Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Trolley Problem - What would you do? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Choices.
    Results hidden until poll closes.

    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BesideThePoint)
    Ah, I see... so there are 6 people in total...?
    yes

    1 person on one track and 5 people on another track.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imtelling)
    But surely, if you could act, but didn't act, then that would be an action of sorts.
    Of sorts. Doesnt change my answer though
    • Reporter Team
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jordooooom)
    Perhaps selfish isn't the right word but they act in their own interests. So the idea that they would push someone for the greater good of the other 5 doesn't make sense
    That may be a shared trait among many psychopaths, but then it is the same with many non-psychopaths. As far as I am aware there is nothing within psychopathy itself that causes a person to be selfish, but I guess the lack of empathy could lead to perceived selfishness? Still, psychopaths may not be empathetic or remorseful, but they can still attempt to do what they think is right for them or for society, and so one who subscribes to utilitarian thinking would push the man off without a second thought. This test isn't airtight, as many psychopaths and non-psychopaths would choose not to push the person, but I think it is stating that within the group that does choose to kill the fat person, psychopaths may be found by viewing the ones who do it without question?
    • Welcome Squad
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BesideThePoint)
    Well, completely disregard everything I said in the reply then lol.
    have another go
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to think I'd pull the switch to change the direction of the train, unless the first two of the exceptions applied (child or 5 people in their 80s, criminal [i.e. serious criminal; basically only a murderer]). I think for the 3rd exception, even if one person had a lot more people to grieve their death than another, it doesn't make their life in itself less valuable.

    Put to the test in that actual situation though, I'd be very surprised if I thought about it rationally and would probably be too petrified to do anything .
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wee.Guy)
    There is a runaway trolley traveling 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 do not have the ability to operate the lever in a way that would cause the trolley to derail without loss of life. 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.

    What would you do? please explain the reasoning behind your actions.

    EDIT:
    Other Considerations would any of these change your decision:
    1)
    the one person being a child and the five being old ( say 80s)
    2)
    the one being a criminal
    3) the one having no family and the five married with children or vise versa


    For all above, I'll grab some popcorn and my full hd camera (1080p standard).
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Switch the tracks. You save 5 and kill one, so you have a net gain of 4 people. Whereas if you do nothing you will kill 5 people and save one. So you will have a loss of 4 people. Simple maths.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    1. Discrimination of someone because they are on their own is wrong
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Do nothing

    Probably makes me selfish but a positive action to kill someone is not one i would be able to take
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wee.Guy)
    either, Not a shopping trolley though



    Philosophers :rolleyes:
    Ooh! I thought you meant a shopping one, whoops!

    I know in a way I don't think we should ask these questions. They are quite distressing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabulkid)
    (2) cos less ppl will die.
    What if that person was going to be next Einstein?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'd pull the lever. Honestly, I think there's a moral obligation to do so - I just don't see how people can sit back and say well yeah, 4 lives could have been saved but at least I don't have to feel responsible, I just didn't save them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tricksy. I'd switch the lever to save more lives, however...

    1) the one person being a child and the five being old ( say 80s)- I would just run away if this was the case. Obviously I don't want old ladies to die, but I could never bring myself to kill a child, ever. In this instance I would chicken out of making a decision.

    2)the one being a criminal - I'd still switch the lever, but the fact of his criminality wouldn't come into it. My overall thought process would be "I'm saving more lives".

    3) the one having no family and the five married with children or vise versa - again, I'd switch the lever. A much more difficult question to answer would be the one being married with kids, and the five having no family.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Reue)
    I'd rather 5 people die through my inaction but not my fault than kill someone myself through my own actions.
    Rather than killing someone through your actions, I'd look at it as saving 4 people through your actions (as a minimum of 1 person had to die no matter what.)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Ooh! I thought you meant a shopping one, whoops!

    I know in a way I don't think we should ask these questions. They are quite distressing.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Haha do you find them really troubling as well? Ethical dilemmas like this make me really uncomfortable and I kinda have to reason out that stuff like this never, ever happens. That's probably why they're ethical dilemmas, mind.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    Rather than killing someone through your actions, I'd look at it as saving 4 people through your actions (as a minimum of 1 person had to die no matter what.)
    As I already said; I'd rather not be responsible for any deaths. The debate is open for how being responsible is defined; however I don't believe you can be responsible for something due to your own inaction unless you initially begun the chain of events.

    Therefore I would be neutral. Not responsible for killing 1 and not responsible for killing 4.

    Better in my mind than being responsible for a death regardless of how many were then saved afterwards. Unless it's your own life you're sacrificing, you have no right to decide who ought to die.
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeclanCochran)
    Haha do you find them really troubling as well? Ethical dilemmas like this make me really uncomfortable and I kinda have to reason out that stuff like this never, ever happens. That's probably why they're ethical dilemmas, mind.
    Yes I do!This one is horrible and it is making me pretty uncomfortable.
    Either way someone/some people are going to die and I will be emotionally scarred. I agree! I didn't know ethical dilemma was a term? I shall use that... thank you!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would beat up the pelican who keeps asking me "Trouble with the trolley, eh?" before I do anything else. :mad:

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Yes I do!This one is horrible and it is making me pretty uncomfortable.
    Either way someone/some people are going to die and I will be emotionally scarred. I agree! I didn't know ethical dilemma was a term? I shall use that... thank you!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Haha it's nice to see someone with a conscience! And yeah, it's a fairly common term and there are loads of good ones out there.

    A slightly less harrowing one was put forward by a guy called Peter Singer;

    Say you've just bought a new pair of expensive shoes, and you're walking down the street and see a child drowning. Nobody is around. Do you go in, and ruin your shoes, or leave the child to drown?

    Obviously everyone saves the child.

    But then, he says, if you would be willing to sacrifice that kind of money to save a child, then how come you didn't donate it to charity in the first place, where it might have been used to save a child in Africa, or help save a cancer victim?

    Makes you think
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phil.stud)
    What if that person was going to be next Einstein?
    hmm, probably still opt for (2). einsteins life isn't more valubale than someone elses.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.