Would you kill one person to save the lives of five?

[Senju Bean]

I would do nothing.

It is not my problem.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

I would do nothing.

It is not my problem.

But it's still your fault and your responsibility. Might not be you who has to get killed in a train but it's you who refused to intervene in a situation you're clearly part of.

 

[Anarkist]

Kill the one guy in the first one because 5 lives are worth more than 1 especially when you can do nothing but decide what happens.
I wouldn't throw the fat guy over because it is unfortunate that the 5 will die.
Yes I would throw him over because he is trying to kill them.

 

[Sharkninja]

I wouldn't save anyone; by not interfering at all you might look like a apathetic bastard, however it's theoretically the neutral option where you win win regardless.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

I wouldn't save anyone; by not interfering at all you might look like a apathetic bastard, however it's theoretically the neutral option where you win win regardless.

Nope the thing with this scenario is that it is obvious that you are already part of events. You can't convince yourself you're not or pretend you didn't see it because then that makes you just as guilty, the fact that you had the power to stop this but failed them. Pretending this isn't your decision to make is denial.

 

[Senju Bean]

But it's still your fault and your responsibility. Might not be you who has to get killed in a train but it's you who refused to intervene in a situation you're clearly part of.

Maybe for scenario 1.

But for scenario 2, I don't have to do anything. I was just walking by.

Scenario 3, I don't have to do anything either because I don't have a social responsibility to protect the world from evil men.

 

[Aim64C]

This scenario really depends upon whether or not someone is using objective or subjective morality.

Objective morality would hold that the option resulting in the fewest deaths is the more moral of the options. Alternatively, it would estimate a quantitative loss the future incurs.

Subjective morality would hold that the most moral decision is based upon your convictions and/or affiliations.

Example - five elderly people are on one set of tracks while a young mother chases a baby carriage onto the second. Both objective and subjective lines of morality are in agreement.

Compare that to: your lover is on one set of tracks and five anonymous people are on the other, where objective and subjective morality are in conflict. Flipping the switch will feel as though it is a betrayal.

Numerous psychology studies have been done on this, and it is interesting how people will respond differently to "flip the switch" with death as a consequence versus "kill the person" to save five. In other words - if you must actually kill someone to affect the change to save life - far fewer people are willing to commit. When death is a consequence of a neutral action that affects the change, it is much easier for people to act on objective morality.

Which would imply that the dominant morality used by most people is subjective morality. Personal attachments and convictions weigh more heavily on our behavior and decisions than objective analysis, regardless of the vastly extended time granted by and the hypothetical nature of the studies.

Realistically, about 80% of people would actually freeze up. 10% would act chaotic and unpredictably. 10% would recover and act on a plan. Any population with substantial deviation from those statistics would come from a relatively trained group that has prepared for such moral evaluations.

 

[Tenasa Uchiha]

I hav and u live with that for life itsa nightmare all the time

 

[TheAncientCenturion]

If they were all strangers? Then I'd save the lives of the five people. If I knew the one guy, I'd honestly save him. If they were all people I knew...It depends who the one tied up is

 

[Sir Francis Drake]

I saw this video on YouTube about the trolley problem. So I want hear NarutoBase opinions(All of this is copy/paste from Wiki):

Scenario 1
There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life (for example, holding the lever in an intermediate position so that the trolley goes between the two sets of tracks, or pulling the lever after the front wheels pass the switch, but before the rear wheels do).

You have two options:
(1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
(2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice?

Scenario 2
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.

Should you proceed?

If you picked "Option 2" for the first scenario, but "No" to the second scenario, then what has changed in your decision to save five lives?

Scenario 3(A small twist)
Same as Scenario 2, but the fat man is the villain. The fat man is the one who tied them up and put them there. Does your answer from Scenario 2 still stand?

1. Save the 5. Kill the one.
2. Push the fatman in front of the train
3. Push the fatman.

 

[Delcan]

What if you have to decide to kill one of your next of kin to save 5?

 

[RasenUchihaChaos]

Had a pastor tell us a story similar to this but the mans son was stuck on the track and a train full of people je let his son die and chose the people doody but I would not choose the life of a stranger over those close to me unless they told or begged me to sacrifice them

 

[Sharkninja]

Nope the thing with this scenario is that it is obvious that you are already part of events. You can't convince yourself you're not or pretend you didn't see it because then that makes you just as guilty, the fact that you had the power to stop this but failed them. Pretending this isn't your decision to make is denial.

I see your point - however it is invalid.

It's trivial whether you're part of the event or not,since in this particular situation there're no further repercussions to worry about. Therefore I'm not in denial- but rather decide not to play god.

I don't have to mention this to those have any real intelligence but it seems as if you are the exact type of person who requires this enlightenment; people dislike the above statement, there are a couple reasons why so I suppose I'll the list all the conclusions that're worth mentioning.

A: People dislike the notion of not having control, and or this affects their opinion of those who chose to do nothing when they could of done something. In many cases they call these people's psychopaths to show their despise towards them.

B: This only applies to those who actually invented the test; they come out with the same response as above to those who chose the neutral position, this from my understanding is because they're trying coerce you to make a contradiction; because all those who pull the trigger in the first scenario and don't push off the fat man in the second scenario are making a contradiction.

C: People like you who are trying to act like smart asses and bring up dull points, but it doesn't work out very well.

Edit: Oh and about that guilt thing; I couldn't care less- I simply chose to say no to the higher notion; play god? Even more so you can't provide any evidence to why this would be an invalid argument, or an apathetic one either.

 

[Bad Touch Yakushi]

I see your point - however it is invalid.

It's trivial whether you're part of the event or not,since in this particular situation there're no further repercussions to worry about. Therefore I'm not in denial- but rather decide not to play god.

I don't have to mention this to those have any real intelligence but it seems as if you are the exact type of person who requires this enlightenment; people dislike the above statement, there are a couple reasons why so I suppose I'll the list all the conclusions that're worth mentioning.

A: People dislike the notion of not having control, and or this affects their opinion of those who chose to do nothing when they could of done something. In many cases they call these people's psychopaths to show their despise towards them.

B: This only applies to those who actually invented the test; they come out with the same response as above to those who chose the neutral position, this from my understanding is because they're trying coerce you to make a contradiction; because all those who pull the trigger in the first scenario and don't push off the fat man in the second scenario are making a contradiction.

C: People like you who are trying to act like smart asses and bring up dull points, but it doesn't work out very well.

Edit: Oh and about that guilt thing; I couldn't care less- I simply chose to say no to the higher notion; play god? Even more so you can't provide any evidence to why this would be an invalid argument, or an apathetic one either.

Hey hey don't jump to conclusions- i'm not any kind of person :')

Oh and you're not wrong with that opinion at all, my 'part of events' bit only applies if like most of the human race, you'd carry that feeling probably forever, if that means nothing to you (little bit cold but fair enough) then yeah guess it doesn't apply to you. I wasn't bringing God or anything into it, just the repercussions of this event for the individual personally. Also not being a smartass, just discussing the thread, the one that's here for us to discuss.

 

[Sharkninja]

Hey hey don't jump to conclusions- i'm not any kind of person :')

Oh and you're not wrong with that opinion at all, my 'part of events' bit only applies if like most of the human race, you'd carry that feeling probably forever, if that means nothing to you (little bit cold but fair enough) then yeah guess it doesn't apply to you. I wasn't bringing God or anything into it, just the repercussions of this event for the individual personally. Also not being a smartass, just discussing the thread, the one that's here for us to discuss.

It's fair for you to say that - again I'm not completely callous towards this, is just that the guilt wouldn't stay with me as life moves on. Also I didn't bring in god or say you did, I'm not just saying that in that scenario, you're asked to play god.

 

[Rioxnation]

its actually a really hard decision to make, and it all really depends on your moral values and what you think of what is most important. But just know that the death of one to save many is a death not in vain!

 

[6ari8]

1) Do nothing, then go after the one that was saved.
2) Push the fat man after the train Passed.
3) Same.


Seriously though, it depends on who the people are. For example, if the fat man was my Father (He's not really fat ), I would never do it.

 

[Senju Bean]

1). Actually my opinion is still do nothing.

First point: even though I am part of the situation, I am not connected to the people in anyway such that I have obligations to them. Unless I'm a sworn protector(police, trooper, politician etc) I have no obligation to protect anyone that isn't family or friends. By virtue of being someone's family or friend, there is an unwritten contract to look out for their best interests when feasible. There is no such contract between complete strangers.

Second point: numbers don't matter. Kant said so.


Third point: the five are already set in harms way due to the world they live in. It's just really bad luck for them. But I can't force that bad luck on someone else, especially since I have obligations towards neither.

 

[Jin Hayami]

I'd preserve as much life as possible.
If the five were like pedophiles or murderers I'd just eat some popcorn though.