The Trolley Problem [Moral Paradox]

This paradox was first published in a 1967 paper by the philosopher Professor Philippa Foot, and has generated much discussion in the fields of ethics, cognitive science and neuroethics ever since - especially when compared with another similar thought experiment.

The first scenario: The Switch

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"

The second scenario: The Fat Man

"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?"

Now even though the outputs are exactly the same for both from a utilitarian viewpoint, a lot more people answer yes to the first problem than the second.

There has been some neuroscience research on why our moral intuitions differ with each scenario -- and it has to do with different parts of the brain: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

I thought this was pretty interesting so I thought I'd share. What are your views on this? Wouldn't you agree that it just seems more difficult to answer yes to the second scenario and not the first?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 1

Accalia

12

I'd say it was more difficult to answer the second because flipping a switch leading to the death of one person compared to pushing someone off a bridge leading to their death results in larger feelings of guilt.

Reply 2

Komakino

14

Original post by Srxjer

This paradox was first published in a 1967 paper by the philosopher Professor Philippa Foot, and has generated much discussion in the fields of ethics, cognitive science and neuroethics ever since - especially when compared with another similar thought experiment.

The first scenario: The Switch

"A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. Should you flip the switch or do nothing?"

The second scenario: The Fat Man

"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?"

Now even though the outputs are exactly the same for both from a utilitarian viewpoint, a lot more people answer yes to the first problem than the second.

There has been some neuroscience research on why our moral intuitions differ with each scenario -- and it has to do with different parts of the brain: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

I thought this was pretty interesting so I thought I'd share. What are your views on this? Wouldn't you agree that it just seems more difficult to answer yes to the second scenario and not the first?

I first came across this thought experiment when someone brought it up in the pub. I think a big part of the answers rests on how you define responsibility- is there a moral imperative to act, and if there is then you are responsible for not doing so.
I personally don't think there is a moral imperative, and therefore don't accept you are responsible for not acting. For me there is not a distinction between the two.

Reply 3

786girl

doing the second one will take more guts and courage, however logically, the second one would be a better idea, since the fat man's death isnt definite. hmm that's what i think anyway ..

Reply 4

rY4uGD1fMzBj4xe2

14

Pretty cool, bro.

I'm one of those people that would say yes to the first and no to the second (said it in my head before your comment beneath them).

I guess the actual physical contact with the fat guy makes it a deal breaker for me.

Reply 5

You Failed

13

I've seen this before, there's a good quiz you can do, here:

http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/Default.aspx

It consists of a section in which it'll ask you question to determine your general moral standing and then 4 scenarios, all similar to the one above to test how consistent your morals are.

I was 100% consistent =D

Edit: Er, why on earth did I get negged for this?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 6

py0alb

3

ooh someone's been watching Michael Sandel

Reply 7

122lettie

You also don't know for sure that throwing the fat guy on the rails will actually stop the train...

Reply 8

Seasick Steve

12

It's always the fault of the "mad philosopher".

I would say it's harder for me to say yes to the FIRST scenario. In my mind, the feelings of guilt I would feel would be identical in both situations: in each case, someone's life is in your hands, and you ultimately have to make that choice. The obese man invariably would have lived a life of greed, and his weight issues would be through complete fault of his own. I'm not trying to deliberately be obtuse with my reasoning, but I can't help but say yes to the second scene easier than the first.

Reply 9

bhonfranco

these situations are unreal
and i could change my mind depending on my physical and mental state of the moment...
so it's tough!

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 10

hunagdi

10

Kant would not act at all in any of the scenarios.

Reply 11

Komakino

14

Original post by 786girl

doing the second one will take more guts and courage, however logically, the second one would be a better idea, since the fat man's death isnt definite. hmm that's what i think anyway ..

It is definite, that's why it says "killing him to save five [people]".

Reply 12

S_123

14

We've done this in Ethics :smile:

There was a Harvard lecture we saw about this. I probably wouldn't do either because it would just feel like you are causing the death of someone else but I would be a lot more prepared to do 1 than 2.

I'd say yes to both.

Original post by Srxjer

Now even though the outputs are exactly the same for both from a utilitarian viewpoint, a lot more people answer yes to the first problem than the second.

There has been some neuroscience research on why our moral intuitions differ with each scenario -- and it has to do with different parts of the brain: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/

I thought this was pretty interesting so I thought I'd share. What are your views on this? Wouldn't you agree that it just seems more difficult to answer yes to the second scenario and not the first?

I think (and your site hints) that it comes down to proximity to the person dying. The closer you are to him, the more responsibility and guilt you feel over your action. I wager that, if you were briefed about this situation and could radio one of your soldiers to push the fat guy over, you would be more inclined to do so ("it's has to be done. Do it") than if you had to push him personally.

I'm not sure I'd buy the standard "direct vs indirect responsibility" explanations over this emotional one. If the train switch was next to the one guy who would die, then you'd also have a difficult time pulling it, yes?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 15

Godfrey

Original post by py0alb

ooh someone's been watching Michael Sandel

hahaha I was about to say that :biggrin:

I think it's a very basic and well-known moral dilemma posed on philosophy students. No need to watch Sandel I guess.

Reply 16

User414413

18

I wouldn't do anything. I didn't cause it therefore I doubt I'll feel much guilt (which really was the only thing that was driving me to do it). If however, it's one of my family or close friends on the side of the track that has 1 person, I'd kill the 5 most likely because of the guilt I would've felt if they died and the love I have for them.

Reply 17

py0alb

3

Original post by Godfrey

hahaha I was about to say that :biggrin:

I think it's a very basic and well-known moral dilemma posed on philosophy students. No need to watch Sandel I guess.

indeed - to demonstrate right from the off that we need something more than consequentialist or utilitarian reasoning to understand our own moral intuitions, and introduce Kant and the concept of not using a fellow human as a means to an end.

or something like that, right?

Reply 18

History-Student

16

Why are you standing there by a switch, why aren't you actually doing something stop the trolley? Or even better, why not flip the switch then untie the one person? Or half flip it so the trolley runs off the rails down between the two tracks?

Whose to say there's only two solutions to each problem?

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 19

ily_em

17

Original post by S_123

We've done this in Ethics :smile:

There was a Harvard lecture we saw about this. I probably wouldn't do either because it would just feel like you are causing the death of someone else but I would be a lot more prepared to do 1 than 2.

So you wouldn't feel like you cause the death of five people? :O I think I'd feel guilty as I still see it as my responsibility for the five, because I'm the one with the choice as whether they live or die.

(edited 13 years ago)

The Trolley Problem [Moral Paradox]

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you