The Trolley Problem [Moral Paradox]

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?

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?

You should sacrifice the person both times to save the rest (in my opinion), though ideally instead of chucking a fat man off the bridge you should ask him to jump himself, and if he doesn't you do. However you are not obligated to do either in my book.

In the first scenario the lone tied up person is in a significantly more dangerous position, they are already in a precarious situation with a chance they could get killed, whereas the fat man is removed and safe from the situation.

However by pushing him off the bridge you are bringing him into the dangerous situation he didn't consent to, whereas if someone tied someone up to a train track then that person is already in someplace pretty risky, so you'd expect them to be more likely to suffer some damage or lose their life, and it's more understandable if they do.

Like if someone was doing a dangerous trick on a tightrope hanging off a cliff, you'd expect them to run a risk of dying, more than someone who gets randomly struck by lightening.

Uh...I don't think these people asked to be tied to the tracks...

... It's like placing prioritising someone else's life above another person's, and everyone is equal... it's too much like the "greater good" bull**** I don't believe in.

Same goes for dilemma two.

The greater good is something villains use to deceive heroes, and failed heroes use to comfort themselves.

Saving 5 by killing 1 is on no way the greater good, it's the lesser evil. The greater good is doing evertlything in your power to save everyone; negotiating with/bribing/intimidating the mad philosopher, grabbing the mad philosopher and chucking him/her on front of it, attempt to derail the trolley, etc.

If you don't choose one option or the other and try your best to save them all (which is your job since you're now in this situation whether you like it or not), even if you fail you're free of responsibility. Only if you play his game and accept it has to be one option or the other, is there someones blood on your hands.

I understand where you're coming from, but I think the point of the dilemma is that we're not supposed to have the options such as negotiating with/ bribing the mad philosopher and so on... the question asks would you flip the switch or not, and if you would shove the fat man or not.
If it said "the mad man has etc. etc., what would you do?" then naturally it would be different, and you would try to stop anyone being killed, but in this instance, you only have two options available to you (to fuel debate, I guess.)

I get that, but I refuse to accept a no win situation.

If I have to make the given choice I would do both (utilitarianism has to come before yournown comfort about killing people). I would then give my all making sure the deceased's loved one got justice gainst this nutter and champion a programme of mandatory psychological screenings for philosophy students so nothing like this ever happens again. And would also turn myself over to the authorities and rely on the legal system to see that this was the lesser evil.

I think that's where we disagree - while I'm certainly no expert on utilitarianism, the basic principles I've read about I don't agree with at all.
I don't think I could live with the knowledge that I've ended someone's life because of my own actions personally, regardless of the number of lives that may be saved because of it or what I may do after.

I did this in my law extension class at sixth form, haha...

Turns out I was the only one who would do nothing on both occasions. To me, if the five people died, they would have died as a result of circumstances, if that makes any sense - I would have played no part in their death, it would have happened anyway. If I flipped the switch, I would be actively taking part in ending someone's life. Also, I don't like the thought of sacrificing one man for the sake of others. It's like placing prioritising someone else's life above another person's, and everyone is equal... it's too much like the "greater good" bull**** I don't believe in.

Same goes for dilemma two.

Sorry to be an archdouche here, but this is a prime example of the moral hypocrisy that's so common; how many times did the word 'I' appear in your post, you are making a moral judgement based on the implications of your decision on yourself, yet you are presenting your argument under the pretense that you have others best interests at heart.

I don't blame you though, humans are naturally egocentric, which I think makes morality very problematic.