Moral/Ethical Dilemma: The Trolley Problem

michaelm466

michaelm466

Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
2,206
It's a little slow at work so I've been reading some classical moral dilemmas and I think other people's comments and reasoning is the most interesting part. So if this one gets some interesting discussion going, I'll post some others. The first one is a fairly famous one first preposed by Philippa Foot. There is two parts to this dilemma.
1) 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: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
2) The Second part is similar, this time you are standing on an overpass of the train, with only one straight track, down the tracks are 5 people tied to the tracks, standing next to you is a large man, large enough that if he were to be pushed off the overpass and hit the train it would get attention of conductor and he could stop in time to save the other 5 (you aren't large enough to accomplish this if you were to jump yourself). Do you shove him off the overpass to save the 5 or do you let the train run over the 5 unimpeded?
Disclaimer: This is an A or B type answer not a C: I'd throw my Busse into the path of the train stopping it and putting the first surface scratch into by Battle Mistress. :p
 
On the first one, I'm afraid I don't see the moral dilemma. Pull the lever, kill the guy, save five people. On no, 2., same answer, push the guy off the overpass, save five people. It's black and white to me.
 
Have to agree that it's pretty straight forward to me. Choose the 5 people. I feel like a better one would be do you save five people or one family member, or something of that flavor.
 
Let it kill the 5 people then find out what they did to deserve getting a death sentence by being tied to a train track .

Again I'm not pushing an innocent person when the 5 people could be bad people ,I mean why else be tied to a train track?
 
Depends on who the people tied to the track are.
 
Save 5 lives by getting 1 killed instead? No.

Save 5 million lives by getting 1 killed? Maybe.

My decision would be based by assuming what if each of the other people involved were in my place and what decision might they take affecting them having the same perspective as I of the situation. Would the 1 person choose to sacrifice himself for the 5? Why? He/she has a family too and people who depend on them. Would the 5 people wish for the 1 person to be killed just to save themselves? Maybe not.

Against the 5 million, the 1 person may very well decide that it is a worthy cause he is sacrificing himself for.
 
Q1 - My answer is .... I have insufficient information to answer the question. More information is needed to determine my action or inaction.

Who are the 5 people tied to the track?
Why are they tied to the track?
Is the switch locked or unlocked? Do I even have the option of moving the switch IF I wanted to?
Where are we? This may be a governmental execution method in Railroadistan and if I interfere, I may become one of the next 5 on the track.

Q2 - No. If the dude is big enough for the conductor to notice him hitting the train, and I am not big enough to accomplish the same thing, then what makes anyone think I'm gonna be strong enough to push this dude off the overpass. The question has already shown that he's way bigger than me.
 
Some clarification:
This is a scene you come upon in the U.S., present day, so no government execution by train, you have a split second to decide, so you don't have time to interview the people to decide who deserves to be saved. They're just random strangers to you. It could be the 5 are saints and the one is a child rapist or vice versa, you just don't know, nor do you have time to find out, otherwise you could just take that time to untie them instead

For the people who think its an easy call, let me give you the same situation (1 life vs 5 lives), framed slightly differently:
You're a doctor with 5 patients dying of organ failure, each needs a different organ. You realize they're all the same blood type and compatible with a patient that came in with a sprained ankle, do you harvest the patient with sprained ankle's organs that is otherwise healthy to save the 5? what if it was just to save 2?
 
michaelm466 said:
Some clarification:
This is a scene you come upon in the U.S., present day, so no government execution by train, you have a split second to decide, so you don't have time to interview the people to decide who deserves to be saved. They're just random strangers to you. It could be the 5 are saints and the one is a child rapist or vice versa, you just don't know, nor do you have time to find out, otherwise you could just take that time to untie them instead

For the people who think its an easy call, let me give you the same situation (1 life vs 5 lives), framed slightly differently:
You're a doctor with 5 patients dying of organ failure, each needs a different organ. You realize they're all the same blood type and compatible with a patient that came in with a sprained ankle, do you harvest the patient with sprained ankle's organs that is otherwise healthy to save the 5? what if it was just to save 2?
Click to expand...

In the first item above, the answer would be "probably" go for the 5 over the 1. "Greatest good" and all that progressive malarkey.

For the second scenario???

Nope. Not gonna happen. A LEGITIMATE and ETHICAL doctor would not even consider doing that. First, if a doctor harvested 5 organs from a single person who only had a sprained ankle, that doctor would justly be charged and subsequently found guilty of premeditated murder. In Texas, he/she would most likely get the death penalty. If not from the State, then from the family of the individual with the sprained ankle.

If I ever found out that a doctor considered doing so? I would do my damnedest to ensure that the doctor PERMANENTLY lost their license to practice medicine.
 
6a00d83451cdc869e2019101c46a5f970c-pi


Is it better to kill one person or to let five people die? The little utilitarian in me makes me think I'd pull the lever, although I completely understand why someone would choose not to pull the lever, especially when this argument is made:

sideways said:
c) Do nothing.

You don't get to decide who lives and dies.

And none of it concerns you.

:D
Click to expand...

It's not an easy decision, and it's not supposed to be an easy decision. This problem is supposed to be a lot harder than most people make it out to be — it's not as easy as choosing whether to kill one person or five people. To pull the lever would be to kill an "innocent" person, why should that person have to die to save strangers?
 
zzyzzogeton said:
In the first item above, the answer would be "probably" go for the 5 over the 1. "Greatest good" and all that progressive malarkey.

For the second scenario???

Nope. Not gonna happen. A LEGITIMATE and ETHICAL doctor would not even consider doing that. First, if a doctor harvested 5 organs from a single person who only had a sprained ankle, that doctor would justly be charged and subsequently found guilty of premeditated murder. In Texas, he/she would most likely get the death penalty. If not from the State, then from the family of the individual with the sprained ankle.

If I ever found out that a doctor considered doing so? I would do my damnedest to ensure that the doctor PERMANENTLY lost their license to practice medicine.
Click to expand...

But what's the difference between the two? In both situations if you do nothing 5 die 1 lives, if you take action, 5 live, 1 dies. What changes besides the physical effort/proximity of killing the one to save the 5 in the two situations?

I actually agree with you, but it is an interesting question of what's the real difference between the 2.
 
The difference is that in the first scenario, either 5 people die by train and 1 survives if you do nothing or 1 dies and 5 survive by pulling the switch. The situation is such that someone other than the 6 people at risk put them in those situations, and you are having to decide who to try to save. Whichever way you choose, what you are doing is not morally bad. It MIGHT be technically illegal in that you MIGHT be charged with manslaughter, murder, homicide, depending on what kind of asshole DA you ran into. And if you were charged with one of these for puling the switch to save 5, then the DA is a dumbass.

In the second scenario, the same ratios of people are involved BUT, and this is a BIG BUT.... in this case, the people are dying, not because someone else put them into their situations but their situations are due to a disease, genetics or their own bad choices (you stated organ failure NOT 3rd party induced trauma BUT even if you had specified trauma it wouldn't change the end results) ... alcohol/drug use, obesity, whatever.

This is fate, kismet, karma or life is a bitch, whatever. To kill a single individual who just happens to sprain an ankle to TRY to save some folks who have already pulled a bean and lost is throwing good money after bad. It is also morally reprehensible (by American standards) AND in killing a healthy person so that 5 tidy bowl people MIGHT live, you would be committing premeditated murder. You would be committing a felony in order to achieve YOUR goals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top