My mother (circa 1974): "If the Democrats are in, you get a war.
If the Republicans are in, you get a recession.
The only choice you have in the voting booth is whether you'd prefer to starve or get shot."
Until recently it was pretty true.
--------------------------------------------
The old Princeton moral questions are turning up again, notably in a PBS lecture, and in an online legal discussion. I first heard them a good twenty years ago, in a company seminar. The two questions that you start with go like this:
1. You are driving a trolley car, and your brakes have given out. You see five men working on the track ahead of you. (Or in some versions you are standing next to a mechanical switch.) If the trolley continues on the current path it will hit and kill the five men. However, there is a side track ahead. You can switch to that track, and spare the five men. However, there is one man working on the side track, who would then be killed.Almost everyone says they will switch tracks, because sacrificing one man is better than killing five, and they are very sure of their decision. It's rare to get a "no" here.
Do you switch to the side track or not, and why?
2. Same runaway trolley and five workmen, except that you are now standing on a bridge over the track, between the trolley and the men. Standing next to you is a stranger. He is a big fat man, and he's leaning over the railing, so far that he is almost off balance. It would take no more than a tap to send him over. You can save the five men by pushing the fat man over the railing onto the tracks. He will get hit and die, but he will also stop or derail the trolley, saving the five men.The situation is similar, in that it's one death against five. And yet almost no one will push the stranger, for varied reasons, most of which boil down to having to actually touch him. It's too overt an act. It's rare to get a "yes", and most people don't want to associate with anyone who would answer "yes". They will vociferously defend what they see as the difference between the two situations - "direct responsibility" versus "indirect responsibility".
Do you push the stranger or not, and why?
----------------------
Take a moment to decide what you would do, and why.
----------------------
I'd answer "no" to the first question. I would not switch tracks.
It's hard to explain, but it's kind of like "who am I to decide that the single man is of less importance than the five?" Perhaps the one man would be mourned by a widow and six orphans, while all five men would be briefly mourned by only the town prostitutes, bookies, fences, and bartenders. Who am I to judge the value of a life? A simple one for five is not a valid comparison.
Also, I'd figure that Fate had set the scenario up, and Fate had a purpose in mind. I'd let Fate handle it, without meddling by me. Besides, it was Fate that put me at the switch, knowing what I would do, so Fate already had it all planned out.
However, in the second scenario, I have to confess I'd be strongly tempted to push the stranger. Not for any silly one-for-five justification, but out of simple curiosity and yielding to temptation. As far as Fate is concerned, if the stranger were not meant to die, he'd land on top of the trolley and suffer no more than bruises. I probably wouldn't push him for the same reasons as for the first question. He's already off balance, and if he were meant to fall he would without my help, but man, the temptation! I might tap him just to see if that little tap was enough.
The moral of this story: Don't stand next to me on an overpass.
No comments:
Post a Comment