thefacehead
Vital Football Hero
So we went to the national science museum the other day, and they had a load of 'brain' pods, one of the thing you had to do was a dilemma. So basically there are five men working on a railway line, the first scenario is that you can push a boulder from a bridge to save the workmen from dying, do you push the boulder from the bridge to stop the train safely and save the workers safely? Obviously yes.
But the second scenario was - there are 5 workers on one side of the line working, and one on the other, you can pull a lever so that you kill just one worker and not 5?
And then a third scenario where you can push a living person (in place of the boulder in option one) killing just him and saving five.
My Mrs chose to push the boulder (obviously) but then chose to pull the lever to kill the one and save the five. But I had a moral dilemma with that. Yes I understand the 'percentage' argument', but then she said she wouldn't opt to - push the living person off the bridge to save the five.
I said that I would push the boulder (obviously) but I would not pull the lever (an obviously not push the person off the bridge in scenario 3). I understand that the difference between scenario 2-3 is a direct to indirect action, but I would rather explain to 5 families that I wasn't prepared to knowingly kill one person when it would have been my choice to do so.
I really found it a difficult dilemma, and can see that, to some, the answer is to pull the lever. But if that is the case, why not push the person off the bridge, after all one is better than five, right?
What do you lot of opinionated nutters think?
But the second scenario was - there are 5 workers on one side of the line working, and one on the other, you can pull a lever so that you kill just one worker and not 5?
And then a third scenario where you can push a living person (in place of the boulder in option one) killing just him and saving five.
My Mrs chose to push the boulder (obviously) but then chose to pull the lever to kill the one and save the five. But I had a moral dilemma with that. Yes I understand the 'percentage' argument', but then she said she wouldn't opt to - push the living person off the bridge to save the five.
I said that I would push the boulder (obviously) but I would not pull the lever (an obviously not push the person off the bridge in scenario 3). I understand that the difference between scenario 2-3 is a direct to indirect action, but I would rather explain to 5 families that I wasn't prepared to knowingly kill one person when it would have been my choice to do so.
I really found it a difficult dilemma, and can see that, to some, the answer is to pull the lever. But if that is the case, why not push the person off the bridge, after all one is better than five, right?
What do you lot of opinionated nutters think?