The train switch dilemma

[AlohaShannon]

Get to?

You scare me Humble Tangerine...

[davearoo]

I don't understand the dilemma?

A. You get to kill only one person.
B. You get to kill lots of people.

If you're 'clever,' maybe you can have the train derail at just the right place and time so that it kills the person on the tracks, too!

[Bowyn Aerrow]

It would be more cost effective to allow the train to roll on.

Derailing trains is often a messy matter. It is more cost effective to pay for the law suit that the victims family will undoubtedly attempt to push through some court.

The added bonus of having passengers and the potential for much bodily harm, thus a lot more suing on top of the loss of the train its self, leaves one with little options but to let the train meet its destiny.

Its bad enough that the passengers will undoubtedly sue for 'psychological damage' since they participated unwillingly in the murder of the victim tied down to the tracks. However the legal system most likely will rule in favor of the train company (and myself) since the alternative is potential for higher number of casualties. Even if none of the passengers died, the injuries aspect has got to be much higher than the loss of one life.

And when it gets out that that switching tower was locked and that it was out of communication, no doubt the Government will have a serious investigation of the train company, the media circus will have a field day. I had best better done my best to preserve as many lives as possible - since I'm going to end up on the wrong end of a lot of scrutiny in less than an hour when this news story breaks.

Even without all of the reasoning of courts, lawsuits. It boils down to a rather simple philosophy: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one or the few.

[sillyboy86]

I really have no idea, but probably I will derail the train cause... 'doing nothing'... I will feel guilty.
I think I will take an instinctive decision, depending on the time I've got to make a decision...

[davearoo]

It would be more cost effective to allow the train to roll on.

Derailing trains is often a messy matter. It is more cost effective to pay for the law suit that the victims family will undoubtedly attempt to push through some court.

The added bonus of having passengers and the potential for much bodily harm, thus a lot more suing on top of the loss of the train its self, leaves one with little options but to let the train meet its destiny.

Its bad enough that the passengers will undoubtedly sue for 'psychological damage' since they participated unwillingly in the murder of the victim tied down to the tracks. However the legal system most likely will rule in favor of the train company (and myself) since the alternative is potential for higher number of casualties. Even if none of the passengers died, the injuries aspect has got to be much higher than the loss of one life.

And when it gets out that that switching tower was locked and that it was out of communication, no doubt the Government will have a serious investigation of the train company, the media circus will have a field day. I had best better done my best to preserve as many lives as possible - since I'm going to end up on the wrong end of a lot of scrutiny in less than an hour when this news story breaks.

Even without all of the reasoning of courts, lawsuits. It boils down to a rather simple philosophy: The good of the many outweighs the good of the one or the few.

What makes all this so ironic is that if you engage the switch, it's murder no matter how you look at it - whereas if you simply let the train derail, it's manslaughter at worst. Go figure.

[happyschizoid]

Sit back and watch, shit happens

[Undreamt]

Given that I am not a rial operator I would do nothing and get the hell out of the tower.

[BlackBaron]

I'll leave it as it is. Passengers have almost equal chance to survive. But this man will not survive in any way if i'll switch the fork,
So i will give chances to survive to each man