The Trolley Dilemma

[Willchill]

The Trolley Dilemma...

...an ethical discussion​

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:

• Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.

• Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

Which is the correct choice?

My opinion is that you should switch the train to the other track, killing one person. Since you don't know anything about the people about to die, I treat them all as equals. They all have the same potential to do good and bad, and thus I think it is best to kill one to save five.

 

[Edgar Harford]

I just wanted to kill 5 people in one go

 

[superhalo6]

Don't touch the lever and pretend you had never been there

 

[Trap_Wolf]

You literally know nothing about the people and there isn't an inherent right given to you to decide the worth of life over another. The "natural" events in this case were already set in motion so you shouldn't do anything.

As well as, if you do put the lever you've essentially committed murder. Can you live with yourself and, again, what gave you the right to make that decision?

 

[Gaminger]

According to utilitarianism (which is the theory that says that the best moral action is the one that maximizes utility, or simply brings more happiness/less unhappiness and well-being when you have to choose betwhen actions) it would be correct to pull the lever and and kill the single person.

Now some people would actually let the 5 people die, because they might fear pulling the lever, since doing soo would be the same as killing the person.

There are other things that might change which action someone would do, such as:

Time: As we all know by experience, the more time you have to think the higher the % of you choosing the correct action. If you had very low amount of time to pick which you would do, then it is more possible that you will think the wrong way and end feeling bad for it.

The people: If we know who the 5 people are and who the 1 person is, then we might pull the lever or not. For example if the 1 person was your mother/girlfriend/boyfriend and the 5 people were unknown people, then it is more possible that you would not pull the lever, resulting in the 5 people's death.

And there are other things we could talk here.

Aaand ignore any grammar errors.

 

[superhalo6]

Now some people would actually let the 5 people die, because they might fear pulling the lever, since doing soo would be the same as killing the person.

Nah, I just want to annoy the guy that is making me kill people

 

[Willchill]

Don't touch the lever and pretend you had never been there

You literally know nothing about the people and there isn't an inherent right given to you to decide the worth of life over another. The "natural" events in this case were already set in motion so you shouldn't do anything.

As well as, if you do put the lever you've essentially committed murder. Can you live with yourself and, again, what gave you the right to make that decision?

I would rather live with myself after intentionally killing one person and use the fact that I had saved five people to comfort me, rather than live with myself after allowing five people to die before my eyes because of my inaction.

There are other things that might change which action someone would do, such as:

Time: As we all know by experience, the more time you have to think the higher the % of you choosing the correct action. If you had very low amount of time to pick which you would do, then it is more possible that you will think the wrong way and end feeling bad for it.

The people: If we know who the 5 people are and who the 1 person is, then we might pull the lever or not. For example if the 1 person was your mother/girlfriend/boyfriend and the 5 people were unknown people, then it is more possible that you would not pull the lever, resulting in the 5 people's death.

And there are other things we could talk here.

Let's try not to expand into "what if it was your mother", since we're only 4 posts in (or something), and it is essentially derailing the thread.

 

[Gaminger]

Let's try not to expand into "what if it was your mother", since we're only 4 posts in (or something), and it is essentially derailing the thread.

k fine just tried to help

 

[Enderfive]

there is no correct option and this is bait, but i'll bite anyway


I would choose to divert the train.

Given the circumstances of this dilemma, some number of lives is going to be lost no matter what I do. Both choices lead to me killing someone, and whether it's through action or inaction makes no difference, it's still the choice I make that seals their fate. So the question becomes if I want to kill one person and save five or kill five people and save one. From there the choice becomes clear to me - I'd rather save more lives at the expense of less than vice versa, because I'll be responsible either way. When Trap Wolf puts my right to decide over the lives of others under question, he is right to do so, but from my point of view, I don't have the option to not decide over their lives anyway, since the decision has been forced upon me by my being next to the lever. It's not that I have an inherent right to decide over who lives and who dies, it's that in this moment it becomes an impossibility to not decide. Considering that, I would choose to divert the train, since I have to assume that they all have the same right to live and therefore minimising casualties is the only course of action that makes sense to me.

 

[Gaminger]

there is no correct option and this is bait, but i'll bite anyway


I would choose to divert the train.

Given the circumstances of this dilemma, some number of lives is going to be lost no matter what I do. Both choices lead to me killing someone, and whether it's through action or inaction makes no difference, it's still the choice I make that seals their fate. So the question becomes if I want to kill one person and save five or kill five people and save one. From there the choice becomes clear to me - I'd rather save more lives at the expense of less than vice versa, because I'll be responsible either way. When Trap Wolf puts my right to decide over the lives of others under question, he is right to do so, but from my point of view, I don't have the option to not decide over their lives anyway, since the decision has been forced upon me by my being next to the lever. It's not that I have an inherent right to decide over who lives and who dies, it's that in this moment it becomes an impossibility to not decide. Considering that, I would choose to divert the train, since I have to assume that they all have the same right to live and therefore minimising casualties is the only course of action that makes sense to me.

What if the 1 person was exactly your closest friend, and the 5 people human beings that you do not know?

 

[Jolterino]

 

[Omni]

I'd pull the lever if that one person was Jolt

 

[Enderfive]

What if the 1 person was exactly your closest friend, and the 5 people human beings that you do not know?

those aren't the conditions the dilemma gives me, will explicitly states that i don't know who the people there are

if what you say is true, however, the answer is that i don't know. maybe i'd still pull the lever, maybe not. all i know is that no matter what choice i'll make in that instance, i'll feel overwhelming guilt for the rest of my life

 

[Gaminger]

those aren't the conditions the dilemma gives me, will explicitly states that i don't know who the people there are

Just checking what people would if things were a bit different.

 

[Jayfeather]

~Natural selection~

 

[Trap_Wolf]

Ok bihs, let's turn this up a notch which is actually what the trolley problem continues to explore. Instead of switching a lever, let's say that you'll be pushing a very large man to stop the trolley. This would save five people. Would you push the man in the way of the trolley?

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

The next scenario after is will be just as similar, as well as, continue to but utilitarianism under scrutiny. Let's see if your conclusion and the way you "kill the one man" continue to arrive to that conclusion. : )

 

[Gaminger]

You've been reading this dilemma on the internet.

And I know that you know that what you posted would make someone say this at some point:

Some people would not push the large man, because it is the same as murdering someone. After all, you were the one that caused the death to the large man. And you would fear doing it, because it would make you feel like a true murderer for the rest of your life.

And some people would not be able to push the large man because they would be too weak. Lol.

According to some people, it would be simply wrong to throw the large man, because it is morality wrong to do. There are rules like "Do not kill" that can not be broken, even if not killing results in something bad. Now the problem of the people that think this way is that they usually cant solve problems like the trolley dilemma, because throwing the large man is incorrect, but letting 5 people die when you have the chance of saving them is also incorrect.

 

[Trap_Wolf]

You've been reading this dilemma on the internet.

And I know that you know that what you posted would make someone say this at some point:

Some people would not push the large man, because it is the same as murdering someone. After all, you were the one that caused the death to the large man. And you would fear doing it, because it would make you feel like a true murderer for the rest of your life.

And some people would not be able to push the large man because they would be too weak. Lol.

According to some people, it would be simply wrong to throw the large man, because it is morality wrong to do. There are rules like "Do not kill" that can not be broken, even if not killing results in something bad. Now the problem of the people that think this way is that they usually cant solve problems like the trolley dilemma, because throwing the large man is incorrect, but letting 5 people die when you have the chance of saving them is also incorrect.

It doesn't matter which is "correct" or not (whether evaluating it by institutional law or not), the dilemma wants to explore the ways we construct morality and make conclusions from it.

((not using this post to regress from your points, I just want everyone to be aware))

 

[Enderfive]

if i know for a fact that pushing the in front of the train will save five others, i feel like the more "right" choice by my own principles would be to push the man in front of the train, yes. i don't know if i would ever do that if faced with circumstances like those, though

if i think about this realistically, though, i don't know that, it's possible that the fat man won't be enough to stop the train, and in this case it's better imo to save the life of the fat man for certain, rather than risk all the lives for an uncertain possibility

 

[Gaminger]

A possible conclusion would be that doing something is correct. Soo if we find out that one of the options is correct, and the other isnt, then we have a conclusion.

 

[Enderfive]

A possible conclusion would be that doing something is correct. Soo if we find out that one of the options is correct, and the other isnt, then we have a conclusion.

there can't be a conclusion because there isn't a correct answer

morality is subjective, there is no right and wrong but what we make for ourselves, what is wrong for one person is acceptable for another and the only possible course of action for a third

all this dilemma does is give some insight to one particular person's version of morality -- the person that answers and if we start arguing about what is objectively right from our subjective viewpoints, then we will keep arguing without ever reaching a conclusion

 

[superhalo6]

The guy that constructed this bridge is terrible at his job, crisis averted

 

[Gaminger]

morality is subjective, there is no right and wrong but what we make for ourselves, what is wrong for one person is acceptable for another and the only possible course of action for a third

Thats a way of thinking. But maybe morality isnt only subjective. Maybe there is something different.

If morality is subjective, then I would guess that around 30-70% of the people would say killing is wrong. Same applies to killing is correct. But if we go ask everyone, we get something like 99% of the people saying that killing is wrong and 1% of the people saying that it is correct. Why? If morality is subjective, then there is no "wrong" or no "correct", because what is correct for me might be wrong for you. Maybe "Do not kill" is correct and "Kill" is not correct.

if we start arguing about what is objectively right from our subjective viewpoints, then we will keep arguing without ever reaching a conclusion

Well not true I think. If we start arguing and then one of us find out that what the other person said is actually right, then maybe we will stop arguing and then we will find a conclusion.

 

[Jayfeather]

Ok bihs, let's turn this up a notch which is actually what the trolley problem continues to explore. Instead of switching a lever, let's say that you'll be pushing a very large man to stop the trolley. This would save five people. Would you push the man in the way of the trolley?

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

The next scenario after is will be just as similar, as well as, continue to but utilitarianism under scrutiny. Let's see if your conclusion and the way you "kill the one man" continue to arrive to that conclusion. : )

~Natural selection~ bye 5

-------------------------------------------------------
Ethical philosophy generally revolves around that first grasp of knowledge "subjective vs. objective" where you think "I can only be completely relativistic or I have to follow set laws" other weirdo philosophers create rules somewhat around these or elect to make their own ideas (see: Khant)

Overall I think the debate is pointless cuz our society already has a function of moral philosophy that isn't likely to be altered but I guess it's kinda fun sometimes

 

[Scrable]

Oh, we just had this in Philosophy class...

My opinion remains on not interfering. If there is no third option...

Although this isn't the exact same situation we had in class. In class we had the situation that on the main track, there was a group of children playing on the tracks, meanwhile on the other one a track inspector was inspecting the track. Thus I call out for Darwin's law and say, that this was self-inflicted damage.

But in this scenario, where some wild west bandit bound some people and laid them onto the tracks... He was actually pretty dumb in doing that, since there are two tracks. I would probably pull the lever.

And if I panic, I would definitely pull the lever on both situations, interfering with the situation.

Just noticed the third scenario by Trap Wolf... Your knowledge is showing. Or actually shining.
Well, in this scenario I would say "Sorry" to the fat man for initially pushing him... Except you mean that other Fat Man... Well, that would certainly rescue these 5 people from being overrun by the tram, but all the people there including me would turn into ash.

So third scenario: Nope, Darwin's Law.


And of course, someone had to do that Multi Track Drift joke... God damn this meme for this game, which costs over 5000€ by now...