Would you answer a quick question to help dd with her sociology course please?

[UserID]

It’s following on from the Train dilemma where you are asked would you pull a lever, leading to one death but saving five?

DD’s question is basically would you pull the leaver to save the 5 strangers if the one person on their own is a close family member such as your child or parent.

I’ve put it in aibu for the voting.

Yanbu: I would save my close family member rather than the five strangers

Yabu: I would save the five strangers rather than the close family member.

As a new mum, definitely the family member, ie. my child. Sorry.

@TheGirlWhoLived

I would save my child over every other outcome available. Other family members are more disposable!

This with bells on.

I'd save my family member if I couldn't save all 6

In the scenario in the OP taking no action would save my family member, so that's what I would do. I'm not sure what I would do if it was the other way round and pulling the lever saved the family member. If it was my child I'd save them either way round, instinctively I think. Once you get into extended family and children being in the 5 I honestly don't know.

I think this really depends on who the family member is.

Depends on who the people were. If it was my mother I’d probably tie her to the tracks! Old family member v a group of kids. I’d save the 5. My child would trump everyone though.

What aspect of sociology is this? I only ask because Ds1 is studying A'level sociology.

Yanbn- family member

Well...it depends on the family member doesn't it?

If it was my horrible father I'd speed up his way.

Yanbu- family member.

I remember listening to a radio programme where something similar was discussed. It was - if your family were all drowning and you had a choice to save DH or your kids who would you save? No I'd save my DH and he'd help me save the kids just a straight choice. Most men said they would save their wives, most women said their kids.

Sociology lecturer here, love that you’ve asked.

I would save the family member if it was a close one (though I’m NC emu parents and might be a bit partial to pushing them in front of a train, I’d obviously want to save dc or Dh).

@mindutopia
I have a follow up question: what's the point of this question in this form? Without thinking it is quite obvious what the outcome will be based on human nature. If this gets asked at uni - what's the point that you either want to teach through this or want them to realize? not goading, real q.
I think it would give real insight if it was a nuanced question.

@SilverBirchWithout

I think these hypothetical scenarios have limited value. They tell us only how we would like to behave rather than how we would actually behave. The reality is in a crisis we don’t often have time to make considered decisions and can’t predict what the outcome of our instant actions will be. Faced with a gunman in a doorway, no doubt tackling him to the ground may save more lives, maybe your own, and your family members. But our latent protective instinct would be to run with our child as the gunman opens fire on the others. This is at the core of survivor‘s guilt, we believe that maybe we should have done more to help others. From a sociological perspective the group would benefit with everyone working together, from a psychological perspective protecting ourselves and those most dearest to us is the most likely and primary choice. This is very apparent in our reaction to Covid restrictions, we all know protecting the NHS and the most vulnerable is best for our society, but we don’t want people we care about to pay the price (our children’s education, a family member’s job).

Interesting and insightful, @SilverBirchWithout!

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@mindutopia
I have a follow up question: what's the point of this question in this form? Without thinking it is quite obvious what the outcome will be based on human nature. If this gets asked at uni - what's the point that you either want to teach through this or want them to realize? not goading, real q.
I think it would give real insight if it was a nuanced question.
[/quote]
A big part of a level sociology when I studied it was to do with family relationships, what constitutes a family, the significance of the nuclear family in society and how the definition of family is changing as time goes on. So I expect it's to encourage us to delve into how society structures family by considering who our closest family members are and the meaning family has to us.

I don’t think you should intervene and pull the lever at all, as it’s not your call that the one person should die regardless of how many would be saved by their dying. However, honestly, I would pull the lever to kill 100 if it saved my own child.

Are we assuming that we actually like the single family member and they didn't abuse you throughout your childhood?

I would save my family member

I would save my family member.

I don't know how to vote but I would save my family member 200%

Obviously this is all theoretical, it is hard to know what you would do in reality. I voted to save family member - but I was thinking of my kids and partner. My elderly parents wouldn't want me to sacrifice 5 people for them.

It's a really basic ethics dilemma, use Utiltarianism, greatest happiness for greatest nember , so.you sacrifce the one for the many regardless of relationships. All ethical theories come to the same conclusion.

But what if the family member was Fred West,... and you were psychic. .?

Just wondered if that would change things.

If I were psychic I could have warned all 6 people to keep off the tracks in advance.

I don't have any close family members who are so horrible that I could shrug off their demise.

Close family member, assuming there was no other way to save the other people.

Family member