Ethics puzzles/dilemmas

[Mr Skeptic]

This thread is for people to post ethics dilemmas or answers to others' dilemmas. Just for fun, although it might be interesting to see how people believe and how close answers are. I suggest if you post several scenarios you number them first with your post number, then a dot and then a list number.

 

1.1) A mad philosopher ties 5 people to one track and 1 person to another track, and sets a train going toward the 5. You are at a location where you can switch the train from the track leading toward the 5 to the track leading toward the 1, but will be unable to save everyone. Do you switch the train towards the 1 person? (this and others are the Trolley Problem, or based off of it)

 

1.2) A mad philosopher ties 5 people to a track and sets an empty train going toward them. The train does not have the cow-catcher at the front and so could be derailed by a heavy object. You are standing on a bridge over the tracks and a very fat man is next to you. He is the only object you can reach that would derail the train, but you are certain you could successfully throw him over and derail the train, saving the 5. Do you?

 

1.3) Same as 1.2, but the fat man standing next to you happens to be the mad philosopher that tied the 5 to the tracks.

 

1.4) A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people tied to the tracks. You can divert its path by colliding another trolley into it, but if you do, both will be derailed and go down a hill, and into a yard where a man is sleeping in a hammock. He would be killed. Should you proceed?

 

1.5) A mad philosopher ties 5 people to the middle track and 1 person to the left track, and 1 person to the right track, and sets a train going toward the 5. You've met both the two individuals, and they'd been discussing what they'd do if they saw someone in danger. The person tied to the left track had mentioned that if there was any danger to himself he wouldn't risk his life to save someone in danger, and the person tied to the right track said he'd be willing to help someone even if he knew he would die in their place. You can switch the train to either of the two other tracks, or leave it going toward the 5. Which do you do?

 

1.6) As with 1.1, but the 5 people are terminally ill, and the one person is a healthy 20 year old. If your answer depends on how long they have to live, at what life expectancy would you be unsure which to do?

 

1.7) A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor, and he is certain he can save each of his 5 patients if he sacrifices the one. Should he?

[Severian]

1.1) I would not switch the train towards the one person. I am not responsible for killing the five, since the responsibility lies entirely with the mad philosopher. But if I switch the tracks then I am responsible, since the one guy would otherwise live without my actions.

 

1.2) No. I let the five die and the fat man live. Again, I am not responsible for their deaths, but I would be responsible for the fat man's death if I push him.

 

1.3) Same answer and reasoning as 1.2

 

1.4) This is exactly the same as 1.1

 

1.5) Switch to the right track. The rick track person has informed me that he would be willing to do this (this probably depends on the tone of the previous conversation though, since people often say things they don't mean).

 

1.6) Answer as 1.1

 

1.7) Of course he shouldn't!

[Mr Skeptic]

My answers (as an utilitarian) are thus:

 

1.1) I'm responsible for this decision by having the choice. My choice is to deflect the train, and this choice will save 4 lives. One person would die, but the person who tied them to the tracks bears the blame for that -- all I did was save 4 more lives.

 

1.2) The lesser of two evils would be to sacrifice the fat man and taint myself to save the 5. However now I would be directly responsible for his death. Not sure if I could actually go through with this.

 

1.3) This time I see no problem sacrificing the villain to save 5 people from his attempted murder.

 

1.4) Same as 1.2

 

1.5) I'd deflect the train toward the selfish coward. The person willing to die in the place of another is a better person, and so a more valuable member of society than the selfish coward.

 

1.6) If their life expectancy were about 5 years each I would be uncertain which to do.

 

1.7) Similar to 1.2, but now with a tremendous breach of the doctor's code as well, especially if he got paid for it.

 

Interestingly, my brother had exactly the same answers as me.

[DJBruce]

4.1) Your wife/significant other is terminally ill, there is only one medication that can save her. You cannot afford the medication, and will not be able to save enough for it before she dies. However, you know you can break into the pharmacy without getting caught. Do you break the law and save your significant other?

 

4.2) Same as 4.1, but you know you will eventually be caught and go to jail if you steal the medication and save your significant other?

 

4.3) You are the Captain of a boat that has begun to sink. There is one spot left on the life boat do you take it or do you give it to a passenger who otherwise would drown?

[Mr Skeptic]

4.1 and 4.2: yes, I'd steal medicine to save someone's life. It would be a different matter if this medication was really rare and taking it would deprive someone else of life.

 

4.3: Assuming the captain can swim, he ought to give the spot to the passenger. If whoever would stay would die (say sinking in the Arctic ocean), then it doesn't really matter who goes -- but the captain has just failed in his duties, even if the sinking wasn't directly his fault, and that might be reason enough for him to let the passenger have that spot.

[DJBruce]

1.1) Yes I switch the train. If I have the ability to save the lives of 5 people or the ability to save 1 person. I must follow the duty to save more people. If I do not switch the train I have killed 5 people by not attacking. Since the lack of action does not remove one from their responsibility.

 

1.2) Same as 1.1.

 

1.3) I'd have no problem killing the person who committed attempted murder in order to save the lives of his victims. By attempting to remove the right of life from those 5 people he has lost his right to life as well.

 

1.4) Same as 1.1. Save the 5 people.

 

1.5) Switch it to the right. At least this way the person you are killing will be happy knowing that he died to protect others. (I am assuming that the person on the right truly means what he says, and does not change his mind.)

 

1.6) Honestly not that sure. I'll keep thinking about it, but right now I am happy that there are not that many trains in America.

 

1.7) Same as 1.1, but with less certainty in my actions since there is always the possibility that those patients will find organs before they die.

[Severian]

4.1 and 4.2 Yes

 

4.3 It really depends on the circumstances, but I would probably give up the seat.

[DJBruce]

8.1) You, your wife, your teenage daughter, and your teenage son are returning from a nice vacation in China. While waiting at the Chinese airport a drug dog begins to sniff your suitcases. It quickly moves past yours, your wife's, and your daughters, but when it gets to your son the dog seems to notice something. Your son is generally a good kid staying out of trouble, however, you know that your son has smoked marijuana a few times. The security guard opens your son's suitcase, and discovers a small bag of marijuana. You are horrified knowing that the Chinese Government often executes people for drug offenses. The security guard now asks you who's bag this is. Do you tell them the truth that it is your son's and risk him being executed or do you lie take and save your son by sacrificing yourself?

 

8.2) You are a doctor who has just done an STD screening on a man you just came in. Sadly the test comes back positive for HIV. As you walk the man out you notice he is with a girl it appears he is about to take on a date. Do you break you oath as a doctor and make a tell the women about the mans HIV?

[Severian]

8.1 I lie and say it is mine.

 

8.2 I don't tell. Just because they are going on a date doesn't mean they are going to have sex, and maybe he will tell her over dinner.

[JN.]

1.1) Well, I have not the right to judge the people tied to the track, so I can't say it would be better to kill one and save five. As I'm not responsible for mad philosopher's acts and I can't save everyone, I wouldn't switch the train.

 

1.2) No. The fat man is an innocent person here. He has nothing to do with the mad philosopher's actions and he should not be seen as a sacrificial animal. As I think one's life has an infinite value, the value of the fat man is equal to the value of the five people tied to the track. So, I wouldn't kill an innocent without knowing is will to save anybody.

 

1.3) I woud throw him. I would be defending five innocent people without harming innocent people. We must be responsible for our actions, and if I threw the philosopher I would be making him pay for its actions - an eye for an eye.

 

1.4) If I knew previously the man who were sleeping would be killed, my answer would be the same as I gave in 1.2.

 

1.5) First and foremost I must say I would prefer saving people I know than people I don't know, because they're, obviously, more important to me. In addition, I think we should not expect everyone to sacrifice its life to save somebody, so I would not call the person tied in the left track as being imoral, since it is not responsible for the people who are in danger.

 

1.6) The health of the people tied don't change my answer, although it would make it easier to turn my back.

 

1.7) No, it's not the young's fault if the life of the other 5 people is at risk. Why should he be sacrificed?

[DJBruce]

11.1) You are driving along in your car coming to an intersection with a green light. As you approach the intersection someone not paying attention begins to cross the street right in front of you. You are unable to stop and have only two options:

 

A) Continue going straight hit the pedestrian, but allowing you to escape unharmed.

 

B.) Vere hard to your right into a brick wall. The pedestrian will be saved, but you will more than likely die upon impact.

 

What do you?

 

11.2) If you selected A in 11.1 should you be charged for the pedestrians death even though your only other option was to commit suicide to save them?

 

11.3) If you selected B in 11.2 should the pedestrian be charged for your death since he caused you to have to swerve in order to save them?

Edited August 16, 2010 by DJBruce

[Severian]

11.1 In reality, I would try to stop and fail, killing the pedestrian. I wouldn't have perfect knowledge, so I wouldn't know if I could or could not stop, or whether or not I would kill him or her, or indeed if I could swerve to avoid, or if they would jump out of the way.

 

Away from reality, ie. assuming I know that there are only two options, I think it would depend on who the person was. If it was someone just like me, I would probably let him die. But if it were a pregnant woman, or a child, or someone who I look on more favourably then I might sacrifice myself.

 

11.2 and 11.3 Neither should be charged. It was an accident.

[DJBruce]

11.1) I would continue to go straight and hit the pedestrian. I would not feel any responsibility for the persons death since I did not attempt to kill them, but instead they walked out in front of my car and forced me to choose between my life and their life.

 

11.2) No you should not be charged with murder of any sorts. To charge you for murder would be saying that your choice was wrong, and you should have swerved and hit the wall. So essentially it would be saying the life of the pedestrian was more valuable than your own.

 

11.3) Yes the pedestrian should be charged with some sort of murder. They forced you to choose between your life and their life so they are in part responsible for your actions and subsequently your death.

[Mr Skeptic]

11.1) I think the mechanics of your problem are a little off, since from the description it would seem I'd be going double the speed limit or more to guarantee death. I think a better situation would be on a high bridge with one lane, a divisor, and a weak guardrail. But if I understand your problem, it is that a person through negligence puts you in a situation where you must choose between your life and theirs, in such a way that non-action on your part will result in their death more or less at your hands. In this case, I would probably not swerve, since the situation is their fault. For a pregnant woman (two lives) or a very young child (doesn't know better) I might sacrifice myself.

 

11.2) In reality, there is no other option than to charge the driver with manslaughter (not murder) if they kill someone. I think that the jury should find him not guilty due to extenuating circumstances.

 

11.3) The pedestrian should be charged with some crime, not murder though.

[DJBruce]

11.1) I think the mechanics of your problem are a little off, since from the description it would seem I'd be going double the speed limit or more to guarantee death. I think a better situation would be on a high bridge with one lane, a divisor, and a weak guardrail. But if I understand your problem, it is that a person through negligence puts you in a situation where you must choose between your life and theirs, in such a way that non-action on your part will result in their death more or less at your hands. In this case, I would probably not swerve, since the situation is their fault. For a pregnant woman (two lives) or a very young child (doesn't know better) I might sacrifice myself.

 

Yes you understood the problem perfectly, and I agree that the situation might not be perfect, however, it conveys the underlying moral dilemma.