Do you kill someone to save other people?

Hello everyone, Alright, so I recently discovered the SFA section, and it's pretty cool,
This one has been going through my head for quite a while, so take this scenario:

You're on a bridge over a train track, Someone is standing next to you, You do not know them at all, for some reason there is someone on the train track about to be hit by a train,
Would it be correct to push the person next to you, stopping the train somehow, and saving that person?
You also are 100% sure that pushing them will save the person.

If your answer to that is: "No, you do not push them" What about this, There is one person next to you, 2 people on the train track, What do you do?
if it's still no, how many people would it have to save before you finally push the person? Or would you never push someone?

If your answer to that is: "Yes, you do push them and save the person" What if, it was 2 people standing next to you,
You have an option to push them both, saving the person on the rail, If you push one, neither the person on the rail or the person you pushed will survive.
You must push both to save the person on the rail, what do you do?

If I posted this in the wrong section, i'll push myself off the bridge.

Anyways, I hope to see your opinions on this and your reasoning.

Thanks,
Static

 

Depends, if the people on the train tracks are complete randoms and people I've never met I doubt I'd push the other person because who am I to play god? I'd probably try and warn the others about the train coming and hopefully some have common sense to jump to the side of the train but I doubt I would just push someone to save someone else.

If the people on the tracks where my loved ones then hell yeah, sorry random person but I love my family and I'm not risking you for them.

 

In this society each person has their values - however it depends on yourself, no one can really say who's life is worth more indefinitely, but many can speculate. So really, it would be the choice of - who is worth more to you right now, in your own opinion? In the scenario if I knew none of them, then my choices would be more superficial. There's a man beside me, and two young children on the line. If I absolutely must make a decision to save someone, I would base it on that. My heart would obviously soften to the two children as that is simply who I am.

That doesn't make it right or wrong, but depending on the individual scenario, your own mind would make up whether or not it would be right or wrong. Like, would you feel proud of yourself for killing the man in order to save these two children? No, but then, could you have lived with yourself letting those two children die knowing you could have saved two lives with one?

You've given me a lot to consider haha!

 

Given the scenario I'd push the person to save the others. This all comes down to your own morals and assuming the situation came down to risk is it worth definitely killing someone for the chance of saving others.

 

Depends on if I knew the person or not.

For all you know, the guy on the train track might be someone who devalues life thus pushing someone who lives a normal life would be immoral.

 

I would sacrifice one life for the survival of many, one in one exchange I wouldn't act. I find the train example kind of strange though, the way I pictured it I felt fine not pushing anyone or saving anyone so I took it more as the principle of sacrificing one to save many.

 

Yes I understand about your family, that's reasonable, but suppose they aren't you're family, you still wouldn't sacrifice one person to save many people? If you want to think about this in terms of families, less families would be hurt, The people on the train track's families would be okay because they lived, the family of the person on the bridge, would still be sad and stuff, but they would know he died to save other people?

Yes, I have to agree with you on this. "could you have lived with yourself letting those two children die knowing you could have saved two lives with one?" This pretty much sums it up I think. I believe it's based on your personal beliefs, But then again, could you have lived with yourself knowing that you killed someone else on purpose? You took away their life to give life to others.

Hmm, interesting, but like I said to neoaddict, "But then again, could you have lived with yourself knowing that you killed someone else on purpose? You took away their life to give life to others." That's hardly fair to the person on the bridge.

I've never thought about it that way, . Now I go back to my point of the families of the people. The family of the person on the bridge, would know he died saving lives, the family of the person on the tracks would know he had lost all hope and found a easier way out? In this case, I think pushing the person would be better.

 

Idiots on the tracks don't deserve to be saved but that's not the principle of the argument.

It would take an extreme example for me to even postulate the murder of an innocent individual. In this case I would not interfere.

 

here's this same question OP is asking from a harvard lecture

 

In this day in age... I wouldn't push anyone even to save 1 billion people... Because his family would sue me for all I've got and I'd spend a life time in jail for pushing him. The fact I just saved 1 billion people wouldn't even matter.

But if I were guaranteed no harm myself. I probably still wouldn't save any amount of people, as I'd see it as natural selection if they're too stupid to get off the track themselves.

 

WHOA, I never even saw this! Wow, going to look at those comments.

 

I would let fate & karma do it's magic

 

Depends if it's a loved one ofcourse I would push multiple people for the chance to save them. If it were two people I didn't know and it would be a one for one trade off I probably wouldn't intervene because who's to choose which life is more valuable the guy you push or the guy on the train track.

 

I think your scenario is poor.

I don't think i could save someone that's intentionally stood on harms way.

For example; if I had a gun & some other random guy had a gun, but he was about to shoot someone, I'd without a doubt shoot him.

 

I wouldn't push anyone simply because I'm selfish and would rather not be put in prison for killing someone, regardless of whom it saves. They shouldn't be on the train track X_X

But I'm sure one person couldn't stop the train anyway.

 

Sigh, disregarding the legal aspect? EDIT: Disregard that logic aspect as well.

 

I wouldn't, unless the person I'm pushing is the reason the other people were on the tracks in the first place.

I don't think I should get to decide who lives or dies.

 

Thanks so much for this, most entertaining

 

I would personally, I've always said this about my dad. If he comes after my mom one day, I will be ready to do what I have to to protect her. If he pulls a gun and I pull one too I'll shoot first.

 

To me, it all depends what I gain financially.