Read this somewhere, and don't remember it word for word, but here goes.

 

 

 

There are 6 people tied to a train track, 5 on one track, and 1 on the other. Right now the train is headed towards the 5 people, and you have the switch to make it change tracks and head towards the other person.

 

 

 

There are 5 dying people in a hospital room, and 1 perfectly healthy person is there. Do you take the healthy persons organs (also making them die) and give them to the 5 dying people so they can live, or not?

 

 

 

What would you do?

Nah, let the healthy person live.

Save the 5 people. Letting 1 live and 5 die is kinda wrong.

Umm.. it would be quite convenient if 5 people's bodies accepted the organs from that one person without attempting to reject them. Personally, I'd let the healthy guy live.. but why is he in a hospital if he is healthy? Is he visiting? If so, maybe he cares enough for these people to offer his organs to them and save the 5? I'm just trying to make this complicated. :lol:

Kill them all and harvest their organs. You never know when another liver or lung could come in handy. Or just sell them on the black market to make a quick buck.

Well, if the 5 dying people did it to themselves (eg. smoking), then let the healthy one live.

I would like to think that I'd switch the train, but depending on who was in the 1 or 5, I might be swayed one way.

 

 

 

As to the hospital scenario, I would let the 1 person live, but I don't exactly agree with organ transplants and stuff like that anyway. Playing God isn't for humans.

Kill few to save many.

 

 

 

And how are organ transplants a way of cheating God?

Obviously killing the one to save five would be the right decision.

Pull the lever so the track half-switches, and the train de-rails. Saves everyone except the hundred or so people in the train.

In theroy, they would all die in the medical situation, as the organs would most likely be regected.

What's better, one person living with the guilt that five people died so they could be saved, or five people living with the guilt that one person died so they could be saved? Anyways with the hospital one, if they were all dieing anyways you might as well keep the healthy person.

It would be a sin to kill the one innocent person for the sake of the five. Not killing them would not be a sin.

 

 

 

Mathematically it makes sense, but morally it does not. I would say no.

 

 

 

Now, when choosing between killing one and five, where you actively engage in the act of killing in both cases, the choice of killing the one would be morally less sinful than killing the five in essentially all cases. Either way it's [bleep]ed up though.

I don't know. I hope to never be stuck in this type of dilemma. Why not just build a new train track? Or, even better - cut the damn rope.

Kill few to save many.

 

 

 

And how are organ transplants a way of cheating God?

 

I actually think it's more a way of cheating Death. If someones kidneys had failed (through no fault of their own, purely a genetic disorder) and they received a donated kidney and survive, they're living on borrowed time. They basically gave Death the finger and a nice, big '[bleep] you.' They shouldn't be alive, the only reason they are is because surgeons stepped in and removed their future cause of death.

 

I don't know if that came across quite the way I wanted it to; it's kind of hard to explain.

Kill few to save many.

 

 

 

And how are organ transplants a way of cheating God?

 

I actually think it's more a way of cheating Death. If someones kidneys had failed (through no fault of their own, purely a genetic disorder) and they received a donated kidney and survive, they're living on borrowed time. They basically gave Death the finger and a nice, big '[bleep] you.' They shouldn't be alive, the only reason they are is because surgeons stepped in and removed their future cause of death.

 

I don't know if that came across quite the way I wanted it to; it's kind of hard to explain.

 

What if it was their time to die after the donated kidney? Bad example though, you can live without two kidneys, you'd just have to go for dialysis 3 times a week in order to have your blood filtered.

 

This is where the debate of destiny v.s. choice comes in and both have reasonable arguments, but I really can't see which is the right one

If the one healthy person is a psychotic murderer, I think I would kill him/her over the 5.

If the one healthy person is a psychotic murderer, I think I would kill him/her over the 5.

 

 

 

By making him eat glass, by any chance?

 

 

 

To rebdragon: It IS a terrible choice to make, but it just seems reasonable to kill one and save five.

Pull the lever so the track half-switches, and the train de-rails. Saves everyone except the hundred or so people in the train.

 

We think similarly. I'm scared.

The five have a higher potential to give you the larger bribe.

 

 

 

Bidding war, GO!

I would walk away. Sure, there would be that good thought of "I saved some lives" but I think the bad thought of "My actions have caused someone else to die" would counter that.

 

 

 

I mean, what if I saved those people but the person I ended up killing would have done something in his life that saved even more people than I did? I'd just let fate deal with it.

I'd kill them all. Somehow.

 

It depends on who they are. If the one person is really important, to me or to the world, then I don't think there would be any doubt in my mind to save him/her. However, if you gave me the choice of five important people or one important person...I'd kill myself. There.

Who am I to say who is more important then the other?

 

I would sit to get to know them better before pulling the switch thing

Sure, sacrifice one for five, as long as that person who is being sacrificed isn't me.

 

 

 

From another point of view, we have too many people already so letting a few die of "unpreventable natural causes" will help depopulate earth. Again, as long as the person who's dying isn't me.

Personally, I would save the one as it is both unethical and illegal to kill a person to save others in the scenario presented. Also, there are too many variables. For instance, who is this person, he/she would most likely have friends, family, a spouse, kids. There is also the chance that this one person discovered the cure to a form of cancer or aids and is the only one who knows how. Also, there is no guarantee that the 5 would live due to issues with blood type, age, sex, etc.