CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I discovered a 3rd option: Pick up train from tracks and put it down on the other side of the 10 men.
As you said "forget normal physics"
But, being serious now, I'ld have to go with yes. You shouldn't force someone to give up their life to save the lives of 10 others, if you really want to save them do it yourself, if you like your life so much say it couldn't be prevented.
I would say that if only two choices are available and both are undesirable, then committing the lesser evil is the moral thing to do. Moral actions usually (if not always) involve trade-offs of some kind, leaving one party better off than if nothing had been done and leaving the other party worse off than if nothing had been done. That's all that's happening in this situation.
As to which of the two choices is the lesser evil... by gut instinct I'd definitely say it's better to kill the one man, and in terms of moral principle I'm inclined to think that way as well. I see no moral difference between killing an innocent person without malicious intent, and letting an innocent person die without malicious intent. Both are just as undesirable. So it just comes out to a numbers game - one death is not as bad as ten deaths.
But if you think outside the box, you'll see that you can save the 10 men (plus the sacrificial lamb dude) if you just throw yourself in front of the train.
Anyway, it seems like your 1/11 way to the point where you just say, "Screw it, kill them all and let their God sort them out." ;)
Lol, yeah. I'm counting those two options as the only possible options - that there are other alternatives shows that the example just isn't good. An imperfect example can still be used to demonstrate moral principles.
(You could try patching it up by saying that you're not standing next to the guy you want to push in front of the train. Rather, you're operating some machinery from a distance. You can't rush ahead in time to get on the tracks yourself, but whatever you're operating can tilt the flooring the guy is walking on - and if you tilt it in time you'll tip him onto the tracks.)
I didn't get your second paragraph... what do you mean by that?
Basically what I mean is that people imagine all kind of scenarios where other people die but NOT themselves. And once you point it out, they come up with more elaborate scenarios where they don't have to die.
In the scenario above, either one man or ten men died but not the reader. After I pointed that out, you came up with all kinds of scenarios (tilting platforms, etc.) instead of removing the one man and replacing him with yourself. Killing yourself is the same as killing one man. But in people's minds, killing oneself is not an option. On the other hand, some poor slept standing on a tilting platform is OK.
Once you start thinking that it's OK to kill one man to save ten, you are one step away from saying, "What difference does it make? One, 10, whatever. Kill them all."
Well, you do raise a good point, that people are generally selfish and would much rather sacrifice others than sacrifice themselves. But the reason I didn't touch on the possibility of me falling onto the tracks as opposed to someone else, and I suspect the reason is the same for many other people, is that I remember the question as a variation of a familiar story. The point of the story was to demonstrate the difference between Kantian and utilitarian views - the former holds that it's never permissible to treat a person as a means and not an end, while the latter holds that the we should do whatever will cause happiness to the most people. That's all the story is for, so when it pops up, Kantianism and utilitarianism is all that people talk about. (I, for one, favoured a compromise between the two in my reply.) Alternatives like laying down your life to save the 10 men are simply irrelevant for the purposes of explaining these two views, hence they don't get mentioned, and when they are, they get brushed aside.
Because a train has much more momentum than a man. You can google videos of train suicides if you don't buy Newton's mechanics, but I must warn you. They are very real and very graphic.
You said, Let's assume jumping in front of the train would just squash you and not stop it.
I thought you meant that if you just threw yourself in front of the train, instead of throwing the guy in the debate in front of the train, that you would get squished.
So I was wondering that if you threw yourself in front of the train and got squished, why doesn't the guy in the debate get squished when you throw him in front of the train?
I just saw the description about the other person stopping the train. I assumed it was the classical "pull the lever" problem. That idea is flawed. A human isn't going to stop a train, but I see your point about sacrifice. This question was just asked very poorly. It should have been asked in a way that it would be impossible to sacrifice yourself and in a way that doesn't violate obvious physics.
Yes and no, In a idealistic world, the man would sacrifice himself and the other would live to be productive members of society. However since we are living in a realistic world, the man would have equal right to kill you simply because you decided to take his life without his consent.
Assuming I cannot be the one man, it is indeed wrong. Utilitarianism is a very flawed concept. You should not use basic arithmetic to try to determine the value of life. It is impossible to know how the individuals involved in the scenario will go on to directly or indirectly help or harm society. I always use the example of an average person walking past one of human's geniuses, in the possibility that some average person triggered an incredible idea in the mind of a genius. So perhaps if that average person hadn't existed, those genius ideas might not as well. The fact is, we can't fully measure a person's importance, especially not with basic arithmetic.
I agree with you that it is impossible to know how the individuals involved in the scenario will directly/indirectly help/harm society. You go on to talk about the benefits that one person can bring... "the possibility that some average person triggered an incredible idea in the mind of a genius"
If one person could be a genius, then what about 10?
You cannot know the value of each person to society, like you have stated. I therefore think that it is a matter of simple arithmetic.
In this scenario we cannot know who is of more/less value so we assume they are all equal.
I wasn't positing one person as a genius, just an average person that might have an impact of unknown intensity on society somehow.
That bolded sentence is not found within the argument description. Traditionally this argument involves a batch of random people, not ones who are qualitatively identical. If it were, arithmetic might be able to solve the problem. It could be the right thing to do then, but it would still be immoral. You would still be plagued as a murderer. Where as if you didn't murder the man you wouldn't be directly responsible for the deaths of the other ten. It would be the person/nature that put them there in the first place.
You are saying that you are not responsible for the death of the 10 men, but you are for the 1. I think that you are responsible for the death of the 10 men if you stand idly by, letting them die. You kill them out of neglect.
Imagine a different scenario; 10 Men are going to be killed unless you can press one button to save them.
If you stand there and don't press the button then you are a criminal for you can do something to save those people. You have a duty to rescue/duty of care over them. If you press the button then you are responsible for saving their lives.
The original scenario just changes this button to the death of 1. Another way to think about it is this: If you kill the 1 in order to save the 10, you are directly responsible for the survival of the 10 men. They will no doubt thank you for saving them. If you are responsible for their life then you are also responsible for their lack of life.
It's a selfish detachment to claim that you aren't responsible for the deaths of the other 10.
Also, if one average person might have an positive impact of unknown intensity on society somehow, then how about 10?
You are saying that you are not responsible for the death of the 10 men, but you are for the 1. I think that you are responsible for the death of the 10 men if you stand idly by, letting them die. You kill them out of neglect.
But you wouldn't have been the direct cause of their deaths. For example (a bit of a creative one), let's assume some extremely advanced alien has "hacked" your Central Nervous System. They want you to kill an innocent person, and they threaten to kill many others if you do not comply. So let's say that you refuse, and they actually do kill ten people. They would still be the killers. To say that you would be the negligent killer because you didn't kill an innocent person is ludicrous.
Imagine a different scenario; 10 Men are going to be killed unless you can press one button to save them.
If you stand there and don't press the button then you are a criminal for you can do something to save those people. You have a duty to rescue/duty of care over them. If you press the button then you are responsible for saving their lives.
The original scenario just changes this button to the death of 1. Another way to think about it is this: If you kill the 1 in order to save the 10, you are directly responsible for the survival of the 10 men. They will no doubt thank you for saving them. If you are responsible for their life then you are also responsible for their lack of life.
It's a selfish detachment to claim that you aren't responsible for the deaths of the other 10.
The problem is, what gives you the right to determine who lives and who dies? That power should not belong to anyone in the modern world.
Also, if one average person might have an positive impact of unknown intensity on society somehow, then how about 10?
The only statement that is certain regarding the positive impacts of the 11 men is "I don't know." You don't know what those men will do. Perhaps all 10 of them will do awful things for society, perhaps not. The key fact is, you do not know enough about the men to play judge. Also, killing that one man is murder. That is an inescapable truth.
Your analogy is flawed. In the original scenario you are the one who has two options:
You kill the one man.
You don't kill the one man and let 10 die. We don't have any explanation as to why they are being killed, we are told they are innocent. If you don't act then you are letting 10 people die. You can easily act and save their lives. It is murder if you let them die. You have a duty of care over them.
This is your choice and you are the one who is killing the people. You are directly responsible for their deaths. With your analogy you are not responsible for the death of the 10 men, but neither are you for the death of 1.
The problem is, what gives you the right to determine who lives and who dies? That power should not belong to anyone in the modern world.
The point of this scenarios is that it is up to you who lives and who dies.
Also, killing that one man is murder. That is an inescapable truth.
Letting 10 people die when you have the power to save them is also murder. Both are wrong, it becomes a question of which is the lesser evil? Which is less wrong? At the end of the day, there are only two outcomes. (Presuming suicide is not an option.)
9 People die
1 Person dies.
All are innocent. Would you rather 9 innocent lives die or just 1?
In what way? Your argument is flaw for not explaining why, and addressing the original description does not directly refute my analogy.
We don't have any explanation as to why they are being killed, we are told they are innocent. If you don't act then you are letting 10 people die. You can easily act and save their lives. It is murder if you let them die. You have a duty of care over them.
But you must kill another to do it. That is absolutely murder. In regards to letting the other dying being murder, let me make another example to help you better understand my point. Let's say a baseball closer is trying to close a game in which his team has the lead 5-4 (he is responsible for no earned runs at this point), and there is a man on base at first. Let's say that he ignores the type of pitch he wanted to throw and goes with the catcher's suggestion instead. He throws the pitch, which then gets hit over the wall in the outfield for a home run, and his team loses the game. Is he responsible for that loss? No, seeing how he didn't even put the team in that close position in the first place (5-4).
The point of this scenarios is that it is up to you who lives and who dies.
Who grants you that right to decide?
All are innocent. Would you rather 9 innocent lives die or just 1?
You cannot weigh the quality of life by simple numbers, as there is more to humans than that (as I mentioned earlier) and I have yet to see you show sufficient evidence to the contrary of that.
I do not believe that you can weigh the quality of life by simple numbers. But the fact is that there are 11 people who you assume are of equal value and equal worth to society. If there was a difference in the men's value then that could obviously change who you choose to die.
If all men are equal (and presumably of equal value) then why do you prefer 10 die rather than just 1?
You are in a position where if you act you save 10 people's lives and 1 dies.
If you don't act then you save 1 person's life and 10 die.
The question revolves around the lesser of two evils. Of course both are horrible outcomes, but which one is less so? Please argue how you think 9 people dying is better than 1.
Where does it say in the description that the men are equal? Such a scenario would be incredibly unrealistic, as this utilitarian debate typically deals with 11 random people.
10 people dying is a very tragic thing, but I do not believe an individual has the right to save them by killing another individual.
Even if for some reason they were not, how would you have any idea?
If you do not save ten people then you kill them. At the end of the day that is what will have occured. For effectively you have just killed them by not saving them from a train.
In this case, where everyone is 'innocent', well. I suppose I would do it, but it still wouldn't be 'right'. What if that man was the one who had been untying other say, 50 people tied down?
What if the man had saved numerous other lives already from a similar fate? Would it still be right to push him?
Die trying to save the ten other men and you will only face this challenge once but everyone that hears of your bravery will make sure you live on in infamy.
Maybe it's really better if you do not, because you're not sure that the train will stop at a crash and then you maybe 11 people, and if you do nothing survives anyway 1 of 11. It is a very tough choice, because anything is possible.
Not so, the ultimate act of throwing yourself in is an altruistic act, and as a consequence leaves the best outcome for everyone, if you sacrifice your own life and save 11 people, you are committing the most morally sound act, more morally sound than murdering another individual to save yourself. While Joe's answer may not be considered in the dilemma by those that wish it merely to be how we value life and a mechanism for discussing consequentialism, it nevertheless is valid as such is not asked in the debate description.
Not so, the ultimate act of throwing yourself in is an altruistic act, and as a consequence leaves the best outcome for everyone, if you sacrifice your own life and save 11 people, you are committing the most morally sound act, more morally sound than murdering another individual to save yourself.
Sacrificing yourself is not the purpose of the argument. The argument is about the ethics involved with whether or not one has the right to make a decision about others (meaning to kill others to save some others). In real life, saving yourself would be a noble and probably the best act, but let me remind you that there are trains involved in this scenario. A frail human body would only be able to affect this scenario by pulling the lever (or whatever it was)
Sacrificing yourself is not the purpose of the argument.
I'm aware of this, hence I didn't put in a post on this, but the debate description leaves a glaringly obvious hole in the premise, and Joe exploited it.
I've heard this question asked before in a far more understandable dilemma that gave parameters, there was a lever that could be pulled if I'm not mistaken that would save the lives of the ten men aboard the runaway carriage that was destined for a collision with something, if the lever was pulled (by you) then it would divert the train onto another track on which there stood one lone man, he would be killed outright but the ten would be saved. This scenario fits the Utilitarian question quite well as we already have established and far better than the haphazard retelling that this debate is.
I think we both can agree that the description is flawed. It should have been setup in a way that allows sacrificing to not occur, and in a way that doesn't violate the obviousness of momentum. (i.e. a man's body will not stop a moving train)
If what your doing is evil in nature. Killing one innocent man. So that a ten are saved seems tragic. If you have an option of such a nature. Quit that and find a new solution. But if the man is a stupid bad man. Go ahead.
How can you determine the quality of life with basic arithmetic? What if the one man you condemn to death was actually going to do something incredibly positive for humanity?
I have looked all over this debate to find the premise you are necessitating the inclusion of. I believe that you are adding an unrealistic condition to the argument to best fit your viewpoint.
Would it be him adding the unrealistic condition to the argument to fit his viewpoint when you are the one who brought said unrealistic condition up in the first place? You brought the man's possible great act up first, he simply stated that it is also possible the other ten could do the same. So because he amplified your situation by ten, it is him using an unrealistic condition to best fit his viewpoint? I do not see that to be reasonable.
Interestingly, there is a website that tests the morality of volunteers, and a question like this is part of the tests. I've taken the test myself and I answered that I would (given that all 11 are innocent).
The statistics of the tests have shown that people who describe themselves to be Libertarian are far more likely to vote that they would do it. Conservatives and Liberals, on the other hand, were very unlikely to say that they would do it (push the man in the way).
Is it wrong? Well, wrong, to me, is subjective. In every situation where there are two main options, I find the wrong option to be the one that is more evil. To me, it is the right thing to do to push that man in the way of the train, for it would have been wrong, for me, to let the train kill 10 people just to let 1 live. It is subjective and is based more on your rational. People who find themselves to be more Libertarian see that ten innocent lives is more worth saving than one innocent life. Now, the course of events could have been altered by your decision, but there is no way to be sure of something like that. ten lives vs. one, i choose the ten.
That's interesting, and upon hindsight it actually is quite predictable.
Conservatives are the kind of people who think in terms of personal responsibility, duty, and respect of the law. They believe that individuals who strive to better themselves should be rewarded, those who won't help themselves don't deserve help, and those who harm others should be punished.
Liberals, on the other hand, tend to think in terms of societies rather than individuals, hence they want to give more resources to marginalised groups at the expense of more successful people, and they will help even people who have harmed society. Their paramount focus is improving quality of life for everyone.
Considering their general outlooks, it's not surprising that conservatives believe it is worse to violate a fundamental law against killing, whereas liberals do a head count and say ten deaths are worse than one.
I do know I went on a tangent. If you want to read my contribution to the moral issue at hand, you can read the post I made on the other side of the debate.
Actually, in the test (as I said), Liberals and Conservatives were far less likely to kill one to save ten, unlike Libertarians, who see ten lives as more valuable than one life.
But if you think outside the box, you'll see that you can save the 10 men (plus the sacrificial lamb dude) if you just throw yourself in front of the train.
Anyway, it seems like your 1/11 way to the point where you just say, "Screw it, kill them all and let their God sort them out." ;)
I remember thinking something similar to this after watching the movie Clash of the Titans (the new one) when then are asking for the sacrifice of one innocent woman to save the whole town.
I think if it's a person responsible for what is going on then yes but I don't think I can push someone off that was just as innocent as the people on the tracks but I just might throw myself instead of trying to make someone else go.
Why not just throw items from the train to do the same thing instead of using other people?
No, but if it is possible to swap over the track so the train the other direction. When that happens is people see the track at the station, and that all trains stop put. Then you can remove those 10 people and no one will die.
The other person is a normal "Joe" or also a bad guy.
and are the rapists still going or have they stopped?
All the bad people, if they survive, will still be doing their bad business.
Even if by letting the ten die you would essentially save hundreds or even thousands? By not enabling the ten dead ones to do their evil business. Let ten die now to save many more later.
personaly i value human life, i wouldn't want to even kill the one man. but if the situtation happens then i would save the ten over the one.
I value human life too, but my system of valuation is not that simple. I try to look at every aspect and consider them all.
The taxpayers pay for keeping them well fed and alive in prison while that money could be used in so many better ways. The families that were harmed give their part for keeping them alive, they are supporting those who hurt them. Essentially, the criminals hurt them and get paid for it by the ones who they hurt.
Keeping prisoners who do not contribute to the rest is pointless, it is a waste of resources.
Criminals as bad as rapists, and worse, do not deserve life, they deserve death. Or a lifetime forced labor. They knew what they were doing while doing it and still did it (not including mentally ill criminals), and would very probably do it again if given a chance. If they committed sexual crimes then they should also be sterilized. Sterilizing could actually work on others too. There are certain substances that would not be produced any longer.
The current criminal system is a joke.
Let's look at it another way. If you had to choose between ten unknown persons and your loved one? Would you still save the ten?
That, like i have said alot, depends. If i am mad at the person then i could kill them.
But most likely i wouldn't kill them. Depending on the situtation (and how i would die) i would wait for someone else to steep forwards or do it my self.
