Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Ethics has no use in real life.

Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,352
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 3:47:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Hm, would I make an ethical decision, or wouldn't I? This sounds almost like...a dilemma!

It's interesting that, in your attempt to deprecate "ethical dilemma" thought experiments, you've required yourself to perform one. You require the tool you claim to discard.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:35:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.

So you caused the person's death.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 6:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:35:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.

So you caused the person's death.

That's one horn of the dilemma; it's what makes it a dilemma.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:06:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:51:06 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:35:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.

So you caused the person's death.

That's one horn of the dilemma; it's what makes it a dilemma.

Well yeah. That's my point.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Sargon
Posts: 524
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:27:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 6:35:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.

So you caused the person's death.

This is only a problem if you adhere to an absolute conception of morality, which says that causing someone's death is always wrong. Causing someone's death isn't wrong if it saved lives.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 7:32:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 3:47:17 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Hm, would I make an ethical decision, or wouldn't I? This sounds almost like...a dilemma!

It's interesting that, in your attempt to deprecate "ethical dilemma" thought experiments, you've required yourself to perform one. You require the tool you claim to discard.

I don't follow. What I did was point out that during an ethical dilemma, most people decide based on emotions and not ethics.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:29:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:27:31 PM, Sargon wrote:
At 7/27/2013 6:35:50 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 7/27/2013 10:55:12 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Kill 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course.

So you caused the person's death.

This is only a problem if you adhere to an absolute conception of morality, which says that causing someone's death is always wrong. Causing someone's death isn't wrong if it saved lives.

Yup.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 7:32:01 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/27/2013 3:47:17 PM, Poetaster wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Hm, would I make an ethical decision, or wouldn't I? This sounds almost like...a dilemma!

It's interesting that, in your attempt to deprecate "ethical dilemma" thought experiments, you've required yourself to perform one. You require the tool you claim to discard.

I don't follow. What I did was point out that during an ethical dilemma, most people decide based on emotions and not ethics.
Yes, but it is the conclusion that you draw from this that is the use of the tool. You observe something about the world (that people often don't use ethics to decide ethical dilemmas) and draw a judgement (that ethics has no use in real life). Now I dispute the 'fact' you mention anyway, but more importantly, your conclusion rests on the implicit assumption that the only purpose of ethics is to make ethical decisions. This is a meta-ethical statement (which itself is the study of ethics, just the ethics of ethics instead of the ethics of other things). So you have used ethics to assert that ethics has no use.
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 8:46:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And just my two cents on the actual question of whether it has a use. Not all ethical dilemmas are as time sensitive as your example. Often we have considerable time to debate the consequences and merits of our actions, in which case the practice of ethics helps a great deal. It also helps us write codes of conduct for various industries (law and medicine being the prime examples) in which case ethics has a real and obvious use. Now, the people following the code might just follow it because it is the code (and they don't want to be punished) but the people who wrote the code certainly had to consider the ethical dilemmas.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:31:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

The underlined change the scenario to more than just 5 people and one person.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Raisor
Posts: 4,742
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2013 9:49:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

Hard ethical decisions exist in real life and are made by people who actually consider what the ethical course of action is.

Truman struggled with the question of dropping the bomb, the documentary "Fog of War" deals with the internal debates concerning conduct of the Vietnam war, Wilson fought with the difficulty of preserving America's liberal values and enacting disciplinary war time measures.

Just because OP doesn't take acting ethically seriously doesnt mean the rest of the world is the same.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 12:29:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sargon /Rational_thinker99: Causing someone's death isn't wrong if it saved lives. 1, or 5? It's not a hard dilemma. You change the course
The Fool: Its not that easy. its not so simple as a matter of more lives for less lives. It may sound easier when its 1000"s vs 1 and a "forced choice", and or "being attacked. If 100 people are trying to "murder you", then maybe killing a hundred people may be justified.

There is a huge difference between a "self sacrifice" vs "creating for yourself" any justification to sacrifice someone else life who didn't sign up for it, even if there is only "1" person and many could be saved.

All sense of security, well-being, and trust for one and other would completely jeopardized if "people" thought that at any moment they may be "murdered" by their fellow neighbor, or government, to have their parts given away to save more lives. Getting people to donate their parts when they die is hard enough. No one is going want to donate, if they think doctors may be calculating how much more they can get with research and saving other lives if you die.

Such ethical consequences pervade the whole population directly or indirect, whether you "know it" is another thing.

There is always inherent difficulty when dealing with the calculus of lives because they are in-commensurable values. There is nothing in our power that we can ever do to replace a life.

Raisor: Hard ethical decisions exist in real life and are made by people who actually consider what the ethical course of action is.

The Fool: What is the fake life?

Raisor: Truman struggled with the question of dropping the bomb, the documentary "Fog of War" deals with the internal debates concerning conduct of the Vietnam war, Wilson fought with the difficulty of preserving America's liberal values and enacting disciplinary war time measures.

The Fool: Really! He fought with the "difficultly"? wow that sounds pretty hard.
<(8D)

Ideology never ends well.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Df0512
Posts: 987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 9:41:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

This will almost certainly never happen, I hate trains. So using this hypothetical situation to gauge really life ethics is pointless. Also using one that requires a split decision that could result i the loss of lives including you own, isn't fair either. It isn;t really unethical to save your own life.

Yesterday I went to the mall to buy some shoes. I noticed the guy sitting next to me let his phone on the bench when he got up to leave. I stopped him before he it to far and handed it to him...ethics win.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,821
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 9:46:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Jack, your example uses a situation which is extraordinarily unlikely, and calls it "real life." That's my main beef with it. Instead of taking something out of a fairy tale and trying to say that it proves how "real life" doesn't employ ethics, why don't you take an actual example out of real life? How many times are any of us going to have to divert a train to decide whether a few or many people die a gruesome death on some train-tracks? These catch-22 ethics challenges are COMPLETE GARBAGE and in no way reflect real life in the least. We deal with ethical decisions a hundred times a day, yet people concentrate on fantasies in discussion... it goes to show you just how little we actually understand the concept of morality.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/28/2013 6:26:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Surely the idea is that you reflect upon morality, and you reflect on what you value, and then when a difficult situation arises you do your best to make the right decision.

It is strategising. You claim that because we might make decisions in that instant which might contradict our earlier ethical theorising that ethics is useless. This is simply not true... take boxing for example, you might plan your strategy meticulously, but when you enter the ring you abandon that strategy in the third round because you failed to predict the situation accurately. This is not an indictment of strategising, but of incorrect strategising.
Picard
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 2:59:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

The dilemma is - is it right to sacrifice one life to save many?

Logically; (To quote a great man) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the individual.

Morally; It is an unwinnable situation, if the two options purely are - Save one life, or save five lives. Then either way you are allowing someone to die. Five lives are not worth more than one life, and 1 life is not worth more than 5 lives.

It is difficult, as the morality of the situation is negative either way then the only option is to default to logic, meaning that the 1 should die to save the 5. This is not morally superior choice, but the necessary one.

P.S. You do not sound to care much for morality or ethics, so I am not certain why you are asking this question?
Dragonfang
Posts: 1,122
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:20:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Easy, the greater good. Which is the one person unless he is someone important like a non-bloodsucking politican. We take the lesser evil.

Lets face it:
1- Morality does not always makes sense, but we must satisfy our concious in order to do the "Right thing".
2- We must sometimes harm people to prevent greater harm.
Jack212
Posts: 572
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:29:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 2:59:45 PM, Picard wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

The dilemma is - is it right to sacrifice one life to save many?

Logically; (To quote a great man) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the individual.

Morally; It is an unwinnable situation, if the two options purely are - Save one life, or save five lives. Then either way you are allowing someone to die. Five lives are not worth more than one life, and 1 life is not worth more than 5 lives.

It is difficult, as the morality of the situation is negative either way then the only option is to default to logic, meaning that the 1 should die to save the 5. This is not morally superior choice, but the necessary one.

P.S. You do not sound to care much for morality or ethics, so I am not certain why you are asking this question?

I don't see that ethics applies to real life, as people are not logical when making immediate life-or-death decisions. They just try to rationalize their behavior as good or bad afterwards.
Poetaster
Posts: 587
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/29/2013 8:48:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/29/2013 8:29:49 PM, Jack212 wrote:
At 7/29/2013 2:59:45 PM, Picard wrote:
At 7/27/2013 4:15:01 AM, Jack212 wrote:
Suppose a train has gone out of control and is speeding towards 5 people. You have no way to stop the train or warn the people. All you can do is divert the train onto another track with only 1 person. Do you change its course?

It's all very well to discuss such an issue in a classroom, committee or debating website, where nobody actually has to make that choice. But when you're next to the train track and freaking out, you will not be able to make a rational decision. Ethics will not do you any good if you're full of adrenaline, especially if you know one of the potential victims because then you're emotionally involved.

I know I wouldn't change its course. I do not care about random strangers enough to make a decision, meaning the train would continue on its default path. I wouldn't change its course unless I was motivated, like if one of the 5 was a hot girl. Then I'd react instinctively and to hell with the consequences.

What about the rest of you? Would you stop to make an ethical decision? If you were in that situation, what do you honestly think you'd do?

The dilemma is - is it right to sacrifice one life to save many?

Logically; (To quote a great man) The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the individual.

Morally; It is an unwinnable situation, if the two options purely are - Save one life, or save five lives. Then either way you are allowing someone to die. Five lives are not worth more than one life, and 1 life is not worth more than 5 lives.

It is difficult, as the morality of the situation is negative either way then the only option is to default to logic, meaning that the 1 should die to save the 5. This is not morally superior choice, but the necessary one.

P.S. You do not sound to care much for morality or ethics, so I am not certain why you are asking this question?

I don't see that ethics applies to real life, as people are not logical when making immediate life-or-death decisions. They just try to rationalize their behavior as good or bad afterwards.

Out of a peripheral curiosity, just how often are you finding yourself making life-or-death decisions? From your characterizations of "real life", they would almost seem to be a feature of our daily existence!

Now, many ethical thought experiments do posit extreme scenarios, and they do this precisely because such things are easier to reason about. Drastic enlargements and dichotomies such as the train scenario simplify our thought processes in the same way that imagining a train moving at 90% the speed of light simplifies our thoughts about the underlying physical principles.

Imagine the extremes first; all else is intermediate to them.
"The book you are looking for hasn't been written yet. What you are looking for you are going to have to find yourself, it's not going to be in a book..." -Sidewalker