The Trolley Problem

[Flash525]

I vividly remember this being discussed here before, but can't find a thread on it so it either wasn't said anywhere, or it was mentioned in comment somewhere to do with another subject.

The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment in ethics. To summarise, it's a question of saving one person, or saving five.

Quoting directly from Wikipedia:

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 tied up 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 most ethical choice?

One method requires intervention to save the lives of the five, but condemn the lives of one, whilst the other requires only your ignorance, but one person dies because of it.

There's no workaround. Either one, or five people are going to die.

I've heard this mentioned several times recently, and I always think "the needs of the many" so anyone with any decency(?) would surely pull the lever saving the lives of five, even if it's condoning the life of one.

We don't know these people; we don't know whether they're good, bad, male, female, black, white (etc etc); there are (as you may see through the Wikipedia Article) some extensions or variations of this, but ultimately it's just a simple case of saving five (via intervention) one (by ignorance).

 

[Dr.]

...but ultimately it's just a simple case of saving five (via intervention) one (by ignorance).

Well… the crux of the dilemma is that both scenarios are seemingly identical (sacrifice one life to save many) but are interpreted as morally distinguishable. Indeed, this is the point/question of the thought experiment.

Also - you mention that one of the scenarios entails “ignorance.” Not so. In both, the hapless observer fully understands that intervention will result in the death of one person. But to the extent that a moral distinction can be made, it’s usually characterized as active intervention (pushing the fat man onto the tracks in order to stop the runaway train = bad) vs. unfortunate “collateral damage” (flipping the switch to divert the train which, secondarily, kills someone = less bad).

 

[chamber-music]

The Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman movie Eye in the Sky is the Trolley Problem except with Drones.

Drone warfare and self driving cars have made this a popular dilemma again.

 

[ludovica]

I see it as a matter of either saving 4 (four) people or letting them die.
At least one person dies anyhow, so inaction seems to me hypocritical.

In real life I'd probably panic-freeze though.

 

[Micromind]

It's same dilemma Superman has to face everyday, he can save many people but not all of them, as he cannot be present everywhere at once (Superman despite having super-powers is not Omnipresent). He has to choose who gets to live.


(This point was briefly talked in TV talk-shows in Batman V Superman)

 

[Erzengel]

 

[KevanG]

Or be a monster and try to mess with the trolley so it gets all six at once.

 

[Immortalfire]

Or do the needs of the one, outweigh the needs of the many?

 

[KevanG]

Honestly, if it's someone we care about against five strangers then we'd feel bad and need therapy but we'd save the one we cared for.

 

[Flash525]

Also - you mention that one of the scenarios entails “ignorance.” Not so. In both, the hapless observer fully understands that intervention will result in the death of one person. But to the extent that a moral distinction can be made, it’s usually characterized as active intervention (pushing the fat man onto the tracks in order to stop the runaway train = bad) vs. unfortunate “collateral damage” (flipping the switch to divert the train which, secondarily, kills someone = less bad).

Well, in the sense of turning a blind eye, I'd have thought it was ignorance? If someone is faced with actually doing something to prevent five deaths by killing one, or not doing anything at all, they may put said events down to chance, or fate, or destiny (etc). If they don't do anything other than observe, there's an element of ignorance in there I'd think?

Honestly, if it's someone we care about against five strangers then we'd feel bad and need therapy but we'd save the one we cared for.

Of course we would, that's why in this example all the [potential] victims are unknown to us. We can't differentiate between them.

 

[Breogan]

Or be a monster and try to mess with the trolley so it gets all six at once.

Joker:
You're not going far enough, never mind the 6 idiots tied to the tracks, make sure you kill everyone on the trolly too!

Also this suposed "dilemma", might be more interesting if it was you or somone you knew tied to the single track.
As the OP described it, it's not that interesting or much of a dilemma.

Or if you were asigning biased "value" to those killed, EG: five DC fans on the one track, vs one Marvel fan on the other.

In real life I'd probably panic-freeze though.

Choose a lever, Decide NOW!
Headache... takes nap on track, inadvertantly derails trolly and saves everyone.

 

[Dr.]

I see it as a matter of either saving [five] people or letting them die. ...inaction seems to me hypocritical.

Except… Most people seem to think that it is morally defensible to let several people die if intervening requires you to directly and actively perform a homicide - as in the “fat man scenario.” Likewise with the “organ transplant scenario”: It is morally justified to let five people die of organ failure even if they could be saved by sacrificing (killing) one healthy organ “donor.” I.e., an active killing is a line most won't cross - even if it results in more lives saved.

OTOH, it’s (ostensibly) less morally questionable to let one person die to save five others if the intervention entails an indirect fatality. This is the “flip the switch and divert the trolley scenario.” The single death, in this case, was an unavoidable “byproduct” of the primary action/motive. And this “byproduct status” (arguably) grants you a stronger moral justification for the inadvertent death.

 

[ludovica]

Except… Most people seem to think that it is morally defensible to let several people die if intervening requires you to directly and actively perform a homicide - as in the “fat man scenario.” Likewise with the “organ transplant scenario”: It is morally justified to let five people die of organ failure even if they could be saved by sacrificing (killing) one healthy organ “donor.” I.e., an active killing is a line most won't cross - even if it results in more lives saved.

OTOH, it’s (ostensibly) less morally questionable to let one person die to save five others if the intervention entails an indirect fatality. This is the “flip the switch and divert the trolley scenario.” The single death, in this case, was an unavoidable “byproduct” of the primary action/motive. And this “byproduct status” (arguably) grants you a stronger moral justification for the inadvertent death.

I wrote 4 'cause I meant 4. t: The trolley scenario is overrated, I meant that it's resolvable by simple math: 5 potential victims minus one assured fatality means it is a choiche between saving 4 people or not.

The transplant variation is not so much a variation as much as a totally different scenario: in the trolley one, inaction brings about four more deaths than action, in the transplant one action means actively seeking and killing someone not so much unknown, if we have enough data to know they are compatible with the patients.

... I know these are meant to be taken as mental exercises, but I personally find them not so perfectly constructed.

 

[Dr.]

...The trolley scenario is overrated, I meant that it's resolvable by simple math: 5 potential victims minus one assured fatality means it is a choice between saving 4 people or not.

The transplant variation is not so much a variation as much as a totally different scenario: in the trolley one, inaction brings about four more deaths than action, in the transplant one action means actively seeking and killing someone...

Well, in all the scenarios, inaction results in 5 deaths and 1 saved; and action results in 1 death and 5 saved. And if you’re consistent (always choose inaction or always choose action) then I suppose the thought experiment is less interesting. But if your response changes depending on the scenario, then you’re (somehow) discriminating between them based on (presumably) some moral basis. And then the question becomes - and this is the real point of the thought experiment - how do you rationalize the moral differences?

 

[ludovica]

Well, in all the scenarios, inaction results in 5 deaths and 1 saved; and action results in 1 death and 5 saved. And if you’re consistent (always choose inaction or always choose action) then I suppose the thought experiment is less interesting. But if your response changes depending on the scenario, then you’re (somehow) discriminating between them based on (presumably) some moral basis. And then the question becomes - and this is the real point of the thought experiment - how do you rationalize the moral differences?

I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it this way, but let's try to bare it down to the basics: if you don't push a button detonating a neck implant of a stranger, the Joker will kill 5 people.
Here I would see the moral dilemma, fact is I wouldn't necessarily trust the Joker.
The transplant version to me is more like this, while the trolley one is location based, to me all 6 potential victims are in the same situation.
I'd say I discriminate based on the difference between ambiental hazards and human constructed choices.

 

[ludovica]

Question to who voted "one": why would you?

 

[Flash525]

I'm not sure I'll be able to explain it this way, but let's try to bare it down to the basics: if you don't push a button detonating a neck implant of a stranger, the Joker will kill 5 people. Here I would see the moral dilemma, fact is I wouldn't necessarily trust the Joker.

Lets make this a bit simpler; two choices;

You press a button to detonate explosive devices in the necks of the Joker AND a complete stranger. Said explosives are guaranteed to work.

You don't press the button, and the Joker kills five random people.

The transplant version to me is more like this, while the trolley one is location based, to me all 6 potential victims are in the same situation. I'd say I discriminate based on the difference between ambiental hazards and human constructed choices.

Why? There's still a choice on you as to whether you'd sacrifice one person to save five.

 

[ludovica]

Lets make this a bit simpler; two choices;

You press a button to detonate explosive devices in the necks of the Joker AND a complete stranger. Said explosives are guaranteed to work.

You don't press the button, and the Joker kills five random people.

Why? There's still a choice on you as to whether you'd sacrifice one person to save five.

The trolley situation is contingent to the imminent ambiental situation while the transplant/Joker one is informed, and deformed, by anthropic factors.
You put a bomb in the Joker's neck, it goes back under the trolley category.

Incidentally, that's why I don't like the Batman/Joker relation...

Again, to me the moral difference is deferred action in the transplant case.
When action is a matter of seconds with the trolley, to me the choice is not between killing one to save five, but between saving four people or letting them die.
All six on the tracks are in danger, not so much a compatible donor, who we would have to single out from the general population.

 

[Flash525]

The trolley situation is contingent to the imminent ambiental situation while the transplant/Joker one is informed, and deformed, by anthropic factors.
You put a bomb in the Joker's neck, it goes back under the trolley category.

Incidentally, that's why I don't like the Batman/Joker relation...

Again, to me the moral difference is deferred action in the transplant case.
When action is a matter of seconds, to me the choice is not between killing one to save five, but between saving four people or letting them die.
All six on the tracks are in danger, not so much a compatible donor, who we would have to single out from the general population.

So you would ultimately choose to save the four/five by sacrificing the one even though you would view said decision as saving four/five lives, rather than viewing your choice as one sacrifice.

You'd still play the part. You wouldn't save the four/five without sacrificing the one. Someone(s) gotta' die here.

 

[ludovica]

So you would ultimately choose to save the four/five by sacrificing the one even though you would view said decision as saving four/five lives, rather than viewing your choice as one sacrifice.

You'd still play the part. You wouldn't save the four/five without sacrificing the one. Someone(s) gotta' die here.

That's exactly what I was saying.

 

[Flash525]

That's exactly what I was saying.

Yeah, but what I'm saying is that we'd be the ones choosing. This was alluded too in the opening post At least unless we froze, in which case someone still dies, but it's not because of anything we did or didn't do.

 

[terry78]

Just watch Speed and be done with it.