Sacrifice one person to save five? Easy answer, right? Keep watching. Because the final question changes everything. Same five lives. Same one life. Suddenly the moral argument gets a whole lot more uncomfortable. Watch the twist at the end. Then tell me this didn’t make you think about MAID... in Canada.show more

That’s a little different situation though. If their organs are failing are they near the end of their lifespan? Of course you’re not going to kill a perfectly healthy person. Unless you’re the government of Canada!!

The Liberals are still pushing or mental illness to be a reason for maid. Plus Canada has now become a leader in organ harvest. Must be just a coincidence

@dieseldude2010 Does any aspect of published MAiD policy address organ harvesting?

@therealmrbench

Interesting. My answer would have been yes to the switch, but no to the push and all after.

If you do nothing you’re not responsible for taking any lives. If you take action you’ve now murdered three people.

Personal id let the first 5 die I wouldn’t interfere as soon as I do I’m held accountable of taking a life, so if I don’t touch anything technically I haven’t killed anyone and fate took its course

I’m not taking moral and philosophical thought experiments from a dude with that ludicrous of a beard braid wtf. No. No one is entitled to other’s organs. MAID is absurd and even more absurd there’s grown adults pushing it.

My answer to question 3 would be "no" because it creates a disincentive to seeking medical treatment. But your point is valid. For the medical system, MAID is lucrative, especially for mental health cases because these have healthy organs.

If its Gods will that 5 die destroying your soul to save them is not a wise path .

Those organs are going to be useless after being hit by a train.

Current society would definitely sacrifice a healthy person if it meant getting to treat five sick people. The longer they would stay sick better. It’s exactly why we support and promote food-like products, soda, cigarettes, pesticides etc.

First answer is easy 1 -5 second question actually asked you to purposely kill an innocent not chose the less of two evils actually (murder) the last question is only proving Marxist theory and communism as everyone is expendable for you are nothing but property of the state to be used as they see fit

Id leave the train as it was regardless of which group was where. I can save a life but I cannot choose who should die.

Probably the stupidest quiz I ever saw in my life saving the first person I understand but pushing the 2nd guy from the bridge is absolutely criminal I may alter circumstances to save more people but I should never change someone decisions or situations to save other people.

The moment you touch the switch your responsible for whatever happens next. If you mind your business and keep going whatever happens, happens and it doesn’t effect you at all

For me, remaining a witness to the deaths of five people is preferable to becoming the killer of one; tainting the essence of the soul is far graver than the societal hypocrisy involved in saving five individuals.

There is a 3rd option. Do nothing. You dont have to take the guilt of any of it. Besides, Only Indians stand on train tracks long enough to get hit. Doing nothing seems like the right choice here.

last scenario is different. one healthy person is not equal to one unhealthy person

That was tough. I don’t want anyone to die. But i am totally against maid. Hard decisions have been made in my family in recent years with DNR’s. At least they passed with dignity.

First of all. Loved this video and the thought experiment in general. However I think this highlights the inconsistency of the real world where each person would not be of equal moral value let alone value of other types. It’s uncomfortable but each person is not of equal value.

The only right answer:

@Sammy_canada2 What a stupid question. Of course not. Who the fuck are you to play God as a doctor?

You switch the tracks to save the 5. You do not push the fat guy off the bridge to save the 5 as it’s not his fault there’s 5 idiots on the track. You do not kill one person to save 5 because it’s not his fault 5 people are dying

5, than reverse, than 1, than join Tony Blairs think tank.

It depends on the race of the people on the train tracks. If all white obviously I would redirect the train to only kill the one person saving the five white people. If they were black then I would not redirect the train, resulting in five less niggers infecting my planet.

Does switching the track delay the train or make it not go the correct destination? 🗿

I really am annoyed by this stupid trend of what do you do if you five people versus one clearly the one but why does the train keep going? Why does the train stop after it kills those five people at the first junction why does it keep going

MAID is a decision made by the individual. It is possible to be against it and still allow someone else freedom of choice. The train analogy for the first 5 vs 1 would be the 1 (or the 5) deciding if they wanted to stay on the tracks or get off of them.

My answer is to not interfere in either situation. If there are 5 people standing on train tracks, then they get what's coming. 5 less idiots in the world.

The last situation is way different lmao ya lost me there

The last example isn't valid. There is no guarantee you will save a single person with the organ transplant

I'd pick up the 1 person and add them to the 5 people. Kill all 6.

You have 6 people. If you eat one person and vomit into each of the 5 mouths of the people while saying a demonic ritual the other 5 will survive. What are you gonna do? Will you eat the first person to save the other 5? Its either 5 other 1

This has never been a legitimate test. My answer has always been to continue trying to find a way to save the 5 on the track. Pseudoscience would assume only 2 courses of action are possible; Actual science seeks answers.

You do nothing. You leave the switch alone. Yes 5 people will die but down the path is another 5 so that's more people. Pulling the lever means YOU have killed someone yes it's to save 5 but YOU didn't put them there. Plus the other way is another 5 so you're back at square 1

The intervention only apply to the first decision… the overpass person you push is murder… this is a stupid interpretation. Nowww, you could take the organs of a murderer to save 5… the kind that have multiple life sentence…

If anything, wouldn't you save four people out of the five by swapping their parts. Why take the healthy guy?