/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2576536
I would let the five people die in both instances, because they were stupid enough to stand in the middle of the tracks with a TRAIN BARRELING DOWN ON THEM. I am a force for natural selection.

Let the train ride on and kill the 5 people

kant touch this.

Also, this is not philospophy but science, which is more useful. Haters gonna hate

option b. but i'd push the fat person just after the train passes. If you do it any other way there are 5 witnesses to finger you for murder, or at the very least manslaughter.

Do nothing, you wont get blamed, do something go to jail. Easy choice bro.

Option 3: board the train and hit the breaks

If possible, I'd push the fifth person onto the track with the other four, killing all five. If not, I'd let the trolley kill the four, then personally strangle the fifth to death. Just my two cents.

Oh and this isn't /mo/-Morality and Ethics.

hurr durr wud u rather rape 2 girls or 1 dur durp

Let the train kill 5 people, push fat person down to kill him too. Fuck you humanity, you get what you deserve.

tell those fuckers to get off the damn rails

>>2576557
2, cause then i get off twice

>push a fat person onto the tracks

Learning about Bentham AND subtly hating fatties?

I want this book

FUN FACT:

In america, if you were to stand back and do nothing and watch the 5 people get killed by the trolley YOU WOULD WALK AWAY A FREE MAN.

However, if you hit the switch and one person got injured in any way, YOUR ASS GOES TO JAIL FOR MANSLAUGHTER

lol america

I jump in front of the train

I'm not sure option 2 would work in real life. This may be a part of why most people say they wouldn't kill the one in scenario #2 while they would do so in #1.

Let the trolley kill the five people, then shoot the fat guy in the head

>>2576569
Laws govern actions, not inaction.

>>2576569
I disagree. I'm no lawyer, but no jury in the world would convict you of that.

>>2576579
>Laws govern actions, not inaction.
>not inaction

orly?

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/bizarre&id=7910045

fat person will not stop a trolly

>>2576588
>Woman who fell while texting sues mall
I wish I could say no one side with the woman for not paying attention, but unfortunately it's the American justice system.

Neither.
If you assume the trolley is at its average speed and the humans are walking at their average speed as well, the trolley represents no threat for the group presented in option a, meaning they would be able to walk away from the track before the trolley reaches them implying their velocity remains constant. The same can be applied to option b.

>>2576585

agreed the rail company may sue you for messing with their stuff but you can't be convicted for dumbasses standing on the railway dieing.

I go in front of the train knowing I will not be able to live with myself after I cause the death of another person.

I would realise that this is a bullshit constructed moral conundrum, and let whoever set it up solve the problem for me.

>>2576569
FUN FACT IN AMERICA WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY AND YOUR AN IDIOT IF YOU THINK A JURY IS GOING TO SEND YOU TO JAIL FOR THIS

>>2576614
>Constitution

Haven't they repealed that yet?

>>2576588

she's sueing over a video of it from mall security being posted online not falling itself. still pretty stupid though.

>>2576606
I would do this as well. At least to try and stop the train with my massive 150 lb physique.

>implying I woudln't stop the train in a spiderman 2-esque style

a)

Kill 1 person: Probably able to defend against a potential murder charge based on Necessity or Competing Harms. The family of the guy you killed might try to get revenge, though.

Kill 5 people: Possible negligent homicide charge, but most likely noone will blame you for not doing anything.

Obviously better to kill the 5.

b)

Don't push the guy: No legal ramifications, since noone could expect the average citizen to come up with such a split-second James Bond strategy for stopping the train.

Push the guy: Almost certain murder charge, and the 5 people on the track have to spend their last seconds on earth getting splattered by the fat dude's guts when he explodes on the 500 ton train's front bumper and doesn't slow it down a bit.

Answer: Let the train plow into the people.

I'd get arrested if I did something so I won't do shit. U mad moralfags?

>>2576642
>mfw americans call trolleys "trains"

>>2576642
ROFL. You should totally post that on /lit/.

>>2576659
>mfw americans call ram-jammer-talkies "phones"

Question 2:
Why are able to endanger themselves by standing on the train tracks to begin with?

I wouldn't do anything unless I knew who the people were.

I feel it is useful to consider the extremes in this situation, regarding the first scenario.

Ultimately, the issue is whether the life of 5 individuals should be spared in exchange for the life of one individual. Essentially, are multiple people worth more than 1?

Change it up a bit. Say there is one big ass train heading for every living human except for you and this one other dude. You have the option to change the direction of the train to kill the one person, sparing everyone else. Should you do it?

Absolutely. In general, the life of one individual should be taken to save more than one individual from certain death.

>>2576536
solution b
because the fat guy won't stop the train and the 6 people will die
Since there's 16.6% of women among these 6 people it means more women for me since I killed 5 men
If there's more than 40% of women among the 5 people on the track I'll choose solution a. and then go back to the bridge to push the fatty because it's funny

>mfw people are considering the legal ramifications

I'd let the fat guy live

Obviously he's trying to get into shape hence why he walked up some many steps to stand on the bridge and he's obviously not as stupid as the five since he's not standing on the middle of a trolly track.

They're fucking morons standing on a train track. Yell at them to get out of the way, but don't waste an INNOCENT life...

>>2576685
>mfw you think there's any other significant issue to consider in this question

Unless I personally know any of these people, who gives a shit if they die?

>>2576676
Let's assume there's a twin Earth that always has 1 more person on it than the real Earth. This twin Earth is about to be destroyed, but you are given the opportunity to stop time and personally slaughter every human on the real Earth to save the twin Earth. Do you go through with it?

>>2576716
Am I still a virgin on the other Earth?

ask the trolly man to stop the trolly.
Assuming it is a normal trolly, which are normally traveling at a reasonable speed? Like how fast can these go?

>>2576721
hurr

>>2576716
No. Too much work. Let me play video games.

>>2576716
>Let's assume there's a twin Earth that always has 1 more person on it than the real Earth
>always has 1 more person on it than the real Earth

if I kill everyone on earth, then that means there will only be 1 person left on twin earth...no I would not kill everyone on earth just to save one person. That would be stupid.

Improbable scenario. Not in the realm of scientific discussion.

>>2576716
I would destroy the planet where I'm not
Then I'll fap

Turn the switch halfway and derail the train so that it hits both groups.
This should leave no witnesses and you can just walk away.

>>2576536
the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few(or one)

would choose to not get directly involved so i'll try yelling to them "get away from the tracks"
and if they die.. well shit happens
if they don't i'm a hero
but if i actively kill any of them to save the others i become a villan.. and i don't wanna go to jail for anyone

>>2576749
wrong.

The needs of the "I" outweight the needs of the "them"(or the "you").

>>2576749
That's right, Spock. Now lets go back in time and save some whales.

>>2576756
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Twist: The trolly is traveling at 99.9% the speed of light.

The people are already dead.

>>2576767
>Ignoring the fact that the crew then mutinied, destroyed the Enterprise, and saved Spock anyway.

Also: >>2576763

>>2576769
i'd still push the fat guy from the bridge

>>2576763
Best of the Star Trek movies, right there.

I yell out "Hey people, there is a train coming. Get off the track."

Just kidding. In reality I'd assume they know the train is coming and will move on their own will.

>>2576785
A keyboard... How quaint.

Wouldn't killing the 1 instead of 5 and subsequently going to jail mean sacrificing 2 for 5 ?

what if the 5 people are Tea Partiers, and the other guy a math Ph D.?

I'd yell at the five people to get the fuck off the track.

But in case I'm Mute...

Kill the one guy to save the five,Don't push the fat guy over because it might not have enough effect to save the five people.

But I'll pants the fat guy for the hell of it.

I wouldn't want someone to save 5 random strangers by throwing me in front of a train, so I wouldn't do that to somebody else. Golden rule, assholes.

>>2576926
What if the five people KNEW the train was coming, and were about to move off the track, but the one guy would be killed because he didn't expect it?

>>2576933
i'd kill them all, let the train hit the five people and throw the fatguy off the bridge onto the unsuspecting passerby

US troops encounter a group of Arab herders in Afghanistan. Knowing the possibility that if set free the herders may alert the Taliban of the troops' location, should they kill the herders or set them free?

This happened in real life, and they set the herders free. The herders ratted them out, and the Taliban killed all but one of the one of the guys - the one that voted to set the herders free (it was by coincidence).

These philosophical questions are a bit tougher in the real world.

>>2576950

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2286671/lone_survivor_by_marcus_luttrell_a.html

linkage

I would neither flip the switch nor push the fattie. I would of course yell for people to get off the tracks, but I don't think it's morally justifiable to kill by one's actions except in defence of one's person.

This is a classic utilitarian vs. absolutist dilemma. Unlike a utilitarian, I believe that people have rights, including the right not to be killed by someone effectuating a calculus of lives. People have moral agency, but nature does not. Nature can kill 5 people and there is no moral issue. You can kill one person and you are a murderer.

>>2576968

A man is raping a woman. Should it be left to nature to run it's course, or would you punch the guy off. Does he have a right not to be punched?

>>2576536

Simple.

Kill the 5 people on the tracks. If 5 people, with 10 eyes in total, could not see a train over a hundered times their size coming at them at over 100 miles per hour, they deserve to be erased from history.

>>2576987
Yeah, I was asking for that. I realized the omission after I had made the post. I would punch the rapist, but to understand why you'd have to know more about my concept of rights. I believe that people forfeit their own rights by violating those of others, but the degree of forfeiture is proportional to the magnitude of the violation (e.g. it would not be morally permissible to shoot someone because you saw him slap another person).

>>2576933

This is my logic. The 5 people on the tracks might know that the train will hit them, so they'll move. Similarly, the guy on the other tracks might know that the train doesn't normally go that way, so he won't move out of the way since he isn't expecting it.

Before doing anything, you have no idea what the probability of any of this stuff is. The 5 people might move, they might not. The one guy might move, he might not. Without knowing any of this information, there's no way to know the outcome of either decision. I would do nothing, since there's no reason to change something if you have no idea what changing it will do.

I WOULD PICK THE TRAIN UP WHILE ANNOUNCING THE WEATHER

<- utilitarian here

>>2577002

I don't really follow that. If someone may or may not die depending on whether or not you flip a switch and you don't know anything else, how is doing nothing better than flipping it? You make a decision either way, and I don't see how not flipping the switch would make you feel less guilty than flipping the switch if you killed the guy.