Dollars or death?
Perhaps one of the most impactful social questions one could ask, one that we've all already answered, that dictates the path of society:
On your right a man is tied to a railroad track, and a train is en route. You have time to untie him and save his life.
On your left another man holding a briefcase of 100 certified million dollar certificates that are already signed to your name. He says to you he will give you the certificates, and you will then have 100 million dollars, but only if you go with him now, and only if you don't untie the man from the tracks.
There are no other options.
There aren't any details, just the choice.
Which would you choose, and why?
On your right a man is tied to a railroad track, and a train is en route. You have time to untie him and save his life.
On your left another man holding a briefcase of 100 certified million dollar certificates that are already signed to your name. He says to you he will give you the certificates, and you will then have 100 million dollars, but only if you go with him now, and only if you don't untie the man from the tracks.
There are no other options.
There aren't any details, just the choice.
Which would you choose, and why?
Comments (68)
As Admiral Kirk once said "I don't believe in the no-win scenario." Or his even wiser first officer might have said: The needs of me & bumpkin tied-up on the tracks outweigh the needs of the fool with a $100m briefcase. :smirk:
Is this supposed to be a dilemma? The correct moral choice is clear, save the person on the tracks.
Are you seriously asking if people should value money over life?
Maybe, what answers are you talking about?
Little known fact - The word "philosophy" comes from ancient Minoan combining "pilos," meaning "love of" and "physos," meaning "silly thought experiments."
Why do philosophers think that pointless, unrealistic thought experiments can shed any light on moral questions? See the trolley problem. Can't you come up with something that might actually happen in an actual person's actual life?
This is exactly how the elite think (but, of course, most of them never get around to using it for good).
Sorry, but for $100mm the guy on the tracks is toast. With $100mm you could save countless lives and leverage that money in enormous ways to make real, lasting changes in communities that can last for generations.
Then why not use one of those "common life problems" instead of something that has never happened and won't ever happen to anyone in the history and future of the universe. It makes philosophy look like a joke, which is ok if that's what you're trying to do. If you think it makes it look wise or insightful, it doesn't. And what is it with trains? Why do philosophers like trains so much? And what if it was Adolf Hitler tied to the tracks? Or what if it was 100 million pictures of Adolf Hitler instead of dollars?
I have nothing against thought experiments, as I noted, my beef is with "pointless, unrealistic thought experiments." Also, Einstein was a physicist, not a philosopher.
Also - Einstein's thought experiment isn't what made the theory of special relativity true. It was just an explanation of an actual aspect of the world.
If observing the question of life vs money is pointless to you, then either you have no moral compass or you're naive to the world and in for a rude awakening.
Lol, 100m is super excessive, I would leave the guy on the tracks for much, much less.
I don't think this question is necessarily as worthless as people are saying but only because some people actually would save the guy over 100m. That's hilarious in itself. The only people who are saying they'd take it are saying that they'd use the money to help people around the world. Do the posters on this forum really take themselves that seriously? It's just so bad to take the money rather than save someone else's life? How hypocritical, how unbelievably pathetic.
In Situation Ethics [1966], Joseph Fletcher poses this situation: an unattractive man asks an attractive woman whether she would have sex with him for $1,000,000. She would. How about $500,000? She would. $100,000? Yes. $50,000? Yes. and so on. Finally he offers $25.
She says: "$25! What kind of woman do you think I am?"
He says: "Madam; we've already determined what kind of woman you are; we're just haggling over the price"
Your situation asks how much one of us would require to let a stranger die on the railroad track? $100,000,000? Think of all the good I could with $100,000,000. $10,000,000? Yes, $100,000? Probably.
"Would you let he man tied to the railroad track die for $100?"
"Hey, What kind of cold-blooded killer do you think I am?"
"We've already determined the kind of killer you are; we're just haggling over the price."
Accepting the money would be an act of murder because we understand the consequences of accepting the money. You are quite correct that cash is valued over life every day in a wide variety of circumstances (though usually not as obvious as when someone is tied to the proverbial railroad track). Or more to the point, a life is valued below the amount of cash on offer. "Improving this product (at an up-front cost of $2,000,000) will save 100 lives (at $20,000 per) over 5 years. We will not be able to pay the expected dividend, however, if we spend $2,000,000 on improvements.
The improvement plan is shelved.
I still am sure of the obvious moral answer. I asked about the other answers but you couldn't be bothered to answer.
You were specific about there being no additional information to go on so you could focus solely on the moral “dilemma” which I did, and I think I was the only person to respect the boundaries of the thought experiment. The problem I pointed out was that within the boundaries the correct moral action is to save the person.
Taking the money to save more lives is outside the boundaries you set I thought, since that would rely in more information introduced to the dilemma. (Are there other people worth saving? Are there other people in trouble? Are there other people? Is the problem im saving other people from with the money even actually solvable by money alone? Am I obligated to save the maximum amount of people etc etc )
There are those who will choose without question to take the money just to have the money. These people are dedicated to themselves. There's really not much else to say about them.
Then there are people who will save the man. These people are dedicated to ensuring life in it's present form is preserved. That anyone living should have the opportunity to continue to do so.
Then somewhere in between are those who will take the money with the justification of sacrificing life with the intention of preserving more life afterwards. This is the most interesting to me. Compared to the man with a shack and rice, the majority of people here typing on their computers will seem to the man with the shack and rice as fairly abundant, and could surely benefit from even 5% of any of our annual income; to increase their livelihood and to add potential to the survival of themselves and their family, but how many of those answering this question in this way are already willing or are currently seeing this forward? And what amount of money will make someone decide to be charitable? 30k p year? 100? 1million? If so many are so charitable, why does this man have a shack and rice in the first place?
The point you are asking about is whether money outweighs morality, right? Not whether or not 100 million dollars can do enough good to outweigh the persons life? In other words, is the scenario about measuring the moral good of the two actions or is it about pitting the selfish act (money) against the moral one (saving a life)?
It is not true that my views are "anti-human", I'm guessing your answer shows what you think the correct answer is.
Money isn't just some abstraction that should be demonised by those who don't have it. You're willing to give up the status, power and the litany of benefits that come with such an amount of money. Any dreams or goals you have, any friend or family member you'd want to help, any place you'd like to visit, anything you wish you could have. Give it all up when it's literally handed to you for nothing. For what? Because you're too much of a saint to NOT help someone? Are you giving up the money to save the person or to save your conscience?
Except, you already live a life where you DON'T give up your time and wealth to help people YOU COULD HAVE helped. We all already prioritise our goals and dreams, our holidays, the nice things we can afford over the potential for those resources to be used in helping someone we could have helped.
Perhaps if in the actual moment you were emotional and decided you had to save the person on the tracks, you might. Then spend the rest of your life regretting it and beating yourself up about your choice, that strikes me as realistic for the average person. Saying you're above being bought, you would never, ever value money over someone's life, that's the reasonable position for you? I'm just being edgy by disagreeing? lmao.
At this point, there's no compromise between personal gain and morality for you, you'd give up $100 million to save up a stranger. You look alien compared to the world you live in, people don't give a dollar to a person in need but you'll give up $100 million for a stranger. People will sell drugs to get by, businesses will exploit people to make a buck but you won't give up a single person for $100 million. Okay, such a saint, I'm sure the way you live your life completely reflects your devotion to saving people.
I don't expect kindness from someone I'm mocking but you made a thread about a moral question and your answer is that you're an incorruptible saint. You're a selfless hero. Did you think you wouldn't need to defend this position? You just started this thread as a way to virtue signal? Lmao.
Just scrolling through your other threads, it's pretty much always the same thing with you actually.
Your thinking is just too convenient, too one-sided, from start to finish. Any kid can complain about the issues they think society has, most people graduate that and develop more nuanced opinions but not everyone, clearly.
Why, indeed? Because we are not that charitable. Billions are not overly enthusiastic about changing their lifestyles to save the planet, never mind the people tied to railroad tracks.
In the real world, the way the deal works is pretty much the way you set it up, except that a) I and the man with the bag of cash are a long ways from the guy tied to the railroad track; b) the guy on the track is definitely going to get run over; and c) I'm definitely not getting the cash.
Within the moral system to which many subscribe, exchanging any amount of money to prevent arbitrary killing is unacceptable. Promising to later distribute the money in beneficence is merely covering an immoral act with rose petals. Within that same moral system, there is an obligation to assist others in need. Exactly how far one should go isn't specified (should one impoverish one's self?). Many people do, actually, attempt to fulfill this obligation.
Speaking of people about to be liquidated for cash, here's a song about their salvation in the person of the tall, thin, long, lean, lanky. slow-walkin, slow-talkin fellow named Jones.
I will take the 100 million. Easy choice.
Notice the scenario: Buddy is tied to the tracks, not lying across them unconscious; presumably he has been tied there because someone, more familiar with him than I, felt that being runover by a train was a fitting end for his behaviour. Who am I to gainsay that and undo their efforts?
Also, those who say "that is murder"...clearly have never killed anything. Killing isn't a passive act, neither is rescuing. Either way involves getting in there and engaging. Both require taking a stand. I am not for, or against the guy on the tracks, I haven't enough information to be anything but ambivalent to his fate. I am not ambivalent about the money, I could use it.
You virtue signal and that's all, even now, you're focused on demonstrating the superiority you think you have and that's about it. Next Lif3r thread:
"Wealth drives the world but haven't people realised that our pursuit of profits is destroying the environment and causing wealth inequality? Why can't people figure out that we need to work together and that there's more to life than profits? It infuriates me that people can't figure out the most basic shit omg!"
or
"Global warming is bad and is destroying the planet and we need to do something about it!!! It's unreal to me that people are still asleep on this topic, have people forgotten their obligation to biology?? Wake up people! Stop doing things to cause global warming right now!"
I finally remember now, our interaction which I had forgotten about, I read one of your stupid threads and trolled you. I don't treat every thread trying to solve societal issues like that, only dumb ones like yours. :lol:
Yes there is. We all know what the right thing to do is. If we didn't you couldn't pose the problem. We probably wouldn't do the right thing in those circumstances, but we'd know what we ought to do, morally speaking. It's implied by the question.
Is this really comparable though? There's a different level of agency where I'll jump in the water to save someone but I don't donate to lifeguard training.
Is there a valid answer to this question?
If not, the correct answer depends on morality of the questioner.
If you don't know the answer, on what basis are you going to judge us?
I think that if you look at the state of the world, what most people would do is the opposite of what they say they would do. Show me the money!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc
Right, people have different answers, but everyone recognises that there is a moral dilemma. If there weren't a moral dilemma posed by taking the money and leaving someone you could save to die, it wouldn't be the subject of a question. That moral dilemma exists, and everyone knows it - and then they think about it, and bring various other perceptions emotions and values into consideration to arrive at different opinions. And that, incidentally, is why Popper is wrong, in The Open Society and Its Enemies, that recognising science as truth would become a dictatorship of truth. Hume was wrong to object to rhetoric adducing facts to imply values. Morality is within us. We cannot but look at a list of facts, or a dilemma like this without 1) recognising there's moral implication, and then 2) prioritizing the facts in terms of individually formed, uniquely nuanced set of values, to arrive at different opinions as to what the facts imply.
With regard to that dilemma, would I have time to ask the man with the briefcase why he was trying to implicate me, after the fact, in what appears to be a murder?
I would ask this politely, of course because that's a lot of money - and surely, an answer would explain who the person is tied to the tracks, what their relationship to me is, and why the man with the briefcase is trying to implicate me, after the fact - in a murder.
Were there no time for questions, I'd have to assume the guy is tied to the tracks to cover up theft of the money, and that I now know about the murder and the money - and that, rather than waltzing off into the sunset with a zillion dollars and an oh so slightly troubled conscience, I'll be the next guy tied to the tracks! What if it just goes on and on forever, until someone declines the gold and saves the life?
Yes, they're comparable because our lifestyles already reflect our priorities when it comes to saving people we don't know.
If Lif3r's reasoning was that he is too much of a saint to not help someone like I said then what I said stands. If I Lif3r said "no, my reasoning is that now that this 1 guy is within close proximity to me and I'm the only one available to help him so I gotta save him" or "I won't sacrifice my cash to save others but I won't sacrifice others to make money" then yeah, I'd need to rethink my response.
I think they did try this experiment. Forgot the name, but it's well documented. Where the subject was supposed to deliver a painful electric shock to a third person, unseen, if he gave the wrong answer. High, high voltages were driven through the people who gave the wrong answers, many times the lethal dose. Yet people did this, despite their better judgment.
Whether you let the man die for 100 million dollars, or you save him from certain death, is not a moral question. It is a stupid, ill-thought up question.
OP, you should put up your money and try this question on, let's say, 1000 people, to make it statistically significant. Talking about "What would you do if...", makes everyone speak like a seventeen-year-old contestant on a beauty pageant. We are all innocent, nice, and our shit don't smell. That includes myself, of course.
This sort of experiment is for the birds. "If you had a chance to push a button that would blow up the word, would you do it?" Well, gimme the REAL button and we'll see.
Talk is cheap.
Your example makes things unnecessarily complicated, what makes OP easier is that we're talking about money, money used to save someone's life, the saving is guaranteed. I would deal with your example very differently than I'd deal with OPs. Though, I do not agree that you're the cause of death by choosing not to intervene.
I'm not approaching this topic from a moral perspective, I think the moral answer is clear. It's really a matter of values. If materialistic desires or the value of money pales in comparison to the value of human life and that's your stance then live and act in accordance with those beliefs and don't be a hypocrite, that's all I'm saying. Don't just tell me the answer that looks good on paper and continue to live as though you're ignorant about what the world's like and live without even thinking to choose between buying nice things for yourself and using that money to help others, because it's not your problem.
My point isn't that things shouldn't be like that, I think it's fine, my point is saying "I wouldn't choose not to help someone for $100m" is really stupid because of this reality. I already choose not to help people all the time. If you want to say, well, it's different because based on whether you laid eyes on the person or because you don't have someone else who you can pretend might help this time, okay? You can list some differences but do they actually matter? Bottom line is that most of us prioritise ourselves and then there's just how honest you are about it.
That's not in the OP though; you just choose the cash and a lot of people are claiming to use the money to save other lives but this isn't a requirement in this experiment. I would agree though that if the option was 100 million that is guaranteed to be spent on saving other people's lives, I would go for the money assuming I would have enough time to deliberate on the decision.
Quoting Judaka
Why not? If but for your intervention the person would die, then choosing not to act is murder in my book. How is this different from a doctor refusing treatment? His refusal doesn't cause the patient to die? Or do you think their duty to treat people only stems from the Hypocratic oath? Or me failing to brake means I'm not to blame for the car accident? How does this work exactly?
What I'm saying is that money is easily transferable between hands, it's a singular value that is always present in life. The opportunity to part with money to help others always exists. The same can't be said for trying to save a drowning person, it's a rare circumstance, with an unknown value, an unknown risk, really, nothing is known at all, it's just overcomplicated.
Quoting Benkei
Lol, it depends on the circumstances, sure. If someone watches a kid drowning in a pool and does nothing to help and you want to call it murder, fair enough. If someone doesn't rush into a potentially dangerous situation to save a drowning person, that's fair, I don't think they're a murderer for not taking on that risk. I shouldn't have even said anything, the more I think about your drowning example, the more obvious it is that it's incredibly insufficient.
How is money less complex here? What is my dollar spent on? The coffee machine? The coffee? Actual instruction? Which instruction? What instruction is most effective in preventing deaths? etc. etc.
Quoting Judaka
It always does depend on circumstances. Nobody is required to put themselves in harm's way, that usually excuses a person from doing what other people can do without risk.
I'm not sure in what sense it's insufficient. What do you mean? I'm trying to explain why I think there's a moral difference between contributing by giving cash, where there's no causal link between the cash given and a life saved but there is where I'm confronted with a situation where my actions can prevent a death and where failing to do so would be morally condemnable. My failing to give cash doesn't cause a death and is therefore not morally condemnable, my failing to intervene when someone's drowning does. Giving to charity is commendable but saving a person is morally obligatory in my view. I realise that view doesn't necessarily have to be shared by others but I do think it's consistent.
A couple of facts about dilemmas in general and this specific one need to be brought out into the open for all to see as it were.
1. Dilemmas are presented to the unlucky as choices but dig a little deeper and this turns out to be false. Imagine I offer you two vials both containing cyanide and I also stipulate that you must select one. Is that a choice at all? Both vials are identical in being undesirable. The same goes for the dilemma in the OP - they're identical i.e. both are equally things you wouldn't want to opt for. In short, a dilemma isn't really a choice and that makes the whole exercise of asking what you/I/anyone would do meaningless.
2. There seems to be deep misconception regarding dilemmas but it's likely that I'm alone in this. I've always approached dilemmas with an intention of making the right choice and having a good reason to back up my decision. This, it seems, is precisely the wrong thing to do. What dilemmas are purposed for is a closer examination of the belief systems/values/whathaveyou that give rise to the dilemma in the first place. Basically, dilemmas aren't meant to be solved, assuming the word ""solved" is apposite; rather they're like road blocks one sometimes encounters and should, if all goes well, force you to retrace your steps back to first principles and with a bit of luck figure out what's amiss.
Quoting Benkei
It's a matter of how one's time, effort and wealth is dedicated towards one's personal goals and wants. It's that simple, the intricacies don't matter, I'm not going to fault someone who is dedicating their time, effort and wealth to help others if they can't prove they are saving lives.
Quoting Benkei
It's insufficient because I don't know the details. When I was a kid, I got saved at the beach, I was taken out by the current and couldn't get back, a surfer noticed me and saved me. What if the surfer saw an eight-year-old kid desperately trying to swim back and failing, like 80m from the shore, right next to a cliff with sharp rocks and just ignored me. That'd be comically callous. I've also heard of stories of people trying to save someone from drowning in a dangerous environment, only to themselves drown. You could be talking about a minor inconvenience to yourself + feeling like you did a good deed, really a net benefit for you and no wonder you'd do that instead of donating your money, or you could be taking a serious risk and since you said "I'm saving someone in the water", I don't know what you're talking about.
Quoting Benkei
I agree with you, especially when saving the person isn't a risk to yourself. Everyone should agree that the moral option is to save the person on the tracks in OPs example. How can profiting from ignoring the needs of others be morally good? How can getting rich by letting others die be morally justifiable? The only way is to do the whole "I'd take the 100m and save as many as I could".
The question isn't about what is moral, it's about what your moral views are worth, what it takes to get you to betray them. Nobody thinks that abandoning a guy you could have easily helped for money is the ethical thing to do. My only point was that if you really won't look the other way to gain $100m, then that dedication should manifest in your life, otherwise they're just good-looking words. If it doesn't, does that mean you are lying and wouldn't take the money? Not necessarily but one shouldn't claim to be above prioritising themselves over the well-being of others when they generally do, that doesn't make sense right?
Quoting Benkei
I agree that there is, I'm not trying to morally condemn anyone for not donating their time and money, I'm saying that by not donating your time and money, you are prioritising yourself over your potential for helping or saving others. This is morally admissible but it's not that different from OP's example. Are there differences? Yes, there's a difference between failing to save someone in front of you and failing to look for people to save, a difference between failing to sacrifice your time and resources and receiving money for looking the other way and more.
As I said already, OP made this question comical by giving the value of $100m, he made it so that any answer which says they'd save the man, is effectively saying they're incorruptible, they value the morally right choice over any kind of monetary value. If he gave the value of $10,000, it's more reasonable, it's not life-changing money, but I still think many/most people would take $10,000 over saving a total stranger. $100m is so immense that you're giving up all measure of worldly desire for a complete stranger, it is quite a statement. I think philosophy tends to disregard the competitive aspect of society, it's all about collaboration and doing right by another, which leads to it being kind of removed from reality. The limitations of morality are stretched by $10,000, lmao, $100m, really? Do we all live in the same world or not? Is it even commendable to sacrifice such an opportunity of $100m just to save a stranger? Other than the fear of hell, does any other justification make sense?
Quoting Judaka
I don't know. I live comfortably money wise. More money isn't very meaningful to me and I think that will play a very big role in people's decisions as well. Another factor is probably how many people will be aware of your choice and who. My kids' and my wife's opinions matter and they would want me to make the moral choice. So fear of the wife instead of hell probably.
Judaka's issue is that he's already qualified the entire world as similar to him, and so he is in a circular position: the world is cruel and uncharitable, therefore I'll be cruel and uncharitable, therefore adding to the nature of the world, thus proving my position. It's very common, and is the justification of many for taking a selfish approach. It's sort of the precursor for greed. It's the thought that makes greed acceptable in the minds of the greedy.
The problem is that this doesn't just end at the individual level, but it projects into a global phenomenon. Those interested in encouraging the growth of common human welfare are ripe for the exploitation, and often times those who have been exploited accept this as their reasoning to participate in exploitation. People of this nature will consider those who aren't willing to participate in this exploitation weak, when in reality it takes more fortitude not to give into the nature of greed, and to seek the common welfare of life.
Judaka's position may be true, that the majority of people are willing to participate in the exploitation of others for money, but my point is: that doesn't make it right.
Humanity has a lot of potential. Poverty hinders this potential. Greed facilitates poverty.
So? What's your take on the dilemma? Should you go for the million bucks in brand-new notes or should you save the poor fellow on the tracks?
Bear in mind that, in this case, quite intriguingly, the choices on offer aren't, as I expected, equally bad; au contraire, they're, meant to be, equally good: who wouldn't want to get their hands on a million greenbacks? who wouldn't want to save a man from death? Nonetheless, this is an illusion of course; the actual choices are, either lose a million dollars or let a man die.
If you ask me, the system of values that confer worth on the two choices are poles apart - one is that which provides us with the means to do things (the million) and the other is that which is valuable in a way that can't be converted to dollars (life).
Imagine if the choices were either a million dollars or a diamond? This is an easy one for diamonds can be converted to dollars and vice versa.
Returning to the OP's dilemma, life is priceless i.e. we can't convert the man on the tracks into dollars, not even all the wealth in the world can buy life. Ergo, save the man and forfeit the million.
That said, the dilemma blows the lid right off the existing value-systems, operating full swing in society as we know it. Money has become the touchstone of value. Want to know how much something is worth? How much is it (in dollars)? Perforce then we should, do everything we possibly can, to see how many dollars the man on the tracks is worth? The other value-system we need to worry about in this scenario is that of morality and especially how it (morality) treats life above all else? When put like that, the choice seems rather easy (save the man), making the purported dilemma not a dilemma at all?
I'm sorry. This is not a very productive writing. Trying to understand greed and trying to find a solution for it that actually resolves it is difficult.