The Trolley Problem- and its various permutations

[hamishspence]

Is there a moral difference between choosing the minimum number of people to die, and sacrificing some people to save others?

I would argue that there is a difference.

[hamishspence]

while the conventional trolley problem is about choosing who is to die, a variant, choosing who is to live, makes the choice seem much more obvious.

"You are piloting a rescue helicopter. The situation is such that you cannot rescue people individually- only the objects the people are in- lifeboats, for example. It is currently in automatic pickup mode, about to pick up one vehicle with 2 people in from a raging fire. As you arrive you notice another vehicle with 10 people in. There is only enough time to rescue one vehicle- not enough capacity to rescue two.

Do you override, and rescue the larger number of people?"

[Ichneumon]

Posting what I'd do, here again in this thread.

I think I would in real life, if I would be in that situation of the 2 switches, not touch the switch and try find another solution till the end. I mean, in real life, you are never sure pulling the switches is the only option, at least not 100% sure, I'd likely call for help, try to find someway to stop the train etc. I would most likely find pulling the switch unacceptable, even if it means not finding a solution in time to save the five people. That is, if I would think as clear and calm as I do now, of course.

[hamishspence]

But if thats your job- what then?

(example would be, in this case- rail traffic controller- looking through the CCTV monitors at train out of control- one platform has lots of people on it- one, much less- redirecting train will minimise number of people endangered.)

I suspect choices similar to this do come up.

[TigerHunter]

Since the OP was light on what the trolley problem is, here's my own particular version of it, which uses lions instead of a trolley.

There are two rooms, one of which has five people in it, the other only one person. There is a hungry pride of lions in the hallway between the two rooms. You are not in danger, but are in control of a switch that will securely seal off one of the rooms. Only one, sealing off both is not an option. Which room do you seal off?

The vast majority of people will, of course, say that they'd seal off the door with the five people in it. It's better that only one person die than five people die.

So let's run the situation again, but vary it slightly. This time there's only the room with the five people in it, with the lions in the hallway. You and one other person are standing on a catwalk above said hallway, between the lions and the room. There is no way to seal off the room this time, but if you push the person off the catwalk into the hallway, the lions will stop and eat him, giving the five people in the room time to escape. Do you push him off? (Assume that sacrificing yourself is not an option.)

The outcome is exactly the same in both cases - one person dies to save the lives of five others - but many people will give different answers to the two questions.

[TigerHunter]

Posting what I'd do, here again in this thread.

I think I would in real life, if I would be in that situation of the 2 switches, not touch the switch and try find another solution till the end. I mean, in real life, you are never sure pulling the switches is the only option, at least not 100% sure, I'd likely call for help, try to find someway to stop the train etc. I would most likely find pulling the switch unacceptable, even if it means not finding a solution in time to save the five people. That is, if I would think as clear and calm as I do now, of course.
You're trying to cheat the scenario. Assuming that the only options are those presented to you, what do you do?

[Pyrian]

Is there a moral difference between choosing the minimum number of people to die, and sacrificing some people to save others?

I would argue that there is a difference.Sacrifice is a funny thing. To view it correctly from a utilitarian viewpoint you have to accept the fact that we don't entirely determine much of anything. (Most example moral dilemmas really fall down on this point, which is unfortunate because IMO the existence of uncertainty plays a HUGE role in the form morality takes and its effects in practice.) Killing someone for a chance to save two people makes no sense. Giving priority to saving five people over saving two people makes perfect sense, even (or especially) as you continue to try to save all of them.

EDIT:
You're trying to cheat the scenario.The fact of the matter is, trying to "cheat the scenario" is exactly what we hope/expect of rescue workers in general.

[Eldan]

Hmm. If I push that guy in, six people might have a chance of fighting a lion...

If it's a small lion with no claws or teeth and they have weapons.

[hamishspence]

I think one of the most common complaints about utilitarian theories (or at least, some versions of them) are that they place too much weight on minimising suffering or maximising happiness, and not enough weight on personal autonomy (a person's right to choose) or respect for life, with some people's attitudes sounding an awful lot like:

"Subtract number of people killed by from number of people saved by us, and if answer is positive, its Good"

At the same time- utilitarian principles do play a part in morality- but the claim that "all morals that aren't fully utilitarian are wrong" is a dubious claim.

[Ravens_cry]

Here's a wonderment to add to the mix. Instead of pushing one guy off, would you throw yourself?

[hamishspence]

And if you fail to do so, does that count as "evil, cowardly and selfish" as some people claim?

I've even seen arguments that any and all other morality should take a back seat to maximising the number of lives saved- that if "selling your soul to fiends" or "torturing a child to death" would somehow magically save lives of thousands, you're morally required to do so.

I regard these claims with skepticism.

[Zocelot]

I fail to see why there is a dilemma, it doesn't make any sense to me why someone would try to save 2 people instead of 10 barring any outside factors.

Also, abandoning someone to their death is no different in my mind than killing them. If they die because of your actions, you killed them.

However, I agree with Pyrian, one should always try to cheat the scenario. However, if it is impossible, then I don't see any reason why anyone should try to save less people.

Nitpick: Morals are religious in nature (e.g. A Jewish person is morally obligated not to eat food that is not Kosher). This is an ethical dilemma, as ethics have to do with guidelines people set for themselves without religion, such as "Don't hurt people".

[Ichneumon]

You're trying to cheat the scenario. Assuming that the only options are those presented to you, what do you do?

I would search for other options. That is what I would do... I would find searching for other options untill it is too late far more acceptable morally than just choosing to turn the switch and be done with it.

EDIT: Also, I'm not turning the switch and then search for alternatives. That would be wasting time in finding a solution that would be acceptable. The fact that it might risk saving none is the tragedy of the situation I'd say.

[hamishspence]

I read Richard Norman's Ethics, Killing and War- it had some very interesting things to say on the difference between abandoning someone and killing them, and on abandoning them because you "have no choice" and abandoning them because you actually want them to die.

Principles described included the "acts and omissions" principle, and the "double effects" principle.

[Zanaril]

So let's run the situation again, but vary it slightly. This time there's only the room with the five people in it, with the lions in the hallway. You and one other person are standing on a catwalk above said hallway, between the lions and the room. There is no way to seal off the room this time, but if you push the person off the catwalk into the hallway, the lions will stop and eat him, giving the five people in the room time to escape. Do you push him off? (Assume that sacrificing yourself is not an option.)

I ask the guy to jump down. He's just as capable of making a decision as I am, and it's his life.

[Ichneumon]

I ask the guy to jump down. He's just as capable of making a decision as I am, and it's his life.

What if he doesn't make the right decision, whatever that is, do you enforce it on him?

[hamishspence]

I

Nitpick: Morals are religious in nature (e.g. A Jewish person is morally obligated not to eat food that is not Kosher). This is an ethical dilemma, as ethics have to do with guidelines people set for themselves without religion, such as "Don't hurt people".

I've seen both terms used equally often.

[TigerHunter]

EDIT:The fact of the matter is, trying to "cheat the scenario" is exactly what we hope/expect of rescue workers in general.
And since none of us are acting as rescue workers at the moment, that's irrelevant.


I think one of the most common complaints about utilitarian theories (or at least, some versions of them) are that they place too much weight on minimising suffering or maximising happiness, and not enough weight on personal autonomy (a person's right to choose) or respect for life,
How are life or personal autonomy at all important, except insofar as they bring happiness?


I would search for other options. That is what I would do... I would find searching for other options untill it is too late far more acceptable morally than just choosing to turn the switch and be done with it.

EDIT: Also, I'm not turning the switch and then search for alternatives. That would be wasting time in finding a solution that would be acceptable. The fact that it might risk saving none is the tragedy of the situation I'd say.
And if we assume that you are granted omniscience just as you are first made aware of the situation and therefore are fully aware from the start that there are no other options, what do you do?


I ask the guy to jump down. He's just as capable of making a decision as I am, and it's his life.
But, I assume, you decided to save the five people in the first scenario at the expense of the single person. Why is the life of the man on the catwalk somehow more valuable?

[Zocelot]

I think one of the most common complaints about utilitarian theories (or at least, some versions of them) are that they place too much weight on minimising suffering or maximising happiness, and not enough weight on personal autonomy (a person's right to choose) or respect for life, with some people's attitudes sounding an awful lot like:

"Subtract number of people killed by from number of people saved by us, and if answer is positive, its Good"

At the same time- utilitarian principles do play a part in morality- but the claim that "all morals that aren't fully utilitarian are wrong" is a dubious claim.

This post, I completely disagree with. If we don't judge by utilitarian measures, how should we judge then? By how hard we try to save everyone seems like a common enough method of judging, but I still feel that results are much more important than intention.

[hamishspence]

An

How are life or personal autonomy at all important, except insofar as they bring happiness?



Because we value a lot of things, besides "a concern for other people's happiness and suffering" such as "respect for others as agents, committed to their own actions and projects"

A lot of people would say that, given the choice of a world with less suffering, but their actions absolutely controlled, and a world with a bit more risk of suffering, but where you are free to make your own choices, freedom is better than happiness/lack of suffering.

Which is not to say its the only virtue, but it must be taken into account.

The claim by some philosophers is "the natural attitude to which the utilitarian principle appeals" is one among many, and singling it out as supreme, can be problematic.

[Zocelot]

A lot of people would say that, given the choice of a world with less suffering, but their actions absolutely controlled, and a world with a bit more risk of suffering, but where you are free to make your own choices, freedom is better than happiness/lack of suffering.


To me, this is not an adequate example. The inability to make choices is in itself suffering, so what you are really saying is exactly what you are arguing against: That suffering should be minimized.

[Pyrian]

I think one of the most common complaints about utilitarian theories (or at least, some versions of them) are that they place too much weight on minimising suffering or maximising happiness, and not enough weight on personal autonomy (a person's right to choose)...As a straight-up utilitarian, it is my opinion that the moral upside to autonomy is precisely the fact that such autonomy helps maximize happiness and minimize suffering. The individual is indubitably in the best position to determine most aspects of their own life. They will, of course, at times make mistakes and/or fail, but that would be true of others making decisions for them, as well. But there are bounds, of course, most notably when their decisions harm others.


I've even seen arguments that any and all other morality should take a back seat to maximising the number of lives saved- that if "selling your soul to fiends" or "torturing a child to death" would somehow magically save lives of thousands, you're morally required to do so.The problem I have here is, again, with the "somehow magically". This is an example of why I criticized the very form of moral dilemmas, earlier. Our world just doesn't work like that, and you cannot overlook that fact while still perceiving morality as it is. In other universes, it is possible for morality to work very differently than it does here, while still having a utilitarian base.

I have the same objection to TigerHunter's example. Pushing the person down is much more likely to doom that person than to save the others. You try to claim the outcomes are the same, but they're only the same in a magical sense; in a real world sense, you wouldn't know that murdering that innocent would save anybody at all, and a chance like that is quite unpalatable.

EDIT:
And since none of us are acting as rescue workers at the moment, that's irrelevant.Okay, now you're devolving into farce. How we'd expect rescue workers to behave is irrelevant to an example involving the behavior of rescue workers?

[TigerHunter]

Because we value a lot of things, besides "a concern for other people's happiness and suffering" such as "respect for others as agents, committed to their own actions and projects"

A lot of people would say that, given the choice of a world with less suffering, but their actions absolutely controlled, and a world with a bit more risk of suffering, but where you are free to make your own choices, freedom is better than happiness/lack of suffering.
All of which is because we as humans tend to like the concept of free will. We believe it brings us happiness, even when it doesn't. I would also choose the world in which I am free to control my own actions, but I cannot logically justify this decision. It is made purely on my own emotional preference for free will.


The claim by some philosophers is "the natural attitude to which the utilitarian principle appeals" is one among many, and singling it out as supreme, can be problematic.
The wording of that is confusing.


I have the same objection to TigerHunter's example. Pushing the person down is much more likely to doom that person than to save the others. You try to claim the outcomes are the same, but they're only the same in a magical sense; in a real world sense, you wouldn't know that murdering that innocent would save anybody at all, and a chance like that is quite unpalatable.
That's perfectly true. I fail to see at all how that's relevant to the purely hypothetical discussion. We're assuming for the sake of argument that those are your only two options. Why is it so hard to give a straight answer?


EDIT:Okay, now you're devolving into farce. How we'd expect rescue workers to behave is irrelevant to an example involving the behavior of rescue workers?
What I'm saying is that you're taking what's meant to be a clear-cut, straightforward dichotomy and trying to find a third option. If this situation happened in real life, that would be commendable, but in this case you're just dodging the question. Again, why is it so hard to give a straight answer?

[Pyrian]

I would also choose the world in which I am free to control my own actions, but I cannot logically justify this decision.I can, and in a single word: distrust. Morality in general and our innate sense of it in particular is predicated on living in a world in which outcomes are guessed at, rather than determined.

[TigerHunter]

I can, and in a single word: distrust. Morality in general and our innate sense of it in particular is predicated on living in a world in which outcomes are guessed at, rather than determined.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.

[Zocelot]

I was under the impression that in the world where you do not get to choose what to do, you are aware of this, and often want to do something that the world doesn't let you do. This is different than the free will argument, because even if we do not have free will in this world, we don't realize it and so are nor unhappy.

The reason I wouldn't choose a world where I don't get to choose what I do is because the act of choosing what to do often brings me more happiness than what the act accomplishes.

[Pyrian]

I fail to see at all how that's relevant to the purely hypothetical discussion. We're assuming for the sake of argument that those are your only two options. Why is it so hard to give a straight answer?It's impossible to give a straight answer because you're talking about an alternate universe that functions so differently from our own that the morality in that universe must necessarily be distinct from ours. Rather, I could give an answer (I'm a straight up utilitarian, so it's obvious), but that answer cannot be applied to "morality" in our universe at all, and will frequently contradict it entirely.

Put another way, these hypotheticals are the way people argue against utilitarianism in the most dishonest way possible. You posit a completely impossible scenario, find the utilitarian answer, and point out that that answer wouldn't work in the real world. But the reason it doesn't work in the real world is because the real world doesn't work like your impossible scenarios, and so the utilitarian solution must needs be different in the real world than it is off in some weird hypothetical magic land where all consequences are fixed and immediately obvious.


I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here.The reason you cannot logically justify your innate reaction is because your innate reaction is shaped by an automatic distrust of the given hypotheticals. You know deep inside that it's too good to actually be true. You know deep inside that anybody offering you a "free lunch at the minor cost of your autonomy" is a fraud.

EDIT: I hope I've made my rather contrarian position clear, because I'm afraid I can't keep this discussion up and am unlikely to return until Sunday or so.

[Faulty]

while the conventional trolley problem is about choosing who is to die, a variant, choosing who is to live, makes the choice seem much more obvious.

"You are piloting a rescue helicopter. The situation is such that you cannot rescue people individually- only the objects the people are in- lifeboats, for example. It is currently in automatic pickup mode, about to pick up one vehicle with 2 people in from a raging fire. As you arrive you notice another vehicle with 10 people in. There is only enough time to rescue one vehicle- not enough capacity to rescue two.

Do you override, and rescue the larger number of people?"

I'd rescue the larger number.

[TigerHunter]

I was under the impression that in the world where you do not get to choose what to do, you are aware of this, and often want to do something that the world doesn't let you do. This is different than the free will argument, because even if we do not have free will in this world, we don't realize it and so are nor unhappy.

The reason I wouldn't choose a world where I don't get to choose what I do is because the act of choosing what to do often brings me more happiness than what the act accomplishes.
I would not choose that world either, because I understand that people want to have free will, and them knowing that they don't have it would make them unhappy. My earlier post was written on the assumption that the people in the controlled world didn't realize they were being controlled.


Put another way, these hypotheticals are the way people argue against utilitarianism in the most dishonest way possible. You posit a completely impossible scenario, find the utilitarian answer, and point out that that answer wouldn't work in the real world. But the reason it doesn't work in the real world is because the real world doesn't work like your impossible scenarios, and so the utilitarian solution must needs be different in the real world than it is off in some weird hypothetical magic land where all consequences are immediately obvious.
That's exactly what I feel that you're trying to argue. I feel like you're trying to find holes in the scenario rather than answer the question presented.


The reason you cannot logically justify your innate reaction is because your innate reaction is shaped by an automatic distrust of the given hypotheticals. You know deep inside that it's too good to actually be true. You know deep inside that anybody offering you a "free lunch at the minor cost of your autonomy" is a fraud.
No. I edited my post to explain further. It's because I like the idea of free will, and am so emotionally attached to it that I'm unwilling to give it up even if after giving it up I'd be unaware that I'd done so. It has nothing to do with distrust of the hypothetical.

[Zocelot]

Question: Is there anyone here who if they were in the situation in the original post would choose to save the lower amount of people rather than save the larger amount or try to find a way out? If so, why would you do that?

[Snails]

In the real world, you never really know that the trolley will kill anyone with 100% certainty. Ditto for the lions. The universe does not afford us that quality of information, when a split second decision needs to be made.

And moral people are likely to feel bad to some degree, no matter what they choose to do or not do.

In the case of rescuing two people in one burning vehicle versus rescuing ten in another vehicle, a real rescue worker would go for the ten in the first place. But once the rescue of the two has begun, abandoning the two is choosing ten birds in the bush over two in the hand. Would shifting towards the ten save ten people, or simply end up doom ing all twelve?

Who here would dare criticize a rescue worker for making either choice?

[Trog]

I would chose to flip the switch and save the five people then find out how I could also save the one remaining person. Trying to cheat the scenario is the smartest thing to do and if you cannot, it is better to have saved five out of six victims than one out of six. And better to try and find a way to save all six if you can.

Though, were this to happen to me in real life I think I would wish that someone else would flip the switch instead of me. But as Gandalf would say, "that is not for you to decide. All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you."

Then he's probably ask what the heck a trolley was. :smalltongue:

[Innis Cabal]

Since the OP was light on what the trolley problem is, here's my own particular version of it, which uses lions instead of a trolley.

There are two rooms, one of which has five people in it, the other only one person. There is a hungry pride of lions in the hallway between the two rooms. You are not in danger, but are in control of a switch that will securely seal off one of the rooms. Only one, sealing off both is not an option. Which room do you seal off?

The vast majority of people will, of course, say that they'd seal off the door with the five people in it. It's better that only one person die than five people die.

So let's run the situation again, but vary it slightly. This time there's only the room with the five people in it, with the lions in the hallway. You and one other person are standing on a catwalk above said hallway, between the lions and the room. There is no way to seal off the room this time, but if you push the person off the catwalk into the hallway, the lions will stop and eat him, giving the five people in the room time to escape. Do you push him off? (Assume that sacrificing yourself is not an option.)

The outcome is exactly the same in both cases - one person dies to save the lives of five others - but many people will give different answers to the two questions.

But its not logical to. Its only because they themselves are scared of the ramifications of taking a life. Even though no matter what, they in the end will be the result of death. The logical choice is to have the least number of people die. To do otherwise is completly illogical and selfish.

[Zocelot]

I found this twist on wikipedia. It works better if people haven't heard the trolley problem as they try to remain consistent.

"A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor."

For some reason, most people don't like killing someone who they feel is "unrelated" to the problem, so they choose not to kill the traveler.

[Faulty]

I found this twist on wikipedia. It works better if people haven't heard the trolley problem as they try to remain consistent.

"A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no one would suspect the doctor."

For some reason, most people don't like killing someone who they feel is "unrelated" to the problem, so they choose not to kill the traveler.

The traveler is unrelated. There are no strenuous circumstances forcing you to kill him.

[Coidzor]

Doctor problem: Choose not to do it. Choosing to do it would be a step that grossly compromises the doctor's ethical vows, and is, y'know, murder, and horrendously violates the implicit trust people place in the system not to look at them as nothing more than spare parts. Bio-ethics exists for a reason and so does oversight.

Comparison of Two rooms versus one room and catwalk:
:smallconfused: Morally it is different. In one situation they were in equal danger and you chose to save someone else. In the other they were not in danger at all and you chose to actively throw them to their death (from the lions if not the fight and fall itself) in order to potentially save others.

Placing someone who you do not have the right to decide if they live or die into danger or killing them is different from choosing who to save out of those you have the ability to save out of those already in danger, if forced to make a choice.

[Lupy]

Hm...

If I were the Doctor I would not kill him, because I find murder morally repugnant, and I do not consider murdering that traveler to save those people an option.

I would shove the person into the Lion hallway to save the others though.

The difference is that a Doctor cannot kill someone ever, it's against their Creed, but a normal person could in the Lion situation.

-----

Now let me add a variation.

The situation is that same as the earlier described Lion scenario, but the two people are young children and the five are young adults.

[Sholos]

Hm...

If I were the Doctor I would not kill him, because I find murder morally repugnant, and I do not consider murdering that traveler to save those people an option.

I would shove the person into the Lion hallway to save the others though.

The difference is that a Doctor cannot kill someone ever, it's against their Creed, but a normal person could in the Lion situation.
I don't think there's much of a difference. An ordinary person may not have a written creed to "cause no harm", but that doesn't mean that murder should ever be an acceptable means of solving a situation. In that case, you might say that it's okay for some random guy to kill the traveler upon learning that he's compatible with all five patients and just bypass the doctor entirely. It's the same problem.


Now let me add a variation.

The situation is that same as the earlier described Lion scenario, but the two people are young children and the five are young adults.
The two people in the room or people on a catwalk? Either way, I'd hunt down the bastard who set the thing up.

[Renegade Paladin]

My answer to the trolley problem is and always has been thus:

I set the switch to send the trolley towards the smaller number of people.
I run like hell towards the smaller number of people to attempt to free them from the tracks. The fact that a smaller number of people are more quickly untied than a larger number is why I undertake the action in step one.
Regardless of the success or failure of my rescue attempt, I find and appropriately punish whoever's been tying people to railroad tracks.

The lion variant doesn't really work, because a lion would kill and eat one of the five rather than all of them; lion prides pick a target and coordinate to kill it rather than spreading out to get as much prey as they can.

[Ichneumon]

I think it would be weird, in any given situation to spend time and energy in trying to achieve an undesirable outcome, such as killing one man instead of saving them all by pulling the switch. The omniscience proposed by these examples would always be uncertain in real life, so wouldn't it be more useful to search for alternatives instead of losing valueble time on trying to achieve outcome that are ultimately unwanted and might prevent us (as it costs time to pull the switch) from saving all 6. I understand that when we look back after having failed in finding another option we could have said it was better if we had at least saved 5 of the 6 people.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

[kpenguin]

I find that the trolley problem works best if there is urgency added to the choice, that there are only a few seconds before the trolley collides or before the point which the switch matters is past.

Now, do we choose to spend time to find a perfect solution (save all six, no 100% guarantee it exists) or do we choose the imperfect solution presented to us (kills one, save five). This, I think, is a thought that has real world applications. Is it better to implement an imperfect solution to our problems now or do we wait for a perfect solution to be developed, which carries with it losing the opportunity for implementing a solution.

I, myself, would flip the switch, choosing an imperfect solution now. However, I find that all three choices (flip switch, don't flip switch, don't flip switch and try to find alternative) have their merits and I would not be comfortable deeming any morally forbidden. All three, in my mind, are morally permissible, even if one maybe morally recommended.

[Sholos]

What about shutting down the power to the trolley? Can't you do that?

[kpenguin]

What about shutting down the power to the trolley? Can't you do that?

The Trolley is usualy described as out of control, so one assumes its running down the track out of pure kinetic energy at this point.

Even if you were to shut down power in the trolley, momentum would still mean that it would run over the five if you don't do something about it.

[Ichneumon]

It might be possible to derail the train, killing yourself and saving 6 others. Depending on whether the train has passengers and on the likelyhood of them surviving, this might be a good option to try.

[kpenguin]

Where did a train come into this?

[Ichneumon]

I'm sorry, I mean the trolley that is running down a track.

[kpenguin]

How do you propose derailing the trolley?

[Ichneumon]

How do you propose derailing the trolley?

I'm not sure, throwing something in front of it, myself perhaps.

[kpenguin]

If the trolley has the momentum to run over five people, I'm pretty sure it would run over you and then proceed to said five people.

EDIT: Of course, this is all hypothetical. Perhaps someone should conduct this experiment in more than thought, substituting the people with dummies. See what sorts of alternatives one could conduct in lieu of flipping the switch.

[Ichneumon]

If the trolley has the momentum to run over five people, I'm pretty sure it would run over you and then proceed to said five people.

EDIT: Of course, this is all hypothetical. Perhaps someone should conduct this experiment in more than thought, substituting the people with dummies. See what sorts of alternatives one could conduct in lieu of flipping the switch.

It would certainly slow it down and when you do it with enough force, you might also change the angle of the trolley. I'm aware this is rather hypothetical and we really don't have enough information on the situation to say what other "creatuve" options might be available.

[kpenguin]

Right, but I have strong doubts that, given normal circumstances, a single human body can significantly alter the path or momentum of a several ton runaway trolley (I think trolley weigh several tons).

Perhaps if you had a morbidly obese man to push in the way...:smalltongue:

[Ichneumon]

Right, but I have strong doubts that, given normal circumstances, a single human body can significantly alter the path or momentum of a several ton runaway trolley (I think trolley weigh several tons).

Perhaps if you had a morbidly obese man to push in the way...:smalltongue:

Or if you would have the time to become morbidly obese...

Indeed, if the trolley would be that big, it would be likely impossible.

[Innis Cabal]

I'm not sure, throwing something in front of it, myself perhaps.

Hold up. You'd kill yourself to maybe save the lives of the rest? Why not just save the five and yourself. Yet again the logic here...is near nonexistant.

This would be the -same- scenario......six people walk away, one dosn't.

[kpenguin]

Ich's reasoning is that it is more morally recommended to allow the person who dies free will to choose whether or not to sacrifice.

[Ichneumon]

Hold up. You'd kill yourself to maybe save the lives of the rest? Why not just save the five and yourself. Yet again the logic here...is near nonexistant.

This would be the -same- scenario......six people walk away, one dosn't.

Why do you keep insulting my intelligence my saying there is no logic in everything I say?

Kpenguin was right in that my reasoning was that I find it unethical to sacrifice somebody else, but not to sacrifice myself.

[kpenguin]

Why would it be preferable to sacrifice yourself, though, Ich? I think you've always maitained that people (and animals) deserve to be considered as ends, not means, a very Kantian statement.

However, by sacrificing yourself, are you not using yourself as a means to an end?

[Ichneumon]

Why would it be preferable to sacrifice yourself, though, Ich? I think you've always maitained that people (and animals) deserve to be considered as ends, not means, a very Kantian statement.

However, by sacrificing yourself, are you not using yourself as a means to an end?

I agree, so I'm not sure if I would sacrifice myself, but I could maybe do it, that was more my point when I said that, that there are likely other options available. I'm not sure if that would be a moral imperative, it would certainly be "noble" to do, I guess.

[Charity]

Nitpick: Morals are religious in nature (e.g. A Jewish person is morally obligated not to eat food that is not Kosher). This is an ethical dilemma, as ethics have to do with guidelines people set for themselves without religion, such as "Don't hurt people".

http://changingminds.org/explanations/values/values_morals_ethics.htm



mor⋅al  /ˈmɔrəl, ˈmɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
Use morals in a Sentence
–adjective 1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral ): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
7. of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
8. resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

–noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1300–50; ME < L mōrālis, equiv. to mōr- (s. of mōs) usage, custom + -ālis -al


eth⋅ics  /ˈɛθɪks/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [eth-iks] Show IPA
Use ethics in a Sentence
–plural noun 1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.
2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.
3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.
4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions.

Compare axiological ethics, deontological ethics.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1400–50; late ME ethic + -s 3 , modeled on Gk tà ēthiká, neut. pl.

[Zanaril]

What if he doesn't make the right decision, whatever that is, do you enforce it on him?
Since when do I know what the "right" decision is? While to me it may seen that the "right" thing to do if for him to sacrifice himself to save those people, he may not judge them worth dying for. Or maybe he knows there are lots - more that five - people depending on him somewhere else, and getting killed for five people he doesn't know will put hundreds of other people at risk.

It's not a case of anyone being right or wrong: the only people who could take the blame for anyone dying in that situation would be whoever got everyone into that mess in the first place. If that was me, then whatever I do is wrong since I'm caused the death of at least one person. In which case I would probably push the guy off, but it wouldn't be the "right" decicion.

[Callista]

I think the trolley problem is so interesting because it forces you to choose not really between whatever choices the dilemma offers, but between two methods of decision-making.

One way a lot of people make decisions is to use emotional methods. Those include empathy, attachment to other people, desire to be seen as a good person, desire to avoid the emotional consequences of making the "wrong choice" (either guilt, grief, or else fear that one will not be guilty over something that is indeed wrong);... lots of things. Emotional decision-making is actually a good thing, when it goes right. It's quick and reflexive and you often need to be quick in an emergency. It's what overrides the fear of whatever risk you yourself are taking. It's very right-brained. Emotional reasoning works fine for the vast majority of situations where the choice is simple--either interfere or don't interfere--rather than complex. It can break down and cause one to freeze in a complex situation, though, where both choices have a negative emotional value; and it's the reason we cheer fictional heroes who take a third option.

On the other hand, there's the logical part, the left-brained rationality that weighs the choices and picks the one with the best outcome. It can even be represented mathematically, if one is willing to assign values and probabilities to the possible outcomes. It's slower, but it's also more analytical; so it applies to all situations rather than just the ones for which emotional reasoning is valid. Logical reasoning can override empathy to let you take an active role that results in the deaths of some people and the salvation of more; but it can also cause a delay that results in the deaths of all --or even enough delay that emotional reasoning can no longer override the fear of risk on your own part. (There's no risk in the trolley scenario, but there often is in the real world, so I'm throwing that in.)

People who lose the capacity to feel emotions (usually through brain damage), oddly enough, do not become sociopaths. What does happen is that they become extremely indecisive. They are forced to depend entirely on logical reasoning, and this is a handicap because it slows down the reasoning process to the point that one might spend two hours deciding which socks to wear. That's because emotional reasoning lets you make a quick choice between actions of essentially the same value. Logical reasoning wants to choose the exact best option; and without emotions to make the "irrational" choice that you want white socks today rather than gray, you would be stuck on that choice. (I always want to advise doctors who treat patients with this sort of brain damage to try giving their patients some dice to make essentially-equal decisions for them; but most likely the patients would simply freeze deciding whether this decision had essentially-equal options or whether one choice was significantly better...)

Most people will, of course use some combination of logic and emotion to make decisions. I tend to use logic more (that makes me an atypical female, but a very typical engineering student); so I would be one of the people who, if forced to make a decision, decides to throw the switch, in effect killing a few people to let more live. That decision can only be taken so far, though, because "emotional" concepts like human rights, the value of human life, etc., come into it, too--so, for example, experimenting on prisoners (in such a way as to cause injury or death) to gain scientific knowledge that might save thousands of people is still unethical. My reasoning for this conclusion would be that the net loss from lowering the value of human life to allow such experiments would exceed the possible gain from the research because a lowered value of human life opens the door to other abuses of the same nature, which creates a society in which some people can be judged less worthwhile than others. (Another notable difference: Experimenting on prisoners is a choice that actually changes the way things are done, which is how it actively lowers the perception of human value.) That kind of society kills more people than would ever be saved.

The trolley problem has actually been used to survey people to try to determine which method people use to make decisions. It tends to be weighted toward emotional reasoning, but not by a whole lot. The most interesting gender difference isn't actually between who makes what choice, but how many people tend to try a third option. Men tend to reason in such a way as to assume they have already ruled out all third options; women will immediately gravitate towards third-choice possibilities. Maybe it has to do with the tendency to think in a linear versus non-linear way, since if you were a step-by-step thinker making that decision, you would naturally already have ruled out third choices in a linear fashion, while if you had a more associational style, you would be considering all the choices--including the third-choice options--simultaneously.

[Ichneumon]

On the other hand, there's the logical part, the left-brained rationality that weighs the choices and picks the one with the best outcome.

I liked reading your entire post and thought it was interesting, yet I have one question. I thought the right side of the brain was responsible for reasoning...

[Callista]

Both sides are responsible for reasoning; they just do it differently. The left side just depends more on things like language, math, literal meanings, abstract ideas, details, and linear thinking. Right side puts the emphasis on the "fuzzier" stuff, like emotions, patterns, the "big picture", and non-language visual and auditory information. Most people are left-brain dominant, but some are right-brained.

[Ichneumon]

Both sides are responsible for reasoning; they just do it differently. The left side just depends more on things like language, math, literal meanings, abstract ideas, details, and linear thinking. Right side puts the emphasis on the "fuzzier" stuff, like emotions, patterns, the "big picture", and non-language visual and auditory information. Most people are left-brain dominant, but some are right-brained.

Cool, thanks for sharing. How do you know what side is dominant?

[Innis Cabal]

Why do you keep insulting my intelligence my saying there is no logic in everything I say?

Kpenguin was right in that my reasoning was that I find it unethical to sacrifice somebody else, but not to sacrifice myself.

I've not once said anything about your intelligence. I'm sorry you feel that way really. But logic=/=intelligence.

Saying you'd kill yourself to save others while maintaining the stance that all life is precious and valuable and shouldn't be used to a means to an ends, and then turning around and saying you'd do EXACTLY what you oppose...its illogical. Not to mention hypocritical. If you can't live by your own philosophy why should anyone else be held to that standard.

[hamishspence]

on "illogical" Spock does it in Wrath of Khan- but we don't see him buy a gun and go out and shoot Edith Keeler in The City on the Edge of Forever. Or run her down in a car.

Sometimes sacrificing yourself is easier than sacrificing others.

[Snails]

For some reason, most people don't like killing someone who they feel is "unrelated" to the problem, so they choose not to kill the traveler.

I am pretty sure you can guess quite a number of reasons people do not like hunting down strangers and butchering them for parts.

On the logical side, a transplant doctor in that situation never actually knows whether he is saving 5 lives at the cost of 1, or adding 1 completely avoidable death to a grim situation.

On a more significant moral level, if one does not possess a fundamental respect for life that suggests finding random innocent people to kill is probably a terrible idea, then I am not sure on what basis we can agree that saving 5 lives is better than instead choosing to save 0 and watch Buffy reruns while eating a bag of Cheetos.

The proposition that lives are interchangeable widgets with no important differences is an attack of the foundation of the importance of all lives IMO.

Simplistic utilitarian thinking tends to degenerate into the ends justify the means absolutism. Utilitarian ideas have value, but I do not believe those concepts in isolation can provide useful moral guidance.

[mangosta71]

It's easy. Flip the switch while half of the trolley is past the point of divergence. Now the front and back halves are on separate tracks. You either kill or save all six.

At any rate, at some point each of those six people made a choice that resulted in them being tied to the track. It is certainly an unforeseen consequence (unless the individual is suicidal), but part of having the freedom to choose is taking responsibility for the choices we make. If someone goes out and gets plastered and involves himself with someone that ties him to a train track, why is it my responsibility to bail him out?

[Ichneumon]

The proposition that lives are interchangeable widgets with no important differences is an attack of the foundation of the importance of all lives IMO.

Simplistic utilitarian thinking tends to degenerate into the ends justify the means absolutism. Utilitarian ideas have value, but I do not believe those concepts in isolation can provide useful moral guidance.

I agree so very much with this.

[Telonius]

You're trying to cheat the scenario. Assuming that the only options are those presented to you, what do you do?

Agree with Captain Kirk. I don't believe in no-win scenarios.

[Innis Cabal]

Agree with Captain Kirk. I don't believe in no-win scenarios.

They exist. Life is made up of them in fact. The options presented are the ones you can pick. There is no option C. Thats how the exercise works. Simply refusing to accept them dosn't make them go away, it just lets option A happen. At least in this case.

[Telonius]

Then, I attempt to cheat the scenario. Unscrew the catwalk, causing it to crash down onto the lions. Distract the lions in some manner. Life is not made up of no-win scenarios. It is made up of opportunities for cheating no-win scenarios.

[Miklus]

"You are piloting a rescue helicopter. The situation is such that you cannot rescue people individually- only the objects the people are in- lifeboats, for example. It is currently in automatic pickup mode, about to pick up one vehicle with 2 people in from a raging fire. As you arrive you notice another vehicle with 10 people in. There is only enough time to rescue one vehicle- not enough capacity to rescue two.

Do you override, and rescue the larger number of people?"

I override and save the 10 people. By not doing so I would have killed them. I'm not going to let the auto-mode decide what to do simply because I'm too chicken to make a decision. And it is better to save ten people than just two.

A lot of people seem to think that if they do nothing, they have done nothing wrong! I dissagree with that.

A lot of other people try to weasel out of making a decision by trying to cheat the scenario in some way. Why can you not accept the scenario as it is written? Because you don't want to make an uncomfortable decision?

[Faulty]

I always feel like these questions are weighted criticisms of teleology. Especially when it starts going from flipping switches to pushing people off cat walks.

[Coidzor]

A lot of people seem to think that if they do nothing, they have done nothing wrong! I disagree with that.

A lot of other people try to weasel out of making a decision by trying to cheat the scenario in some way. Why can you not accept the scenario as it is written? Because you don't want to make an uncomfortable decision?

The morality of nonaction is always a sticky area, isn't it?

I think it's partially the way our minds work. If presented with a box that we know we are confined within, we look for ways to get out of it. This probably also has something to do with us not liking being backed into a corner, so to speak.

The problem with that example is that since it's undefined what predicament the 10 are in, it doesn't really click that they should all be dead in the time it takes for two people to be picked up by a helicopter and then get over to them.

[Callista]

Cool, thanks for sharing. How do you know what side is dominant?The person's thinking style, mostly. I think left handed people are more likely to be right brained but it's nowhere near certain, and quite a few people have language abilities on the right side of the brain or scattered around randomly, and some haven't really got a clear dominance of one side or the other.

Found this internet quiz, though.
http://web-us.com/brain/braindominance.htm

[haley rox]

Hi Molly its me Courtney are you shocked I am 2
:smallcool: