Is Jane Morally Obligated to Intervene in Train Dilemmas?

  • Thread starter Thread starter leopard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Train
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around moral dilemmas involving life-and-death decisions in hypothetical train scenarios. Participants explore the ethics of intervening to save lives, weighing the value of individual lives against the collective good, and the implications of direct versus indirect responsibility for death.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that if the goal is to save the maximum number of innocent lives, then Jane should intervene in both scenarios.
  • Others suggest that moral responsibility plays a crucial role, and if Jane does not want to be directly responsible for one death, she might choose not to act.
  • A participant questions the morality of saving lives when the individuals in danger have put themselves in harm's way, suggesting that it may not be moral to sacrifice one for the many.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of defining lives as mere numbers, with some arguing that moral dilemmas arise when the quality of lives is considered, not just the quantity.
  • Several participants raise the question of whether a healthy life is more valuable than an unhealthy one, leading to further debate about the value of individual lives based on various criteria.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the moral justification for killing one person to save others, emphasizing the importance of individual freedom and the societal implications of such actions.
  • There are references to specific individuals (e.g., Barack Obama) to illustrate how perceived value can influence moral decisions, though this remains contentious.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the moral obligations of Jane in the scenarios presented. There are multiple competing views on the value of lives, the nature of moral responsibility, and the implications of individual versus collective worth.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes various assumptions about the scenarios, such as the awareness of the individuals in danger and the conditions under which lives are valued. There is also a lack of clarity regarding the definitions of moral responsibility and the implications of direct versus indirect actions.

Train dilemmas

  • Total voters
    16
  • #31
I think shouting a warning is sufficient in both cases. The principle I used to make that determination is that people are morally responsible for their own choices and they accept the consequences when they make the choice.
leopard said:
A. Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
All 6 people are standing on train tracks. They were aware of the risk of being run over by a train when they chose to step on the tracks. It is not morally necessary for Jane to intervene to save the 5 as they deliberately took the risk of getting run over by the train, but if she did she would not be wrong since the one also took that same risk.

leopard said:
B. Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
DaleSpam said:
This is a little different. Here the 5 took the risk of death by choosing to stand on the track, but the one chose not to risk death. Not only is it not morally necessary for Jane to sacrifice the one to save the 5, but it would be wrong for her to do so.



What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?
 
  • #33
WaveJumper said:
What if those 5 were children and the fat guy was a 10 year old boy? How would morality tell you who has the right to live?
They all have the right to live in all of these scenarios. (obviously)
 
Last edited:
  • #34
Opponents might assert that, since moral wrongs are already in place in the situation, flipping the switch constitutes a participation in the moral wrong, making one partially responsible for the death when otherwise the mad philosopher would be the sole culprit.
 
  • #35
Since these questions do not refer to values, they cannot be considered questions of morality. What if it was one Einstein versus five Hitlers? There is simply too little information to make any informed moral judgment.
 

Similar threads

The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Do Movies Teach Us Realistic Life Skills?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
Why is the U-2 nicknamed the Dragon Lady?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
9K