Posted by sodredge on January 25, 2004 at 03:04:05:
What is your take on the following:
The Runaway Train Came Down the Hill
(I) You are standing on a railway bridge. In the distance you hear
cries of
terror. Looking down the line, you see that five people have been tied
to
the track by a deranged criminal mastermind. Within minutes, these
unfortunates will be crushed under the wheels of the out of control
locomotive which, you now notice, is making its way along the line.
Nearby
is a lever which you know you can use to divert the train.
Unfortunately,
the deranged criminal mastermind has taken this possibility into
account by
tying another person to that line. You can save five people only by
condemning one person to certain death. What do you do?
(II) You are working in a hospital which has been cut off from the rest
of
the world by civil war. Casualties pour into your ward every day, most
of
whom you can do little to help. Presently, you have five patients, each
in
need of a different vital organ if they are to survive. Enter a
reporter -
from The Sun, say. In your desperate frame of mind you reason that by
killing the unsuspecting journalist and extracting his vital organs you
will
be able to save your five patients. Surely, you think, it is
justifiable to
take one life, if doing so allows you to save five. Or is it?
Did you give different answers to (I) and (II) above? If so, can you
think
of a reason for treating the two cases differently? If you can’t, are
you
prepared to answer (I) and (II) in the same way after all?