The Trolley Problem [Moral Paradox]
Scroll to see replies
Original post by History-Student
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?
Whose to say there's only two solutions to each problem?
There's always one...
Anyway, I agree the first one seems easier but am not sure why. I think it might be because the two options are more directly comparable. If, rather than changing the trolley's course, you were asked to decide between two paths from a neutral start-point, the logical choice would be to send it down the one-person way. The actual first experiment doesn't feel very different to this.
But in the second experiment the two options seem far less directly comparable. You're not choosing between two paths but between one path and pushing a man off a bridge.
Also, the second option connects you to the reality more directly. It seems easier to be logical and utilitarian when flipping a switch compared to pushing a man off a bridge. In the same way that it is probably easier for a general to order someone's assassination than it is for the assassin to carry out his task (as seen recently: "take the bloody shot!").
(edited 11 years ago)
It's not really a paradox; there are sophisticated ways to produce a coherent justification for jointly supporting both ideal choices.
If I had to choose, I'd elect to flip the switch and push the guy off the bridge. It boils down to saving one life versus saving five.
Saying that, I can understand why most people would prefer not to push him. In the first scenario, you're not 'directly' causing the death of either party. You're flipping the switch, and that switch is to blame. In the second scenario, however, you are 'directly' responsible for causing that man's death, as you, yourself, physically push him over the bridge. I think this is where the difference lies - people are inherently a little egocentric, and by not pushing the man, you're saving yourself a lot of immediate grief/guilt. In the first scenario, you won't feel as responsible and, as such, won't feel the consequences as badly.
TL;DR: More guilt is caused by being more involved (pushing vs flipping the switch), which is why less people have chosen that option. They want to avoid it.
This is assuming that one of either choice has to be made, of course. I hope my use of 'directly' made sense there, I didn't quite know how else to explain it. In fact, the whole post makes almost no sense - here's hoping you get the general idea...
Saying that, I can understand why most people would prefer not to push him. In the first scenario, you're not 'directly' causing the death of either party. You're flipping the switch, and that switch is to blame. In the second scenario, however, you are 'directly' responsible for causing that man's death, as you, yourself, physically push him over the bridge. I think this is where the difference lies - people are inherently a little egocentric, and by not pushing the man, you're saving yourself a lot of immediate grief/guilt. In the first scenario, you won't feel as responsible and, as such, won't feel the consequences as badly.
TL;DR: More guilt is caused by being more involved (pushing vs flipping the switch), which is why less people have chosen that option. They want to avoid it.
This is assuming that one of either choice has to be made, of course. I hope my use of 'directly' made sense there, I didn't quite know how else to explain it. In fact, the whole post makes almost no sense - here's hoping you get the general idea...
It's already been said several times but:
What the moral or most ethical action to take is not the same as what action you personally will take.
The problem comes in directly being responsible for a death.
But it isnt so much a case of objective morality of ethics, but rather selfish self-preservation.
In the first case, the choice is more obvious, 1 vs 5
But in the second case, the moral balance isnt between the lives of people, but rather a choice of causing a death, and preventing 5 deaths.
People are not weighing whether the persons death is worth is worth 5, but whether them not killing someone is worth 5 lives (or whether saving 5 lives is worth killing someone). Most people will consider their own importance above the 5 others: i.e saving 5 lives is not worth being a murderer. The live of the large man has very little to do with the equation.
What the moral or most ethical action to take is not the same as what action you personally will take.
The problem comes in directly being responsible for a death.
But it isnt so much a case of objective morality of ethics, but rather selfish self-preservation.
In the first case, the choice is more obvious, 1 vs 5
But in the second case, the moral balance isnt between the lives of people, but rather a choice of causing a death, and preventing 5 deaths.
People are not weighing whether the persons death is worth is worth 5, but whether them not killing someone is worth 5 lives (or whether saving 5 lives is worth killing someone). Most people will consider their own importance above the 5 others: i.e saving 5 lives is not worth being a murderer. The live of the large man has very little to do with the equation.
I would flip the switch and not push the fat man off.
The reasoning is quite simple - The problem with the fatman scenario is that by pushing him down, I would be using him as a means to save the others. This is immoral - human beings should always be the ends, not the means.
By flipping the switch, I am not using that one worker as a means to save the others. I am using the switch - that one worker killed is simply collateral damage.
The reasoning is quite simple - The problem with the fatman scenario is that by pushing him down, I would be using him as a means to save the others. This is immoral - human beings should always be the ends, not the means.
By flipping the switch, I am not using that one worker as a means to save the others. I am using the switch - that one worker killed is simply collateral damage.
Original post by Zorgotron
I would flip the switch and not push the fat man off.
The reasoning is quite simple - The problem with the fatman scenario is that by pushing him down, I would be using him as a means to save the others. This is immoral - human beings should always be the ends, not the means.
By flipping the switch, I am not using that one worker as a means to save the others. I am using the switch - that one worker killed is simply collateral damage.
The reasoning is quite simple - The problem with the fatman scenario is that by pushing him down, I would be using him as a means to save the others. This is immoral - human beings should always be the ends, not the means.
By flipping the switch, I am not using that one worker as a means to save the others. I am using the switch - that one worker killed is simply collateral damage.
In that case, wouldn't the fat man just be another form of collateral damage?
I'll say yes for the first but no for the second coz in the first the man to be dead didn't expect to live. He had no knowledge of what was happening. It is the lesser of the the two evils (like aborting a child to save the mother).
In the second the fat man didn't expect to die. Plus I wouldn't have a good idea excuse like ignorance.
The fat man was not preparing for death!
Posted from Android app.
In the second the fat man didn't expect to die. Plus I wouldn't have a good idea excuse like ignorance.
The fat man was not preparing for death!
Posted from Android app.
What does the OP mean by the outputs are the same? In the first scenario, you'd know that flipping the switch would save 5 people and possibly /probably kill one person who was clearly part of the same awful scenario (being tied to the rails very close by).
You could technically be tried for manslaughter (or even murder by some interpetation) of that one person unless you could plausibly (even if falsely) argue that you quickly acted on instinct and didn't see the other person.
But in the second scenario, the fat man was not part of the same awful scenario as he was not tied to the rails. You would make him part of that scenario by pushing him but that would actually be murder because you were deliberately planning on using his body to stop a train which any reasonable person knows must end in death to him. You would be committing a crime to prevent what you saw as a larger crime. But presumably you don't know anything about any of those people. One might be extremely talented in some field. You don't have the right to make a decision as to who gets a train in their face. And, of course, one fat man alone might not stop the train so you could end up with 6 deaths, more than was possible in the first scenario.
Scenario 1 is like trying to control the details of a crime scene before it's been committed but without causing any additional harm to anyone who is not in that scene.
Scenario 2 is like trying to control the details of a crime scene before it's been committed but by causing additional harm to someone who is in that scene.
.
Scenario 2 must be worse in general, unless you knew that the fat man was the mad philosopher perhaps.
Presumably you don't have time and diplomacy to gauge from the one man tied down whether he wants to be a sacrifice.
But it's not a paradox. There's no inconsistency. The situation is what it is. It's a dilemma - and only if you choose to make it one. The best thing to do, especially in the absence of any other facts, is to do nothing and then you are not creating a death that was never on the cards by the mad philosopher in the first place.
You could technically be tried for manslaughter (or even murder by some interpetation) of that one person unless you could plausibly (even if falsely) argue that you quickly acted on instinct and didn't see the other person.
But in the second scenario, the fat man was not part of the same awful scenario as he was not tied to the rails. You would make him part of that scenario by pushing him but that would actually be murder because you were deliberately planning on using his body to stop a train which any reasonable person knows must end in death to him. You would be committing a crime to prevent what you saw as a larger crime. But presumably you don't know anything about any of those people. One might be extremely talented in some field. You don't have the right to make a decision as to who gets a train in their face. And, of course, one fat man alone might not stop the train so you could end up with 6 deaths, more than was possible in the first scenario.
Scenario 1 is like trying to control the details of a crime scene before it's been committed but without causing any additional harm to anyone who is not in that scene.
Scenario 2 is like trying to control the details of a crime scene before it's been committed but by causing additional harm to someone who is in that scene.
.
Scenario 2 must be worse in general, unless you knew that the fat man was the mad philosopher perhaps.
Presumably you don't have time and diplomacy to gauge from the one man tied down whether he wants to be a sacrifice.
But it's not a paradox. There's no inconsistency. The situation is what it is. It's a dilemma - and only if you choose to make it one. The best thing to do, especially in the absence of any other facts, is to do nothing and then you are not creating a death that was never on the cards by the mad philosopher in the first place.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Picnic1
The best thing to do, especially in the absence of any other facts, is to do nothing and then you are not creating a death that was never on the cards by the mad philosopher in the first place.
Exactly, I would argue that doing nothing is extremely immoral, because you are placing your "moral highground" above the lives of 5 people.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Online picker at shops
- Essential GCSE physics 20.4 HELP ME PLSS I BEG !!
- I need help with this question.
- Isaac physics
- Do unis give carts when moving in?
- Percentage Error Question
- University Tips and Tricks
- Edexcel A-level Religious Studies Paper 1 (9RS0 01) - 12th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Morality is subjective in character with an objective compulsion.
- How I got into Westminster School Sixth Form AMA
- There is no Fermi Paradox.
- A-LEVEL AQA English Lit NEA 'Dorian Gray' with Beauty Value HELP PLS LMAO!!!!!!
- Finding a suitable partner
- the problem of evil
- Can someone please mark my 8 mark language question for English Language, thanks!
- Idk wtf to do with my life...
- Analysis of the Macbeth movie
- Until now, paradoxically, oil exporter Nigeria had to import its oil derivatives (mai
- Where do you usually use cash in your day-to-day life?
- AQA A Level Philosophy Paper 1 7172/1 - 19 May 2022 [Exam Chat]
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 5 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 5 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
