Are you a psychopath? (Trigger Warning)

[noparlpf]

1. Both proposed actions are morally wrong, so I walk back to the first car and begin discussing the trolley problem with the passengers.

2. My knowledge of physics allows me to understand that no man who weighs little enough for me to shift him onto the tracks weighs enough to noticeably slow a train with enough momentum to kill the five people on the tracks. I continue walking rather than callously murdering a sixth person.

For reference, I am actually diagnosably antisocial. I am capable of limited empathy as sympathy, but I do not inherently view strangers as people. That's why I'm going into veterinary medicine—it's much easier to care about small fluffy animals than about humans.

[Ziggy_G]

I did a test to see where I was on a psychopathic spectrum recently and scored 92% higher than average. I did the test to prove that I wasn't a psychopath, thats not exactly the result I was looking for :/

These questions are interesting moral dilemmas but there is a flaw in the phrasing in that its written in such a way that it implies I'm going to want to save anyone at all. That I choose not to push the person because I care about their life, not simply because saving them didn't occur to me or because I was excited by the idea of seeing them get hit by the train. Those aren't options in this phrasing. And in the case of the first one I think the fact he's taking a long time to cross would make me irritated enough to think he deserves to die.

Interestingly when you have it like this on a forum poll its easy to choose the answer that saves the most lives, its when its in person that people empathise too much to do it. Just look at any zombie movie where they wont shoot a loved one in the face even though their bit. So the answers arent going to be accurate

[Comic Geek]

hhmm I could see me saying yes to the first train scenario. Unsure on the second though. My concern would be that the guy in the second scenario throws me over since bigger then me.

[Taw]

I'm with the majority here, answering yes to the first and no to the second one. I think this experiment is trying to set up a false equivalency, and it's very good at it, putting those situations side by side. The key factor for me is agency.

Explanations:

1)

Scenario described in OP: As has already been mentioned, the five people are unable to move, so apparently there against their will. The one person consciously chose to take the risk of walking on the rails without looking - otherwise he could have noticed the situation. He even still has a small chance to hear the train and jump aside.

Everyone is bound to the rails: Here, the evil mastermind that set up the situation (probably specifically to observe my choices) is at fault. Someone selected those six people for potential death. All I can do is minimize the damage.

Everyone is just walking or working on the rails unobservantly: They all consciously took this risk. Maybe this train is unscheduled and the rails need maintenance, so their presence makes sense. Tough luck. I'm still minimizing the damage by using the switch - unless there is reason to assume the five people might have more of a chance to still notice or the one person has more reason to feel safe on his rail - such as five workers being at work on the rail that is clearly still in regular use (so they might still be aware of the risk/somewhat observant, even if this train is unscheduled) and the one worker sitting on an out-of-use rail while taking a break. And that said, a train should have a horn, right?

2)

Putting any doubts about a fat man being able to stop a train with enough momentum to kill 5 people aside.

Here, the fat man has agency. He chose to walk here, where it's safe. If he wants to be a hero and sacrifice himself for those five, that's his choice. I might tactlessly make him aware if there's enough time, but it's his life and his choice.

[Weltraum]

Regardless of "utilitarianism" I would never intentionally cause harm to another person. Only in self-defense, which isn't the case here. I could never live with knowing that my actions led to the death of those two individuals.

Situations like those are unfortunate and regrettable. It would be difficult to come to terms with the deaths of those ten people, which would have devastating consequences for those people and their loved ones. But what else could you do? If there was a way to save everyone, certainly. But a large physique or a slow walk are not death sentences.

By doing nothing, one could say you have committed murder or manslaughter. But not acting is, in my worldview, not on the same level as consciously deciding to let someone die.

There is no perfect answer to these situations; both end in the deaths of innocent people. It's never going to be fair, no matter what you do, unless you have the power to stop those trains.

(I am not judging or condemning any of the answers or actions in this hypothetical situation, merely expressing my personal opinion based on my individual worldview, which is not meant to be applied to others.)

[Lady Girl]

This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organization, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to re-start new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them.

Lady Girl, Moderator