Ethical Question: Train

bekeleven · Post by **bekeleven** » 2005-08-10 12:48am

You and another guy are passing each other walking on a bridge over train tracks. For our purposes, say this guy is deaf. Either that, or he's got headphones on. You know, the really good kind. Also, he is a COMPLETE STRANGER.

On the tracks, north of you, there are two kids. For all intents and purposes here, they are deaf as well. Just say that they can't hear anything.

On the tracks south of you, a train is coming. It just hit its breaks, but at its current rate, it would still kill the children. Your bridge is directly over the tracks. Time freezes as you think.

What would tou do if:

1) You can tell through some sort of super-natural insight that if you jump down onto the tracks, the train will stop before it reaches the children: you will take the impact on your torso and die.

2) You know that you are too thin to stop it (because you've been dieting), bet the other guy is fat enough to absorb the force. There are no railings. There is no time to explain what is happening to him. If you push him, he will not understand why he died.

3) Either you or him is large enough to stop the impact.

If you said no for any, think: how many children would you save before you said yes?

If you said yes for any, think: Would you for just one child? How about 1 adult? How old would he/she have to be for you to say no, if there is any such limit?

Just food for thought that's been bugging me lately. I think I heard it somewhere else, but I forget where.

Post by **Mr Bean** » 2005-08-10 01:14am

So.... I get to kill myself to save the two kids and the fat deaf man or kill the deaf man to save the kids....

Right first thats a fucked up OP to strait with.

Second I nominate all three for a Darwin award, do the smart thing and chuck my shoes at both the kids and the man and hope the frantic hand-signal for TRAAIN gets their attention.

And send in those nominations.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2005-08-10 01:41am

I'm sure as hell not dieing to save people walking on a narrow railway bridge, that's stupid and illegal for a reason.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-08-10 02:43am

Mr Bean wrote:So.... I get to kill myself to save the two kids and the fat deaf man or kill the deaf man to save the kids....

As I read the OP the fat guy is on the same bridge as you, the kids are on the tracks.

Im struggling to think how the body mass of one person is going to effect a train unless you cause it to break something and go off the rails, which would probably kill people aboard the train. This means the eaither:

a - your instinct is wrong
or
b - Any action you take could put more lives at risk than the 2 children who are stupid enough to be on the railway lines. The OP doesn't say if they track in on a bridge, just that you are on a bridge above it,so it may have room for the kids to move off, if so then the kids might move on their own. especially since they should feel the track vibrating.

So I won't be doing anything to save them.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2005-08-10 03:17am

I'll be a callous whore here and say that I'd do nothing for them. My life takes priority over the lives of two tresspassing idiots (sorry, but it's illegal to be on train tracks other than on designated crossings because it's railway property. It's stupid to be on them anyway.) It's not my place to force another to sacrifice their life, either.

Post by **fgalkin** » 2005-08-10 03:22am

Besides, won't the deaf kids feel the vibration of the coming train?

And no, I'm not going to do anything to save them. My life>their life. Sorry.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

Winston Blake · Post by **Winston Blake** » 2005-08-10 04:11am

Throwing the fat guy over is a 100% chance of me murdering him, and throwing myself over is 100% chance of suicide, but there's a big chance the kids'll just move away on their own. Therefore, i'll pick up whatever i can find (e.g. gravel) and throw it at the kids to get their attention, and if possible point them out to the fat guy and get him to wave his arms at them too.

Humourous scenario #1: You throw the fat guy over, and he misses the train. Splat, followed by two crunches.

Humourous scenario #2: When i throw gravel at the kids i hit them square in the head and knock them out. Two crunches. One witness.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-08-10 04:26am

I too would say that sacrificing myself or worse murding someone else in this situation (neither of which are realistically going to save the kids anyways) is a bit out of the question. Certainly, I would do everything in my power to try and get they're attention, but I really dont think I could bring myself to commit suicide in such a situation, especially with its effectiveness being so doubtful.

Sharpshooter · Post by **Sharpshooter** » 2005-08-10 04:48am

Their stupidity, their loss, and it's not like throwing me or Chubby on the tracks is going to do anything - two or three hundred pounds of flesh and bone aren't going to do much to styme the inertia of several dozen tons of charging locamotive.

Granted, I'm going to screem and shout and do my damndest (do I even know these kids are deaf?) but to risk my life for a pair of kids who should know better and where my efforts are guarenteed to kill me or someone nearby? Maybe if they wound up getting PUSHED onto the tracks, and there was a chance I could do something, I might, but as things are in this scenario, there's nothing I can do.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2005-08-10 07:46am

I would try to help, but I wouldn't sacrifice myself regardless of the number of kids. It would have to be my own kid for me to do that.

I wouldn't murder anyone else to save the kids either.

Quantity of kids is not an issue for me.

bekeleven · Post by **bekeleven** » 2005-08-10 11:58am

Sorry if I wasn't clear:

1) In the situations, the kids will NOT move away.

2) Your gut instinct is always right.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-10 12:30pm

I would not sacrifice myself for strangers. I would try to help, but I'm sorry. What's the difference really? SOMEONE is going to die, why the hell should it be me? Especially when the kids are not being careful?

It's nice to be altruistic, but I'm sorry. I'm not giving my only sure known shot at life to "save" other human beings that will also surely die at some point.

Steven Snyder · Post by **Steven Snyder** » 2005-08-10 12:42pm

Do I sacrifice myself and destroy my family to save a pair of kids that don't have a functional survival instinct or parents smart enough to teach their kids not to walk on train tracks?

No.

Do I murder a stranger and destroy his family to save a pair of kids that don't have a functional survival instinct or parents smart enough to teach their kids not to walk on train tracks?

No.

GrandMasterTerwynn · Post by **GrandMasterTerwynn** » 2005-08-10 12:45pm

bekeleven wrote:Sorry if I wasn't clear:

1) In the situations, the kids will NOT move away.

2) Your gut instinct is always right.

So the kids have been glued in place by Act of Plot. Either way, any idiot kids playing on active train tracks tends to have it coming. Literally speaking, in this case. I am insufficiently alturistic to want to sacrifice myself, or another adult, for a couple of kids I don't know playing on train tracks. If they were my kids doing it, I'd probably throw myself at the train as penance for having raised kids so stupid that they don't know better than to play on train tracks.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-10 12:54pm

If they were my kids doing it, I'd probably throw myself at the train as penance for having raised kids so stupid that they don't know better than to play on train tracks.

LOL!!!!!

gizmojumpjet · Post by **gizmojumpjet** » 2005-08-10 03:13pm

I'm not going to sacrifice myself for two morons I don't even know.

If they owed me money, there's an outside chance I'd give him a shove to save their lives, but more likely I'd simply sue the train company for the mental anguish incurred from witnessing two innocent lambs get slaughtered.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-08-10 04:59pm

bekeleven wrote:2) Your gut instinct is always right.

Then how can the bod mass of one person affect the train, without causing harm to those inside the train (say by sending it off the track) ?

bekeleven · Post by **bekeleven** » 2005-08-10 06:19pm

bilateralrope wrote:
bekeleven wrote:2) Your gut instinct is always right.
Then how can the bod mass of one person affect the train, without causing harm to those inside the train (say by sending it off the track) ?

It's a thing.

You seem, no offense, to be missing the point. It was just a hypothetical situation, not to be infected with context or laws of physics.

Einhander Sn0m4n · Post by **Einhander Sn0m4n** » 2005-08-10 06:27pm

Someone's been reading too much Glurge...

genkkov · Post by **genkkov** » 2005-08-10 08:56pm

There's a simple formula that can tell you what to do in this situation.

X= (coefficeint of relatedness)*(future reproductive potential)*N
if X1 > X2, sacrifice 2

i.e. if you are a 40 year old male, and you're in a situation in which either you or your two children (relatedness = .5) or you are going to die, it would benefit you evolutionarialy to sacrifice yourself. If you were presented with a similar choice of sacrificing three cousins (R = .25) or one brother (R = .5) with similar reproductive potential, you have to go with the cousins and sacrifice the brother. Of course, what's beneficial to you is not always what's morally correct, and of course there are many other variables, you can make it as complicated as you could ever wish.

bilateralrope · Post by **bilateralrope** » 2005-08-10 10:05pm

bekeleven wrote:
bilateralrope wrote:
bekeleven wrote:2) Your gut instinct is always right.
Then how can the bod mass of one person affect the train, without causing harm to those inside the train (say by sending it off the track) ?
It's a thing.

You seem, no offense, to be missing the point. It was just a hypothetical situation, not to be infected with context or laws of physics.

I'm asking it because I am also thinking about the people one the train.

eg. if its a passenger train and I save the kids I die, and people in the train are also likely to die

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2005-08-10 10:28pm

bekeleven wrote:
bilateralrope wrote:
bekeleven wrote:2) Your gut instinct is always right.
Then how can the bod mass of one person affect the train, without causing harm to those inside the train (say by sending it off the track) ?
It's a thing.

You seem, no offense, to be missing the point. It was just a hypothetical situation, not to be infected with context or laws of physics.

Then why bother? Logically, you're not going to be able to stop the train just by throwing yourself in front of it. There's too many stupid accidents like this in my area for me NOT to know that Train>body on tracks. Hell, just last week a 15yr old was drunk off his ass and passed out on the tracks.

So, your Hypothetical Situation (RAR!) sucks. I'd not be walking near the tracks with no railings to protect me from the train in the first place, the damn bridges shake too badly when one passes by. The vibrations could knock you under the wheels if not for railings!

Adrian Laguna · Post by **Adrian Laguna** » 2005-08-10 11:32pm

For this to be a more plausible scenario the vehicle in question should be a tram or street car (like the ones in San Fransisco), not a train.

Solauren · Post by **Solauren** » 2005-08-11 12:43am

Idiiot shouldn't be wearing headphones at a train station.
I also have no way to know he is deaf

The kids parents are responsible for them, not me. However, I'd be tempted to save them to watch the parents go up on child neglect charges.

DrkHelmet · Post by **DrkHelmet** » 2005-08-11 12:47am

"I wonder if I could claim 'extreme emotional disturbance' after killing the guy in the honda blasting hip-hop that can be heard for miles."

"What was his/her name? damnit..."