It would cause the least amount of damage of the options given.
Can't justify killing someone else to save someone else even if more lives would be saved. If I was the one guy being sacrificed I'd be pissed and I'd atleast want the option to volunteer first. The only time that would even be remotely necessary is if itwas the apocalypse and the last hope of repopulating the planet was on those train tracks.
While the men on both tracks will die as a result, I don't believe it is ethical to force one person to sacrifice their life for the sake of others. That is not my place.
It's not immediately killing anyone like pushing the man would, and it still saves 3 people.
Knowing the government, I would get charged with murder if I reacted by causing a fatality but by nature taking it's course and doing nothing would be a lesser charge if any at all. It also would depend on what I knew about the respective people involved.
I don't want to intervene in someone else's death.
Flipping the switch is easier for me. I could never push someone off a platform on to a track.
Both felt a little wrong, but pushing a man into the path of an oncoming boxcar feels worse.
I didn't want to be responsible for anyone's death but I also didn't want that many to die. Perhaps we could say the big man made the choice himself and he'll get a hero's funeral.
My action, whichever I choose, would result in a death. I'd rather not have that on my conscience. If I do nothing, all the consequential deaths will be accidental and not my fault.
Pushing the man in front of the boxcar would save the most lives out of all of the available options.
While I would not want to see the larger number of people killed, and doing nothing would cause just that, I could not do something that would intentionally cause the death of a person.
In flipping the switch, there is a chance that the endangered man will see me running toward it and this will alert him, or that I may see some other action enroute.
I don't believe in interfering and making a choice to take an action that will kill someone.
Pushing the man would be murder, even though it would save lives. Even though technically flipping a switch ends up with the same results, I would be better able to justify it to myself and others.
It would be wrong either way for one to choose who gets killed and who does not.
I would not push the large man off because that would be too direct for me to cause his death. Sure it would save the five other workers but deliberately pushing the man is too much for me. It feels a little bit different just flipping the switch in orderto save the three workers. Yes one will die but I will save the three others, and I would be more willing to flip a switch and doom someone than shoving someone to his death.
I could not push the man to his death, even if it saved the other five workers. Flipping the switch accomplishes the same outcome (the death of the man by my decision), but would be less 'hands on'. Both choices are horrifying.
I don't want to kill anybody to save a few extra lives. IT's not right to kill anybody, the only time it is acceptable is for defending yourself.
Those workers have an unspoken agreement about the dangers of the job. It is reasonable to expect that this sort of thing could happen. It is not my decision to decide who lives or dies. You cannot weigh one life against others as life isn't a quantifiabl object. Those workers who were not in any danger deserve to survive even if it means their living means more dying. Why? They took it upon themselves to be in positions that were safer, even if they have no knowledge that their positions were safer. My argument may be weak, and it may need redfined. But generally, it would feel wrong to decide who lives and who dies.
If I push the man off, I will save the 5 men on the track and the one off to the side. If not I would be killing 8 people.
Flipping a switch to save 3 humans lives by sacrificing 1 life doesn't seem immoral to me. Pushing someone off a track seems immoral to me.
I wouldn't want to be directly responsible for making such a choice.
I decided to push the man off the platform because I would save five lives versus flipping the switch and saving only three lives and killing one worker.
I wouldn't want to take anyone's life. It's not right for me to decide.
Its not my place to end someones life to save others.
I just don't think it's right for me to play God.
Something had to be done no matter what.
I think it saving five workers at the coast of one is acceptable. Its just numbers and five is greater then on.
I'd flip the switch in order to save three people, while sacrificing one. It would be for the greater good. I wouldn't push the man because that seem more like murder than flipping the switch, since the man wasn't on the tracks at all.
I really do not like any of the options, however, I went with the majority.
I thought only 1 person would die but I guess it is actually 6. Since the 5 on the other track die. THis was a bad choice.If I would of pushed the large guy only 4 would of died
I could not take an action that would purposely end another life. The circumstances for the unfortunate 3 workers in the path of the train were already set in motion. I had nothing to do with those circumstances. While I realize that my inaction is als a choice resulting in death, it is less morally offensive to me.
I could not do either because no matter what I do somebody will die. I don't want to be the reason a man died over the women or vice-versa. If I can't save everyone, I couldn't do anything.
I would not make that choice. I am not going to choose one person over another - each person's value is equal.
In both scenarios, someone is going to die. I feel more comfortable flipping a switch than I do pushing someone onto the tracks.
If I flipped the switch only 5 men on the track plus one on the side rail would be killed making 6 total deaths. I pushed the fat man to kill him and 3 men on the other track making 4 total deaths instead. There are to more living people in the route I chose.
The least about of people would be killed.
I don't feel it is my place to interfere. It's not my place to decide who's life is more valueable.
I am not God and it is not my place to choose between people to live or die. I would try to save them another way.
Maybe the one workman has time to get away, but if I push the large man into harm's way, I'm actively killing him.
I felt like I had the most control over the situation.
I do not want to interfere with the decisions that have been made. If I do, I may be legally charged with voluntary manslaughter just by flipping the switch. The family of the person I killed would hold me liable and hate me. I don't want to play god.
Fuzzy thinking. If I have enough time to do either of the given options, then the men have time to get off the track. If I must chose to flip the switch, push the man in front of the boxcar or do nothing, I'd do nothing as I wouldn't directly kill anyone by my actions.
I would not wish to be responsible for anyone's death. If I do nothing, it will be someone else's fault.
I wouldn't want to cause someone's death, and if I did either action, I would be causing someone's death.
to save the 3 men. would never push to kill another innocent man, fuck that
The good of the many vs. the good of the few.
I would want to save the most people as I could.
It's better if fewer people die, but I don't kill people and couldn't be certain that my choice would lead to fewer deaths.
I would rather let one person die than three, but would not want to push someone to their death to save anyone.
I can't see myself sacrificing the larger man. flipping the at least saves the more people without doing this horrible act.
If I don't do either many people will die. I couldn't live with the guilt of physically pushing a man to his death, so flip the switch is the only option for me. This was a very hard decision.
There is no reason for a person to die if life already chose others to die.
I do not want to be directly responsible for anything. I would rather just let things take their course.
Pushing the large man onto the tracks would force me to personally kill an innocent and otherwise uninvolved person in order to save five others. Whereas flipping the switch is simply is a matter of adjusting for the fewest number of casualties in an accient that is already doomed to happen.
I can't feel okay about putting an innocent person in danger when they aren't in danger.
I don't like to be placed in those moral situations.
I would not be able to make a choice, thus I don't think I would do anything.
I think that after flipping the swithc hell move and well be able to walk away
I don't want to be directly touching the victim. It make me feel more guilty.
I don't think it should be up to me who lives or dies, so I chose to just leave the situation alone.
It is not my place to choose who lives or dies.
I don't have the heart to purposefully kill someone. I consider it this way: if I wasn't there then those people would have died from the train car accident anyway and the fat guy and single worker on the other track would have lived. I can't carry aroundthat guilt for years!
It's the choice with the least amount of damage. I would never intentionally kill someone, so flipping the switch is the only real choice for me in this case.
I would not want anyone to die so I would try to flip the switch if possible.
Things happen. Who am I to choose who lives or dies?
I would not want to kill someone to save other people.
Putting aside the ridiculousness of the situation, that somehow I know for certain that each of the outcomes will happen as you state, I prefer to not have to do an action that harms someone. I regret that others will be hurt by my "inaction" but if I had not been there, they would have been doomed anyway. I do not like having to purposely sacrifice someone in order to save other people. I suppose the families of those 3 people on one track and 5 people on the other might be angry at me, ask why I didn't do something, but if they knew some innocent would have to die in order to save their loved ones, I don't think they would think poorly of me because I did not MURDER someone to save their relatives. This choice (to not choose and do anything) is the closest choice to what I woulkd do in real life. But in real life I would yell at the people to get out of the way or try to find a way to save the people without killing anyone. I think only psychologists would be so eager to kill another human being in order to save others.
Flipping the switch means that only one person dies. Any other choice kills more people. So less killed is the best choice.
Simply someone screwed up with the scheduling of the workers or something else went wrong with scheduling. I feel like I should just let it happen, because that blood would not be on my hands than, due to someones screw up.
By flipping the switch, I am not using my hands to physically contact the man who will be killed. There aren't any good answers here.
It was an easier choice to flip the switch than physically push the man.
I don't want to cause the death of another person. If I choose to take any action then I would cause the death of someone who otherwise would not have been harmed if I had taken no action. I would prefer to let the calamity take place without me choosing people to die who were not already involved in this calamity.
i felt that physically pushing a man to his death was to active of an intervention and to personally causing that mans death. by flipping the switch, i was actively diverting the certain death of five while causing the certain death of one semi-passively (on an emotional level) - compared to placing your hands on an unsuspecting mans back and throwing him onto the train tracks. not flipping the switch was morally impermissable as four extra lives would have been lost.
I am not going to kill an innocent person. It is not my place, nor my decision to make. Fate will take care of who will be killed without me interjecting my opinion and killing someone who is an innocent bystander.
I chose not to do either so that no one's death would be on my hands; it wasn't me who set the chain of events in motion, therefore I did not want to intervene and insert myself into a situation where I would have to live with the consequences for the res of my life.
I don't think that either choice should be made, as it would involve killing someone, which I think is wrong (even if it would save more people).
I wouldn't do either, just because you think your saving a life doesn't logically justify the need to take another. You may save one person now, but what if that person were to save 100 people in the future? Nature is best played out naturally.
They are all workers on the rail line. It is assumed they know the risks. If the ones in the way of the runaway sections are unable to get out of the way, they are not doing their job right. I am not going to chose to kill someone else just because they others aren't doing their job correctly.
I logical choice was to save the most lives I could and I chose the switch to save 3 lives.
That option saves as many people as possible (5). My options are to either let 8 people die, let 3 people die, or let 5 people die. The choice is obvious, since I don't know who any of the people are and cannot decide that one group or individual is more mportant to keep alive than any other.
I would not want to be the direct cause of another persons death. I would look for different ways to save all lives.
Saves the most people for the amount of life lost.
It should not be my decision to decide who dies and who lives. If I were able to save everyone, I would have taken an action, but since I can't, I will let fate decide.
Even though people would be killed no matter what my choice, I cannot knowingly push a man to his death. However, I can flip a switch that would save three people.
I would feel morally responsible for the death of either man, as I have to consciously decide to act.
It would save more people. Either way, one person is going to die. I would feel better if I knew I killed someone to save five people as opposed to only three.
I would not feel comfortable making the decision to end someones life by my own actions. Although more people will get killed if I do nothing, this is somewhat out of my control- as I did not directly cause an out of control railroad car, whereas, pushingsomeone or flipping a switch would be in my control.
I don't feel like it is my place to choose to end the life of another, at any cost, without their knowledge and consent.
One goal of the choice is to minimize the number of people that die. Another goal is to have the deaths be "agreed" to. Anybody who is working on the tracks understands that there is a risk an accident like this happening. The people working on the tracks "agreed" to take this risk. However a person standing on a bridge has not expect to be killed by a boxcar. The person on the bridge has not "agreed" to be at risk of being killed. Therefore, although pushing the large person on the tracks would save the most (5) lives, because the large person has not "agreed" to be at risk, killing him is murder and unjust. However, flipping the switch is just because the worker on the tracks has "agreed" to be at risk. At a result, exposing him to that risk in order to save (3) lives is justifiable.
I think by pushing the man off of the platform will save more lives than the other situation presented.
I would not feel comfortable causing the death of any innocent person, no matter what the circumstances. I don't do mathematical calculations in my head to say "well, I could kill one person and save 3." That is cold.
It is not up to me to make this decision. I am not allowed to decide who lives or dies and should not make that decisoin.
More people would be saved by sacrificing the one man to save five.
I would not want to be charged with murder; overall, I would morally want to save four people, but would feel gravely responsible for pushing a man to his death.
i dont want to be responcible for anyones death if possible.
If I do either, I'm directly responsible for the deaths that happen afterwards, even if more lives are saved.
I don't think it's my place to actively kill one person to save other people. If I was choosing to kill myself, that's one thing, as I have a right to choose my own death.
I do not want to be the reason of getting somebody killed, even if I would save other people. I would rather pretend as if I am not in the situation at all, and avoid killing somebody whatever the reason is.
I can't take an action that causes anyone to die
there are other options, such as yelling at both groups are calling for help. in any event, I would not take a positive action that would hurt someone else. I would jump myself before I would push the large man
I can save the most amount of people if I push the fat man over.
No matter what I do people will die. I feel my choice is the only ethical one seeing as how I personally would not be causing any of the deaths. My negligence would be just as bad as actively altering the train route or pushing the man.
Killing someone, even to save someone else, is still murder. Yes, you will save lives in the long run, but you will have killed someone who had absolutely no say in the matter.
It would save the greatest number of lives.
I do not think it is my place to personally conduct an action that will take an innocent life, even if it would in theory save a few others from their fate.
The opportunity to save the two (net) lives is difficult to pass up. But directly forcing a man to his death (pushing in front of train) wouldn't be something I could do. It would maybe make the choice easier if I knew which coworker was where. I've ha some coworkers that the world would be better without...
I don't have the right to alter events to cause somebody else to die, when they wouldn't have died otherwise.
I don't feel comfortable pushing a man to his death, but flipping a switch feels like a reasonable choice because (at least in my mind) there is a chance of survival for the 1 worker (even though the story indicates otherwise).
Pushing the man off the platform is pretty violent and direct. You are directly killing him. Flipping the switch is at least leaving the one man on the other track a chance to get out the way.
It runs the possibilty of killing the least ammount of people.
The most people would be saved this way even though I'd have to actively push a man to his death.
I can save 3 people by flipping the switch and would not be intentionally murdering anyone.
i just cant do the 2nd choice its like murder either way i cant save em all such a crazy scenario like final destination
It is not my place to decide who should live and who should die regardless of the number of causalities involved.
A total of 5 people are saved when you push the man, only 3 are saved when you flip the switch.
i would put it in God's hands to decide.
Even though I would be saving lives, I would be taking away another man's life. I will not commit murder, no matter the circumstances.
I don't think it's better to kill somebody to save a larger group of people. I think that choice can only be made by the person dying. I don't believe morality is influenced by numbers.
The workers on the main tracks in both cases should be on the lookout for anything coming down the track. If they aren't cautious as they should be, they suffer the consequences. The large man does not deserve to die to save people who aren't being prudnt. The same is true of the lone worker on the sidetrack who had no reason to be on the lookout, since he was not on the main track and doesn't deserve to suffer for people who aren't cautious.
The fewest fatalities would occur by this action.
I would be so shocked by all the choices that I would freak out and be paralyzed and not be able to take any action.
Flipping a switch is much easier than pushing a large man, doing something is better than nothing.
There is a chance that some of the men on the tracks would survive, even with no action taken. It would not be moral to kill anyone intentionally, so it would not be proper to take any action.
Flipping the switch saves lives; however, the "distance" from actually killing a man allows me to live with my conscience. Though a man would still be killed whether I flip the switch or push a fat man, I do not actually want to come in physical contact ith the man I kill.
Maybe there would be some outside the chance that the one man on track B might survive, but pushing the fat worker off the bridge is pretty much guaranteed death for him. I am not going to actively kill people.
I don't want to be associated with the death of anybody. Doing nothing is a socially acceptable response and I will not be charged with manslaughter.
I don't think I have the right to make that decision. I can only sacrifice myself to save either group.
I would flip the switch because it would only cause one death rather than 3 or five. I chose to flip the switch over push the man because in my mind it seems like the less evil option. I know that either way I would be responsible for the mans death, but ushing him seems far worse than flipping a switch. Its less personal
I don't want to be responible for killing anyone even if that means I could of saved others. I would let destiny/fate run it's course.
It is not my responsibility/duty/right to choose who lives and who dies. Each person is responsible for himself/herself and his/her safety. If it were possible to save someone/everyone without killing others, then, of course, I would take the necessary acion to save lives. But I am absolutely not going to make an active decision about whose lives are more worthy. The fact that people will die is not my fault; I'm not actively participating in anyone's death.
I wouldn't want to be the person that is respossible for 1 man's death. Even though other people may die, their deaths wouldn't be my responsibility.
I want to save the most people possible, and by pushing the man I save five people.
I would not want to be responsible for flipping a switch or pushing someone, resulting in a death. Would I be held accountable for their deaths if I did nothing? I am not sure.
that would make the train go somewhere else
i'm not going to take action to spare lives and condemn others to death, no matter how directly or indirectly.
I could not do either because I would be interferring with what was supposed to happen and what right do I have to make a choice as to who lives and who dies. I would feel horrible but I know that I could do neither action.
By pushing the man, I will save the greater amount of lives (6 men vs. 4 men).
Causing the heavy man to fall requires me to have more contact involvement in the outcome. Hitting a switch is bad but is not as intense as actually touching this man and then causing his death because he was there on the tracks.
I think it would haunt me for the rest of my life if I had to physically push a man to his death. Flipping a switch seems to distance me from the death of the other worker.
It is not up to me to play God. I wouldn't be able to kill anyone, even if it meant saving the others.
I cannot morally allow myself to kill a person to save others but I will use a switch to reduce a death count from 3 to 1
Pushing the man saves more lives than flipping the switch.
It is not right for me to decide who should live and who should die. I will leave that to God and not try to influence the outcome by endangering a person who is not in harms way.
I could not push the man over so I guess I would flip the switch. Not great choices.
I will save more people doing that choice.
I honestly do not know which decision is better.
It is better to sacrifice one life rather than five lives.
It was a hard decision, but I decided to push the one man to save the five other workers. If I did nothing, five instead of one person would be run over.
I know logicaly that more lives saved should be the goal, but I would not be able to be the one to make the decision about who lives and who dies. I would not be able to actively cause someone's death by pushing him/her or by flipping the switch.
It is better to kill one man than let 5 people die.
I would not want to be responsible for making the decision of who would be killed.
By pushing the man, I would save the most amount of people possible that I can think of in this scenario. Others would die, but that's true of any option I pick.
I would sacrifice one life to save many.
Currently I am a spectator and can not be held responsible for any deaths, my being there has no impact on the outcome. I would rather go along with what would happen without my interference then to implicate myself in any of the deaths or the savings.
It is not my right take the life of one innocent man to save another.
I cannot interfere with fate and God's plan. I would love to save these people but I cannot play God.
I would not want to be responsible for killing someone even if it meant others might be killed.
Pushing the man is such a personal act and is a definite act of murder. I don't think I could do that. Though death would result from flippingthe switch and is still technically murder, I would not be in direct physical contact with the victim. That makesit a slightly better choice for me
A catastrophe is in motion, and people will probably die, but if I intervene in a way in which I'm nearly certain I will kill another person, I've made a choice to kill someone. I don't know with complete certainty that the workers will all die or that something else might happen on the original tracks. Since I don't have any choices that don't involve me being responsible for death, I would rather let events unfold.
I was originally not going to do anything, since that was a choice, but because most people chose to flip the switch, that's what I did
It's the lesser of three evils. Do nothing 3 get killed. Push the guy, and you're extremely guilty. Pull the switch, and only 1 gets killed but not directly--you can claim you didn't see him there when the switch was flipped.
Pushing the big man would save five lives, as opposed to just saving three
I don't think fast in improv situations. I'd most likely be dithering about what to do and get neither action done.
I couldn't physically push someone to his death. It seems like flipping the switch was the lesser of two evils
It would save more lives. It would kill 4 people (the big man and the 3 other guys) versus flipping the switch, that would kill 6 people.
What happens will happen, and I will not feel guilty by not choosing either option.
At first I thought I could save the men from the disaster but I don't want to take the lives of either men. There has to be another solution to save the workers. I don't want to be at fault for switching a switch when that one man was the best worker or mst respected worker on the team, we don't know who this man is. Nor do we know who the fat man is. He could be the boss and what would happen then? I don't know. There has to be another solution.
The good of the many outweigh the good of the one.
That's like playing God. How can I make the choice between saving some lives, while sacrificing others? Someone is going to die no matter what I do, so I would hope that this is what's supposed to happen. I hate questions like these.
I can't justify causing someones death by saving others from death. A life is a life and none deserve to be wasted.
I cannot kill the fat man in order to save the other five men. I would feel really guilty because I pushed him. I would not be able to feel or say that I saved 5 men. I would only be able to think that I killed a man, and the guilt will haunt me for the rest of my life.
I would flip the switch because it would be morally wrong to push the man.
I would forever feel guilty if I were the direct reason for someone's death.
I don't want to be responsible for causing someone's death.
I'd rather save three people over one because although the loss of any life is bad, saving as many as I could would be the priority.
I know I would save three workers and pray the lone worker could escape.
By pushing the man, he is the only one that dies. It saves eight lives.
I would flip the switch because I don't want to push anyone and interact with a human being. I would rather flip a switch and have it be over.
I think that flipping the switch is the most moraly acceptable choice. You would be commiting murder by pushing the man to save the five people but you would only be diverting tragedy by flipping the switch from 3 people to 1 person.
It is unethical and inhumane to kill anyone, even it will save other lives. Therefore, I think none of the answers are appropriate.
Losing 8 lives would be worst scenerio, which is what would happen if I did nothing. If I helped track B, 6 lives would be lost. If I helped track A, then 4 lives are lost. I took the choice that minimized the loss of life.
I would not want to be responsible for the death of the large man or single worker.
I think in this scenario I might still be able to yell as I switch the box car for the one man to move out of the way. I also couldn't bring myself to physically push someone onto the tracks.
I could also shout to the worker on the side track so hopefully hr would be able to move in time.
Pushing the man onto the tracks would result in the least amount of casualties.
I don't want to be directly responsible for the death of a person
Sacrifice one to save more. I sort of think this is the right thing to do, but I also sort of regret my decision as it may be more ethical to just let a scenario play out than to intervene and sacrifice someone.
By Sacrificing the one, I would be saving the other 5. I know its not right, but at least five people would not be dieing that day.
I don't feel I have a right to decide. Whether it's one man being killed or 3, I could not do it.
Pushing the large man would save the most lives. Pushing the large man would save the 5 workers on the first track, but the large man as well as the 3 workers on the other track would die, leaving 4 people dead. Flipping the switch would save the 3 workers on the other track, killing the other worker there, but leaving the 5 on the first track to die, leaving 6 people dead.
It's not my decision to make who dies and who doesn't.
I would not purposely sacrifice a person's life.
I would not push the man off the platform and onto the tracks although that would save the most people. It would mean being too active in causing someone to die. I would flip the switch to save the three people, because it is more indirect.
I could not push anybody to their death even if it meant the deaths of 5 others.
At least if i flipped the switch i could always say i didn't know there was someone on the other track. If i were to push the fat worker, thats gonna get me a murder charge. And if i did nothing i wouldn't be able to live with myself knowing i didn't helpanyone.
I meant to put flip the switch so if I could push the man to flip the switch to save the 3 men and lose the 1 that is what I would do because more people would be saved
Who am I to decide who lives and dies? Someone is going to so let fate take its course.
I would rather just one fat guy die rather than multiple people dying.
I would never actually push someone on to the tracks. It's a violation of any kind of trust between people to push someone into danger without their consent, even if more people will die if you don't do it. I wasn't sure I would flip the switch either, bu since both of those sets of workers are already on the tracks I guess I might. I'm not entirely sure it's the right thing to do, though.
There would have to be another choice. I do not like a choice in which someone has to die regardless.
I wanted to save as many people as possible even if it meant that one person would die.
I think I would feel very guilty about purposely performing an action that would directly result in the death of another human being.Even if more lives would be saved by that action. It would be to much like playing God.
I couldn't have anyone's death on my hands, so I would just let fate take its coarse.
I don't want any of their deaths on my head so I'm just gonna let it play out. Why the hell are they on the tracks anyway.
Even though by not taking any action more people would have died than either of the other two options it is not my right or decision to sacrifice other people in order to save other people. I would not want to be sacrificed against my will even if more people would be saved as a result of myself being sacrificed and I have to respect other persons right to not be sacrificed without making that choice for themselves.
It would save some people and I would not be directly involved in pushing someone to his death.
I would not want to be an active participant in anyone's death
I would not desire to be responsible for the death of any human being.
I could not kill someone even to save others.
I would not like to be reponsible for purposely causing someone's death even if it is to save a few others. Who's to say me pushing the big man will allow the 5 others to excape in time. There could be other factors that may cause the 5 workers not to move such as shock.
I do not have the right to sentence innocent people to death.
As difficuly as it may be to intentionally kill on person, if the other actions are taken, more lives will be ended.
You can't change things in life and make someone else die.Its like playing God, God makes those choices.
It would allow me to save 3 people even though it would kill one. It would be saving more lives.
I would push the man because I dont want to die!
I do not want to be directly responsible for the death of anyone in particular.
I could not push the man or flip the switch. I would be responsible for someone getting killed. I would do neither, call for help or scream.
If I did anything I would be playing God, I don't think the families of the workers or the legal system would accept my explanation for what I did.
That would be the better choice to not kill as many.
pushing the man saves 5 lives, while switch saves only 3 people. greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
I do not want to be blamed for making any choices because either way someone would be killed and I would rather pretend that I could not make a choice or I was unable to make one.
First of all, let me say that I reject the use of goofy thought experiments to arrive at, justify, or measure positions in moral philosophy. Nevertheless, I'll play along. Although flipping the switch only saves net two lives whereas pushing the man would save net four, nobody has the right to compel the man to give up his life to save the five workers. The same is true of the one man on the tracks, but he has also accepted more risk than a passerby by taking a job on the tracks. He is in the same position vis a vis rights as the other workers, and since one of the two groups must due, it *may* be acceptable to make a decision based the numbers of workers who will die as a result. Again, however, I reject any use of this response to draw philosophical or applied conclusions.
I do not feel I should alter the course of what is already happening. It is not my responsibility to choose who lives and who dies. The workers should pay more attention!
It is not my place to play God. If I am making a decision like this that would still result in death, I would not do anything.
I would flip the switch to save more lives' including those of women which I feel would be chilverous.
i'm not 100% sure that pushing the fat man would stop the boxcar, but I'm amost positive fliping the switch would work.
I would try to flip the switch so I could try to save someone. The bigger issue for me is if I do nothing I would feel worse than if I did something that led to someones death. Even though the scenario states that the guy will die, I would still take my cances.
I do not like playing god, As much as I would hate to see the 5 men get killed, I do not feel it is my place to change fate.
I would rather not be responsible for the death or anyone. Therefore, I would do nothing. I cannot play God by deciding who lives and who dies.
I do not have the right to choose which people live or die. I would call for emergency assistance instead, even though the deaths might be inevitable.
If I killed the large man that would be murder and he didn't have anything to do with it so I would let fate decide and save the other workers by flipping the switch
As of right now, nobody is responsible for the deaths of anyone, it was merely fate or chance that the boxcars killed those people. An accident. If I were to flip the switch or push the man I would be making a decision that someone's life is less importan than the others. I would be responsible for their deaths and I'd be a murderer.
I would have to actually kill a person deliberiately by pushing him off the ledge in the first choice, in the second I just have to flip a switch. Although technically I'm still killing the person I don't have to push them, and htey don't see me kill them
If I took any of these actions, I would be directly responsible for the deaths. If I take no action, I am not responsible for anybody's death and what will happen will happen.
There are more people to possibly save by pushing the man. In either case people will die, it's a matter of saving as many as possible. My choice saves 6 at the expense of 4.
It just seems like the most lives would be saved if I pushed the man.
Since someone is getting killed either way, I'd rather save 5 people than 3
I believe having myself decide who lives or dies is not fair to any of the men. I would not intentionally kill someone.
Either decision I make someone will be killed. I would do nothing and let fate handle it. It is not my decision to alter or change fate.
Pushing the man results in 5 deaths. Flipping the switch results in 6 deaths. Doing nothing results in 8 deaths.
It would be wrong to push the man off the platform, and by flipping the switch I would be choosing who would die. If I do nothing, people will die but it would not be my decision.
I don't have the courage to take someone else's life in order to save another person's. There are no good choices here.
If I pushed the man from the bridge I would have physically participated in his death, whereas id flip the switch the man only has a very hight liklyhood of death, it is theoretacally possable for him to escape.
Because is the better choice and less people die.
If I pushed the man off the platform I would be committing murder. If I interfered and tried to save the five workmen by helping to assist in another man losing his life, I would feel guilty for the rest of my life. This was a tough decision to make, but I would rather not make any decisions that involves saving others by taking the life of someone else. Each life is valuable and work just as much as anyone else's.
I thought that it would better to save the most people as possible. Pushing the fat man would save the most lives.
If I take action, I would feel responsible for a death. In this case, given my limited options, I feel that my inaction does not make me responsible for the deaths that would insue.
I don't want to be explicitly responsible for killing anyone.
It's a lousy choice, but killing one person to save 5 is a resonable tradeoff.
I don't feel as it is my place to interfere.
OK so I'm going only by numbers here but if I push the big man, I save 6 lives but kill 4 (1 large man and 3 others on the track). 6>4.
I don't think I could push someone to their death, but by flipping a switch it would make it easier. One person is worth saving five other lives. Sacrificing one for three to five lives comes as close to moral as I think I can get besides doing nothing.
I don't think I could intentional kill the fat man to save the others.
I'd feel horrible if I intervened in any way with the consequences presented.
If I do something I will kill a person. If I do nothing, people will die but it will not be my fault. Perhaps it is their time to die.
Making a quick decision like that in the moment, I wouldn't be likely to think of pushing a man in front of something that would kill him. My reaction would be to look for a way for the car to not hit a person, not find a way to slow it down. Even if I di think of slowing it down, using a person wouldn't enter my mind.
It's not my choice to play God. I don't want to be liable for anyone's death.
Although I could take aciton to save more lives, I don't want to be personally responsible for killing someone by a direct action. If an accident happens, I would be "innocent," but if I take action, I would be guilty of the man who died and people wouldn't think about the lives I saved.
Well, if you push the man, that's definitely murder, even if you're saving five other people's lives. Whereas, with the flipping of the switch, that's also murder, but a good lawyer can get you down to manslaughter, because obviously that person knew the isks when he was on the track.
My reasoning is that I'm saving more lives on track A. There will be casualties on both tracks, just not as many.
If I intervene I become directly responsible for taking a life. I would prefer to let fate take it's course since there is no happy outcome for this situation and I don't want to be responsible for an action which resulted in a direct loss of life.
I'd rather save five people rather than three.
i dont want to have to be responsible for killing a man
i would push the man because it would result in the fewest deaths
I would not do either because I would be charged with murder in 2nd degree most likely, possibly first if it could be shown that I had an argument or a motive to kill someone on the train-I may end up with an overzealous prosecutor trying to make a name fr himself and thus overcharging. At the very least it will be manslaughter, or negligent homicide. There is no reason for me to intervene as it is the workers fault for not checking the tracks and ensuring safety. Not my problem and getting involved wil only make things much, much worse for me.
I do not want to be responsible for someone's death, yes the numbers work out, but who am I to play God?
The only rule I can even think of apply in this situation, theoretically, is the utilitarian one where saving five people at the cost of one is "better" than saving three at the cost of one-- but all this is really very hypothetical and I would be extremey likely to regret it later.
In not wanting anyone to get killed, that is not an option so the best option is to save the most lives as possible.
By pushing the man I am more involved in killing the man, where as pulling the switch I am further away and would probably feel less guilt
by pushing the man i'm able to save a total of 6 while losing 4
I do not feel like playing God. If I do something it's murder. If I do nothing it's just an unfortunate accident.
It's the only way to save the most people.
I've no right to decide the fates of the men that I'd have to sacrifice to save the others. Therefore, I do nothing.
Because I wouldn't feel like I was killing the other person. If I had actually pushed the man, then I would have personally killed him.
To take either action would make me responsible for at least one death.
it seems like by flipping the switch, i get to save more people than otherwise, however it does seem like an extremely difficult choice because i do not have the authority to decide who gets to live and who doesn't
I don't like any of the choices but it seems to be the one that would have to be used. If I could push someone bigger then me hard enough to actually fall on to the tracks.
It seemed like a small sacrafice to save greater group
I would do that because flipping the switch at least give s the guya chance to live and I am not physically doing anything to him
I wouldn't want to be responsible for people that I don't know and their deaths. It should not be my responsibility to do anything.
I think this is the action that I would take if this profoundly disturbing scenario actually occurred. I could not bring myself to be actively involved in the killing of people. Bad luck for the eight people who die, but good luck for the two that live.
I would flip the switch and save the three workers. In real life I don't think many people would be willing to kill another human being with their own hands, and neither would I.
If I push the large man, I save five people, sacrificing four: the three workers on the other track, plus the large man. If I were to flip the switch, six people would have died. If I were to do nothing, eight people would have died.
I dont think I could push the larger worker over, without falling myself. I could also flip the switch much faster then pushing someone. I would prefer nobody die but if I had to chose, thats what I would chose.
I would save the most amount of lives by pushing the fat boy on the rail.
Mainly, I cannot play God in this situation. My hope would be that the men would see the boxcar coming and manage to get off the tracks.
not quite sure its the only answer that seemed reasonable
I don't know, it just seemed the thing to do
I do not belive in killing anyone but I could not kill the bigger guy
One life to save multiples is the lesser of two evils
Flipping the switch allows me to save some lives but does not require me to physically push someone to his death.
I am not sure what I would actually do, but to wilfully murder someone is a pretty tough choice no matter what the options are. I can see me hesitating long enough that it would all be a moot point in either case.
I would flip the switch, because I would not physically be killing a person. I would not be pushing them. If they would die, I could make the justification that I saved someone.
If I push the man or flip the switch I am the one killing the persons/person. If I do nothing..It is not my choice who dies. / Regardless of the result..I would be making the choice to kill someone. / / Think about this....If the choice involved school children crossing the tracks..that may be a different delima..just sayin...
obviously, they're all terrible, but flipping the switch gives me the most distance between actually causing someone else's death.
I can't have someone die by my hand just because it would save someone else. I don't think that's my choice. However, if I had time to run over and push the larger worker into the path, I may have time to put myself in his place. That would be within my rghts to choose. It's my life I'm choosing to have or lose.
I felt like it was the right thing to do. I am a moral person and this seemed like something I would do.
I wouldn't feel right about choosing to sacrifice a person's life even if it would save others.
I went full circle on my selection as I couldn't imagine taking one life even to save multiple lives therefore, I would just wish for some type of higher intervention.
I can't be convicted of murder if I do nothing. If I push the large man off the bridge, I have definitely murdered him. If I flip the switch knowing the man on the side track will be killed, I could also be considered a murderer.
The is a bad dilemma for me and I have trouble making snap decisions.
I would push the man because I would be saving more people.
I realize that it's just a matter of semantics, but I couldn't bring myself to push another human in front of a train to save five lives. I think I could pull a switch resulting in the death of a single man to save three lives. I think I feel the same way about weapons: if I had to stab someone to save a life, I'm not sure I could do it, but if I had to pull a trigger to save a live, I think I could. If that makes sense.
It would kill the fewest people. I would not want to do anything but if I had a choice I would save the most lives I could.
Either way, one person would die. I chose to save the highest number of people.
I picked the option that resulted in the least possible casualties. Three men on track B will still die, as will the large worker on track A, but four casualties is less than five.
In order to save 5 men, it is OK to sacrifice 1 man.
I cant chose who dies and who lives because I am not a GOD. I don't think I can live with making that choice.
I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I pushed the man onto the track and he was killed. I chose to flip the switch because it would save 3 lives.
I didn't separate the boxcars, and while people would die, I would not be responsible for it. I WOULD be responsible for someone dying if I flipped a switch or pushed the overweight man over a bridge.
In either scenario, I would be responsible for deaths if I did anything. If I flip the switch, I indirectly cause a death. If I push the man, I directly cause his death. Therefore, I choose to do neither. More people may die, but it doesn't seem right forme to have the ability to decide who lives or dies.
I do not believe I could push somebody to their death. While flipping a switch also condemns somebody to die, it is done without me having to physically push them.
Its wrong to kill one person to save others.
It seemed like no matter what, people were going to die. If I did nothing, than I am guilty of taking no action and letting people die. If I push the man, at least I will have saved 4 lives (5 people minus the man I pushed = 4).
Honestly, the situation is a bit unbelievable, but if I were in that stuation, I would not want to risk doing something that would end up making the situation worse than it already is.
I dont believe it is my right to make life or death choices for other people. I can't decide that someone will die. If there was a choice just to save then fine but I cannot condemn someone myself.
Because I would be able to feel like I didn't directly do anything to hurt anyone.
I think it would kill the least people without me actively murdering anyone.
I would prefer to push the man and save 6 people, while only 4 (3 + the man I pushed) died, but I don't have the right to decide that an individual who is otherwise not in harm's way should die. / / In the case of flipping the switch, I am sacrificing the life of one individual on the second track, but he is already in harm's way, simply by luck of the draw. / / To be honest, I don't care about any of the workers, or the company they work for. I just presume that there will be less social consequences for me if I flip a switch to save 3 lives than if I I purposefully kill one individual to save 6. I'll have plausible deniability when it comes to sacrificing the life of the individual on the second track, and no one will be able to blame me for it. / / If I were truly free to make any decision I wanted with no consequences, I'd let the boxcars hit all the workers they were heading towards. Then I'd shoot the worker on the platform, and feed the last living worker on the second track to ravenous bears.
If I am involved in the person onto the track, I would be the person that murders the guy. I feel it is not justifiable for me in any means to do such action. However, flipping the switch will simply redirect the cart so that I can save 3 people. I am actually working on a car to redirect its position instead of pushing the person to his death.
If I push the large man the most possible people are saved. The five workmen on that track and the one on the side track
I want to save as many people as possible.
Pushing the man will result in a saving of 4 lives. Flipping the switch will result in the saving of 2 lives.
I do not think that I have the right to choose who will live and who will die.
I'm not going to kill anyone regardless of the reasoning behind it.
Pushing the man maximizes the total well-being of everyone.
I could not live with the idea of pushing the fat man and killing him.
those people on the tracks were in the wrong place at the wrong time. it is all an accident, if i push someone into the track or purposefully lead a cart down the other track then it is my fault and i don't want to play the role of deciding who lives and ho doesn't. i will just let it unfold how it originally happened and if there was a way to save the people without sacrificing anyone else then i would do it.
I feel like I would feel less guilty for flipping the switch, rather than pushing the man.
I would save more people(5 individuals) by pushing the man down but would only save 3 persons if I flip the switch.
I felt that performing either action was a conscious choice to kill another human being. While doing so would ultimately have caused less deaths, I didn't feel that ethically I had the right to force this sacrifice on another.
not in a legal position to make such choices
Better chances of 5 people getting organized to save themselves... that and flipping the switch I didn't directly have to touch anyone or get close to anyone...
Not sure there is an explanation. Choosing to change the trajectory of a cart seems less immoral than pushing someone.
Actually pushing a man to his death would sit harder on my conscience than flipping the track and allowing the train to hit someone, while saving other people.
One life is just as important as many, I don't think I would be able to make the choice.
it seems logical to sacrifice one person to save others, but to actually go and push a guy in front of a train is much harder than flipping a switch
I don't think it would be right to alter the course of events to purposely kill others, I don't think 3 lives are necessarily more valuable than 1. I would feel guilty if I was the one who flipped the switch, it would be better to not be involved in the stuation at all.
This is the only option that would save lives and feel a lot less like murder.
Pushing the man would be me physically choosing to kill him. I t appears to me as murder. Flipping teh switch however was saving 2 lives.
Pushing the man would save 5 lives. Flipping the switch would only save 3. Someone is going to die regardless
If I flip the switch, the fewest people die, but it also is less effort for me than pushing a guy off a bridge. Maybe I would hope that if I hit the switch at the exact right time, it would trap the boxcar and save everyone.
The loss of life is always sad and sometimes difficult choices must be made even if to preserve one extra life. My logic in this case is that it is better that 4 men die instead of 5.
I don't want to be a murderer and throw a man in front of a train. I figure me and others there have to do our best to get the attention of the other men to let them know about the train that's headed toward them.
This was a very hard choice to make...I think I probably picked the switch because I would not be directly involved in physically causing someones death. If I pushed the man it would be because of my DIRECT contact with the man. But if I just flip the switch I caused people to be saved without having to be the direct cause of killing someone.
I don't want to be responsible for putting anyone in harm's way. Both scenarios you have to make a choice to put someone's life in danger which will kill them. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. The workers know the risks involved and should know beter. But I'm not going to kill somone to save more people.
If I pushed the man off the bridge or flipped the switch, I am causing their death. Someone or something else is causing the death of the 5. I don't want to be the cause of death.
Pushing the man would save more workers, but I would not be able to put myself in such direct control of somebody's life. Even though flipping the switch will also kill a worker, it feels more distant than physically pushing somebody to their death.
In the first scenario, I'm acting on a man; in the second, I'm acting on the track.
Despite knowing the alternative, I can't justify killing a man. It would be immoral. I would try to find another alternative, before willingly killed an innocent man.
This is a difficult choice. If it were a matter of pushing someone out of the way to save them from harm, even if it meant harm to myself, I would not hesitate. But to intentionally kill someone, even to save others, is too much like playing God. I do notknow if I could live with the choice either way, and I pity a person ever put in such a position.
I will not kill someone else for the chance to save lives, that is a slippery slope waiting to happen. Which then can be used to justify all sorts of horrible things.
In that scenario I would completely freeze up. How am I to decide whose life is worth saving? What if the three people on the tracks are horrible people? I try to avoid difficult decisions like this in my life.
Because I want to save at least some people and if I push the guy I feel like I am actually murdering someone. By just flipping the switch I don't really feel that way.
I definitely could not push the man off the platform to save the five workers. Even though some might say it is justified to take a life to save more lives, I do not think I have the right to make that choice. I pictured having to explain to the family ofthe man I pushed why their loved one had to die. I do not think they would find that acceptable. I came closer to deciding to pull the switch on the other track to save several workers by sacrificing a single worker. However, I decided that even if I did ot physically push that worker to his death, pulling the switch would essentially be the same choice and I could not justify it.
I did not cause the situation which would lead to the death of either the 5 people on one track or the 3 people on another track. Therefore, I am not responsible for the results of those situations and I have no duty to prevent any predicted fatalities. If I were to push the man, killing him, it would be directly because of my actions, and I would be rightly held accountable for that death. If I were to flip the switch and kill the other man, then it would be directly because of my actions, and I woul be held accountable for that death. If I do nothing, then I am not responsible for any of the deaths which occur because there are no options available which would prevent death without placing the cause of a death back on me.
I tried to save as many lives as possible
None of the men should have been standing on the track, all put themselves at risk. I chose the option that assured the least repercussion for the men who made a bad choice. The man on the platform is innocent of bad choice, in this instance, and should not be harmed.
I would be able to purposely take part in killing a man, even though for a "good' cause.
All of the choices are bad outcomes, so there is really no sound ethics between choosing to kill one person or five. I ultimately chose to do nothing as a way to try and 'passively' avoid my own responsibility and guilt for choosing one eventuality of murer.
i flipped the swith because only one person would be killed.
I don't think it's might right to decide who lives and dies. It is up to the workers to alert each other as to the impending danger. I don't want to directly be responsible for anyone's death. There is a chance that the workers will get out of the way befre they get hit.
It is the choice that results in the smallest loss of life. Even if I do nothing it is still making a choice
It is the choice that produces the most benefits.
I would choose to push the man, because it would save more people.
I would not want to harm the man at the platform.
I do not feel comfortable "playing God" so I would not take any action that intentionally hurt another person. I'd rather not perform any action at all and let fate take its course than kill another person by my own actions.
It is my personal belief that I should not play "God." In either of these choices, I would be doing just that--choosing who would die. While it would be difficult to not do anything to try to save these people, I would not be able to choose either action.
These kinds of puzzles are always difficult. First how could you push over a large person who might fight back? Second how could you "know" what would happen in this situation. Leaving aside the absurdity, I don't ever believe it's right to sacrifice an idividual human deliberately, regardless of how many others are in danger, because people are always trying to claim that I should be the sacrifice because others are in "danger" of something that doesn't even approach a fatality -- that my career and lifeshould be sacrificed so some lazy white male can buy a car, that my life should be sacrificed to live with an abuser or mentally ill relative. I know I don't deserve to be sacrificed so no one else does either.
I based my decision on the lives that would be saved.
I do not want to be involved in this moral dilemma.
I would to save there because it is the right thing to do.
I think because it would be an indirect way to save lives.
I couldn't push anyone to their death to save someone else. I don't have that authority. The decision is God's.
I would have a really hard time pushing a man to his death, so I'd go with the sqitch.
I chose to flip the switch to save the three men, because I wanted to save all of them, but I don't think I could personally push someone. I guess in my mind, if I flip the switch, there is still a slight chance that the one person who could be killed coud still get rescued somehow.
I would push the man even though it's morally wrong to save more life's.
This is a moral dilemma. I am not sure how I feel about killing another person for reasons other than self defense.
I would feel more responsible for pushing the large worker in the way than flipping the switch.
Either way 4 to 6 people would die. I couldn't choose who that would be. I'd scream for them all to move.
If I flip the switch then for sure 3 workers would be saved and maybe there is a chance that the on workman would see the boxcar in time and jump off the track and no one would die there.
While I understand there is a greater loss of life by this choice. I think I would not be able to live with myself if I pushed the man, however pushing a switch would allow me to distance myself from the act. It just seems easier to justify to myself.
Pushing the man would save the greatest amount of lives.
I thought it was the most moral thing to do, because studies have shown that most participants choose to push the man.
It is not my choice as to whether someone lives or dies.
I would rather not actually push someone to their death, flipping a switch is less personal
I chose to push the man because that action would prevent the highest number of fatalities, as five workers would be saved.
There was no mention of anyone dying if I chose that option.
They have plenty of time to get off the train track if it was really important to them because its a train track. I'm not killing anybody to save anybody cause that makes no sense to me, so if they really want to live they should try to get off the train tracks
I could not kill a person who was in no danger. Also would probably be paralyzed by panic.
I believe saving 5 people is the better option
I would save more people if I push the man
simple calculation, save 5 but lose 4, as opposed to save 3 but lose 5 or save 1 but lose 8
It is unfair for the other person to die even though the number of people would can die outnumbers in both situation. all human lives shall be respected, regardless how small they are.
i would save the three... it would be very tough though to fighure out which to do... it would be hard to judge unless i was really in that situation and that was real
Knowing that people I don't know would be killed, I don't want to play god and decide who is to die by my hands and prefer nature to take it's course. I'm sure my answer would be different had it said my child or loved one was one in danger, however in ths case I can't make that choice on who should die or live.
Pushing the man would save more people than flipping the switch and both actions are morally equivalent.
This seems to save the most amount of people, and I'd rather not do nothing,
One guys dies versus five guys dying. The five guys dying would be a larger loss of life.
I regard it as morally wrong to consciously cause someone's death. The other lives are being lost because they chose to be where they are and to not be alert to the dangers of their situation. The large man can see the boxcars coming and can choose to sacifice himself if he wishes. As for the other, I wouldn't "volunteer" him to be a sacrifice.
I feel if I pushed the guy then it would be murder, while flipping the switch would not.
It is a tragedy but it is not my decision to make. Who am I to say who deserves to live and who dies? What if all of the groups of workers were child molesters out on work release and two single men were husbands with children?
I really don't know. I don't want to kill 3 people but aka don't want to physically kill someon
I could not physically kill someone. That's why I will not and cannot push someone to their death even if it is to save 3 workers. Also I had a hard time thinking about the choices between flipping the switch or doing nothing. Doing nothing would result i 3 people being killed while flipping the switch would result in 1 person being killed. As much as I want to do nothing and remove myself from the situation, I think I would flip the switch because at least I was saving the most possible lives.
There would be fewer lives lost in total.
Pushing the man would save more lives, but I don't know if I could actually physically kill someone like that because of the horror of it. Flipping the switch would save some lives. it's not so direct as pushing someone, but it does the same thing in the nd. This is an awful choice. No matter what happened, I would feel guilty and traumatized for a long time afterward.
Because I am flicking the switch instead of pushing someone to killed or hurt. I can flick the switch and try to yell to the one man to warn him that is in the path of the train.
I don't want to be responsible for anything.
fLIPPING THE SWITCH REMOVES ME ONE STEP FROM THE CAUSE OF DEATH. lIKE A PILOT OF A DRONE. i AM STILL RESPONSIBLE BUT MY HANDS ARE NOT AS DIRTY.
Although it would be a hard decision I would rather spare a few lives and take one than do nothing and let the three workers die.
Someone fat enough to slow down the train car was bound to have a heart attack soon anyway. I would rather save the 3 workers than let the fat guy off the hook.
I'd feel guilty - didn't matter what choice I make.
I shouldn't be able to control any man's fate. Whether or not I would save more lives, I would be taken away another one. I'm not prepared to take anyone's life and I will not.
It is simple utilitarian logic. Life is going to be lost either way, so it might as well be one life instead of three. I chose the switch because it provides some detachment from the situation, as pushing the man is directly killing him, whereas the switch is indirctly killing the other man.
It would save more people even thought he would die its sill good for more people to live
I believe that it can never be right to take an innocent persons life so I would do nothing as that is the only option where I would not be required to take a life.
Whatever I do someone will get killed, I wouldnt want to kill anyone
Doing nothing would kill more people than doing something, and pushing the man would make me feel like a worse person. My choice is to flip the switch.

It was a similar dilemma, though did not involve boxcars
I remember similar dilemma that required me to make a choice like this, but I think they were single scenarios rather than double.
There was a similar one with the switch flip but I have never seen the version with the large man.
Yes, but I "think" this is unique in that it gave me three options. Push, flip, or do neither.
I have had to choose between one situation but never two. My answer is still not to involve and ultimately kill an innocent person.
I've answered questions about this dilemma, but not this particular variation.
Yes, it was similar, but slightly different as it was a push a man or do nothing choice.
Only the boxcar part with the large man, and I don't remember my answer, but I think I did nothing there too.
yes, but none of them gave the option to not do anything
Yes, I recall my answers, but the delimas were posed seperately and not happening simultaneously.
I have participated in studies that have the flip switch option by itself but not with the pushing the man option.
I have done a survey with similar questions, but never together in one survey
I participated in one that asked me if I would push a fat man in front of a runaway car to save a certain number (3 I think) of people. I remembered my previous answer.
I have answered similar ones, but not one exactly like this.
It was similar, but this one was more complex and thought-provoking.
yes but generally its 2 seperate questions.
Yes, but without the man that could be pushed in front of the train. That's new to me.
I have never done a study with it but I learned about it in a class.
I participated in another study involving a different scenario that asked you to choose between taking a life to save others, or allowing everyone to die. I do remember the answers I gave in that study.
I have never been presented with TWO options, only pushing the man off the platform to save five men. The addition of a switch and another decision was new to me.
Yes, I remembered, but it was a different scenario.
A similar question but the circumstances were different. It was either throw the man or don't... and only one train.