What is right, what is wrong????

[gimp]

Years ago I took a business ethics course. The first half of class the teacher lectured on two schools of thought one might have on how to perceive right and wrong

The second half of the lecture focused on 2 scenarios and subsequent votes from the class and discussion on what you would do.

I have no judgement on any answer you give, there is no right or wrong answer. I'm just wondering what you would do and why you would choose it.

Scenario 1: A trolley is speeding out of control without a means of stopping. You have a lever which allows you to force the trolley down one direction to kill 1 stranger, or you can do nothing and allow the trolley to kill 5 strangers.

Choice A: Do nothing and 5 people die.
Choice B: Pull the lever and 1 person dies.

Class results:
10/40 - Choice A
30/40 - Choice B

My vote - Choice B

Scenario 2: Again a trolley is in the same hazardous situation and you are the puppet master. However, instead of strangers we throw in your most cherished family member as the one who dies if you decide to pull the lever.

Choice A: Do nothing and 5 people die.
Choice B: Pull the lever and your most cherished family member dies.

Class results:
Choice A: 38/40
Choice B: 02/40

My vote - Choice B

I knew when I voted my second choice I'd be judged. But then again I couldn't sacrifice my morals based on emotion. My reasoning was if I wanted to save 4 lives in the first scenario for the greater good, then I must do the same for the second scenario. The only reason I would choose choice A in the second scenario would be for selfish reasons, so that I could keep my family member whom I love, so that I would feel good.

To my surprise I received harsh judgement for my choice in one way or another. People said that's fucked up, I could never kill a family member, etc. I felt mystified, angry, and outcasted. Literally the majority of the class changed their choice based on an emotional factor, and threw all their previous rationality out the window.

There is some true story I heard today about a man named John Griffith who was faced with a similar situation that made me think of this. He basically had to do the same thing and chose to sacrifice his son to save a train full of people.

What would you do for the scenarios and why? I'm curious if the stats change here.

[milagros]

random people die every fucking day
ez kill 5:)

[Xiphias]

I see this thought experiment as an extended dilemma.
For the B choices you willingly perform an action. You could probably be held accountable for those actions and end up serving life in prison for manslaughter.
In either of the choices you make you will for the rest of your life think for yourself: "Why didn't I do this, I could have done that, Why did I do this ..".
The families of the victims with not see you as the hero that saved the other people/person, they will see you as the person who killed their baby boy. To make matters worse they could potentially sue you for what you did.

It is a shitty situation to be in. Everyone loses. Even the tax payers.

[Bludek]

probably A 1st. Had similar thoughts liek Xiph, I would not want to be sued for pulling teh lever and killing one man.

very ez A 2nd. I value lifes of ppl I love much highly than in a ratio 5:1.

btw at first I thought it'll be classic prisoner's dilemma, but it ended up a bit different.

edit: had stupid mistakes in my sentences

[twipley3]

Scenario 2: Again a trolley is in the same hazardous situation and you are the puppet master. However, instead of strangers we throw in your most cherished family member as the one who dies if you decide to pull the lever.

I guess that at the core, we all are a little bit egoistical or egocentric?

On a whole another wavelength, would you sacrifice a really, really nice person to better the lives of a hundred so-so persons? Is summing up pleasures on sufferings enough to cut it out and decide in a moral fashion? Are there any human rights to be had in extreme cases?

[Mats]

walk away and watch it on the news. Anyway I'd rather save someone I know, than strangers which won't make my life misserable. But if some old relative compared to kids, then save kids.

[Orcc]

random people die every fucking day
ez kill 5:)

Yes, this.

When a famous person dies some people go like "oh why do you care, when millions of children die in Africa?" But why would you care about total stranger kids, unlike the famous person who you have some kind of connection with (even if not personal)? People would spend all their time grieving if they grief for every soul. Some people are emotional even with strangers but luckily I'm not.

There are many versions of this dilemma. One is that instead of pulling a lever you need to actually push some fat person in front of the trolley, killing him and saving the others. Practically it means that it's easy to just pull a lever, unlike really killing someone with direct touch of your hands.

[kuchitsu]

Such ridiculously theoretical questions are generally meaningless imo. It's the same as asking "how would you react if you saw Godzilla in your shower?". I think that there is only one possible honest answer and it is "I don't know". Because such a situation is way too unlikely, unrealistic and out of this world for you to predict your actions. So if some people judged me by my answers to these questions you mentioned, I wouldn't let it bother me. My answers wouldn't really tell anything about myself. Now if I actually happened to be in such a situation and chose one of these options, then they could judge me. But as some hypothetical question it is kind of pointless.

[Ruben]

I've heard this scenario before, but with the train not the trolley. And apparantly it's a psychopath test. This is what I remember, so don't take it to be 100% accurate. Whereas a "normal" person would always choose relatives or close friends to live (for obvious evolutionary reasons), a psychopath will always choose the greater good. Less people dying is the better option every time.

Now gimp, I'm not calling you a psychopath, but you might just have some psychopathic traits. If this is the case, that doesn't mean you're crazy, delutional, evil or anything of the kind, it just means your regard for life is purely statistical. You view a situation objectively, and act according to what is statistically more viable. This happens to be a great trait in world leaders, generals, commanders and such, becuase they won't let emotions cloud their judgement. In essence, the opposite of what Chuck would do in any given situation. He's an emotional trainwreck 2000% of the time.

[gimp]

One thing I noticed too is that many people were reluctant to choose at all. And instead criticised the situation, over evaluated it, tried to save both parties, much like what is happening here! You all had so much to say but only 4 out of 8 of you actually said what you would do.

And ruben, if somebody looked at my brain I doubt it would show psychopathic traits. I just feel an objective way of looking at right and wrong is the best way to evaluate this problem. But as my professor had said, there is no right or wrong answer, it's just supposed to show how we all think.

[Zweq]

I would always kill one, except in two cases, if the one person was my mother or if the one person was myself. I'd also consider killing five 80 year olds to save one kid.

On a 2nd thought I'd also probably save some bro kid over 5 mans because nat orka listen to whine rest of my life.

[twipley3]

it just means your regard for life is purely sadistical.

there, corrected it for you.

[Mats]

Zweq has a very valid point, if you kill some family or friends, they blame you rest of your life.

[Tigro]

I've heard about this dillema several years ago, as well as Griffith case. In theory, I'd act the same as Gimp did, but in real life-threatening situation where there is not much time to think about I don't know if I could deliver and I'd probably fail in case B.
Concerning you getting mocked by others osv: People are dumb sheep or don't have their values straight or never thought about their values.

[Ruben]

One thing I noticed too is that many people were reluctant to choose at all. And instead criticised the situation, over evaluated it, tried to save both parties, much like what is happening here! You all had so much to say but only 4 out of 8 of you actually said what you would do.

And ruben, if somebody looked at my brain I doubt it would show psychopathic traits. I just feel an objective way of looking at right and wrong is the best way to evaluate this problem. But as my professor had said, there is no right or wrong answer, it's just supposed to show how we all think.

And I doubt any of us really know what we would really do in such a situation, so it's already just guesswork.

I haven't chosen one, because I really don't know what I would've done. Most likely, I would have frozen completely and the 5 people would have died.

[Tm]

In both cases i'd waver for sure. But at the end...

Scenario 1 - B.
Scenario 2 - A.

Easy evolutionary stuff, morals are more or less made up, sorry.

[gimp]

I understand in the moment we haven't been trained to deal with such intense situations. The point of the discussion is that here you have a safe place to deliberate and consider the options with all the time you need. Most of all here you have a clear mind where no actual life is at risk at all, here you'd make the decision you would really want to do. In the actual situation you would possibly choose something you didn't really want to do given the adrenaline you'd be experiencing. Perhaps you are missing the point of the discussion and taking it too literally.

But nobody has to choose I guess, it's cool. I guess like tigro said its more about what you'd do in "theory", like your ideology.

[milagros]

anyway, this whole quiz makes no sense
you could find the answer only if ppl were in such situation
it's like when you ask girls what kind of boyfriends do they want and what kind of guys they actually date

[Madness]

It would be funny if you killed your most loved family member to save five random people and then it turned out they were some thieves, murderers, drug dealers or child rapists.