I'm sure some of you Philosophy Majors know what's coming in this one, simply because most of you will recognize the problem from the title.
For those of you who don't, I'm going to fill in the gaps. "The Trolly Problem", is a thought experiment in both moralism and ethics. At the heart of the problem, in all variations, is that you are given the option to choose a course of action deciding whether one person dies, or five.
The original problem goes something like thise:
"Following the precedings of a trial in which the man was found innocent, a group of rioters displeased with the verdict has taken five captives from the city, and promised to kill them if the man is not executed for his supposed crimes. As a magistrate for the city in question, you can decide whether to execute an innocent man, or allow the captives to to die."
The more common form of the problem, and thus the reason for its title, removes the human element and ability to reason with the rioters or conduct a rescue mission. It goes something like this:
"A rogue trolly is barreling down the tracks at an astounding speed. The track splits into two, before cutting through a mountain in two areas. In either valley the track goes through, there is either a group of five men, or a single man. You know that even with warning, no one will be able to run out of thier valley before the trolly kills them. However, you find yourself next to a switch that allows you to decide which path it takes. What do you do?"
And the final variation:
"A rogue mine cart filled with rocks is barreling down a set of tracks that cuts through a valley. You find yourself on a bridge over the tracks in question in the company of a very fat man of around 350 lbs. Inside the valley is a group of 5 children aged 4-5 playing games on the track. Knowing that the children will not escape before they are all crushed by the heavy cart, you have the option to push the Fatman onto the tracks. Which you know will kill him, but also stop the cart or cause it to derail saving the children. What do you do?"
I pose these questions to both Atheist and Theists alike, to be answered honeslty. Because in the battle for moralism, their seems to be a trend of analogies about how sacraficing yourself for others in a form of altruism for the good of a larger population is a good thing. But then again, there is little mention of whether we can expect the same idea to prevail when we have to sacrafice someone else. Or perhaps, when someone else deems it necassary to sacrafice us.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
In all three instances I would do nothing: 1) the killing of the hostages is on the kidnappers, though I would use all law enforcement resources at my disposal to prevent the killing; 2) if I make a decision to alter the trolley's course, I may be changing a chain of events that was going to lead it to derail before killing anyone anyway; 3) I don't see why a fat man needs to die to save a bunch of larvae that may not live to adulthood anyway, though I may jump in front of the cart myself depending on my mood at the time.
I don't think any choice is wrong. Bad situations have bad outcomes. Pick one the one that suits you and don't feel guilty about it.
"Following the precedings of a trial in which the man was found innocent, a group of rioters displeased with the verdict has taken five captives from the city, and promised to kill them if the man is not executed for his supposed crimes. As a magistrate for the city in question, you can decide whether to execute an innocent man, or allow the captives to to die."
Execute the man, save the captives, and then punish or execute the rioters.
"A rogue trolly is barreling down the tracks at an astounding speed. The track splits into two, before cutting through a mountain in two areas. In either valley the track goes through, there is either a group of five men, or a single man. You know that even with warning, no one will be able to run out of thier valley before the trolly kills them. However, you find yourself next to a switch that allows you to decide which path it takes. What do you do?"
Let the singular person die and save the group.
"A rogue mine cart filled with rocks is barreling down a set of tracks that cuts through a valley. You find yourself on a bridge over the tracks in question in the company of a very fat man of around 350 lbs. Inside the valley is a group of 5 children aged 4-5 playing games on the track. Knowing that the children will not escape before they are all crushed by the heavy cart, you have the option to push the Fatman onto the tracks. Which you know will kill him, but also stop the cart or cause it to derail saving the children. What do you do?"
Push the apparently morbidly rotund adult onto the tracks.
These are the things I would do, with full knowledge that it may equally be me on the chopping block.
All those questions boil down to 1 question:
If u had to choose between sacrificing 1 person or 5 what would you do?
This a question that points out the fact that Morality is not right or wrong but in shades of grey, and in some cases there is still no answer to this day.
EG: choose between sacrificing 5 people or 5 different people.
Trying too answer those questions means that you will try to aim for the best morally possible solution between 2 options.
There is the assumption that all other options are not available and you have to make the choice a hard choice.
I will answer those questions given that assumption:
1:
Let the hostages die.
2:
Trolley runs the single man
3:
Let the children die.
Those are my answers depending on the current knowledge at the time.
However one must note that my choices might change the moment I get new knowledge on the 3 situations,
eg:
1:
If the man was not really innocent.
My moral answer would change to execute the man to save the 5 other.
2:
If the 5 man were old and were gonna die soon anyway.
My moral answer would change to kill the 5 man instead of the 1 man.
3:
If the fat man pissed me off I might push him even if there were no children to save lol
Kidding but I would be tempted. :P
If the fat man is going to die soon of some illness,
My moral answer would change to saving the children and push the fat man.
All this shows that morality is subjective to the individual and the current knowledge.
Scenario:
A) I would engage negotiation with the hostage takers, and buy time, until the counter-terrorism unit arrives.
In real life, executing an innocent man in response to a hostage taking is not a legitimate option. Besides, it's empowering the hostage takers because they can affect the court, and they might just kill the 5 anyway.
B) Hold that lever half way, and watch that cart literally become air-borne. Then scream "HEADS UP!" : )
C) I might jump onto the track. If there was time, I'd ask the 350 lb man to accompany me, and maybe increase the chances of the kids - and myself - surviving.
I think Travis Hedglin in had the most consistent answers so far. In every case he opted to save the numerically superior group. It stands to reason, if one life is equal to another, surely five has greater value than one. Which is a sound concept, though very cold and calculative. My question to him, is numbers all that matter? In the case of the Fatman, does personal choice not get a fair chance? It's one thing to sacrafice yourself, but does anyone else get to decide for whom they die? Do we really owe our fellow men our very lives for absolutely no reason at all?
M. Aleen also had very consistent answers. He opted to be uninvolved. My question to him, do you think that inaction in a situation, essentially leaving the outcome to fate, in a situation you had a choice to influence... absolve your guilt. Or is inaction as morally guilty as choosing who dies?
Lol what was wrong with my answer ?
Or better what was inconsistent about my answer?
Also
"In the case of the Fatman, does personal choice not get a fair chance?"
Apart from the fact that you are robbing the fat man the choice for doing it himself, there is a very big problem there you missed.
Between 1 and 3 you seem to miss that you are actually committing a murder of an Innocent man.
It is not a choice like the switch(2), where you choose to save 1 or 5.
You are actually choosing between murdering an innocent man or save 5 people.
There are several problems here:
a: The main issue here is that you are promoting the idea that to get what you want, all you need to do is take hostages. This will surly lead to more death then just the 5 people.(so I was being quantitative)
b: The psychological factor, of you killing an innocent man that might deserve to live as much as any other number of people. It could damage you mentally. So there is much more at stake here then just the fat man, but also your integrity.
c: the children MIGHT die, or you just think they will die, so if someone convinces you that they will die, he can get you to commit murder even if they don't die.
d: Can you live with yourself knowing that you killed an innocent man that had a family that loved him. Killing brings killing(there might be repercussions that result in more deaths then 5 people, including your family)
e; It could have been your son, that fat man, would you have done it to save 5 children?
You are not considering all the implications involved in killing an innocent man.
According to my morality 1 innocent murder is not equal to save 500 children.
It would only tip the balance if a city or the entire human race were at stake though I still might not kill the fat man for a city.(undecided there)
The main concept is that I consider that fat man as someone I love and make the choice on that assumption.
EDIT:
Also whoever chooses to kill the fat man or the innocent man in 1 and 3 are not being consistent since that choice it results in more deaths then 5 people.
They are just not thinking deep enough about the implications of that choice that is why the police do not negotiate with terrorists but pretend to negotiate to have a chance at saving the hostages.(they just give them minor things to calm the situation but never money/"murder"/plane)
"I think Travis Hedglin in had the most consistent answers so far. In every case he opted to save the numerically superior group. It stands to reason, if one life is equal to another, surely five has greater value than one. Which is a sound concept, though very cold and calculative."
I have a personality disorder that renders my empathy from either muted to nonexistent, so "cold and calculative" is probably a very accurate description of my process. It isn't so much that I dismiss the value of individual lives, as it is that individual human lives only have value to me according to spectrum of my own prerogatives and benefit, so in many cases there is nothing to dismiss. That isn't me trying to be "mean", it is just the way my brain works, even if others disagree.
"My question to him, is numbers all that matter?"
Not at all. Many things might plausibly impact my decision, such as being familiar with one of the people in question or age, but the questions are general enough I can assume none of these are at play.
"In the case of the Fatman, does personal choice not get a fair chance?"
Things happen all the time that we have little to no choice in, so I guess I don't value it as greatly as some would. The answer is no.
"It's one thing to sacrafice yourself, but does anyone else get to decide for whom they die?"
If the fatman voluntarily sacrifices himself before I bounce him onto the track, he decided, didn't he? Sure, he can decide whether or not he wants to, just like I will decide whether or not I will push him, making a decision doesn't mean it will get respected or unimpeded.
"Do we really owe our fellow men our very lives for absolutely no reason at all?"
Did I say they owed anything to anyone? I don't view it as a debt or payment, just an action, it has no other value to me even if it should.
Jeff, there's nothing wrong with your answer, or inconsistent now that you explain it. Clearly each individual case pulls in its fair amount of intracacies about how we conduct ourselves as a society. Some of which I myself have ovelooked. As free choice is one thing I thought people overlook. You may decide to be altruistic, but it's equally valid to desire to save yourself. After all, like I said, what do we really owe others? It's not like other people have paid my bills, or offered other recompense that would warrant me giving my life so they may continue living. How much is a life worth anyway?
Thanks, for pointing out that there is nothing wrong with my choices, what I was asking was about what was inconsistent?
I desire a lot for myself, and I would not throw myself for 5 children unless they were people I love.
My family comes first and I must think of them before anybody else. It is my duty not my choice to make.
BTW children/adults are equal to me, actually I prefer to save adults then children.
To be really quantitative you need to consider that you can always make more children, if you kill a father or a mother not only you cannot have more children but also damage the lives of the family members that would have needed the mother/father.
Logically speaking it is better to save the person with best chances to survive then the weak, but instinctively we protect our children.
The balance between logic and instinct is what decides your choice.
I support much more logic then instinct.
"How much is a life worth anyway?"
Everything
How can children and adults be equal? One is fully capable, developed, and 100%responsible, and the other is completely dependent on the first for - literally - life.
And I think the balance is not between logic and instinct. Rather, the balance is between logic and emotion.
Logic is how we get there, and emotion is what makes getting there worth while.
"How can children and adults be equal?"
They are equal according to my morality on deciding who is more important to save.
Emotion is part/effect of the instinct, so is fear and pride, those are natural traits derived from instinct.
"Logic is how we get there, and emotion is what makes getting there worth while."
You went out of context
The idea here is that you make a balance between what is logically best to do and what is instinctively best to do.
(Instinctively means the group conclusion of the summation of, love/emotion, fear, pride, etc... that come natural to you without thinking about them)
Eg: 5 kids in danger- fear + empathy+ love for innocence = instinct to help
Those emotions arise from instinct. Too much emotions then hinder logic of how to help. Sometimes helping means doing the wrong thing and emotions will make you do the wrong thing like murdering a man to save those kids.
Logic tends to be a cold approach pushing towards the quantitative/egoistical/just way.
Instinctively is more sensitive pushing towards Current emotions/egoistical/naive/belief way.
Note: egoistical is in both since it focuses on the self which is both an instinct and a logical center of seeing things from your own view better then others.
One of the reason why police are not allowed to investigate a crime where their family is related is because they can get emotionally compromised. Thus being less logical and more instinctive.
I'm thinking about going to america and go into politics.
I am pretty sure that all the fat and obese people will vote for me. lol
I'd kill'm all then hire an attorney to prosecute those who so carelessly allowed the events to happen causing me grievous mental trauma. When is this supposed to take place? I want to get there early and practice my traumatic repose for the actual event. Witnesses matter.
I actually don't really care who dies in theoretical stacking of morals/ethics for the purpose of furthering philosophical babble. It's a stupid question. People will do what they do when the time comes and then probably way different than the way they'd answer this question. Sounds like smack from an ethics course, which is another way of saying a course universities require of certain majors to better fill their coffers. I got dragged through the same thing when I was at university. I asked the instructor if any of his students ever asked him similar questions to answer, like, why do they need a course in ethics when it has no bearing on their majors?
Philosophy = thinking. Nothing can be more virtuous. Dreaming, on the other hand, will get you immortality. Which should you, philosophically speaking, embrace?
Both philosopher and dreamer. The religious can break things into pillars of black and white, say you can only be one or the other. The atheist mindset should be to embrace the inter-relatedness of all facets of science, life, and self. We can can be dreamers and imaginitive while still being intelligent and rational in our persuits.