Let five die or kill one?

[Seb!]

I would kill the five. (duh)

 

[esb]

But you're not killing no one. Killing them would be something like sending the train to run over them, or driving the train.

All you would do if you press the level, is kill 1 person (you do kill, because you changed the way of the train towards him/her), and not let 5 people die.

 

[NotTheHelper]

Well, you could go to jail either way. If you can save the 5 people and dont, thats one way you could be jailed, and if you switch the track and murder the other guy you could be jailed.

 

[esb]

You won't be jailed if you let the train hit the group of 5, because you didn't do anything to kill them, at all.

 

[~GaLs~]

Even if you killed the group of 1 after you switch the track, you don't know what is coming from that track...

If it was a dead road, the train would crash in to a dead end and BooM !!
More people are dying from you.

 

[ninjas9]

What if you were one of the five to die. what would you do then. that would make a big difference.

 

[King TonGoll]

theyd have to have no hearing one one hell of a sound system on them to not hear a TRAIN.

but otherwise, its simple math. but then again you could end up killing more via train wreck.

 

[SilverHawk]

Guys, don't overanalyze this.

The number of people on the train, the rest of the track, and all similar things are completely irrelevant. Also, there are no loopholes, like the five people hearing the train and dodging it. The basic question here is this:

Would you kill one person to undoubtedly save five?

 

[PurgeandFire]

If you increase this by a 5:1 ratio, say by 1000, it will make a difference. Let 5,000 people die, or 1,000?

But that is not the situation so it doesn't make a difference...

I would let the five people live and use my spidey powers to save the other.

 

[Wiseman_2]

If it was a dead road, the train would crash in to a dead end and BooM !!
More people are dying from you.

I'm sure I said something along those lines earlier... and guess what? I found (through research) that a common trick of sabateurs is to throw the switch at train lines to cause crashes. It resulted in an accident in one case (unfortunatly I can't source it 'cos I did this last night and it was unrelated to this thread at the time, I only just realised the link. I do remember Wiki though).

So, regardless of the circumstances - say it's not a train, but similiar circumstances (though the only lives threatened are those of the guys on the track) - I'm afraid I'd have to let nature take its course. Though I am more than capable of dealing with the emotions that might occur from deliberatly murderising someone, I'm the sort of person who looks out for number 1, i.e myself, and the ones I love. Strangers only come into it if everyone can be saved.

Note: Everyone

 

[esb]

>Would you kill one person to undoubtedly save five?

Nope.

 

[MasterOfABCs]

I don't understand life, I will not moderate it.

I would let 5 die.

 

[SilverHawk]

Some people are still missing the point.

There can be no "spidey powers" to save everyone. No one except for these six people will be affected, so there are no other consequences to worry about.

It's a very simple question - would you kill one person to undoubtedly save five, assuming no other effects would yield any consequences toward other people? You know, for the sake of the question, let's assume that no other people exist, save you and these six.

 

[esb]

You're saying if we assume that there are no other people existing (in the world?) that would change things. I'd save the 5

 

[Father_Yetti]

Chuga chuga chaga chuga choo choo...splat..plat..splat..splat..splat., or just splat?

No time? Pleas feel free to skip>> I've wanted to stay out of this debate as it seems to be mostly spam, this after TheHelper has already deleted 10 post?...wow. I am confused. Now I know why there was such hesitancy in allowing for debates here in the first place. This being set aside; for whatever reason I've decided to toss in my two cents. I trust in God and I know murder is wrong, but I also know in His eyes it is equally wrong to stand buy when good can be done to save lives. A failure to act in such cases could be considered equally wrong…granted you are of capable capacity. However you are not judged beyond that which you can handle.

With that said collateral damage such as being persecuted, going to jail, and risking the life of myself would not enter my mind as being provocative towards either inhibiting or helping a decision. That is how a man of morals should act; upon what is morally right, regardless of the consequences. The emotions and fear would be no different than what any normal human would experience, but the choice is made based on higher beliefs than oneself. Although this is a separate debate altogether I find it correlative to the topic as it helps illustrate my point. For a completely separate debate on something quite similar to this please see: [Debate] Consequentialism vs. Deontology.

Back to topic; I do not feel truly that all debates should be a 2 sided dynamic and this one is clearly not; although it was intended to be. Failing to elaborate on some of the more important issues because of this however would make for an intellectually un-stimulating banal. I can say with confidence though, that the point of this debate was to get you to think philosophically about a moral stance to save 5 but have to knowingly kill one, or via se versa. It was not made to debate whether or not you could yell, throw rocks to distract, or use your mind bullets to save all 6 individuals. However flawed the dynamic of the question is; it is there to open up conversation of a philosophical nature, not just trip over all the travails.

Lol, I like the map though that really helped clarify. Okay, my stance on this is that given I had to make a choice with no other information than that by my hand should one perish and 5 be saved or by my knowing lack of inaction let the 5 die to save the one, I would pull the lever. IMHO at this point it is merely mathematics. It’s a little more complicated than this yes, but given only the above information this would be my choice. Does that mean I think that it’s the right choice…no, not at all. But that is what I in my human nature and rational would do because to me inaction would mean that I was knowingly still responsible for the deaths of 5. Its not right either way and I can also see The Helpers view that he believes in God and fate and would let things run their intended course.

However, were I in the situation for REAL, yet that I could by no other means save all 6, and had to choose; I feel that it is impossible for me to say. I think one of the greatest and overlooked attributes to humanity is our intuition. Those who often ignore it forget its voice, but those who listen often will know what to do at the right time. This type of debate is great stimulation, however, when facing such a scenario I find it presumptuous to know exactly how one would respond given all the variables, emotions, etc, that play into it. Moral of the story: I have no idea, lol, somebody care to elaborate?

 

[Wiseman_2]

Some people are still missing the point.

There can be no "spidey powers" to save everyone. No one except for these six people will be affected, so there are no other consequences to worry about.

It's a very simple question - would you kill one person to undoubtedly save five, assuming no other effects would yield any consequences toward other people? You know, for the sake of the question, let's assume that no other people exist, save you and these six.

These factors take it all apart. It's no longer the real world, a very different set of circumstances, and probably slightly biased too; everyone would save the 5 guys so they have more company in this plane of mundane existance.

There is always an effect, this question doesn't become quite the moral conundrum it should be when you apply those factors. It just becomes another question for people to voice their opinion and move on, no real debate.

 

[ninjas9]

These factors take it all apart. It's no longer the real world, a very different set of circumstances, and probably slightly biased too; everyone would save the 5 guys so they have more company in this plane of mundane existance.

There is always an effect, this question doesn't become quite the moral conundrum it should be when you apply those factors. It just becomes another question for people to voice their opinion and move on, no real debate.

i agree with him.

Spoiler

This post made me a Regular User... YAY

 

[SilverHawk]

*Sigh*

Now people are taking me too literally. But I guess that's my fault, since I asked for it.

Forget what I said about the world having 7 people in it. Just assume that if you pull the switch, the only consequence is that one person dies, and if you don't, the only consequence is that five people die.

Is that better?

 

[Wiseman_2]

That's better
But I stick by my stance of "Live and Let Die".
And it would violate my own personal policy: "Don't interfere with alien artifacts (or stuff you don't fully understand, including moral concepts such as this )"

As I said before, all or nothing.

 

[Prometheus]

I think that by not pulling the switch, you're actively killing 5 people to save one.
Given that theres no consequences beyond the death of 1 person or 5, I think the logical thing to do would be to save the 5.
Given more variables and such, this can change but its simply kill 1 to save 5.
And using Pineapple's logic of 5 > 1, saving the 5 would be the logical thing to do, unless you are a sadistic killer or the like.