1 vs 5 psychology (Follow up poll)

[strawman]

So you've voted in the polls, and as expected it's following the general population:

75% or so will throw the switch
50% or so will bump the rotund guy off the platform
5% or so will kill the healthy patient

So what is the difference (aside from splitting hairs about how the questions were asked) - at what point did you decide that one life is more important than 5 lives, and now that you are thinking about it in those terms, why?

-Adam

 

[Wahad]

My option's not in there: I didn't switch the tracks, didn't push the fat guy, but I killed the patient.

Why? 1) People shouldn't walk on tracks, 2) the same, 3) five transplants earns me more money as a doctor than a minor medical checkup does.

 

[Chibibar]

I personally didn't vote any, but I will not sacrifice others to save others. the only way I would actively sacrifice someone (more likely myself) if it is more of a self preservation.

The exception would be self defense.

 

[Wahad]

I personally didn't vote any, but I will not sacrifice others to save others. the only way I would actively sacrifice someone (more likely myself) if it is more of a self preservation.

The exception would be self defense.

How is sacrificing yourself self-preservation?

 

[SpecialKO]

It seems fairly clear.

The more direct control that you have over the life of the sacrifice, the less likely you (or at least among our group of folks) are willing to make the trade a numbers game.

 

[Chibibar]

I personally didn't vote any, but I will not sacrifice others to save others. the only way I would actively sacrifice someone (more likely myself) if it is more of a self preservation.

The exception would be self defense.

How is sacrificing yourself self-preservation? [/QUOTE]

like I said, it depends.

like if I can ensure that I take out the invaders of people (zombies whatever) that is going to kill my family, if there is no other way to protect them, I will sacrifice myself without question.

That is more like preserving my lineage I guess (maybe bad choice of word, sometimes I get words mix up)

 

[Shegokigo]

The more connected I feel to the deaths, the more likely I was to make the choice.

 

[LordRavage]

But if a person is willing to sacrifice everyone......doesnt that make them a politian?

 

[Adam]

But if a person is willing to sacrifice everyone else......doesnt that make them a politian?

Fixed that for you.

 

[LordRavage]

But if a person is willing to sacrifice everyone else......doesnt that make them a politian?

Fixed that for you.[/QUOTE]


Thanks man.

*Highfive.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

But if a person is willing to sacrifice everyone else......doesnt that make them a politician?

Fixed that for you.[/QUOTE]


Thanks man.

*Highfive.[/QUOTE]

Fixed that for both of you

 

[Chazwozel]

So you've voted in the polls, and as expected it's following the general population:

75% or so will throw the switch
50% or so will bump the rotund guy off the platform
5% or so will kill the healthy patient

So what is the difference (aside from splitting hairs about how the questions were asked) - at what point did you decide that one life is more important than 5 lives, and now that you are thinking about it in those terms, why?

-Adam

Isn't the point that the manner of sacrificing the one dude becomes more and more personally involved? The final one has you taking something from him after you kill him. You not only kill him, you steal his right to his own organs.

 

[Bubble181]

I let the 5 die every time. Not because I think those are the morally better choices, but because I know I - and with me, about 90% of people - wouldn't be able to decide this quickly enough to actually do it. By the time I evaluated the whole 1 vs 5 thing, the train'd have long ago killed the 5.

 

[Math242]

i offed the single one every time

 

[phil]

If things are as cut and dry as the questions imply, there is no other option that could ever happen and there are no consequences, then I'll save the 5 every time.

If this were the real world, I'd do nothing every time. 5 people gathered around train tracks have a good chance of seeing the train and moving instead of one guy.

SOMEONE would ask where the organs came from. It is 100% impossible to get away with it. Question of morality be damned.

 

[Tinwhistler]

Isn't the point that the manner of sacrificing the one dude becomes more and more personally involved? The final one has you taking something from him after you kill him. You not only kill him, you steal his right to his own organs.

That's essentially my feeling as well. Some people seem to be arguing that it's strictly a numbers game the amount of personal involvement doesn't matter. I submit that those people don't understand (or don't care about) the morality of why most people choose as they do.

 

[SpecialKO]

Isn't the point that the manner of sacrificing the one dude becomes more and more personally involved? The final one has you taking something from him after you kill him. You not only kill him, you steal his right to his own organs.

I think it's also the extent you're involved in condemning the one dude to death.

In the first instance, it's possible to imagine that the first guy, not being part of a crowd, might conceivably be able to save himself.

In the second instance, this seems unlikely, but you could imagine that the sight of the man falling might shock the engineer into stopping the train, but even if he doesn't, it's the train that technically does the deed.

In the third instance, you are the one physically killing him. And then, of course, there's the additional violation with the organs, as you mentioned.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I think it's also the extent you're involved in condemning the one dude to death.
. . .

In the second instance . . . it's the train that technically does the deed.

Do you actually think that's the case?

Once in a while, some asshole pushes a stranger onto the subway tracks here. You'd let this asshole go free?

 

[SpecialKO]

I think it's also the extent you're involved in condemning the one dude to death.
. . .

In the second instance . . . it's the train that technically does the deed.

Do you actually think that's the case?

Once in a while, some asshole pushes a stranger onto the subway tracks here. You'd let this asshole go free?[/QUOTE]

I assume you're being deliberately facetious.

If the point of the thought experiment is that there are no legal consequences beyond the pull of your own conscience, it really doesn't matter who the legal culpability lies with, does it?

In each example, the direct involvement you have in the deaths that occur increases.

In the first, the people at risk are all already at risk before you make any choice. The actual killing stroke is delivered by the train.

In the second, you are making a choice to place a person who was not at risk at risk (or not). Again, the actual killing stroke is delivered by the train.

In the third, not only are you making the choice to place a person not at risk at risk, you are also the one delivering the killing stroke.

One of the conclusions that you could draw from this experiment is that the degree to which you are personally involved can affect your decision-making in life-and-death situations.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I assume you're being deliberately facetious.

In the second, you are making a choice to place a person who was not at risk at risk (or not). Again, the actual killing stroke is delivered by the train.

Yes I am. But I'm also at a complete loss as to your logic here. You're pushing the guy in front of the train; how is that not delivering the killing stroke?

 

[SpecialKO]

I assume you're being deliberately facetious.

In the second, you are making a choice to place a person who was not at risk at risk (or not). Again, the actual killing stroke is delivered by the train.

Yes I am. But I'm also at a complete loss as to your logic here. You're pushing the guy in front of the train; how is that not delivering the killing stroke?[/QUOTE]

Neither the push, nor landing on the rail in front of the train, is going to physically kill the man. The train is. The push is what sets it up.

Make no mistake, in all three examples, the decision-maker is responsible for killing whoever doesn't make it. In every case, a deliberate choice is being made to condemn someone (or more) to death.

The only thing that changes is the decision-maker's involvement in the mechanical application of death, and in each case, that involvement increases.

You could make the argument that as that involvement increases, it is increasingly less likely that the decision-maker will rationalize that it is worth killing one to save five.

You could also make the argument that the increased exposure to the potential sacrificial one has the same effect.

The three questions by themselves don't make either one more likely than the other (and there's probably other possibilities as well).

 

[Raemon777]

By the same logic, pointing a gun at a person and firing isn't technically "killing them," you're just putting them into the path of a bullet. I mean, they could theoretically see you begin to fire and dodge the bullet, right? People don't kill people, bullets do!

 

[SpecialKO]

By the same logic, pointing a gun at a person and firing isn't technically "killing them," you're just putting them into the path of a bullet. I mean, they could theoretically see you begin to fire and dodge the bullet, right? People don't kill people, bullets do!

Your example here isn't the same because the bullet is being put into play by the decision-maker.

If you want a bullet analogy, the case you should be making is:

5 people are about to be mowed down by a machine-gun. You can save them if you push the man next to you out of cover into the field of fire, because he's so big the gun clip will empty before he finishes dying, and you will save the 5 people. What do you do?

I'm not entirely clear why you guys are having so much difficulty with the idea that moral (and legal) and physical responsibility are not necessarily the same thing when it comes to deciding to perform an act. An individual's distance from the act (and its consequences) almost certainly alter the decisions he or she might make.

 

[Raemon777]

In both cases, there is a person who is not in the path of a dangerous projectile. You make a decision that deliberately puts them in the path of said dangerous projectile. I'm pretty sure that the criminal justice system does not see a significant difference between the two, except insofar as it may be harder to prove that pushing someone into a train was deliberate.

Note that I'm NOT saying that killing the fat guy in the above hypothetical is murder. I do think there is a difference between the three situations. But if there were a hypothetical in which you had to shoot a person in the back to save 5 other people, I would consider it morally equivalent to pushing the fat man. For better or for worse.

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm pretty sure that the criminal justice system does not see a significant difference between the two

No, of course it doesn't.

Which is why a significant pre-condition of situations in the test is no legal consequences.

I mean, you're basically arguing that, in your opinion, you would consider at least the latter two situations the same in terms of the moral ramifications on your decision-making ability.

What the test "demonstrates" is that not only does a significant proportion of the test population actually disagree with you, they disagree with themselves as the distance/involvement across the three situations changes.

That's why it's kind of creepy.

 

[Kitty Sinatra]

I'm not even talking about moral or legal issues. I'm talking about the actions themselves. I can't see how either - pushing someone into a train, or shooting them - isn't directly killing the poor bloke.

How about we introduce a third scenario. What if I push someone off a skyscraper? To you, is that like pushing someone into a train, or like shooting them?

 

[SpecialKO]

I'm not even talking about moral or legal issues. I'm talking about the actions themselves. I can't see how either - pushing someone into a train, or shooting them - isn't directly killing the poor bloke.

But you can see how flipping the switch in the very first scenario is not directly killing them? :bush:

That's kind of the point of the whole thing. All three proposed scenarios involve making a deliberate choice (or not) to end the life of a human being who would otherwise be healthy and living. All 3 choices, in effect, lead directly to someone's death.

But, however it happens, the test population of human beings rationalized all three choices differently. One possibility is that the marginally increasing control over the methodology of the sacrifice makes a difference. Or if you like, call it a difference in viscerality.

How about we introduce a third scenario. What if I push someone off a skyscraper? To you, is that like pushing someone into a train, or like shooting them?

That's more like the train scenario.

If you want to get creative, the scenario should be knocking someone off a skyscraper by shooting them with a bean-bag gun.