1 vs 5 psychology (poll 2 of 3)

[Docseverin]

I bump the fat man. I tend to view everything and triage it whether I want to or not, so do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.

 

[Shegokigo]

Only one man can win a "no-win" simulation and you all, are no James Tiberius Kirks!

 

[Docseverin]

The point is, this is a bullshit scenario and problem. There is zero chance anyone would ever have to make a decision anywhere remotely like this aside from perhaps the leader of a nation, and in most cases where you would even come close to having to choose one life over another, there's almost always a better way that doesn't involve such a choice.

So, what would I do? Find a better way.

If you can do this then you would rule modern medicine on the battlefield. Some times there is no better way.

 

[strawman]

The point is, this is a bullshit scenario and problem. There is zero chance anyone would ever have to make a decision anywhere remotely like this aside from perhaps the leader of a nation, and in most cases where you would even come close to having to choose one life over another, there's almost always a better way that doesn't involve such a choice.

So, what would I do? Find a better way.

If you wholly reject the thought experiment, then why bother wasting your time explaining why you reject it?

I always suspect that those who refuse to participate do so because they have a hard time coming to grips with what their answer would be if they truly were faced with this decision, and they knew there was simply no better way.

Regardless, I'm sorry if the question offends or upsets you. It is nothing more than a few words strung together, and they have little meaning beyond what you decide them to mean.

I have not filled out the poll either - I dislike these questions perhaps as much as you.

Which, I suppose, is why I enjoy putting them to other people - to watch them squirm, perhaps, as I avoid looking at myself.

In all three cases I would do nothing, allowing the 5 to die.

-Adam

 

[Piotyr]

The question doesn't upset me specifically, just that if such an impossible scenario arose, I likely would try to find a better way than causing the death of the 1. If after such analysis there was no possibility (again, in an impossible scenario that really happened), then I suppose that means I'd let the 5 die. Which is what I answered.

What I am trying to convey is my actual thought process if put in such a situation, in an effort to justify my decision (or lack thereof).

 

[@Li3n]

In this case the train is a quantum train approaching the station at or near C. It can stop nearly instantaneously, but only at the command of the engineer. The rotund fellow will be vaporized, but the bumper sensors on the train will detect him, and the train will stop just as it vaporized him.

but then i wouldn't be saving 5 people as the train would stop after hitting the first one... 2 at most, unless it's some freakishly wide train track...

 

[strawman]

In this case the train is a quantum train approaching the station at or near C. It can stop nearly instantaneously, but only at the command of the engineer. The rotund fellow will be vaporized, but the bumper sensors on the train will detect him, and the train will stop just as it vaporized him.

but then i wouldn't be saving 5 people as the train would stop after hitting the first one... 2 at most, unless it's some freakishly wide train track...[/QUOTE]

The 5 people are very small - in fact you can't tell whether they are midgets or children, and they are huddled together on the track in the same amount of space that the rotund man would take up.

-Adam

 

[@Li3n]

they are midgets or children,

I let them die... kids and midgets freak me out more then fat people...

huddled together on the track in the same amount of space that the rotund man would take up.

they'd have to be in a line perpendicular to the train, if they're huddled like that some will still get hit before the others...