buckaroo
Here kitty, kitty, kitty
I heard a very interesting professor today on the radio talking about how they believe that certain moralities are inborn in humans and thus, it isn't just a learned thing. Anyway, he gave three different scenarios where the outcome is exactly the same, but people don't look at it the same way.
You are standing in the street in San Francisco and you see a runaway trolley car barrelling down the street, heading towards five people who are unaware of what is heading their way. You have the ability to throw a switch which is by you to move the trolley car onto another line where there is only one man standing there. You know that if you allow the trolley car to proceed as it is, five people will be killed. If you throw the switch however, only one person will be killed. Is it moral to throw the switch to save five people for the sacrifice of one?
In that scenario, the studies find that most people agree that it is indeed moral to save five people for the life of one person.
Next scenario...same situation, but instead of having a switch close by, you are able to grab a very huge man who is close and throwing him in front of the trolley car, you will kill him, but again you will save the five people.
Here, most people in the study said that this wasn't moral. The difference here is that in the first case, you aren't actually touching the person who ends up dead.
Last scenario...you are a doctor in the emergency room. They bring in five people and tell you that if they don't have organ transplants soon, they will die. All of different organs that need to be replaced. In walks a very healthy man. Would you kill that man to give the five the organs they need to live?
Here, almost everyone said that was a no no, yet it too had the very same results as the first scenario.
Then they turned the tables and started off with the last scenario and moved to the first. As you can imagine the results were not the same.
So, what is moral and what isn't?
You are standing in the street in San Francisco and you see a runaway trolley car barrelling down the street, heading towards five people who are unaware of what is heading their way. You have the ability to throw a switch which is by you to move the trolley car onto another line where there is only one man standing there. You know that if you allow the trolley car to proceed as it is, five people will be killed. If you throw the switch however, only one person will be killed. Is it moral to throw the switch to save five people for the sacrifice of one?
In that scenario, the studies find that most people agree that it is indeed moral to save five people for the life of one person.
Next scenario...same situation, but instead of having a switch close by, you are able to grab a very huge man who is close and throwing him in front of the trolley car, you will kill him, but again you will save the five people.
Here, most people in the study said that this wasn't moral. The difference here is that in the first case, you aren't actually touching the person who ends up dead.
Last scenario...you are a doctor in the emergency room. They bring in five people and tell you that if they don't have organ transplants soon, they will die. All of different organs that need to be replaced. In walks a very healthy man. Would you kill that man to give the five the organs they need to live?
Here, almost everyone said that was a no no, yet it too had the very same results as the first scenario.
Then they turned the tables and started off with the last scenario and moved to the first. As you can imagine the results were not the same.
So, what is moral and what isn't?