Yakk

You are in a small town. Ahead of you are two people.

One, and old man, near the end of his life.
The other, a young man, with his future ahead of him.

Both are caught on a rail road track, and there is a train headed towards them.

You are absolutely sure you could have one of them, and absolutely sure you could not save both of them.

Now, the old man lived a pious life. He is loved by all. But he will fade and die shortly of natural causes.

The young man is a juvinile delinquent. He vandalizes, bullies, and is generally a real git. But he has his whole life ahead of him.

Who would you save?

...

...

Please think about and answer the above question before looking at and answering the next question:
Spoiler: Now, what if it was Aug 06, 1945, the little town was Hiroshima, and it is 8:10 am, 5 minutes before the atomic bomb drops. Does your answer change?

(to read spoiler text, simply highlight it with your mouse.)

...

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Brewmaniac

I say to the kid are going to straight up and be a descent human being or are you going to continue being a f*** up.

If answers me in a respectful way I take him, say may the lord be with you to the old man. If he's obnoxious, I grab the old man and say the same to the young one.

__________________
"That's a joke... I say, that's a joke, son"

Yakk

You have no time to ask them questions.

If you talk to the kid, you won't have time to save the old man. Heck, if you waste time talking, you won't have time to save the kid -- he'll die while you are gabbing away.

Pick. You have your information -- one is a young kid, at the start of his life, but a real jerk. The other is a saintly old man, and the end of his life.

Do you choose to save one? If so, which one do you save.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

jorgelito

Interesting, I chose the kid, jerk or not. The Hiroshima thing didn't enter into it.

I guess presumably the old man would die from the train (hopefully quickly and relatively painlessly.

The Hiroshima thing just reinforced my decision. If the kid is truly "that bad", then he will get his either by being vaporized or suffering through the aftermath of the bomb.

If I were an anti-war guy, I guess I would have saved the old guy (presumably to old to serve in the army) to prevent another kid from going into their army and thus potentially saving countless more lives.

Talking to the kid is weird. I don't see the point. We're not judge and jury here, we just have a little opportunity to save another human being. In that case, rational choice seems to be prudent. Therefore, it makes the most sense to save the one who has either the best odds of survival or best potential in life.

Willravel

Question #1: I'd save whoever I was closer to. Hopefully, in saving a few seconds, I'd have time to try and save the other person aswell. I don't particularly want to play God and decide who lives and dies. If there is a God, that's his/her call.

Question #2: Spoiler: I'm confused. Am I, in this hypothetical, aware of the bomb? If so, my answer doesn't change. I imagine that being ripped apart by a train is slightly more painful than being atomized by a thermonuclear reaction. If not, my answer still stayts the same.

MexicanOnABike

save the old man. then push the young guy as far off so that if the train comes by, only his leg will be ripped off. that way you save both.

and if i'm about to get blown up by a bomb anyways, i'd just sit there and watch em both get run over. why bother if they'd die anyways?

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

Ch'i

For the first question I would try to save both, with priority to the kid.

In the second question I'd do the same, but it wouldn't matter because twelve miles in five minutes is an unrealistic goal.

feelgood

Save myself. Why would I want to risk my life saving a old man who lived a full life? Or why would I want to risk y life saving a punk ass kid?

Spoiler: Wouldn't make a differences, you're fucked either way.

__________________
Looking out the window, that's an act of war. Staring at my shoes, that's an act of war. Committing an act of war? Oh you better believe that's an act of war

Xera

If time were that short, I doubt that I would have time to really analyze my actions. I think I would probably save the older guy, because it is somewhat instinctual for me to reach out for the person that appears the least able to save themselves. Or at least I think it is, having never actually been in that possition.

second option: <span style="background-color:White;color:White;">I doubt that given the time to reflect strongly on my choice there is very little chance that my answer would change.</span>

__________________

~~^~<@Xera @>~^~~

Etarip

One life is worth the same as another, as the kid has more years left to live I would attempt to save him first. I don't understand how it being in Hiroshima would change the situation.

qtpye4u84

The old guy cause hes old and slow screw the kid he should try to get his own self out if hes such a delinquent he has probably had some pratice getting out things.

I wouldnt know about the bomb so I would do what ever I thought was right.

__________________
The QTpie

scottstall

The kid, the kid, and the kid again. Unless I had omniscience that the kid is gonna turn into pure unadulterated evil, the kind that isn't going to come back, I'd save the kid.

Letting the kid die is vengeance and it sounds like in this case for transgressions not commited against yours or your own, saving the old man is a very weak kind of karma, doing good unto the good, but undue punishment more than cancels the good karma of that by not choosing the kid. And take someone that lives by a short sighted kind of selfishness and show them what they're going to percieve as benevolence despite past actions, and (I hope) most of the time they're gonna turn a new leaf and be worth the skin their in. If they don't, then I don't want anything to do with them anymore, and if they force their way into my life, I'll force them right back out.

Thats from a mix of an eye in the sky perspective and my own, as an outsider answering a hypothetical.

From the kids perspective, judging on past actions, he's gonna hold it against you if you don't save him. Not that it really matters with him dying unless the afterlife is some weird kind of ill will of other people coming back to haunt you, but thats a little beside the point.

From the old mans, he's lived a saints life, he's gonna understand. Even if the kids gonna be hitler and he knows it, a true saint would lay his life down for him, to make the point to the populace that everyone, everyone, everyone is loved from on high. I think thats me adding a little bit more to the lived a saints life than you mean though. If the old man doesn't know about the kid, he's gonna go with the kid, and if the old man does know about the kid and still think he should be saved, he's speaking from fear of impending death, or he's being selfish from a societal point of view. Not that I blame him, but... no. Ain't gonna happen.

As for the hiroshima twist, that isn't really a twist. Do you know the bombs gonna be dropped, did anyone know that except for those that ordered it and those that followed orders? Suppose you did, and you knew you had time to save one of them, and survive the bomb. Kid, still. Suppose you couldn't save anyone but yourself and if you tried to save one, you died in the impending bomb blast. Then, you aren't really saving anyone, "saving" them is trading years of your life for minutes of theirs. Not happening. Basically, it all ends up being save the kid and yourself, just yourself, or try to ignore them getting run over by a train while you appreciate the last few seconds of life you have, if you have knowledge of the bomb and your all gonna die no matter what. Saving them would be giving a kind of false hope, which isn't really a disservice, they'd be rather happy, but your trading your happiness for theirs. Not happening, at least for me.

A more interesting twist would be suppose the old man is a millionaire, hasn't declared an heir, and your pretty sure your getting the money if you save him and he'll be dying soon irregardless of if you save him or not.

Philangicality

I would save neither and get the fuck off of the track.

Deltona Couple

After reading the other posts, I can see something is hidden in the situation, but I haven't read the spoiler. Assuming that they were tied to the track, or something like that, I would save the old man, and while doing so tell the kid to get the fuck off the track!...or atleast fall over so he only loses his legs at the most. Not really enough good information. but yea, I would hope the kid could save himself.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

vanblah

I don't believe in predestination, omnipotence or omniscience so I can't answer this question until I'm faced with the situation.

So tell me, what is this supposed to reveal about the person answering?

Yakk

No, this isn't predistination, omnipotence, omniscience. It is simply "who do you think you would save".

This isn't a trite pop psychology question. I'm not trying to trap you. I just want to see a bunch of perspectives on a somewhat interesting ethical question.

There isn't a right answer.

There is, I suppose, at least one wrong one. "I would go and bugger the old man" would be a wrong answer. @_@

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Carno

The spoiler really killed this question for me. What a dumb kink to add. It renders any action null and void, as all three of you will die anyway.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Yakk

Did you answer the question before looking at the spoiler? It is two different questions.

Carno, to some people it makes who you save irrelivent. To others, the fact that you will all die in a few minutes is irrelivent.

My personal favourate answer:
"Save either of them -- which one doesn't matter. Just save one."
and, to the bomb:
"The bomb landing makes no difference. You save someone's life when you can."

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Carno

Yes, I decided that I would save the younger person, but in reality it doesn't matter because you will all die in five minutes anyway. Who you save does not matter. Not saving anyone doesn't matter.

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

soccerchamp76

I agree with Carno. It isn't a twist, it just makes the decision worthless.

__________________
Brian Griffin: Ah, if my memory serves me, this is the physics department.
Chris Griffin: That would explain all the gravity.

timothy4testes

id save the boy maybe it would turn his life around

and why the hell would my answer change

Yakk

First, there is more than one question. The spoiler is a second, what if, addition. You can answer the first question and the second question seperately.

Secondly...

Everyone dies. If not in 5 minutes, they'll die in 80 years.

What if the certain death was 1 hour away? 1 day away? 1 year away? 10 years away? 100 years away?

When does the certain doom of inevidable death make savings someone's life no longer worthwhile. I am curious!

Remember, I'm not saying you are wrong. This kind of ethical puzzle is ambiguous enough that claiming someone else is wrong is very questionable.

I just want to know what you think and why you think it. Understanding how other people view ethical problems is interesting!

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Gilda

Most likely whoever was closest.

__________________
I'm against ending blackness. I believe that everyone has a right to be black, it's a choice, and I support that.

~Steven Colbert

Carno

Well, my answer wouldn't change for any of those additions. Assuming both were the same distance from me, I would still save the younger guy no matter when we were going to die. I'd still save the younger guy even if I knew a bomb was on the way.

Plus I hate old people, so even if there was only the old guy on the railroad tracks I would probably just push him down to ensure he couldn't get away.


Heh, j/k

__________________
http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/

Deltona Couple

Actually I disagree with you on your choice of terms. This question brings up absolutely NOTHING on ethics....This would be considered a MORAL question, not ethical.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

Zeraph

It would depend a lot on how bad the kid was and how old exactly. Is this a kid kid? Like 13-15 years old? Or is this an 18 or 19 year old who kicks the shit out of people?

And just how old is this guy? In these times a 60 year old could live and work another 10-25 years.

This would really come down to how well I knew both of them. For the most part age doesn't matter to me. I can't put a value on the time someone has left. '

So the bomb wouldn't have changed my answer. I get the point of it though which is who would you save if their lifespan was the same? Someone more "innocent" or someone more "worthy"?

roachboy

i have never really liked the prisoner's dilemma, mostly because it is an aesthetic game, having only to do with how you would like to imagine yourself acting in a situation.

these dilemma things usually work via a series of frame assumptions that are more or less absurd: in this case, biographical criteria are included in place of information that would be more relevant in real time (like relative positions, speed of the train, etc.) and such ethical content as there is to whatever choice one makes follows from meta-criteria that would be brought to bear on that choice--why x and not y kind of thing.

so i do not know what i would do.
there is a train.
it is approaching.
who really cares about the intricacy of the biographies of each person on the tracks?
if this was taken as a way of modelling a choice, then the problem it raises lay in the problem itself, simply because by the time you sorted out your most "ethical" choice, both would no doubt be dead and you would have watched it happen.

but maybe the real lesson of the prisoner's dilemma is: all that matters is that you were "Grappling with a Problem" as you watched both get spattered.

that way, you can tell yourself that you "Grappled with a Problem" instead of doing anything and once the shock wore off, i am sure that this would have great therapeutic effect.

thinking about it more....what gilda said seems reasonable. whomever is closest.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

j0hnb

Personally, i would save the kid. This is a decision I would like to make. Choosing one or another. But if through action I would be able to save one life, I would do it without hesitation knowing that through inaction I would be killing/letting two lives end.

The old man, would be a person I believe one would have more to gain by saving. He could be a man with a lot of wisdom, and respect. Thus making him a more ideal person in the end. But since he would shortly die of natural causes and believing that he has lived a pious life he would want you to save the kid who has a long life ahead of him. Assuming that the idiot doesn't get caught in the tracks again.

Saving the kid, though he's nothing but trouble, would allow him to have a longer life and with any luck he would turn his life around. If I knew he was a deviant I would attempt to befriend or at least direct him in a path that would make the most out of the new life he was granted.

The bomb has no effect on the answer. Assuming the old man is a pious person he would be ok with his death, if it meant saving the kid. The old man would have made his peace a while ago. So I would still save the kid. I would be curious to see what his final words are before the blast waves hit us. Hell it would be one hell of a firework show.

Jinn

The reason this post does seem a bit 'pop pyschology' to me is that you've defined things unncessarily and you've also left other things vague enough that they have no basis in reality. Therefore, a clarification of constraints:

* You emphasized in the first post that it was a small town.

Why does that have relevance? It seems to prey on the likelihood that we'll consciously or unconciously read that and choose the one more likely to continue the species. After all, we're programmed to reproduce and "save" our species by protecting those who will continue it. The smaller the 'town,' the more important it is for us to save those who will be reproductively successful.

* You said that the old man is "near the end of his life."

How near? Five years, ten years, 25 years? You could be justified in calling a 45 year old father an "old man" but I hardly think he is near the end of his life. How would I know his age? By phrasing it this way, you're shaping the answers to prefer the young man. I could seen a solid justification for saving him if he were a working father of 2 or more. In that way, he might contribute more to society than the non-reproductive 'young man.'

* You said that "you are absolutely sure you could have one of them, and absolutely sure you could not save both of them."

As mentioned earlier, you're creating an omniscent situation. There's no way you could know this with any reasonable degree of certainty. I also find it interesting that you said "You are absolutely sure" that I can't save both, not that this is true. I can be "absolutely sure" that I won't die tommorow, but that doesn't make it the truth, especially after the fact. I would definitely attempt to save both, simply in the case that my "absolute" reasoning were incorrect.

* You said that "the young man is a juvinile delinquent. He vandalizes, bullies, and is generally a real git. But he has his whole life ahead of him."

Again, you place omniscent abilities in our situation. How do I know that he's a delinquent? The only plausible way I would know that is through either (a) witnessing this behavior first hand or (b) because I know the young man personally. If it is (a), we'd naturally be less likely to save the young man. However, if this knowledge comes from knowing the young man well enough, we'd naturally save the person we are more familiar with, and know the most about.

Furthermore, I don't know that I associate vandalizing and bullying with being a delinquent. Has he been arrested for such crimes? What kind of vandalism? Was it tagging as art, or was it simply "WEZ SYDE R0X" sprayed haphazardly on the side of a bus?

Also; how do we know that he has his whole life ahead of him? Unless we have omniscience, this is an impossibility. You're asking us to not only consider a hypothetical situation, but one that could never occur. There is a lot of information here that we'd have no way of knowing. However, by including the statement that he "has his whole life ahead of him" you again favor the young man as 'the choice.

My final contention is that you'd likely know how the two individuals both ended up stranded ON A RAILROAD TRACK. The reason that they were both there (the 'delinquent' was going to tag a train, the old man was .. out walking his dog') could demonstrably affect your choice.

In short - you're forcing a decision in a situation where many things are "set in stone" that would never be reasonably so in a real occurance. There are lots of things I wouldn't know, including by inability to save both. As such my answer is the one that I chose; I was incorrect in beleiving I could not save both, and was able to save both. I know you're trying to control the outcome such that we're forced to decide, but I know that I will never be in a position such as the one described above and will never BE forced to make this decision.

__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

vanblah

It is a question of predestination etc.

You have said that the old man is going to die in a few weeks. How do I know that?

You say that the young man is a "bad person." How do I know that? Am I a part of the community? Do I know everyone and everthing about this community?

You said that, "I would go and bugger the old man" is a wrong answer. How is that possible? What if I am a serial killer with a penchant for buggering old men tied to train tracks? Then the supposed "wrong" answer seems appropriate.

The fact is, I don't know what I would do until faced with this situation in the real world. Any answer I give really reveals nothing about me or the question.

Yakk

/shrug -- then you could say "I save one, then try to save the other".

I could have described some convoluted situation where you only have a hope of saving one (they are both stuck on a railroad switch, and the controls for each switch are 20 seconds sprint away in opposite directions. The train will run over both of them in 30 seconds. The controls for each switch include a metal-plate covered button that will release each of them), and then add in extra details every time someone finds a hole in my description... but what would be the point of it? It would distract from the discussion I'm interested in, namely, which life would you choose to save?

Yes, I included null-noises that describe the two people being killed. "You have your whole life ahead of you" is true of every human being.

Some people evaluate the value of saving someone's life by how much more life they have to live. Others don't. Heck, you could value someone's life by their replacement cost -- how many resources would it take to create someone equivilent (which would tend to value older people more than younger people). And some people do a combination of the two.

vanblah, I'm a believer in moral relativity. Not the moral relativity of "everything is relative", but the moral relativity that is analagous to the theory of relativity.

The theory of relativity states "many things are relative, but the speed of light isn't one of them". Many moral problems are relative to your cultural situation, or have no "right" answer, but I believe in moral absolutes. You don't have to agree with me about my moral absolutes, and I don't have to be able to express them.

But that still means I feel justified in saying "running up and buggering the old man" is the wrong answer to this ethical question. Even if you are a serial killer who likes buggering old men tied to train tracks.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ourcrazymodern?

I'd let them both be run over by the train and be "Sure" (as sure as I could be) that I wasn't hit by the train as well!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT