Moral dilemma

A forum for respectful discussion & exchange of views on news, current affairs & thought-provoking topics; please read and be aware of the guidelines prior to posting.

Forum rules

Welcome to the News, Current Affairs & Debate subforum.

This forum is the place for intellectual discussions relating to news, current affairs, or philosophical & scientific debates. There are some guidelines that apply specifically to posts in this forum, of which you will be expected to have made yourself aware before participating. They are as follows:

  • Intellectually stimulating topics only. If you can't have a deep discussion about something, it does not belong here.
  • If you're going to post, have something to say. When you make a new thread, write the initial post in a way that provides an introduction to the topic and invites further discussion. You could tell us how you feel and why, but always aim for constructive responses that further a discussion about the ideas involved, rather than a simple list of people's views. (Instead of asking "Are you a vegetarian?", discuss some of the arguments involved.) This guideline likewise applies for responses to topics.
  • Write using good English. That means full sentences with proper capitalisation, punctuation, spelling and grammar. No one is perfect, though; this is not an invitation to criticise others for minor mistakes.
  • Be nice. This is a forum for rational discourse, not flame wars. No one is always right. Be respectful of other people's views and accept that we are all entitled to our own.

These guidelines will be enforced by the moderators based on their best judgement, and anyone who does not take them seriously will lose the privilege of posting here. Spammers will be banned from the entire forum.

What would you do?

I pull the lever and kill Steve.
I pull the lever and don't kill Steve.
I don't pull the lever and kill Steve.
No votes
I don't pull the lever and don't kill Steve.
Total votes : 10

Moral dilemma

Unread postby boiii » 12th September, 2017, 2:40 pm

A) A train is speeding and cannot brake in time to stop before driving over 5 people on the rails. All 5 will lose their lives ... unless you pull a lever. This will kill the 1 person that is on the path the train will be diverted to if you make that choice. Do you pull the lever?

B) Steve has got an broken arm and walks into your extremely understaffed hospital. You're the only doctor and have 5 dying patients. Each one will need a different healthy organ to be transplanted ... Nobody is looking and you can kill Steve now, take his organs and operate on the dying patients. Do you kill Steve?

C) Is there a difference between the 2 questions?

User avatar
Mr. Not So Chaste, xo Gavin
First name: Kamiel
Posts: 1498
Likes received: 250
Joined: 27th November, 2016, 10:48 am
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Dolly » 12th September, 2017, 2:52 pm

A. No. By doing so, you are willingly killing someone.

B. No. Steve is an individual and willingly killing him is wrong; this is similar to the first. What makes this worse is that Steve was seeking treatment himself, so killing him would be worse.

C. Yes. In the second scenario, you have control over the entire situation. In the train situation, you do not.
User avatar
hotty & country singer
Posts: 3549
Likes received: 777
Joined: 19th July, 2015, 11:50 pm
Location: Tennesee
Country: United States (us)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby MCarr » 12th September, 2017, 3:13 pm

I will answer using both the theories of Kant and Mills.

A. Kant- I'm morally obligated to save the life of who's in danger, but I'm equally obligated not to kill. This are conflicting principles and my choice would be in either case unethical. Not doing anything would be wrong too. There isn't a good choice. Mills- according to his theory the choice that maximize happiness is the correct one. The happiness of five people is superior to the happiness of one. So I'd have to pull the lever.

B. Kant- Same thing than above, there's no right choice. Mills- exactly the same principle from above. The death of one benefits five, so killing Steve is "good".

C. The main point is the same, simply applied to different contexts.
"I hate the word homophobia. It's not a phobia. You are not scared. You are an asshole"

User avatar
I won a bet with Kaspar
First name: Miguel
Posts: 518
Likes received: 160
Joined: 22nd April, 2017, 6:53 am
Country: Portugal (pt)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby boiii » 13th September, 2017, 11:10 am

To the people who voted to pull the lever, but not to kill Steve, could you answer C?

User avatar
Mr. Not So Chaste, xo Gavin
First name: Kamiel
Posts: 1498
Likes received: 250
Joined: 27th November, 2016, 10:48 am
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Woollyhoolly » 13th September, 2017, 11:19 am

This isn't ur philosophy homework we're doing right??

In the first situation, people r gonna die. You then either have a choice of making 5 or 1 person die.
In the second situation, people are gonna die. 5 people will die, and the one person (that walks in) doesn't have to die.

Now that you're asking me to do this i realize my logic is not clear. Hmpf.

Idk why but i chose b, eventhough it's basically the same situation. The only difference is that in the 2nd situation, a person came to see you, and you physically need to end that persons life to save the other person. The fact that a train does it in the first situation, makes it feel farther away from me, if that makes sense.
Made you look

Trudeau's my daddy
User avatar
First name: Tim
Posts: 333
Likes received: 59
Joined: 4th September, 2017, 4:05 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Country: Netherlands (nl)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Hierax » 13th September, 2017, 11:23 am

A. I would pull the lever since this way, only 1 person dies instead of 5. It is important to know that it is ethically right to do something like this if you do this to make sure there'll be less victims.
B. I wouldn't kill him because he's seeking for help, just like the other patients.
C. The difference in my opinion is that in A you do it in a crisis-situation and this is not (really) the case in B.
User avatar
Cucumber Fanatic
First name: Sokol
Posts: 1058
Likes received: 266
Joined: 3rd August, 2017, 8:55 am
Country: Belgium (be)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Abdeltyf » 13th September, 2017, 2:01 pm

A. Pull the lever. I'll still live with the death of at least one person in my hands anyways. I'll just wish that person would understand that I made that decision with tied hands. If he wouldn't understand that, then he grew up to be a cold, selfish person.
Personally, what makes me extremely uneasy about this one is the fact that I know nothing about these 6 people. The five persons I saved might have turned out to be criminals, and the guy who supposedly died might have been one of the greatest persons in the world.
B. A doctor takes a vow to protect his patients and save people's lives. This situation is irrational. I would take care of Steve's arm then get him the hell out of this hospital, since this is obviously some kind of a critical situation. Even if Steve donated his organs, or I killed him for them, there is no guarantee that the patients' bodies will not reject Steve's organs, and I can end up with 6 dead people. I might only ask Steven if he is willing to donate an organ for one of the patients after his recovery. I googled that the organs you can donate while living are a kidney , lobe of a lung, partial liver, pancreas or intestine. Of course, I am no expert doctor.
C. It's all about moral principles and life commitments. In the first situation, I am not in a professional field, and I'm basically playing God, judging who dies and who doesn't, which is immoral itself. As of the second situation, the appearance of Steve is irrelevant. The thought of killing him for organs wouldn't occur anyways.

User avatar
First name: Abdeltyf
Posts: 162
Likes received: 26
Joined: 3rd July, 2017, 3:31 pm

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Scorpius X-1 » 13th September, 2017, 10:11 pm

Imagine if YOU were the person on the RR track, and you see the train barrelling towards you. Wouldn't you get off the tracks before the train hits you? In the dilemma, the people are GLUED to the track. But in the real world, one person is probably more likely to clear the tracks in time than a group of people. So pull the lever.

You jump off the tracks. Now, won't you feel glad that five others didn't risk dying for you? I would.

Now imagine yourself as a person, reading about what happened to Steve. Would you risk going to the hospital for ANYTHING since you, too, could be sacrificed to save dying patients? If you were dying, would you want to be saved in a hospital by the deaths of healthier people?

Therefore, few ever go to hospitals anymore. That increases net suffering and decreasing net happiness. Therefore, it is perfectly utilitarian to not kill Steve. You just need to look at long term results.
Scorpius X-1
First name: Patrick
Posts: 53
Likes received: 10
Joined: 10th May, 2017, 10:39 pm
Country: United States (us)

Re: Moral dilemma

Unread postby Togetik » 14th September, 2017, 12:20 am

User avatar
Posts: 564
Likes received: 94
Joined: 5th February, 2016, 11:24 pm
Country: Australia (au)

Recently active
Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot] and 47 guests