Mathew
21-03-2012, 10:59 PM
Hey,
This isn't a debate per se, but more of an ethical dilemma which we were discussing in Psychology a couple of weeks ago. I just found the original issue on Wikipedia, and it turns out that it was developed by a woman called Philippa Foot in 1967.
Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.
So what would you do?
Would you steer the trolley to the track with one man? Would you live with the guilt of knowing you were responsible for his death? Would you leave it hurtling towards the five people and take no action? Would you live with the guilt of knowing you're responsible for five deaths?
A very tough one indeed!
This isn't a debate per se, but more of an ethical dilemma which we were discussing in Psychology a couple of weeks ago. I just found the original issue on Wikipedia, and it turns out that it was developed by a woman called Philippa Foot in 1967.
Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five.
So what would you do?
Would you steer the trolley to the track with one man? Would you live with the guilt of knowing you were responsible for his death? Would you leave it hurtling towards the five people and take no action? Would you live with the guilt of knowing you're responsible for five deaths?
A very tough one indeed!