Soloray Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Was watching this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUsGDVOCLVQ And it got me thinking, Provided two scenarios, would you do what was necessary to save the people? Both scenarios are inclusive only of your moral choice not of any law system behind them. Scenario 1 There's a train coming and there is a fork in the road. On one of the rails where the train is headed, there are five people unable to move and would very clearly DIE should that train continue along it's path. On the other rail, there is one person taking their time crossing it. You are at a switch which can change the path of the train BUT: A)Should you press that switch, you'd save those five people BUT that one person taking their time to cross would meet their end at that train B) Should you not press that switch, those five people would die and that one person would happily make it across. Would you press the Switch? Scenario 2 The same situation only this time, you are on a walk over with very low railing and there's a huge person in front of you. In the rails below, there are 5 persons and that train is coming towards them. You have two options: a) You toss the person over which would provide enough of "stopping momentum" so that the people won't die or b) You leave the person as they were and the people get crushed by the train. Would you toss the man over? Youtube doesn't have polls so I wanna see the proportions of Yes and No for each scenario. Link to post Share on other sites
qwair Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has nothing to do with being a psychopath. And an obvious no to both. Accidental death that is caused by someone else is always more moral than me actually murdering someone on purpose, regardless of numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
Soloray Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has nothing to do with being a psychopath. And an obvious no to both. Accidental death that is caused by someone else is always more moral than me actually murdering someone on purpose, regardless of numbers. The question was basically the same used in the youtube video and at the end he explained that psychopaths have a no distinction between moral and immoral decision. Link to post Share on other sites
anon. Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? If you wanna answer it, put your answer in spoilers so other people can have some fun too...(or ya know, if you've already heard this question and know the answer). :) Link to post Share on other sites
Soloray Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? If you wanna answer it, put your answer in spoilers so other people can have some fun too...(or ya know, if you've already heard this question and know the answer). :) Yea I saw that one when I was browsing for these kinds of videos, initially I thought it was the older sister's husband or something and she killed him out of greed but apparently SPOILER: The younger sister apparently wanted to see the man again Link to post Share on other sites
anon. Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? If you wanna answer it, put your answer in spoilers so other people can have some fun too...(or ya know, if you've already heard this question and know the answer). :) Yea I saw that one when I was browsing for these kinds of videos, initially I thought it was the older sister's husband or something and she killed him out of greed but apparently SPOILER: The younger sister apparently wanted to see the man again YA IKR? I was actually kind of disappointed I got it wrong. :D I love looking for these kinds of questions on the net...I've found others, but none that stuck with me as well as that one. Link to post Share on other sites
qwair Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has nothing to do with being a psychopath. And an obvious no to both. Accidental death that is caused by someone else is always more moral than me actually murdering someone on purpose, regardless of numbers. The question was basically the same used in the youtube video and at the end he explained that psychopaths have a no distinction between moral and immoral decision. Ah yes, now it's clear. I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would choose yes in any scenario, so I didn't get the relevance at first. :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? Attempted answer: Since the man was at the mother's funeral, he will probably come to the sister's funeral too. Is that right? Link to post Share on other sites
anon. Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? Attempted answer: Since the man was at the mother's funeral, he will probably come to the sister's funeral too. Is that right? Holy shiznuts. :O I don't know if I should be jealous you got it right on your first attempt or scared for/of you. :P Link to post Share on other sites
Soloray Posted October 2, 2013 Author Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has nothing to do with being a psychopath. And an obvious no to both. Accidental death that is caused by someone else is always more moral than me actually murdering someone on purpose, regardless of numbers. The question was basically the same used in the youtube video and at the end he explained that psychopaths have a no distinction between moral and immoral decision. Ah yes, now it's clear. I can't understand for the life of me why anyone would choose yes in any scenario, so I didn't get the relevance at first. Well someone chose Yes in both Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I personally dont give much shit about strangers, but saying yes to any of these would make me responsible for someones death and by saying no their death was none of my buisness. If I could pull one person out of the way without killing someone else however, that I would probably do, but the scenarios above... I wouldnt even consider doin what is suggested. Link to post Share on other sites
Verust Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I do not think anyone can truly know what they would do unless they were put in that situation. Link to post Share on other sites
qwair Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Holy shiznuts. :oI don't know if I should be jealous you got it right on your first attempt or scared for/of you. :P Yeah, well, I know I have problems with emotional thinking, empathy and social convention, that could have 'helped' me with the answer, but I'm not a psychopath, I have a different personality disorder. I think that in reality they ask a more detailed series of questions to really make sure you fit all the criteria and not just the reduced empathy and emotional coldness, which are shared with other mental issues and personality types. Well someone chose Yes in both At least they're being consistent :D I wouldn't want to be beside them when people are in danger though, they might decide to use me as cannon fodder... Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Setting one: Press the switch, I believe. But impossible for me to know, as I will handle it quite differently when I'm first there. Also I can rationalise it with that he's on the tracks himself, and he knows of the dangers he put himself in Setting two: Following the "rationalizing" from above, not toss the guy. But still, maybe I'll toss the guy out of panic.. :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? If you wanna answer it, put your answer in spoilers so other people can have some fun too...(or ya know, if you've already heard this question and know the answer). :) So she could meet the funeral guy again? I don't really see how this make me a psychopath, as it's pretty obvious what you're asking after. However for all I know she was killing her because of a fight.. But again, it doesn't make anyone a psychopath, since this is what the question tries to lead you to answer. Link to post Share on other sites
anon. Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 :D Reminds me of a question I know of... Question (actually used to determine whether or not you're a psychopath as only psychopaths should know the answer): Two sisters are attending the funeral of their mother. The younger sister instantly falls in love with a young man attending the funeral. Unfortunately, the funeral ends without her getting any of his contact information -- not even a name. The next day, the older sister is found murdered. The younger sister is found to be the murderer. Why did she do it? If you wanna answer it, put your answer in spoilers so other people can have some fun too...(or ya know, if you've already heard this question and know the answer). :) So she could meet the funeral guy again? I don't really see how this make me a psychopath, as it's pretty obvious what you're asking after. However for all I know she was killing her because of a fight.. But again, it doesn't make anyone a psychopath, since this is what the question tries to lead you to answer. ....mmmm...yeah, I see your point. But strangely enough, everyone I've asked IRL has never gotten it right though... o.O I'm sure they do reword it differently or add some stuff...I have no doubt they would not let the sole determining factor be on the answer to one question Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well it was the first that crossed my mind, it's very logical.. Actually the only possible logical explanation, as I said, other answers can only be ala: "She drove a car, and accidentally rammed her", she came into a psychosis and stabbed her, the sister was dying and asked to be put down. None of those make sense in the light of the scenario. Link to post Share on other sites
Notte stellata Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 These two scenarios are widely used in moral reasoning/judgment studies, but I've never heard of it as a psychopath test. It's kind of weird to me, because after all the psychopaths are killing one man to save five. :P Most people say yes to the first question and no to the second, but I'm with qwair - no to both. I don't see the two scenarios as essentially different, and I don't think it's fair to take away an innocent person's life to save more people, no matter I'd directly touch the person or not. Someone in our department did a series of experiments with variations of the trolley dilemma. For example, there was a third track in the first scenario, and you were on that track. Would you let the train continue on its path and kill the five people, or switch the train to the track with one other person, or switch the train to the track where you were standing? Or if you were among the five people, what would you do? Unfortunately I don't remember his results. As for anon's question, I immediately thought of the answer too. It's pretty straightforward given the information in the question... Link to post Share on other sites
qwair Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well it was the first that crossed my mind, it's very logical.. Actually the only possible logical explanation, as I said, other answers can only be ala: "She drove a car, and accidentally rammed her", she came into a psychosis and stabbed her, the sister was dying and asked to be put down. None of those make sense in the light of the scenario. Yes, and in addition I'm pretty sure they don't really tell the people they test with this question that it is a question intended to detect psychopathy. I assume many people can be asked to 'think like a psychopath' by simply ignoring their empathy for a second, but wouldn't do it naturally when just asked the question without being primed. Link to post Share on other sites
mausgrau Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I hesitate to say, I got the answer to the funeral problem after a few seconds thought -- but only as I was considering what would be the funny solution... ^_^ Link to post Share on other sites
Amedot Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 This has NOTHING to do with feeling empathy or not. Link to post Share on other sites
quenelle Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I think people might be missing the detail in scenario #1 that the group of 5 people are "unable to move" while the one person on the other track is walking slowly. This would indicate that the group of 5 is on the tracks against their will, and the 1 person is trying to kill themself. I would flip the switch and feel great about it, not only because I saved 4 lives, but because I probably helped someone with their death wish. If the 1 person wasn't trying to kill themself, then they're at least incredibly stupid and the world would likely be a better place without them. I don't understand at all the thought process of not flipping the switch just to protect your own ego and not have to feel bad about yourself "killing" 1 person. If you know about the switch and you have the opportunity to flip it but make the conscious choice not to, how can you possibly claim to be less responsible for the 5 deaths? Link to post Share on other sites
AshenPhoenix Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Yes to both situations, the way I see it. One person < five. Though I may be more hesitant about actually throwing someone over, especially sinc ein the heat of the situation I would be highly unlikely to think "hmmm, throwing this huge person on the rails could potentially stop it!" vs "hey look a switch that will make 1 person die instead of 5!". But for the most part, if I instantly thought of the solution and knew it would work somehow, I'd think I'd do it. Reminds me of the time I shocked someone when we were playing a question game and I instantly answered yes to "if you could cure all the sickness in the world but have to kill one child, would you do it?" They were shocked, but way I see it, one child isn't much in comparison to the entire world. I don't feel too much empathy but I have an oddly strong logical moral compass. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Clear no to both. The accidental deaths of five (or five hundred, or five thousand, or five million) folk would not give me incentive/justification to consciously murder a random innocent bystander. It would only become interesting if I knew that the stroller/fat man had actively scheduled the train to roll the five folks over. As that's not the case here, their deaths are of no concern for my actions. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Well it was the first that crossed my mind, it's very logical.. Actually the only possible logical explanation, as I said, other answers can only be ala: "She drove a car, and accidentally rammed her", she came into a psychosis and stabbed her, the sister was dying and asked to be put down. None of those make sense in the light of the scenario. Yes, and in addition I'm pretty sure they don't really tell the people they test with this question that it is a question intended to detect psychopathy. I assume many people can be asked to 'think like a psychopath' by simply ignoring their empathy for a second, but wouldn't do it naturally when just asked the question without being primed. Yes, since I can thin of the answer, it doesn't make me one. I would never have done something like that personally, still I can think of a scenario like that. Link to post Share on other sites
marki Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Yes to both....greater good ! Link to post Share on other sites
shockkkk Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 I don't see anything inherently wrong with intentionally killing the one person to save five, and in fact I think it would be the best option, but I still voted no because I can't see myself actually following through with it ever. Link to post Share on other sites
5_♦♣ Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 With 7 billion people on the planet, the more dead, the better. And yes, I'm a cold heartless bitch. Link to post Share on other sites
ThaHoward Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 Well, it's in third world and NIC countries that overpopulation is a problem. Here in the west we got more resources than persons, we are not overpopulated here.. We can deal with more people actually inside our borders. Link to post Share on other sites
quenelle Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 The strategy of doing nothing, throwing up your hands and trying to deny all responsibility just doesn't make any logical sense to me. Think of it this way: 1 person is going to die no matter what you do. You might as well consider 1 person already dead. Therefore, we can reasonably say that you have 0% responsibility for 1 death. Your options are not to kill 1 person or kill 5 people. Your options are to save 0 people or save 4 people. If you make the decision to save 0 people, then yes, you are partially responsible for 4 deaths. If you save the 4 people, you are partially responsible for 0 deaths. Link to post Share on other sites
Purple Heart Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I think people might be missing the detail in scenario #1 that the group of 5 people are "unable to move" while the one person on the other track is walking slowly. This would indicate that the group of 5 is on the tracks against their will, and the 1 person is trying to kill themself. I would flip the switch and feel great about it, not only because I saved 4 lives, but because I probably helped someone with their death wish. If the 1 person wasn't trying to kill themself, then they're at least incredibly stupid and the world would likely be a better place without them. I don't understand at all the thought process of not flipping the switch just to protect your own ego and not have to feel bad about yourself "killing" 1 person. If you know about the switch and you have the opportunity to flip it but make the conscious choice not to, how can you possibly claim to be less responsible for the 5 deaths? This. Completely. However, watching the video now...in that, the one person is also trapped. So you made that scenario easier really, MegaX ;) The logic still stands in the video version though. For the second one, I wouldn't believe the one huge guy would stop the train, or if he really was that big, that I'd be able to push him over...so I wouldn't really see the point in trying it... Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Girl Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 It would be interesting if the test could be conducted in real life rather than on paper but somehow with no lives lost...that would give the more telling answer of what each individual would actually do. I have heard that what people say they do or will do in a survey is drastically different from what they actually do. Edit: I suppose I should watch the video before commenting though. :lol: Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.