Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Grimalkin]

The idea is taken from an article in Friday's KoreaHerald.

Situation 1

You are standing beside railway tracks. There is a train coming. You know that up ahead, around a bend five people are standing on the tracks. You cannot warn them and the train driver will not see them in time to stop. They will be killed unless...

There is a switch beside the railway tracks. If you pull the switch the train will be diverted onto a different set of tracks. There is one person standing on this set of tracks. He will be killed if you pull the switch...

Do you pull the switch or not?

situation 2

You are standing on a bridge over the railway tracks. There is a train coming. You know that up ahead, around a bend five people are standing on the tracks. You cannot warn them and the train driver will not see them in time to stop. They will be killed unless...

There is a man in front of you on the bridge. You know if you push him off the bridge, in front of the train the driver will break and the five people will be saved. It is impossible for you to throw yourself off the bridge (physical restraints or whatever) instead of him.

Do you push him?

Since this are hypothetical situations the only choices allowed are the ones outlined. Vote for your choices. The more people that vote the easier it will be to see if writer of the article was correct.


WARNING SPOILER!!!

It might be better to decide which way your voting before reading bramble's post below.

[VanIslander]

We are not omniscient.

Situation 1: Switch tracks, then hell or pray that the one person gets out of the way in time. Sorry, the hypothetical situation doesn't take into account hope and decisionmaking under conditions of uncertainty, as it should.

Situation 2: If you push the guy off the bridge, you will never know if the people would have gotten out of the way in time, and nonetheless, you will have decided yourself someone's fate, choosing to kill someone. Regardless of the utilitarian value of the decision, it's not your decision to make. You'd likely be charged with murder and factual issues won't change the fact that you killed someone who didn't deserve to die and whom you had no authority to do so.

If you want to make it a true moral dilemma then have a friend or family member among those on the tracks.

I took a dozen ethics course in university as a philosophy major, and quickly got tired of phoney examples of a moral dilemma. There are enough real-life conflicts of obligation and issues of conscience that one needn't construct artificial ones, except for the pedogogical value of exemplifying a principle.

[Hardy Boy]

What the hell does joe blow know about throwing switches? Maybe it'd derail the train. Or, are we saying it's a railroad worker making the decision?

And killing someone now to try and save someone's life later is just wrong.

[Grimalkin]

[Grimalkin]

[VanIslander]

What I said was fair comment.

I also explained what I'd do and why and voted on the poll.

To be clear: I would pull the switch but not push the man.

[ChuckECheese]

It depends on whether I had regular or decaf coffee that morning.

[Tarmangani]

From the choices given I'd do nothing. You know survival of the fittest and all. But I'd like to add "throw a coin, de-rail the train, and kill everyone."

[mnhnhyouh]

Pull the switch but not push the guy.

Pulling the switch still allows the first person to get out of the way, more likely than all five of them doing so.

Pushing the guy kills one for sure.

h

[SuperHero]

[Grimalkin]

[SuperHero]

[Bramble]

Sorry, I've already been influenced. Here's the link:

https://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2007/03/16/200703160036.asp

I didn't vote because I can't get my head around the switch question. I definitely wouldn't push someone in front of a train.

It's very hard for me to come up with an effective rebuttal to this article, but VanIslander made some great points. I tend to agree.

What I find very disturbing here is Singer's position that intuition should have no role to play in moral decisions. If he'd asked us to consider how technology - e.g., methods of warfare that allow people to kill from a distance - can circumvent our moral intuitions, that could have led to an interesting discussion. He could have advised people to think about the technology in question and consider how they'd feel about a bombing (for example) if they could see the victims' faces. In that case, the person's decision would be informed by intuition as well as reason. Instead he seems to be advising us not to listen to our intuition at all.

I don't know what to say, except: "It just feels wrong." But I'd be very interested in hearing what others think about the central point Singer is making here.

[gang ah jee]

How much cash do these people have in their wallets?

[JongnoGuru]