Ethical Dilema #1 - The Button

[NeverAmI]

I suggest responding before reading the other responses.

You are kidnapped and faced with a problem. There is no clear indication as to why you were taken and any attempts to solicit details are denied. Each kidnapper has a hidden identity through an altered voice and all skin area being covered.

You are approached by one of the kidnappers and that person explains the following.

You must make a choice. You can either choose to press a button or not. If you press the button, a machine will administer a lethal dose to an unknown person. If you choose not to press the button, 20 unknown individuals will be killed by unknown means.

You are given no identities of anyone and no further details are allowed, the kidnappers assure you that the administering of the lethal dose can never be traced back to you, and their details as to why are accurate. You will not be made to witness the death of any party. Choosing to take no action and give no response counts towards not pressing the button.

You have 5 minutes to choose the fate of 21 individuals. Do you save the 20 by taking the life of one or do you let them perish?

 

[Barnabas]

Do nothing, the deaths are then placed in the hands of those who kidnapped you.

 

[the]

Kill the kidnapper.

 

[88chaz88]

Do nothing, the deaths are then placed in the hands of those who kidnapped you.

So if I pushed the button the death is placed on me and not the captors who gave me no choice? That's some strange ethical reasoning there.

 

[Barnabas]

So if I pushed the button the death is placed on me and not the captors who gave me no choice? That's some strange ethical reasoning there.

the thing is, they are giving you a choice and while the burden isn't solely or mostly on you. You still have had a part in the death of another man. By refusing to participate you have no burden at all.

 

[88chaz88]

the thing is, they are giving you a choice and while the burden isn't solely or mostly on you. You still have had a part in the death of another man. By refusing to participate you have no burden at all.

No, you have no part in this at all. Either 1 person will die, or 20. I know which I would choose.

 

[Siamese cat]

I wouldn't press the button. I don't believe that they would do anything to anyone. If I'm going to kill someone I' d want to know who am I doing it to. This way it is pointless and I wouldn't really believe them that they would really kill someone, especially if they are not going to show proof of killing.

 

[Kgal]

I would do nothing. My 'do no harm beliefs' would say that if I pushed the button - I would KNOW that I caused an individual to die. Whereas, if I do not push the button, then I don't know if an(y) individual died or not.

The act of pushing the button itself engraves the intention into my mental neural map.

Also, the idea of supposedly saving 20 others is a judgment in a way that those 20 people are more worthy than the 1.

I could not presume to do that either.

 

[DimensionX]

You are kidnapped and faced with a problem. There is no clear indication as to why you were taken and any attempts to solicit details are denied. Each kidnapper has a hidden identity through an altered voice and all skin area being covered.

You are approached by one of the kidnappers and that person explains the following.

You must make a choice. You can either choose to press a button or not. If you press the button, a machine will administer a lethal dose to an unknown person. If you choose not to press the button, 20 unknown individuals will be killed by unknown means.

You are given no identities of anyone and no further details are allowed, the kidnappers assure you that the administering of the lethal dose can never be traced back to you, and their details as to why are accurate. You will not be made to witness the death of any party. Choosing to take no action and give no response counts towards not pressing the button.

You have 5 minutes to choose the fate of 21 individuals. Do you save the 20 by taking the life of one or do you let them perish?

[MENTION=1779]NeverAmI[/MENTION];

Sorry to say this Nai but your moral dilema is skewed in the context given it could put across the impression that doing nothing would punish you by performing the worst option which in this case is the death of the 20 unknown individuals maybe if you said that doing nothing would randomly perform one of the 2 outcomes generated by either pushing the button or not and that the person is fully informed of this then that would give a fair dilema.

I would push the button to kill the one person, I wouldn't want to but given the choice that's what I would pick though I've thought about these types of scenarios quite a lot as a kid...for some reason I don't know why *shrugs*

According to American mind there is apparently a gene which if posessed makes choices like this quite easy, I believe they tested it by asking subjects if forced would they choose to kill a baby to save 5 people or kill 5 people to save a baby. It provided evidence to support the theory that carrying the gene allows the individual to make that kind of a choice rationally without being heavily influenced by their emotions and thus were able to make such a decision quite quickly. Whether or not this a good or bad thing is up to interpretation.

 

[NeverAmI]

@NeverAmI;

Sorry to say this Nai but your moral dilema is skewed in the context given it could put across the impression that doing nothing would punish you by performing the worst option which in this case is the death of the 20 unknown individuals maybe if you said that doing nothing would randomly perform one of the 2 outcomes generated by either pushing the button or not and that the person is fully informed of this then that would give a fair dilema.

I don't know what is skewed about it. You don't have to take action, and perhaps you will be able to walk away with clean hands, some may not be able to tolerate 20 lives being lost, regardless of blame.

The idea isn't just where the blame lays, but rather the following:

Do you intervene, taking responsibility for one to save the lives of many?
What value to you place on your own innocence vs the value of life?

It isn't as cut and dry as not having to do anything, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario in a lot of cases. I can see plenty of individuals simply not participating and being fine with it, I can also see a lot of individuals that would take on the burden.

I like to see which is which.

 

[NeverAmI]

Princeton definition of dilema:

state of uncertainty or perplexity especially as requiring a choice between equally unfavorable options

 

[DimensionX]

I don't know what is skewed about it. You don't have to take action, and perhaps you will be able to walk away with clean hands, some may not be able to tolerate 20 lives being lost, regardless of blame.

The idea isn't just where the blame lays, but rather the following:

Do you intervene, taking responsibility for one to save the lives of many?
What value to you place on your own innocence vs the value of life?

It isn't as cut and dry as not having to do anything, it is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario in a lot of cases. I can see plenty of individuals simply not participating and being fine with it, I can also see a lot of individuals that would take on the burden.

I like to see which is which.

Skewed? According to what? I am not following standards.

The context is such that you are in a submissive position you are then given two choices to push the button or not, further clarification is given that informs you that not doing anything would count as a decision to not push the button, it could appear to some people that by not choosing anything that is your punishment for example for example if a parent told you to tidy your room, if you do you just get told off for allowing it to become a mess, if you don't you'll be told off not only because you've allowed it to become a mess but also because you've refused to tidy it either way the parent will be checking on it in 5 minutes and if you've haven't tidied then the latter occurs. From those types of situations the qualifier of what will happen without making a decision to do either can be implied as the worst result of the two thus you could say that the test is unfair (though it is kind of splitting hairs I guess).

I understand that for quite a lot of people it would be seen an impossible choice though

but my decision would still stand which is to push the button.

What would you choose to do @NeverAmI;?

 

[Wyote]

Assuming there is no way out, no possible change in the outcome, I'd push it.

Not acting and believing you are free of guilt is denying causality. Inaction is just as much of an event as action.

 

[NeverAmI]

I don't understand how it would be seen as unfair. Not taking action results in a larger loss in the number of lives, but retaining innocence has value for certain people. Stating what is 'fair' doesn't really apply because it is subjective and your opinion. Hence the request for input to see what people view as fair.

Implications of pushing the button:

potential subjective sense of loss of innocence
potential subjective sense of responsibility for the loss of 1 life
potential subjective sense of saving the lives of 20 individuals

Implications of not pushing the button:

potential subjective sense of preservation of innocence
potential subjective sense of responsibility for the loss of 20 lives
potential escape through detachment or apathy (not my problem)


As for my choice, I think I could go either way and it would depend on my mood that day. Today in my current state I am pretty sure I would push the button (I like buttons).

 

[arbygil]

If I had no choice, and it was either one person would die or twenty - regardless of my actions - I'd press the button. I'd agonize over it a bit, but I'd also recognize that I just saved twenty lives. I'd have to take that into consideration.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm with corndogman: I'd kill the kidnappers. Or at least spend 4.85 min of my countdown trying to wreak enough havoc to eliminate the threat or attract notice or something!

 

[Wyote]

As for my choice, I think I could go either way and it would depend on my mood that day.

Probably true for most people, including myself.

 

[NeverAmI]

I perhaps didn't frame the background very well, my goal was to eliminate as much potential attachment and interference as possible while still making the dilema black and white, do or don't.

I didn't want attachment to any of the potential victims, I just wanted to know the values of the participant on innocence vs intervention vs value of life.

If I could completely do away with the kidnappers scenario and still have it as hypothetically black and white, I would, but I don't know if there was any better way to phrase it and still keep the outcomes feasible.

 

[Jill Hives]

I would push the button.

[MENTION=1779]NeverAmI[/MENTION] summed it up perfectly in his last post why I came to this conclusion.

I'd sooner be able to deal with the death of one on my conscious over 20. I would find myself personally responsible in either case. I might be able to initially tell myself it was not my responsibility and do nothing but I liken that to sticking my head in the sand and this apathetic detachment would not last long for me personally. I would obviously be damaged by the knowledge I had to take a life at all but I would absolutely rather 1 be killed than 20.

It is the only choice I could live with. The other option would leave me feeling like a cowardly scumbag.

 

[Siamese cat]

I perhaps didn't frame the background very well, my goal was to eliminate as much potential attachment and interference as possible while still making the dilema black and white, do or don't.

I didn't want attachment to any of the potential victims, I just wanted to know the values of the participant on innocence vs intervention vs value of life.

If I could completely do away with the kidnappers scenario and still have it as hypothetically black and white, I would, but I don't know if there was any better way to phrase it and still keep the outcomes feasible.

No matter how much you try to paint it only black and white, there will always be those who would tell you that they see something greyish in it. I would probably be the first one to do so. In my opinion there are no black and white situations or dilemmas in the world.

Still I do find what you propose as a moral dilemma to be quite interesting.