The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Train track descion

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
YoyoBobo has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2016 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 475 times Debate No: 97744
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




So let's say that you have come across a lever, this lever decides which way a train goes.
The train is heading for 5 people, but if you were to change the direction it would only hit one. So you are left with two descions. Either let 5 people die, or murder 1 to save 4 more people. I would pull the lever to save more lives.


Before Debating I would like to note that this is a debate and opinions must be respected. Though I may not be agreeing with what I'm saying I will do my best to argue against the opposite side. Since thats over lets begin.

First of all why exactly would you save them. I have not seen any claims supporting your thesis. Second, what makes it more morally ethical to murder 1 to save the rest than letting them all die. Is there no other solution to the problem? Heres a sub-scenario in this scenario. What if the person you killed was a friend. Do you kill him to save the life of other strangers or save him but let the other die. Most people would save their friend as they are valued more than the other people as they don't mean as much to them as their friend. This shows that people are more inclined hold on to things that are more valuable to them rather than things that are not as such. In this case the valuable would be that person and the less valuable thing would be the other strangers. Another thing to consider is the backstory of the people in this scenario. If we know one of the 4 survivors is a terrible person who cause great harm.Then this can greatly alter our decision. Once again it can conflict with out first sub-scenario. This proves the Right-Intention Condition and The Proportionality Condition written by Aquinas, a Catholic Priest and a philosopher. To delve further into this the Right Intention Condition states that the "intention must be the achieving of only the good effect with the bad effect being only an unintended side effect. The bad effect may be foreseen, but not desired." The Proportionality Condition states "the good effect must be at least as morally good as the bad effect is morally bad. ( It is safe to assume that though our intent may be good there will always be an opposite of effect of our actions. This brings us back to the first question, "would you pull the switch to murder 1 person while saving the other 4 or let them all die?" My final answer is yes and no. It all depends on the effects of your actions. I honestly think this is a really interesting topic. I can tell you get this from the trolley problem.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by JudgeSchreber 2 years ago
I LOVE it when someone blatantly copies the ages-old deontology-thumper. Really makes the day interesting.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.