Conquer Club

this is from TIME magazine and it has intrigued me: i want to know what YOU'D do.
THE RUNAWAY TROLLEY
A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who can't be warned in time. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but there is a single unsuspecting workman there. Suppose the workman was on a bridge with you and you could save the men only by pushing him onto the tracks (he's large enough to stop the train, you're not). What would you do?

Yea, I'd Stutter, then watch them die, then run away.

lol this is a bad position financially.

in america, no matter what you do, YOUR GONNA GET SUED

Herakilla wrote:lol this is a bad position financially.

in america, no matter what you do, YOUR GONNA GET SUED

ok, then you're in spain as this happens -_-

same answer, but instead of running away, I'd watch =D

Now shutup you non taiwanese person.

Thailand SUX!

its a ard descion so i chose the easy way out and picked that i wouldnt react fast enough

where's the "don't do anything and gleefully watch the 5 get run over" option

Hitman079 wrote:

Herakilla wrote:lol this is a bad position financially.

in america, no matter what you do, YOUR GONNA GET SUED

ok, then you're in spain as this happens -_-

ok ill think about it then.

itll require me to look deep inside myself and who i believe i am.

but then i think, "what am i doing in spain?"

you're in spain because you're in the position of a hypothetical situation.

Well, I would change the switch after I tell the one guy on the other track. (You never said there isn't enough time to warn him)

Dammit Strife, you beat me to it.

Assuming that there is no easy option out - i.e. no cheat whereby you can divert the trolley and then warn the other person etc etc, I'd kill the one guy.

It's worked on the basis that one life is worth less than 5 lives - and so it's (arguably) the greater good.

Of course, downsides to this would be that I'd now be a killer, rather than a hero but meh.

I'm also pretty sure that this is the option that most psychopaths choose as it shows a disregard for the value of human life and looks purely at the numbers involved.

I'd probably also lie and say that the guy threw himself under the trolley to stop it - so he'd be the (dead) hero - ala the throwing yourself on a grenade act to save your buddies.

It's a similar thought process to the conundrum about the life vest - you are on a bridge and you see two people drowning. One of them is your mother/father/1st born child/wife/husband (whatever) and the other is someone you've never met before, but whom you recognise as a leading scientist who is close to a cure for cancer.

On the bridge is one life vest that you can throw to save one person - they're too far apart to be able to save both and the bridge is too high for you to be able to jump off of. Who do you choose to save? Your family member that you love or a stranger that is close to discovering a cure that no-one else can do that could save thousands of lives every year?

You put too much effort into this question.

The simple answer is - Kill all 6 of them. Send the trolley into the 5 then go after the 6th with a knife, then later bathing in his/her blood.

I'd divert the cart to save the 5, and then say that I never saw the poor sap who got killed by it. Maybe he should have been wearing a reflective vest or something.

These were actually two separate scenarios in Time:

Scenario one:

1 - Do nothing and allow the train to hit 5 people.
2 - Switch the track and allow it to kill one person

Scenario two:

1 - Do nothing and allow the train to hit 5 people.
2 - Push a man standing nearby onto the track and save the five below.

The finding is that when it comes to actually pushing somebody into harms way we have a much harder time making the choice.

lcb11 wrote:It's worked on the basis that one life is worth less than 5 lives - and so it's (arguably) the greater good.

I don`t agree with this statement. How do you measure the greater good? Maybe the guy you killed would have done something that saves thousands of lives, or whatever, you get the idea.

You really can`t know what is the greater good, unless you`re omniscient(but if you are, you can probably find a better solution to this issue )

Besides, I don`t want to be prosecuted for murder, or have to explain to the dead guy`s family why i thought his life was worth less.


So i would just sit back and watch.(yes, I`m not much of a hero )

I hate this question so much, mainly because I think it's based on a false premise; that is to say, the pushing doesn't have the same quality as the switch-flicking. It's not simply the same problem with two different sets of words, but it's two very different problems masquerading as being identical.

The original 'switch' problem is simply asking you if you'd deviate from a default setting where you could cause a net-gain of life.

The second 'push' problem is asking you if you'd add an entirely new possibility to the situation in order to cause a net-gain of life.

Put into other words, the degree of involvement of the 'better victim', and the degree of action required to involve him, does matter, and does give a different quality to the 'act of involvement'.

Yes yes, I know that in the 'switch' scenario the old man isn't 'in danger' until you flick the switch, but the fact is that he has far greater proximity to the dangerous situation than in the 'push' scenario; and that essentially is where the material difference lies. [/rant]

Ahem, sorry, I'll be more coherent after I've had some breakfast.

Here is the article.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 32,00.html

I'd tell the one guy by himself that there are five workers having a party over by the trolley tracks and watch six people get run over instead of five.

A trolley? One of those metal things you use for shopping at Tesco's?
Hardly heavy enough to kill y'know...

I wouldn't do anything. The mere fact that there is going to be either five deaths or only one, says nothing about who deserves to live more. This being so, I would rather not interfere with the natural course of things.

Backglass wrote:These were actually two separate scenarios in Time:

Scenario one:

1 - Do nothing and allow the train to hit 5 people.
2 - Switch the track and allow it to kill one person

Scenario two:

1 - Do nothing and allow the train to hit 5 people.
2 - Push a man standing nearby onto the track and save the five below.

The finding is that when it comes to actually pushing somebody into harms way we have a much harder time making the choice.

in scenario 2, instead of having to push the man he is standing on a trapdoor which has a switch. and yes, i chose the first scenario because it is much harder, since you have to actually push the man. and imo that article gave barely any information at all besides that diagram