bass ackwards.

Q2: I would take what i could from the hang nail person, all that would not kill him, and have the rest taken from me, even if it means death.

You wouldn't last long as a doctor. Not unless you're Jack Kavorkian.

In the first scenario I would go with track 2, though it is a hard decision. But more will suffer a loss if five die, than if one dies. On the second scenario I would not take the organs of the person because the five who need transplants do not have a 100% assurance of survival, and killing another when the five may die anyway is just short of irresponsible.

What if the 5 were just homeless bums, and the one guy was a Kennedy?

 

[The_Unknown]

Question 1: Leave it like it is.

Question 2: Let them die. Let the healthy one live.

 

[CrownCaster]

So, instead of helping them, you're going to try and convert them? You've got your priorities bass ackwards.

This life means nothing in comparison to eternity. And if you had bothered to read any of this instead of just commenting, you would see that there is no helping them, only deciding if you would change the course and kill someone who was not in danger.

What if the 5 were just homeless bums, and the one guy was a Kennedy?

Who cares. They are still God's creation.

 

[amonk]

Q1- No I do not intefere , the statistic of them dying is 100% so whatever I do , it becomes useless [ rather if it were a 50% chance then it is possible for survival ]

Q2 - Other than assuming something happened to them on the track , they achieved these injuries somewhere else due the train not hitting them as it would have caused [ 100% death if it did ] so;

1. It is a 'miracle' they survived and was not in any way involved with human intervention
2. The logic in your story is contradictory .

but given that they should all come to agreement first about deciding to remove organs since I would like them to have a choice first without having to uneccessary butcher the poor man being singled out for his organ ,so then its up to ;

1. the either 5 to give eachother what they need , making this a fair exchange in transplants and everyone coming out alive .
2. The either 5 try to convince the guy which is doing well to 'sacrifice' himself [ which is not going to happen if it were me ].

 

[TrueQ]

Q1: I hate it when people try and escape the premises of hypotheticals, but is there any reason that you couldn't divert the train to the track with one person on it, then just untie the one person? If you have time to take in all this and pull a lever, it'd seem like you'd have to time to untie a knot and haul him/her out of danger.

Q2: In order to save five people I would consider it disgusting to kill and cannibalize an uninvolved person's organs. This poor sedated guy is innocent and came to the hospital with the assumption that he wouldn't be killed for parts. I wouldn't kill him for any reason because, he is uninvolved and likely has problems of his own, it would set a bad precedent, and it would be ghoulish.

 

[MoonlessNight]

It's always hard to respond to scenarios such as these, because for the most part they don't exist in the real world. If something of the nature of the first were to occur my first reactions would be to get the people off of the tracks, or barring that to try to contact and stop the train or something similar. Choosing the track for the train is not something I would think to do at all. So when stripped of all other possibilities it becomes exceptionally difficult to make the choice, since neither choice is something that I would be likely to do. Perhaps I would let slip into a depression of having apparantly lost any sense of free will, and let the five die; but that's not exactly what you are looking for.

I can, however, answer the first question from a perspective of rationally which action I believe to be right. And the answer is that neither option is more right than the other. It is like asking which staircase I will leave my apartment building by; neither is really a more moral choice than the other. This example is simply more extreme. Here I am in a situation that I know nothing about, with no way to diffuse it. I can choose to save one group over the other; but this says little about the morality of the action in and of itself. I suppose the only thing we have left to judge are my intentions, but either action can be preceded by good intentions. I may be horrified at the thought of killing someone, and let the five die, or I may want to save the most people I can, and let the one die. So certainly I think that neither action is bad, but I also believe that neither action is "more right". Why? Because it's not my position that a good intention can make something good, only that bad intentions can make something bad, and the only difference we have here are the intentions, but in both cases they are good.

The second case is quite a bit more plausible and quite a bit more clear cut. By killing the person we reduce that persons status to a mere commodity, as if the person's only role was to carry the needed organs up to this point in time. But it is not the nature of a human only to carry around said organs, so this is an action against that person by devaluing their status of being (not to mention the fact that it is almost certainly something they would not want). So the second case is clearly immoral.

As for the difference, I can see how they seem the same from a consequentialist point of view, but I find that I rarely allow consequences to enter into my thoughts on morality. So with that consideration removed they become like apples and oranges.

 

[Bargainfluger]

Q1: I hate it when people try and escape the premises of hypotheticals, but is there any reason that you couldn't divert the train to the track with one person on it, then just untie the one person? If you have time to take in all this and pull a lever, it'd seem like you'd have to time to untie a knot and haul him/her out of danger.

Trains go fast, he's too far away to be helped. All extraneous variables are eliminated. How many die, 1 or 5.