Looking for an answer to the question: Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others? On this page, we have gathered for you the most accurate and comprehensive information that will fully answer the question: Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others?
Traditional medical ethics embraces the norm that doctors (and other healthcare professionals) must not kill their patients. This norm is often seen as absolute and universal. In contrast, we have argued that killing by itself is not morally wrong, although it is still morally wrong to cause total disability.
The more we sacrifice (genuinely sacrifice; not just begrudgingly do things) for another, the more we will love that person. ... He or she becomes dearer to us precisely because we have given so much of ourselves for that person. Thus sacrifice becomes a cause of love as well as an effect of it.
Sacrifice is often about prioritization and discipline, since we don't always have the space or time in our lives to accommodate all the things we would like. ... Even when you do have aspirations, right action is required if you are to manifest the things you really want in life.
The trolley dilemma and its variations demonstrate that most people approve of some actions that cause harm, yet other actions with the same outcome are not considered permissible.
In order to achieve what we really want in life, we have to make sacrifices. Small deeds such as being kind and polite to others, helping the needy, and spending money for the poor children's education, etc. are some of the noble deeds that one can do daily. ... Without pain, without sacrifice we would have nothing.
Self-sacrificing is a sign of fear People who always self-sacrifice are likely to be people-pleasers who live in terror that not doing what someone else wants will result in the other person not liking them or getting angry.
The utilitarian perspective dictates that most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number. ... Psychological research shows that in the first version of the problem, most people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to flip the switch, killing one to save five.
It's normal to feel that way. However, when we sacrifice what we want right now, we are saving our time and energy for something more important. Something that will bring us one step closer to our real goals. Something we truly want, not just something we want right now.
However, a fat man, a stranger, is standing next to you: if you push him off the bridge, he will topple onto the line and, although he will die, his chunky body will stop the train, saving five lives.
Sacrificing one life to save others -- research shows psychopaths' force for 'greater good' New research shows that people would sacrifice one person to save a larger group of people - and in addition, the force with which they carry out these actions could be predicted by psychopathic traits.
Nine out of 10 people would kill one person to save five others, according to a provocative new morality study led by Carlos David Navarrete, assistant professor of psychology.
From a simple utilitarian point of view, the dilemma is the same — do you sacrifice one life to save five? — and the answer is the same: yes. Interestingly, however, many people who would pull the lever in the first scenario would not push the man in this second scenario.
Most People Would Kill 1 Person to Save 5 Others Study participants donned a head-mounted device that presented them with a 3-D simulated version of the boxcar scenario. (Image credit: Michigan...
In the first trolley dilemma, the person who pulls the lever is saving the life of the five workers and letting the one person die. After all, pulling the lever does not inflict direct harm on the...
In the first trolley dilemma, the person who pulls the lever is saving the life of the five workers and letting the one person die. After all, pulling the lever does not inflict direct harm on the...
Psychological research shows that in the first version of the problem, most people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to flip the switch, killing one to save five. But in the...
Consequentialist morality states that it is better to act in a way that will benefit the most number of people even if it means causing harm – so killing one person to save five.
In both versions of the trolley problem above, utilitarians say you should sacrifice one to save five, while deontologists say you should not. Psychological r esearch shows that in the first version of the problem, most people agree with utilitarians, deeming it morally acceptable to …
The killing of one person to save five is not morally just because that would require the decision maker to view human life as a quantitative value. Humans however possess individual qualities so then that one person that might be killed for five might be someone like Einstein. While the other five might be ill educated drug addicts.
You would still be indirectly responsible for the death of five people. If you choose to actively save the one person on the tracks, you are now still responsible for the death of five people. If you decide to pull the switch, the one person on the tracks will certainly die, but the lives on the trolley are now saved.
Navarette and his team found that, once again, 90% of us would kill the one to save the five. Among the 147 participants, 133 pulled the switch. Interestingly, those who were more emotionally...
In the third, “footbridge” scenario you can stop the train killing the five workers only by pushing a man off a bridge above the track into the train’s path, bringing it to a halt. In each...
The majority may lament the deaths of the five innocents, but they cannot bring themselves to bring about the death of a loved one in order to save the lives of strangers. That is most understandable from a psychological point of view. Humans are primed both in the course of evolution and through their upbringing to care most for those around them.
> The trolley problem: would you kill one person to save many others? APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February …
In this case, if you were flipping the switch that would kill one person to save five others, then the sixth man had been used solely as a means of savings others, with no consideration for his right to not have his very life taken. St. Thomas Aquinas:
Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others? Would it be the right thing to do? Inviting students to respond to some amusing hypothetical scenarios, Professor Michael Sandel launches his course on moral reasoning. Lecture 2 – The Case for Cannibalism
In the first trolley dilemma, the person who pulls the lever is saving the life of the five workers and letting the one person die. After all, pulling the lever does not inflict direct harm on the...
Nine out of 10 people would kill one person to save five others, according to a provocative new morality study. Share: FULL STORY Imagine a runaway boxcar heading toward five people who can't...
Unlike the first scenario, the death of one individual is not only taken into account, but is necessary in order to save the lives of the other five. In the third scenario, one large man can be knocked off a pedestrian bridge onto the tracks, as a result of which his body stops the …
The person you love, more than anyone else in the world, is about to die. The only way you can save them, is by taking someone else's life. Could you bring yourself to do it? Would you take a life to save the life of the one you love most dearly?
Imagine you're watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here's the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? Eleanor Nelsen details the ethical dilemma that is the trolley problem.
SAVELLANO, Laureen T. BSA-2C 1. The Moral Side of Murder Would you kill one person to save the lives of five others? Would it be the right thing to do? Explain your point. Certain individuals argued that certain actions are morally unjustifiable regardless of the outcome, even if they result in the death of an innocent person to save five lives. However, if I were to ask, the right and moral ...
On the side track, it will kill one worker whose body will stop the trolley before it can kill the five on the main track. In the Footbridge version, a large man can be pushed in front of the trolley.
Would you kill one person to save five others? Philosophers have posed this moral dilemma for decades. Typically they present the situation as a mental exercise. A runaway train is about to strike ...
Overall, 81 percent were willing to switch the carriage to a separate train track to kill one person instead of five, and half would throw a man off a footbridge on to the tracks to spare five.
I think in that moment it would make more sense to lose one life in order to save five. 2. In the instance of the observer on the overpass I would contradict my opinion in the first scenario and not kill the one to save the five. I think it is a completely different situation …
bridge, so that he dies, but the five others are saved. Strangely, 90% of people say that you SHOULD kill the one in Switch (by pulling the lever), while 95% of people say that you SHOULD NOT kill the one in Footbridge— though the results are the same. In each case, the option is to kill 1, or let 5 die. What
In no way is that wrong. If one man is to be killed to save the lives of others, then that is perfectly fine. Think of all the school shootings, if someone had the chance, to kill the child that committed that deed, to save their own children, I believe many would do so.
13 years ago Side: Yes. Support Dispute Clarify. breid909 (17) 5 points. Unless the one person was of great importance, it would be logical to save the hundred people. By not killing the one person, you are indirectly killing the hundred by negligence. That, however, is a general answer to a general question.
If a person is drunk, then a single statement can make you dead. 3. Revenge: Revenge is a very strong feeling that can even make non-criminals kill others. If someone did wrong to you, then revenge is the feeling that where you want the other person to experience the …
Before you are to redirect the train, you see that there is one man tied to this adjoining track too. So, you have to either change the track, kill one person, and save the five innocent lives, or let all the five die. What number would you choose to save, and would it be a decision of numbers at all?
Imagine a runaway boxcar heading toward five people who can't escape its path. Now imagine you had the power to reroute the boxcar onto different tracks with only one person along that route.
The trolley problem is a series of thought experiments in ethics and psychology, involving stylized ethical dilemmas of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway tram or trolley is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) down the track, but a driver or bystander can intervene and ...
View full lesson: http://ed.ted.com/lessons/would-you-sacrifice-one-person-to-save-five-eleanor-nelsenImagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling dow...
If you flip the switch, the trolley will be redirected onto a side track, and the five people on the main track will be saved. There is, however, a single person lying on the side track, and if the trolley is diverted to there, that single person will be killed. You have two options: 1. …
Even if killing one innocent person were to save more people, it is not morally permissible because the action of killing is immoral in all cases. [Edit] Definitions [Edit] Morally Permissible An action that is allowed and/or considered "right" by the moral code of conduct set by the society in question.
In order to save the five, he would have had to kill the one person. The surgeon wisely refuses to engage in such a procedure in deference to non-maleficence. The driver of the trolley, by contrast, does have the moral obligation to kill one in order to save five, because …
Looking back at the original trolley problem, throwing one switch to divert a train so it would only kill one person rather than five, discuss whether you think you would throw the switch. Then consider the twist where you could push a rather large person (gender should make no difference) from a bridge to save the lives of five others.
She now thinks it is permissible to turn the trolley to kill the one person. b. ... a. agree that in the bystander should not kill the one to save the five. ... Thomson thinks most would not sacrifice their own lives to save five others. a. True b. False.
One could argue that the duty, i.e. moral obligation, is to save at least one life and the choice which one is not a question of morals, but of ethics (narrow sense). I think your answer is a) not kantian at all and b) not sourced in Kant, which may coincide.
The Save a Life Argument. 1. We have a choice between acting to save one infant or letting both die. 2. Acting to save one has the better outcome (one lives versus neither lives) _____ Therefore, we ought to act to save the one infant. As always, we begin by asking whether the argument is valid. The argument, as stated, is not valid.
So you can save five lives at the cost of one life. Almost everyone, when you ask them that question, says you should do that and kill the one person. ... of course you should kill the one person ...
When the negative argues that no one is innocent, the affirmative can agree - but note that in the context of the resolution, there are innocent people. The resolution asks a question of morality, and we must situate the question in a world in which the question could come to be.
A brief overview of the case: Suppose you find yourself in a situation in which killing an innocent person is the only way to prevent many innocent people from dying. What’s the right thing to do? This question arose in The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1884), a famous English law case involving four men stranded in a lifeboat without food or water.
Five of his patients need new parts — one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord — but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type.
2.1.2.1. Moral dilemmas . Four sacrificial dilemmas involving ‘up-close-and personal’ harm were presented in random order. These ‘personal’ dilemmas were drawn from Moore, Clark, and Kane (2008) and included the classic Footbridge case, in which one can save five people from a runaway trolley only by pushing another person onto the tracks, leading to their death (see Supplementary ...
It is clear that, all things being equal, it is better for one person to die than for five people to die; but it's not clear that you can kill an innocent person, even to save other people's lives. When you change variables in the situation so that the proper moral description seems to be not just "I changed things so that fewer die" but "I ...
As it turns out, Thompson declares that "most people" believe it is acceptable to divert a train away from killing five people, to kill only one, but in a variation involving pushing someone onto the track to stop the trolley, most people believe that it "would not be morally permissible for …
Hi everyone, my name is Stuart Morrison and I am the editor-in-chief and author of the Answeregy website. I am 35 years old and live in Miami, Florida. From an early age I loved to learn new things, constantly reading various encyclopedias and magazines. In 1998 I created my first Web site, where I posted interesting facts which you could rarely learn elsewhere. Then, it led me to work as a content manager for a large online publication. I always wanted to help people while doing something I really enjoyed. That's how I ended up on the answeregy.org team, where I... Read more