The Important Conclusion (now added)

I am going to post a few philosophical questions over the next few weeks. I find philosophy really interesting and sometimes scary. We all think our value systems are good or morally right but the deeper I look into philosophy the stranger I realise we all are.

We all think we have good reasons for thinking what we think and feeling the way we do. But are we really as fair and morally upstanding as we like to think.

I would like to challenge you with a few questions if I may to see how you respond.

Read on for question one...

Question One.

Let's say you get kidnapped from outside Tesco one day and bundled into the back of a van. When you are brought out of the van there are 6 people tied up in front of you with blindfolds on. You are given a gun and told that if you shoot one of the six people the other 5 people will be released. Or shoot nobody and all six people will be shot by the kidnapper. (you will be released no matter what you choose)

Please remember when answering that it is not a trick question. I am not looking to hear how you would get out of it or try to save everyone by shooting the kidnapper. It's not about that. You can take the scenario as fact. As in, if you don't shoot one person all six will definitely die and you will definitely be released either way. And if you do shoot one person the other 5 will definitely be set free. Would you shoot one to save five? Or let them all die?

I would shoot the one person and let the other 5 live. Personally I can't see any reason why anyone would do the other option. Of course I would not like to shoot someone (with certain exceptions) but I think it would be for the greater good.

Are the six who are tied up wearing United shirts?

My favourite is the question Ali G asked a vegetarian and animal rights campaigner.

"Here's a chicken. If you don't eat this, we kill another chicken."

Anyway in answer to your question (have you been watching the Saw movies?) - the logical answer is to kill one of the people, and I would make the six of them sit there and decide which one is getting shot, until they come up with a majority vote, then shoot that one.

This problem is often expressed in terms of a runaway train with you in control of the signal box. If you do nothing the train will kill say 6 people. If you divert it down another line it will kill one person. Many (most?) people find it difficult to take the logical decision as it involves a conscious decision to kill someone versus a passive response (= not my fault) killing several people. However I am a hardhearted logical bastard like largehat and would kill the one person to save the others.

My favourite version of this is a variation on the runaway train. This time you are standing on a bridge. If you do nothing 6 people will be killed. However you are standing next to a fat person. If you push him onto the line he will die but everyone else will live.

I would let them all be shot.

I would shoot the person who started this thread.

Fat bastard gets it.

It's not very emotive because you don't know the people.

If you said 5 members of your family it'd be hard. Otherwise obviously i'd just shoot one person.

And the conclusion to question one...

Bill is a healthy man but has no living family or friends to speak of. There a 5 people in hospital who need organ transplants or else they will definitely die. There is a way to kill bill painlessly and use his organs to save the five other people who will all definitely survive (and have good health) if they get a transplant from Bill who is an exact match. They will all definitely die if they do not get Bills organs as no others are available...

Is it morally right to save the five and kill the one?
(And again we are not discussing the what ifs of getting infections or failed transplants etc - we are discussing the morality of the question and answer)
And if you would not kill the one, why would you not?

This aspect of greater good is somewhat different. Every man has an equal right to live and be free. Those five people's right to life is no greater than Bill's. I would not Kill Bill to save them. Strangely, in the case of a speeding train, Bill would have been dead before he could blink. Thinking about it now, instinct is the difference. Spur of the moment, there is no question that I'd sacrifice one to save five, but to sit dispassionately and decide that Bill has to die to use his organs as spare parts to save five other people, I couldn't do it. Weird...

What is the actual difference though?

At it's fundamental core, if you strip it right back, comes down to this... your decision alone will decide the fate of the six people in front of you. Is there less reason to save those who need a transplant?

As I said, the difference is instinct. Spur of the moment, Bill is fúcked. Time to think about - sorry, five. That's just me. On the other hand, five family members and stranger Bill? Bill is fúcked.

That's Bill's decision.

Nobody else's.

I had to do something like this in a group when i was applying for a part time job in... Phones 4 U when i was at Uni.

suffice to say i didn't get the job! lol.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:I had to do something like this in a group when i was applying for a part time job in... Phones 4 U when i was at Uni.

suffice to say i didn't get the job! lol.

What did you have to do? Kill one employee to save five other employee's jobs?

haha no not quite.

it was one of these scenarios to discuss.

something like you can save either

"the man with the cure for cancer, a woman who is 9 months pregnant, the prime minister, or your elderly grandfather"

largehat wrote:That's Bill's decision.

Nobody else's.

Ok. Let's alter the question a little bit.

There are six people in hospital beds.
Bill healthy (physically) but is in a coma. There is a 95% chance he will come out of the coma alive in 1 week and have a healthy life. In the other 5 beds are 5 people who will die today if they don't get an organ transplant. Bill happens to be a perfect match for all 5. There is a 100% chance that all 5 transplants will be a success and that all 5 will lead healthy lives there after.
You do not have to do anything other than make the decision. You have been voted as the sole judge in such matters and the doctor has asked you what your decision will be, "Do you want us to save the 5 or the one, judge?"
You have to make a choice. What is it? All six lives are in your hands.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:haha no not quite.

it was one of these scenarios to discuss.

something like you can save either

"the man with the cure for cancer, a woman who is 9 months pregnant, the prime minister, or your elderly grandfather"

I like questions like that - but I do not think they are right for job interviews. Especially if the interviewers are going to judge your application on your responses. What would you do? I think I would like to say cancer.