We come across situations like this in our day to day life and feel confused to get out of it. The video would help you make right decision under confusing circumstances.
I agree MISSRITAC, I just happened upon this during a search and found it perfect for my topic on ethical decision making in nursing. Thanks to the author and for your comments. ajp
I like to appreciate all who commented on the video and I respect every ones feelings. Normally people have a tendency to make judgments on the face value, if we start looking beyond what is invisible, we will be in a better position to make the right decision and that's the message, this video is trying to convey.
I think the right thing must be done. And the truth goes with right. I will allow the train to run on it own path/way. beside, the kid playing on the disused way, knows that that is the right place to play. Moreover, when i allow the train to run on it own way, I rescue so many passengers on board and the life of the sensible kid. Because the passengers on board may die/be injured instantly when i change the way for the train. By the way, thanks for sharing this. Ernest Nelson Dugbazah (GTUC)
Was very educational. My mother in law, my daughter & my son took part in this study. We benefitted very much from it. Thanks for such nice presentation. God Bless You!
This is a trolley problem and to say there is an objectively better answer is something I completely disagree with (unless you tamper it to make sure that there is an objectively better answer, but often it involves choosing between factors like a mother vs. 2 strangers and things like that. Some may say they'd save their mother. Some may say they'd take the utilitarian route and save the majority. Some might look at other factors like how old the mother is compared to the two strangers to determine which option would likely result in the most life lived after one side is saved. Some may take the route of simply looking at the outcome after the fact and basing judgement on whether the decision was right or wrong based on how good the outcome was compared to how good it could've been (which would also be subjective). Some might look to factors like "Did the two strangers bring it on themselves by getting drunk and messing up in a way that resulted in this trolley problem?" There's also "Would I need to physically murder my mother myself in order to save those two strangers?" There are so many things to consider and how people consider things can be very different given many different scenarios and so on... You can say that not diverting the train is good because maybe the railway could be dangerous for the people maybe on the train, but to present that as a factor after the initial dilemma is given and saying that is why not diverting it is the right way is just misleading for the dilemma... Further, what if the railway is safe? Maybe there is only one old guy controlling the train who would die of a heart attack anyway? Who says that it is a train filled with passengers and not supplies and why was that not presented with the initial dilemma since it seems like an important factor to know. That, or it should be made clear that you are uncertain if there are people on the train so at the very least it adds to the dilemma by adding an air of uncertainty to it making it even further more or less subjectively the right choice... The rails COULD be dangerous and there COULD be lots of people on it, or there could be hardly anyone and it could be safe... But not making that a clear factor to consider is like saying that not diverting the train actually put the train on route to be hit by a meteor from the sky or blown up by a bomb... If you throw that in after then people would probably go with sending all these people down the dangerous tracks because although they are dangerous, they likely aren't as dangerous as an explosion... Or maybe there would be another train it would crash into, so maybe sending the initial train into an explosion would be the right choice... Who can really say unless you are given this information to begin with to make it a fairer dilemma (or at least told that it is unclear) That's my thoughts anyway...
I find it ridiculous everyone blindly agrees with the video. These are children. Who is to say they knew which track was dangerous or were able to evaluate how dangerous. Why should the child's ability to evaluate determine the worth of their life? The train consequence is something that would need to be determined prior to evaluating an ethical dilemma. If they were babies that wondered onto the track, would that change your decision? Is your decision based on personal consequences, such as guilt due to taking actions and playing an active roll in one child losing a life. Although I appreciate the point of view, I highly disagree with what this video is saying (assuming the train isn't derailing).
"Wouldn't the people just see the train comin' and move?" "No. No, they wouldn't see it." "Why not?" "Well...Look, I don't know. Say they're blind." "All of them?" "Yes, all of them." "Then why don't you just call out and tell them to move out of the way?" "Well because they can't hear you." "What, they're deaf too? How fast is the train going?" "But the speed doesn't matter!" "Oh, well sure it does. If it's going slow enough you could...outrun it and shove everyone to the side."
I would rather warn the children than divert, but within the framework, definately let the train stay on the approved track. Ethics is reward the one doing the right thing (identify the rusty track)...and not protect the foolish and ignorant from their choice of actions (thus importance of teaching them to identify hazards). Diverting, ethically, means no matter how good your choices, some prick will likely wipe you out for their own ignorant shortsight reasons. Which in the picture means it's no point learning how to identify the safe passage, only the shortest reward and the biggest mob....how far do you think that kind of thinking is going to take your community or world?
The trolley problem: Case 1: Most people would sacrifice the few for the many. Case 2: Most people who believe in case 1, when they have to push fat boy to save a train of passangers would not do it. Case 2 means most people are too much of a c*t to kill one person for the sake of many, but have no problem if someone else kill the fat boy to save the many. This generalize to governments. Most people have no problem with their government even if their government f*k with some minority group if the majority feels that it benefits them in some way(Case 1), but most people would not do it themselves( Case 2). In other words, most people would rather outsource their problems to a third party. Indifference is a moral choice.
The thing is that i, myself, wouldn't sacrifice my life for others, a group if children in this case. So, i think making this kind of very serious decision for other person without his/her consent is unethical.
Let me clarify it further that the concept was taken from the net and I only did the compilation through pics and background music. I have been teaching Ethics for the last 7 years now and during this time, I have come to realize the fact that learning ethics will enhance your decision making skills in trying situations. In order to make an emotional appeal to the audience, situations like these are created out of mind to put the audience into thinking out of the blue and come up with a solution, one has never even thought about, before. Kids are one of the best gift, God has given to us and putting them into a situation like this will help us test our senses in trying situations like this, when we are about to loose one of our prized possessions. So, it has got nothing to do with any ill intent on my part towards kids. I personally think of them as angels and love them. I hope I made my point.
I'd choose to switch the tracks just as the train goes to the intersection and effectively derailing the train given that it is a transport train. the train driver is an adult and neglected to see the children from such a distance. Since I can spot the train and the children, so should the driver with a greater vantage point. If its a service train, I'll let the kids die. I'm not legally responsible for them.
For me, I decided that I would let the train continue it's course on the working track even if the kids were there. In this scenario, I am not a train worker or anything of that sort, if the children perish it will not be my fault.On the other hand if i changed the train's course, i would be responsible for the little boys death. Unless it was a family member or someone i love was on the live track I would not change a thing.
I would have just yelled at the kids to get off the tracks, they're not stuck or anything and whoever doesn't follow my orders will get run over by the train, their fault now. Other kid was playing on a perfectly safe track(should have been), I'm not going to get him killed for being safer than the other idiots.
i do NOT want any child to know anything about crucifixion. putting an image of a man nailed to a cross into children's minds is child abuse. telling children their parents are sinners is grooming. CHRISTIANITY IS UNETHICAL!
Crucifixion was done by the Romans, they have done that so many times before they decided to do that on Jesus, the Christians are just showing this happened and then some. Not exactly unethical, if anything Romans were the unethical ones, but they thought what they were doing was the right thing, so it's pretty much unethical to our standards but back then, they just kinda cried cuz their loved ones just died....was their fault for trying to rebel.
Good question, that is why the case is called 'Ethical Dilemma' Saying oneself 'ethical' is way too easy then to practically prove to be 'ethical'. In this case, Ethics says, that you must not change the track to save your own kids, as they were violating the rules and putting the lives of thousands at stake. But even then I think whosoever is the driver, 99% chances are that he will try to save his kids putting the lives of all the passengers and the lone kid in jeopardy. That 'gray area' will never become white and that is the test of an individual for the cause of humanity.
actualy driver of train cant change the direction. :/ if he could the question is still the same. And I think I would try to save the majority. idk. but what i would do is not the question here the question is about ethics. And very nice presentation. Thank you very much Mr. Hussian.
This argument seems polarized. Yes, not all popular decisions are right, but you must also know that more popular decision are right than wrong. Also, I disliked it when you said no one would shed a tear. Actually they would probably cry a lot, because they knew it was not his fault, but they had to sacrifice the lone kid in the interest of the group. I don't advocate one way or the other. I'm just playing devil's advocate to your ideas.
I agree MISSRITAC, I just happened upon this during a search and found it perfect for my topic on ethical decision making in nursing. Thanks to the author and for your comments. ajp
I like to appreciate all who commented on the video and I respect every ones feelings. Normally people have a tendency to make judgments on the face value, if we start looking beyond what is invisible, we will be in a better position to make the right decision and that's the message, this video is trying to convey.
I think the right thing must be done.
And the truth goes with right.
I will allow the train to run on it own path/way.
beside, the kid playing on the disused way, knows that that is the right place to play.
Moreover, when i allow the train to run on it own way, I rescue so many passengers on board and the life of the sensible kid. Because the passengers on board may die/be injured instantly when i change the way for the train.
By the way, thanks for sharing this.
Ernest Nelson Dugbazah
(GTUC)
Amazing Presentation. Nice work
by_the_way I thought train should be stopped.
Was very educational. My mother in law, my daughter & my son took part in this study. We benefitted very much from it. Thanks for such nice presentation. God Bless You!
Wow, thanks for sharing this clip was very thought provoking. I can always appreciate a profound truth.
This is a trolley problem and to say there is an objectively better answer is something I completely disagree with (unless you tamper it to make sure that there is an objectively better answer, but often it involves choosing between factors like a mother vs. 2 strangers and things like that. Some may say they'd save their mother. Some may say they'd take the utilitarian route and save the majority. Some might look at other factors like how old the mother is compared to the two strangers to determine which option would likely result in the most life lived after one side is saved. Some may take the route of simply looking at the outcome after the fact and basing judgement on whether the decision was right or wrong based on how good the outcome was compared to how good it could've been (which would also be subjective). Some might look to factors like "Did the two strangers bring it on themselves by getting drunk and messing up in a way that resulted in this trolley problem?" There's also "Would I need to physically murder my mother myself in order to save those two strangers?"
There are so many things to consider and how people consider things can be very different given many different scenarios and so on... You can say that not diverting the train is good because maybe the railway could be dangerous for the people maybe on the train, but to present that as a factor after the initial dilemma is given and saying that is why not diverting it is the right way is just misleading for the dilemma... Further, what if the railway is safe? Maybe there is only one old guy controlling the train who would die of a heart attack anyway? Who says that it is a train filled with passengers and not supplies and why was that not presented with the initial dilemma since it seems like an important factor to know. That, or it should be made clear that you are uncertain if there are people on the train so at the very least it adds to the dilemma by adding an air of uncertainty to it making it even further more or less subjectively the right choice... The rails COULD be dangerous and there COULD be lots of people on it, or there could be hardly anyone and it could be safe... But not making that a clear factor to consider is like saying that not diverting the train actually put the train on route to be hit by a meteor from the sky or blown up by a bomb... If you throw that in after then people would probably go with sending all these people down the dangerous tracks because although they are dangerous, they likely aren't as dangerous as an explosion... Or maybe there would be another train it would crash into, so maybe sending the initial train into an explosion would be the right choice... Who can really say unless you are given this information to begin with to make it a fairer dilemma (or at least told that it is unclear)
That's my thoughts anyway...
I find it ridiculous everyone blindly agrees with the video. These are children. Who is to say they knew which track was dangerous or were able to evaluate how dangerous. Why should the child's ability to evaluate determine the worth of their life? The train consequence is something that would need to be determined prior to evaluating an ethical dilemma. If they were babies that wondered onto the track, would that change your decision? Is your decision based on personal consequences, such as guilt due to taking actions and playing an active roll in one child losing a life. Although I appreciate the point of view, I highly disagree with what this video is saying (assuming the train isn't derailing).
The train should go it's way the one smart kid shouldn't have to pay because of his stupid friends
"Wouldn't the people just see the train comin' and move?"
"No. No, they wouldn't see it."
"Why not?"
"Well...Look, I don't know. Say they're blind."
"All of them?"
"Yes, all of them."
"Then why don't you just call out and tell them to move out of the way?"
"Well because they can't hear you."
"What, they're deaf too? How fast is the train going?"
"But the speed doesn't matter!"
"Oh, well sure it does. If it's going slow enough you could...outrun it and shove everyone to the side."
What a plot twist !
A great video has helped me with my module. Thank you
Thanks for appreciating
I would rather warn the children than divert, but within the framework, definately let the train stay on the approved track. Ethics is reward the one doing the right thing (identify the rusty track)...and not protect the foolish and ignorant from their choice of actions (thus importance of teaching them to identify hazards).
Diverting, ethically, means no matter how good your choices, some prick will likely wipe you out for their own ignorant shortsight reasons. Which in the picture means it's no point learning how to identify the safe passage, only the shortest reward and the biggest mob....how far do you think that kind of thinking is going to take your community or world?
thank you for this! :)
beautifully made
The trolley problem:
Case 1: Most people would sacrifice the few for the many.
Case 2: Most people who believe in case 1, when they have to push fat boy to save a train of passangers would not do it.
Case 2 means most people are too much of a c*t to kill one person for the sake of many, but have no problem if someone else kill the fat boy to save the many. This generalize to governments. Most people have no problem with their government even if their government f*k with some minority group if the majority feels that it benefits them in some way(Case 1), but most people would not do it themselves( Case 2). In other words, most people would rather outsource their problems to a third party.
Indifference is a moral choice.
The thing is that i, myself, wouldn't sacrifice my life for others, a group if children in this case. So, i think making this kind of very serious decision for other person without his/her consent is unethical.
great chapter sir..
hats off to u
now never forgot meaning of ethical dilemma
Thank you
Can you please clarify what do you mean by GAY in the video? I am sorry, I am unable to understand your question.
Sajjad Hussain gay meaning why kids why not adults if you put kids peaple will think of you as a child rapper
Let me clarify it further that the concept was taken from the net and I only did the compilation through pics and background music.
I have been teaching Ethics for the last 7 years now and during this time, I have come to realize the fact that learning ethics will enhance your decision making skills in trying situations.
In order to make an emotional appeal to the audience, situations like these are created out of mind to put the audience into thinking out of the blue and come up with a solution, one has never even thought about, before.
Kids are one of the best gift, God has given to us and putting them into a situation like this will help us test our senses in trying situations like this, when we are about to loose one of our prized possessions.
So, it has got nothing to do with any ill intent on my part towards kids. I personally think of them as angels and love them.
I hope I made my point.
amazing
Trolley problem
why should i write a summary about this video....... for my assessment
Lol one year later I’m here and thinking the same thing
another year later and here I am
@@HeartsSchool lol has it been 2 years already!! i dont even remember which sbject is it lol
our teacher also gave us assignment to write summary on this video too
@@HeartsSchool here i am with the same mission as you all: write a summary on the vid
WOW...I LIKE THE MESSAGE.
wow very interesting
If there's time to divert the track shouldn't there be time for the kids to get off the track?
The music was a bit creepy
Cool not many decisions
I'd choose to switch the tracks just as the train goes to the intersection and effectively derailing the train given that it is a transport train. the train driver is an adult and neglected to see the children from such a distance. Since I can spot the train and the children, so should the driver with a greater vantage point.
If its a service train, I'll let the kids die. I'm not legally responsible for them.
well, i chi=ose not to change the course of the train,.
For me, I decided that I would let the train continue it's course on the working track even if the kids were there. In this scenario, I am not a train worker or anything of that sort, if the children perish it will not be my fault.On the other hand if i changed the train's course, i would be responsible for the little boys death. Unless it was a family member or someone i love was on the live track I would not change a thing.
I would have just yelled at the kids to get off the tracks, they're not stuck or anything and whoever doesn't follow my orders will get run over by the train, their fault now. Other kid was playing on a perfectly safe track(should have been), I'm not going to get him killed for being safer than the other idiots.
gud
verry helpful sir thanks a lot
Thank you
Hussain...
i do NOT want any child to know anything about crucifixion. putting an image of a man nailed to a cross into children's minds is child abuse. telling children their parents are sinners is grooming. CHRISTIANITY IS UNETHICAL!
That is an ignorant comment sir. You can lump religion into child abuse.
Tom N. Teaching crucifixion is CHILD ABUSE! It is INTENDED to traumatize into submission!
Crucifixion was done by the Romans, they have done that so many times before they decided to do that on Jesus, the Christians are just showing this happened and then some. Not exactly unethical, if anything Romans were the unethical ones, but they thought what they were doing was the right thing, so it's pretty much unethical to our standards but back then, they just kinda cried cuz their loved ones just died....was their fault for trying to rebel.
what should be the answer If you were the driver of that train and that three children were your kids? Will you Kill them ?
Good question, that is why the case is called 'Ethical Dilemma'
Saying oneself 'ethical' is way too easy then to practically prove to be 'ethical'.
In this case, Ethics says, that you must not change the track to save your own kids, as they were violating the rules and putting the lives of thousands at stake.
But even then I think whosoever is the driver, 99% chances are that he will try to save his kids putting the lives of all the passengers and the lone kid in jeopardy.
That 'gray area' will never become white and that is the test of an individual for the cause of humanity.
actualy driver of train cant change the direction. :/ if he could the question is still the same. And I think I would try to save the majority. idk. but what i would do is not the question here the question is about ethics. And very nice presentation. Thank you very much Mr. Hussian.
This argument seems polarized. Yes, not all popular decisions are right, but you must also know that more popular decision are right than wrong.
Also, I disliked it when you said no one would shed a tear. Actually they would probably cry a lot, because they knew it was not his fault, but they had to sacrifice the lone kid in the interest of the group.
I don't advocate one way or the other. I'm just playing devil's advocate to your ideas.
This was a wi
agar itni prob he hindu se to pakistan ja kr rah wah pata padega hindu ki halat dek kr
WTF is up with the music?! Change that shit!