Morals vs logic

Just a little thing I like to get people thinking about.

Ok, scenario. There's a train track that divides into two tracks, one with ten people tied to the rails, and the other with one. There is a train heading towards the intersection between the two and you can control which track the train follows. Which track would you send the train down?
In theory, logic would say one death is a much better outcome then ten.

Now, lets say the one person was a loved one, Would this change your answer? Would you sacrifice ten people that also have loved ones, for your loved one?

How about this one.

There's a train heading towards two people and the only way to save them is to push someone in front of the tracks. Would you push them onto the tracks and kill them, to save two? In theory the right thing would be to push that person onto the tracks, But would you? Would it be moral to kill them to save others? How many would it take for it to be moral to kill someone?

Where do you draw the line?

I don't want stupid answers or what if's, just pick one of the two options.

 

Logic overpowers moral. The most sensible thing to do, prevails over the morally acceptable thing to do. Logic has always been my influence, and I don't regret a single thing I've ever done. Well, not that I can remember anyway.

I'd choose logic, meaning one death of a loved one, instead of 10 deaths of people in the same situation.

 

I would honestly save a loved one,because it would be a gut instinct

 

Which track is the train headed down by default?

 

I would save my love ones.

 

You talk about loved ones... Love isn't logic or morals, it's emotions.

 

Why would that matter?

 

Ah, the infamous suspense movie question: Too save everybody or the girl. Of course, in those kind of movies, everybody is saved, and the ending scene is people looking very happy that it is over, the hero and is love (that was almost lost) in his arms, and people that had nothing to do with "saving the city/world" congratulating each other.

Of course, this not being a movie world, I would have to go with the logical answer: Save the most people as possible.

But then again,what if the 10 people tied to the tracks were your mortal enemies, would you run the ten over in pure spite, or would you still save them? What would be the logical answer in that situation?

 

For the first scenario, I would choose to save the loved one, I value family/loved ones over all other people.

For the second scenario, I would not push someone into the tracks to save two people. The first two people are in the situation because of there own actions; I would not force some random person to die to save two people that were not forced to die.

 

If it were headed towards the 10 people, I would do nothing. I would refuse to kill one person to save 10 - that one person is not morally obligated to save the 10.

If it were headed towards the one person, I would do nothing, for the same reason as above.

If, in the second scenario, the train were headed towards the 10, I would do nothing. Were it headed towards a family member, I would redirect it towards the 10.

 

You could have just posted that in the first place.

 

I'd kill 10, heck, the world is overpopulated anyway.

 

It's tough to say when the chances are, we will never be put into that situation about the loved one. But... I guess I would have to aim the train at my loved one.

As for the second question, Yes. If two people are going to die, and you can save one and have the other die, I would do it. You would walk out there with one less death on your hands

 

Just pretend the train has 50% chance of going to either track. Its a simple scenario, dont over think it.