The "Trolley Problem"

[THE Gypsy]

Interesting article I read today, on "ethics".

Killing One Person To Save Five

Researchers test a famous ethical dilemma called the "trolley problem" in a very real setting.


Would you kill one person to save five others?

...Recently, researchers tried to make the dilemma feel much more real. They placed 147 subjects in a 3-D virtual environment where they are in front of a railroad switch controlling two tracks. They watch five people hike along a track bordered by a ravine. A single person hikes along the other track. Suddenly a train comes barreling toward the five people. The subject has the option to reroute the train using a joystick.

Ninety percent of the study subjects switched tracks, killing the lone hiker to save five. These findings match past studies that were only abstract thought experiments. The study is in the journal Emotion.

http://www.scientifi...e-five-11-12-03

What would you do?

Personally...I'd have to know more about the "subjects". For instance...IF the "5" were all believers and the "one" was not...I'd let the train wipe out the 5 in a heartbeat. Then again...If the "one" was a believer and the train hit the "5" there's a possibility the one would have the opportunity to lead, at least some, to Jesus. Then again...(just kidding)

Seriously though...I found it interesting to think about.

 

[biggandyy]

I don't see that as "real world". I live near railroad tracks and played as a youth VERY close to fast moving freight trains on hill sides with steep drop-offs and nearly sheer walls on the other side. There is always room to stand or lie down next to the train to let it pass. It would have been a bit more "realistic" if it were a pair of rail only bridges over a 1,000 chasm with kids crossing bridges and the train needed re-routed. And not to mention the actual engineer of the locomotive itself. But that's complaining about setup, not the question itself.

If I were forced to let the engineer of the train kill either 1 or 5 people I would let the train head for the 1 and allow the engineer a bit of ease on his conscience that we did not kill the 5.

 

[Vengle]

I am in biggandyy's corner on this one. I see it as unrealistic. I have know way to know for sure what would happen as to whether any or all would jump out of the way at the last second and be safe. And if I caused an unexpected diversion to the other track the surprise change might be the very thing that causes the one person to fail to react in time.

I would NOT play God.

The study I like was the one where they had people giving electrical shocks to who they were made believe was a real person. And the reason was simply whether or not they answered simple questions right or wrong. The people who were put in charge of giving the shocks were made to believe that they were employees of the company. And the company's purpose was to help people change their thinking.

It was actually a study to determine why Hitler's soldiers so blindly complied with Hitler.

I wish I could remember the name of the study but the results were quite shocking because they had to delivering higher voltage clear to a lethal amount with each wrong answer.

Are you into Psychology? I have studied a bit of it. What fascinated me was that I could gauge between good psychology and bad by whether or not I could find support for particular theories in scripture.

Most people would be amazed at how much psychology (God's Wisdom) is in the scriptures. No one knows us better than He does. Their most educated yet miss the mark.

 

[THE Gypsy]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!

I posted this on another forum and here's one of the responses...

You could always just let nature take its course.

If people are stupid enough to put themselves in that position, a little cleansing of the gene pool may not be such a bad thing.

 

[biggandyy]

That reminds me of my foolproof 2 Step method of eliminating the population problem...

Step 1: Remove all warning tags from all items everywhere.

Step 2: Let nature take its course.

 

[WhiteKnuckle]

Did they not give an option to yell?

Is there an option to do nothing?

Were the 5 facing the train?

The biggest problem with science is they have a control, a hypothesis and not enough variables.

 

[aspen]

I would choose the lesser evil. We have to do so everyday in this Fallen world. All we can do is damage control.

All six of the people made a choice to risk their lives - I would simply be improving the outcome by saving 5 out of the 6.

 

[biggandyy]

Let's change the conditions a bit: the 5 people on one track are Hitler, Stalin, Jezebel, Genghis Khan, and Mother Theresa, and the single person on the other track is a total stranger.

Where does the train go now?

 

[aspen]

Let's change the conditions a bit: the 5 people on one track are Hitler, Stalin, Jezebel, Genghis Khan, and Mother Theresa, and the single person on the other track is a total stranger.

Where does the train go now?

Human life still has the same value. All people are sinners before God. And why not replace the sinner Mother Teresa with the sinner Martin Luther?

 

[biggandyy]

 

[aspen]

Ah, I see we have reached another end to a conversation...Andy style

 

[biggandyy]

No, just trying to chase away thr trolls.

(null)

 

[aspen]

No, just trying to chase away thr trolls.

(null)

I believe it was you who first reframed the OP.

 

[biggandyy]

Turgid, trenchant, comment from the peanut gallery aside, my rephrased question stands... how would you handle the train?

 

[Vengle]

OK. This is Burger King. Have it your way.

If I had to make a choice of course I would divert the train to where only one was in jeopardy.

Now are you satisfied? :lol:


If your loved one was dying and the medicine which would save them was at the local drug store but they would not give it to you for your loved one unless you could pay X amount of dollars.....

Would you break into the drug store and steal the needed medication if that were your only available choice to be able and get it?

When I was originally asked that question it was part of a test to determine whether we are principle centered.

As Mark Cowart can attest, I vehemently insisted it would be wrong to break into the drug store. I mean, I would have no part of even considering otherwise.

Today (in hind-sight) I feel I was wrong. There are times when the end justifies the means. And that is being realistic.

That is also why we ought to not be hasty in judging others.

_________________________________________

Words have power, as this last scenario I gave illustrates.

With words we form ideas that live and work in us.

John 6:63 "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life."

John 12:48 "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."

 

[biggandyy]

mmm... Burger King... I should not have read this at lunch time ;)

 

[Vengle]

mmm... Burger King... I should not have read this at lunch time ;)

I would have thought biggandyy would have preferred a big mac, but I guess that idea was a whopper. :lol:

 

[biggandyy]

har har har ;)

 

[aspen]

I think a life is more valuable than stealing - however, the ethical thing to do is turn yourself in after the robbery and the medicine is administered. This ethical dilemma would be a lot more complicated if you had to kill the pharmacist to get the meds. In that case, I would not do it.

 

[Vengle]

I think a life is more valuable than stealing - however, the ethical thing to do is turn yourself in after the robbery and the medicine is administered. This ethical dilemma would be a lot more complicated if you had to kill the pharmacist to get the meds. In that case, I would not do it.

I quite agree.

But let's now say that you stood as an unmarried man and soldier with a machine gun in your hands in the midst of an angry group of Iraqi civilians who were about to stone you to death? The only lives at risk is your own and those civilians should you decide to open up fire on them to save yourself.

So one man justifies it in himself to save his own life by taking many others. He comforts himself that he only did what they forced him to have to do and meanwhile the Iraqi people refuse to agree with that as they see it to be his fault for being there where he had no right to be in the first place accept that he obeyed his governments orders over the sanctity of their home.

And then we think about men like Stephen who prayed for God not to hold the sin against his people as they stoned him to death. And Stephen had every unquestionable right to be there.

These decisions can get quite complex.