There are 4 choices, 5 votes for Murderous Toast's debate

Morality/Moral action: The train problem-Kantianism vs. Utilitarianism

Alright, so, I saw this survey in the newspaper which gave two scenarios and asked the subject what there first impulse would be on each. I'll list the two scenerios below, please answer before reading the results of the survey. People were asked for their first impulse, so don't think through it too much, just answer what you feel.

Scenario 1:
You're standing next to a fork in the traintracks, with access to the lever that changes the direction the train will take. The train can not be stopped, and if left as it is, it will run over and kill 5 people standing at the end of the tracks. If, however , you pull the lever the train will change directions, killing the 1 person standing at the end of that fork. What do you do?


Scenario 2:
The situation with the train is the same, however this time you're standing on a bridge over the tracks. There's only one direction the train can go, and at the end there are 5 people that will be killed. You know that the only way to stop the train is by throwing some sort of heavy object in it's path. The only heavy object at your disposal at the moment happens to be the very fat man standing next to you. What do you do?


The question here really is, is there any difference between these two scenarios? If so, why and what makes one justified and the other not? If not, give your reasoning for such.

Results: (Please answer before you read them)

Scenario 1: 88% of people said they would pull the lever, 5% said they wouldn't, and the remaining 7% were uncertain.

Scenario 2: 91% of people said they would NOT push the fat man in front of the train, 4% said they would, and 5% were uncertain.

...Discuss.
  • Utilitarian position
    In my opinion, the two situations are exactly the same. When asked this question, I answered yes to both scenarios (yes, I would pull the lever, and yes, I would push the man in front of the train). Any distinction between the two is purely psychological. In the first scenario, you're not killing the one person in a direct sense whereas in the second one you rather than the train is directly responsible for the man's death. None the less, I would say that in both situations, one is presented with the choice of killing either five people, or one person. It's better to kill less people (or, save more people if you want to look at this optimistically).

    It would be great if someone wanted to present the opposing Kantian prospective...If not, I'll do it.
    40%  Voted for by Murderous Toast, - Deus Ex Machina -.
    View 3 comments
  • :

  • Different
    In both scenarios, I'd run down and tell morons from moronville to not stand on train tracks even when a train is coming.

    But, if forced into the only given options, I would pull the lever in scenario 1 so less people would be killed (unless it was like, 5 old people and 1 child or something). In the second I would not throw the extraordinarily fat man into the tracks. Fat and already-in-danger-of-dying he may be, anything heavy enough to stop a train's momentum like that would cause the train to violently stop and derail. Many more than 5 people would die and be seriously injured that way.
    40%  Voted for by Weydon, Kazrith.
    View 7 comments
  • :

  • I have read this before
    Very amusing, I tried it on my mates to get their responses. Some answered that they wouldn't pull any lever because that would make them responsible for a life of which the choice is not theirs to take. This does destroy the idea of one's moral obligation though.

    I just finished watching Unbreakable (one of my favourite movies) for what would have to be at least the tenth time now. I was examining the situation at the end (spoiler warning) when Elijah Price is discovered by Bruce Willis' character as being behind many of the recent disasters that had just occured, one of which Bruce Willis was involved in, and survived. The idea was that Elijah was looking for a 'hero', a person who could survive such a disaster and hopefully be able to fulfill his/her role as a saviour of the people.

    My question is this: What Elijah did was horribly evil, but, according to Utilitarian ethics, if he were able to foresee Bruce Willis' impact ahead of time and find that this person would save more lives than would be lost in the disasters, and the disasters were necessary in finding him, would this be an ethical and even desired action?
    In killing so many people just so one man would have a chance to save many more, thus setting the stage for a hero to emerge, is Elijah Price justified and performing a moral action/duty?
    Voted for by TeChNoWC.
    View 11 comments
  • :

  • Kantian position
    I gave it a day and no one's addressed it yet so I'll do it. If anyone has anything they'd like to add to this, please do.

    There is a fundimental difference between 1 and 2. Unlike the people in scenario #1, the fat man would not otherwise have been involved without your pulling him into the situation. He has no personal freedom or choice as to whether or not he is pushed in front of the train, and therefore choosing this for him is an infringement upon his dignity and his personal rights.

    People should be seen not as "means to and end" but as ends in themselves.

    [God I hate Kant.]
    View 3 comments
  • :

    •  

    None of the choices fit your opinion?  Add one →