Moral Puzzles « Undergroundsquare

Undergroundsquare » Commentary

Moral Puzzles

(29 posts)

dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

When I was in NUS last semester, there was a series of studies we were required to take for extra marks. One of them had an interesting moral conundrum that I'd like to share with you:

Here's the scenario: you're on a bridge overlooking a railway track with a stranger. You're both looking down, and you can see a group of 5 people at the end of the railway tracks, in the path of the oncoming train!

The only way to save that family of 5 is to push the stranger next to you off the bridge and onto the track. Then the train will hit his body and slowly stop, as his body gets shredded under the wheels.

Are you willing to push the stranger to save 5 people? Yes? No? Why or why not?

I want you to pause here to consider your answer. Just for a little bit - because it's important for the puzzle that you do so.

.
..
...
....
.....
......

Done?

You probably said no, right? That you value life, and even if you don't act and the 5 people die it's not your fault? After all - it's a terrible thing you're called to do. Who wants to have the blood (or in this case the shredded body) of that stranger on your hands?

Now consider another scenario:

There's a train barreling down the railway track, straight for five people. On a fork in the railway track is a path leading to a stranger. You are at the control booth for the track, and if you flip a switch the track will switch and the train will turn to kill the stranger. If you don't, the train will go straight ahead and kill the 5 people standing on the track.

Will you flip the switch? Will you kill the stranger to save 5 people?

Why? Why not? What's the difference between this answer and the answer for the first question?

Posted 1 month ago #
saykhia
Moderator
Reputation:38

I think that's from Marc Hauser's Moral Minds. Interesting conclusions can be drawn from this and other moral puzzles presented in his book. I didn't read the actual book, though. I only read someone's summary of it.

Posted 1 month ago #
orenzai
Member
Reputation:479

I'd be too terrified to make sure drastic decisions I might just have a panic attack then and there. :P

Posted 1 month ago #
dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

Aiyo - ANSWER THE QUESTION LAAA!!!

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

My answer is no and yes, but for a reason. To make the reason clearer, let us consider the outcomes caused by inaction.

In your first scenario, had I not acted in any way, the chances are our stranger would walk away from the incident physically unharmed. He is (I presume) in good health, whole, and would not be at any disadvantage. (We shall neglect psychology)

In your second scenario, my inaction would seemingly cause the family of 5 to die, but that outcome is based on many assumptions. Firstly, it assumes that the rail system is completely intact and that the switch works 100% of the time perfectly, and that my ability to execute the switch is perfect and absolute each and every time (not to mention my timing). There is always the chance that the switch may operate on its own without my control such that the train goes to the stranger by itself. There is also the chance that the train derails and never reaches either one of them. There is also the chance that the fork is badly constructed and that only the locomotive passes through in its original path, killing the family of 5 while the other cars (you never said the train consisted of only the locomotive) separated from the locomotive without derailing, went on the other track and killed the stranger.

The bottom line is, in scenario A the risk for our stranger is close to nil. In scenario B we are not so certain - i.e. both are at risk.

Let us now consider action.

If I pushed the stranger down in scenario A, is it absolutely certain that the train would slowly stop at the excruciating pain of our friendly stranger? Is it absolutely certain that the family would be saved? Why should that outcome take precedence over, say, the train derailing and killing all of them?

If I flicked the switch in scenario B, I can be sure that it doesn't change very much the odds of the possible outcomes I have presented above.

Put it in another way, I can't deliberately put someone in harm's way, even if it is for a noble goal. The end does not justify the means. However, if both parties are already at risk, it is my moral duty to do the best I can, and leave the rest to God.

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Perhaps an analogy would be a drowning person in a raging river. You can't ask a man to jump in to save him, but you can ask a man struggling in the same river to attempt a rescue.

Posted 1 month ago #
dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

You're missing the point of the puzzle, Nick. This puzzle takes for granted that if you take action either way, you will save the 5 people/the stranger. Just as the parable of the Good Samaritan was intended to teach who the 'good neighbour' is (and did not take into account the assumptions of the puzzle - for instance, perhaps the priest and the jew were in a hurry and so this was not a good comparison?), so this puzzle is intended to test a person's preference for two competing moral systems: utilitarianism and deontologism.

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Nope, I answered the question based on what would be true in a real situation, in circumstances that would matter. I took what the question wished to present "for granted", but I considered as well the circumstances surrounding the moral question. I'm arguing that it's morally heavy on our conscience to intentionally harm someone, who would otherwise be at little or no risk of harm, in order to save another. Where things become muddled due to harm not originating from ourselves, our moral obligation shifts towards "as many as possible". It's all about our intentions. In scenario A we would have intended for the man to be on the track as a sacrifice. In scenario B he was just there.

You're twisting my logic. I'm offering plausible outcomes based on real world scenarios, not ones that are highly unlikely to happen. E.g. what if our stranger was struck by lightning and I hadn't pushed him down to save the family of 5? If I may add, though the above parable does not explicitly state it, a quick check of Jewish customs would enlighten the reader to a plausible reason for them not stopping to help the poor man. They wanted to obey God (the law). Taking this into account, another teaching to be taken from this parable is this: If you need to break a law to "love thy neighbour as thyself", then by all means break it.

Posted 1 month ago #
dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

Fine, let's see if your logic really makes sense:

Firstly, it assumes that the rail system is completely intact and that the switch works 100% of the time perfectly, and that my ability to execute the switch is perfect and absolute each and every time (not to mention my timing). There is always the chance that the switch may operate on its own without my control such that the train goes to the stranger by itself. There is also the chance that the train derails and never reaches either one of them. There is also the chance that the fork is badly constructed and that only the locomotive passes through in its original path, killing the family of 5 while the other cars (you never said the train consisted of only the locomotive) separated from the locomotive without derailing, went on the other track and killed the stranger.

There is the chance that while you are typing this piece, your computer explodes. There is also the chance that while you are thinking about your answer, a piece of the ceiling drops on your head and kills you. There is finally the chance that while you thinking, you reach for your cup of water, spill it on the computer, and electrocute yourself to death.

So then let's consider the assumptions:

a) Yes, the puzzle assumes that the rail system is completely intact. I should assume you do too, whenever you board a train nearly 99% of the time.

b) Yes, the puzzle assumes that the switch works 100% of the time. Trains around the world switch tracks millions of times each year to enter stations and to leave them - why do you want to assume that this particular switch may fail?

c) Yes, the puzzle assumes that there is enough time to make your decision.

The puzzle assumes all such things and expects you to accept such assumptions because it is not interested in your relentless nitpicking. It is only interested in this: given two scenarios, where the only way to save 5 people is to sacrifice 1, what would be your decision and why?

If your answers differ, then what does the surrounding scenario have to say about the way we make moral decisions?

I have found that the people who are most uncomfortable with the idea that they are willing to kill a person in the second problem but not in the first attack the puzzle instead of examining their own moral convictions.

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Of course the puzzle is not interested in my relentless nitpicking. I'm trying to show you that the puzzle is inherently flawed in its presentation. It tries to make the two scenarios the same moral conundrum of having to sacrifice 1 for 5, but it tries to hide the fact that our stranger was on the rail lines - in harm's way, in Scenario B. Even if I accept your rebuttals, my answer remains the same. If the stranger dies in scenario B, he did not die by my active action intending him to die (and this is why it wouldn't bear as heavily on my moral conscience). Consider again the analogy I offered.

It is along the same lines that I can accept withdrawal of care, but not active euthanasia. Abortion to save a mother from death, but not abortion for the sake of it.

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Oh, and be careful on how you point your fingers =).

Posted 1 month ago #
dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

@Nick: I'm sorry for my rudeness - I was tired and a little irate, and so I responded rather harshly.

You have a point of course. I didn't see it before, and I think your second post does a better approach of explaining why you're saying what you did. There really is no need for that bit about 'this may happen/that may happen' - your last post says what you wanted to say wonderfully, and in less words.

But you are mistaken about one thing. The stranger in scenario B wasn't in danger. Standing on the fork of a railway track isn't particularly dangerous until your action (the switch) causes the train to change tracks (there is usually a sign at the junction, telling everyone which track is active). If you do want to argue that stranger B has put himself in danger, then I may also argue that stranger A has put himself in danger by standing next to you! (For there is the possibility of you throwing you down - however unlikely that is - but no more unlikely than you flicking the switch and making the train kill the person.

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Then why would you be in any less danger with the stranger standing next to you?

If standing on a railway track isn't dangerous, we may as well do away with the yellow lines, keep off the tracks signs, "danger! train approaching" announcements so on and so forth.

Posted 1 month ago #
dienasty
Admin
Reputation:821

Posted 1 month ago #
tsar
Member
Reputation:273

Showing pictures of a crime in public doesn't make it legal. Universal acceptance of something wrong doesn't make it right. Truth is objective, it's just our confidence intervals that do not necessarily include it.

Posted 1 month ago #