Ethical Dilemma...

[Escalot]

OK, imagine this:

You are standing near the switching post of a train track. On one branch of the track an old man has fallen over, on the other lies a baby. There is a train approaching. If you do nothing, the baby dies. If you switch the track, the old man dies.

What do you do?

[Evilbink]

Switch the track... no contest.

[Escalot]

Why? - I'm just curious

[Toe Cutter]

Flip a coin. Let fate decide.

[Toe Cutter]

Switch the track. There is no way a baby carries a wallet.

[killerkat]

i'm with Toe C. on this one.....


and if you think about there's alot of people ,too many so maybe the kids needs to get it.....

and old people are wise.......hmmmm....

[Smudge Doll]

Switch the track. There is no way a baby carries a wallet.

to funny...

id switch the track too...

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Fuck the switch, try to grab the baby. If I can't save the baby without killing someone else I cant do it. The fact that the baby has more life to go does (possibly) does not make it's like somehow more valuable. It is one of those ideals I hate that the youn are somehow more valuable. If the old guy was willing to sacrifice his life fine, but I am not going to choose for him. The babies life gets saved or it doesn't, I am not willing to kill an innocent to save the baby.

[ForrestBlack]

How old is the man? Are we talking 105 or 65? We all have a good idea of the age of a baby, but not such a clear idea of what is really old. An old man still could have a great deal of potential.

If he's 105, well, then it's future vs. history.

If he's 65, it's innocence vs. experience.

Those are very different questions to me.

[Escalot]

Would it make a difference if he were a drunk? Or if he were a leading businessman?

If the baby was orphaned, and the old man had family?

What if the baby's parents were junkies?

These all have an effect if you are considering the future in your choice.

[ForrestBlack]

Would it make a difference if he were a drunk?

No.

Or if he were a leading businessman?

Nope.

If the baby was orphaned, and the old man had family?

Not to me.

What if the baby's parents were junkies?

Probably not, but that might depend on just how rotten they were as people.

These all have an effect if you are considering the future in your choice.

True, but the quick observation of age is all I figure we'd have time for. In all reality, I'd most likely do my best to save both. I might die in the process, but If I had time to play with the track switch, I'd probably at least think I had time to push them both off the tracks. Call me an optimist or something.

[Escalot]

Actually its refreshing that you didnt get bogged down in the ethics of the situation, and thought more about the positive results which could be achieved.

God that sounded arrogant and condescending...

Sorry if this thread (and i) come across that way, i just find it interesting.

[Kidthorazine]

id flip the switch halfway and derail the train

[TheDeathKnight]

That's a tough question.

I am pulled between two ideas.
One idea is that the child has potential for experiences the old man already had.
So let the child have the chance to get laid, have fun, live life. The old man already did that stuff.

But the other idea, is that the world has too many people already.
Let the baby die, that baby won't have more kids of their own,
and it will keep population down. But that's a pretty harsh
viewpoint.

[Evilbink]

Why? - I'm just curious

Simple.. the adult of any age can do for him/herself, if they don't have the ability to get off the rail then they shouldn't have been there in the first place. Assuming of course we aren't talking about someone who is deaf and blind and just happened to stumble onto the rail. Either way..the "baby" cannot do for him/herself in any case.

Odds are the old guy put the baby there in the first place , so maybe needs to be killed.

[devil13]

can I switch the track and throw the baby to the old man so it hits them both?

[Escalot]

can I switch the track and throw the baby to the old man so it hits them both?

presumably. although i think the entire point is that one cannot reach either person, all one can do is change the course of the train or not.

But Hey! - whatever floats your boat...

[malcolm]

I'd kick it into gear and run my ass off to get ot both of them to try and save them both.

[Tequila Zaire]

I'd save the baby...they are worth more on the black market.

What?....quit looking at me like that.

[KilLAtomiK]

id scream"Hey Old man get the fuck out of the way!!! and then go for the baby thats how you save both of em.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

As far as the ethics, how can it be ethical to judge one life as more valuable than another based soley on age? The baby may be innocent, but it also has less attachments to the world. The baby is very likely not supporting kids or grandkids of it's own. So why would the babies life be more valuable? The baby is helpless? So is the old man, but the old man wasn't in danger until someone redirected a train his way.

As far as the practicallity of it goes the old man may do more in the last five years of his life than the baby will in it's entire life, there is no way to guess wich would help society more.

All I am saying is it is just as wrong to weigh the value of a life based soley on age as it is to weigh the value of a life based soley on race, sex or height. Remember Ted Bundy was a baby once too. If we changed the parameters of the question a bit, say a woman is about to get hit by the train and you could save her by killing a man on the other track, would that make this a harder choice for people?

[Kidthorazine]

nah id still derail the train that way you may not kill anyone

[devil13]

Id still kill them both

[Escalot]

If we changed the parameters of the question a bit, say a woman is about to get hit by the train and you could save her by killing a man on the other track, would that make this a harder choice for people?

I can't pretend to have an answer better than anyone else, i wanted to see what others would do.

I guess the whole point of the exercise is to make people value life, in my example, by age, but forcing people to use sex as a discriminating factor would prove little, as there would be much positive descrimination, and, as cynical as this may sound, i suppose women would be saved more often.

I don't know, but i'd be interested to see the results...

[Evilbink]

I can't pretend to have an answer better than anyone else, i wanted to see what others would do.

I guess the whole point of the exercise is to make people value life, in my example, by age, but forcing people to use sex as a discriminating factor would prove little, as there would be much positive descrimination, and, as cynical as this may sound, i suppose women would be saved more often.

I don't know, but i'd be interested to see the results...

Depends on if she HOT or not.

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

I can't pretend to have an answer better than anyone else, i wanted to see what others would do.

I guess the whole point of the exercise is to make people value life, in my example, by age, but forcing people to use sex as a discriminating factor would prove little, as there would be much positive descrimination, and, as cynical as this may sound, i suppose women would be saved more often.

I don't know, but i'd be interested to see the results...

Actually, I think using age as the descriminating factor proves as much as sex. Despite the slightly homicidal answers you will get here, most people would save the baby. If fact if we upped the ante to two old men on the track they probably would still save the baby. If that isn't descrimination, I don't know what is. Our culture really begins devalueing you from the moment you are born. A baby is a precious thing that must be saved at all costs, a child nearly as much, but once you reach double digits your on your own. Procecute them as an adult, throw them out on the streets, put them in the army, get a job. Just look at the number of charities designed to protect 0-9 year olds vs the number to protect teens. I think what this question will show is that people value youth over life, and will do it without guilt as opposed to say valueing a particular race. You would be surprised at the number of people in most places who would consider me a horrible person for not killing the old man to save the baby, at that says a lot to me. Make it a man and a woman and the numbers will change. In addition you will like get disclaimers on that one like, "I know it is wrong but" or "It may be sexist of me but" with the baby, no appologies, even if you change the old guy to a younger guy.

It is an interesting question, but the more interesting question isn't what they would do, but why they would do it.

And now, an emoticon to relighten the mood

[OliX]

I wouldn't do anything... too lazy

[Escalot]

It is an interesting question, but the more interesting question isn't what they would do, but why they would do it.

Wow... Very true... *damn*

Its great that people actually take the time to think about these things, surely ethics and morality are universally interesting subjects?

[OliX]

...surely ethics and morality are universally interesting subjects?

It is, and it is very diferent from culture to culture. From person to person.... There exist some universal moral "rules" but they are not interesting as unique ones that you come across in diferent places in world.
Imagine world with moral standards from ancient Japan

[Morning Glory]

It is, and it is very diferent from culture to culture. From person to person.... There exist some universal moral "rules" but they are not interesting as unique ones that you come across in diferent places in world.
Imagine world with moral standards from ancient Japan

I disagree with that statement that everyone has universal moral rules. I don't think there is even a single moral rule that's common to the majority of people, let alone everyone.

[Morning Glory]

although, back on a related note, you can call me crazy, but the fact that the baby is "innocent" is what makes it's life worthless as far as i'm concerned. there may never be another person just like that baby again and the loss of any loved one is hard, but you can have another baby and it will still be made up of the same genes so it will probbily look a lot the same and it will be raised in the same environment which most of your personality and nearly everything about you is conditioned, so it will probbily turn out a lot like the other baby would have.

[OliX]

I disagree with that statement that everyone has universal moral rules. I don't think there is even a single moral rule that's common to the majority of people, let alone everyone.

what about "don't kill"

[Morning Glory]

oh come on, who follows that one? maybe tibet. that's about it.

[ForrestBlack]

oh come on, who follows that one? maybe tibet. that's about it.

Are you saying that in your opinion the majority of people don't feel it's wrong to kill?

[a_small_death]

I wonder if this could be settled in a somewhat King Soleman mannor?

[Cafe_Post_Mortem]

Are you saying that in your opinion the majority of people don't feel it's wrong to kill?

Considering the number of people willing to kill an old man on the train tracks?

I may be missreading Morning Glory's point, but I think what he is saying is even though a lot of people say it is wrong to kill, most of them will find reasons to make killing ok or will rationalize turning a blind eye when it suits them. How many people do you know who say killing is wrong, but that child molesters should be killed? Or how many people do you know who oppose the death penalty, but still buy diamonds? Character is what you are in the dark. Ethic are what you do when you know you can't be punished.

Or maybe he just thinks most of us are killers at heart, I've been wrong before.

[sheramil]

lay my head down on the track and let the train go over it. that way, it's not my problem.

[purplepixie]

is the old man healthy does he want to die the is the baby healthy the babys not gonna have any concept of the length of his or her life. I'd ask the old man to decide if he didnt answer i would switch the track chances are the baby has longer but wait if the baby has just been dumped by the side of the track where are its parents was it left there to die anyway for what ever reason.........................hmm difficult one

[Morning Glory]

Considering the number of people willing to kill an old man on the train tracks?

I may be missreading Morning Glory's point, but I think what he is saying is even though a lot of people say it is wrong to kill, most of them will find reasons to make killing ok or will rationalize turning a blind eye when it suits them. How many people do you know who say killing is wrong, but that child molesters should be killed? Or how many people do you know who oppose the death penalty, but still buy diamonds? Character is what you are in the dark. Ethic are what you do when you know you can't be punished.

Or maybe he just thinks most of us are killers at heart, I've been wrong before.

no, you're right, that's what I was refering to.

[inox]

Dunno enough to make a decision. Would have to know:

1.) How old/healthy the man was
2.) If the baby was otherwise healthy and had potential
3.) How the man came to fall on the tracks
4.) Who the man was, and what he knew/had experienced in life
5.) To whom the baby belongs and their ability to cope

Generally speaking, though, babies are replaceable, and don't have any current means of making a contribution to society. I would default to saving the adult unless he was in some way irredeemable, or unless the child's parents were in some way vital to society, and the loss would prevent them from adequately performing their social function.