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.

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I'd change the trolleys track at exactly the right time causing the trolley to derail and saving all 6 people.

    This is plausible given that if you time it correctly you will derail the moving trolley. Of course this is a gamble and you may not time it correctly but I'd rather gamble to save everyone than make a decision to kill at the expense of others.

    It would essentially be trying to force a faulty switch to derail it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kabulkid)
    hmm, probably still opt for (2). einsteins life isn't more valubale than someone elses.
    Really? How do you justify that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeclanCochran)
    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
    I'd appeal to the theory of moral obligations by proximity. Surely there's such thing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phil.stud)
    Really? How do you justify that?
    this is all my opinion btw

    how do u justify it? he has no more right to life than another living person...
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeclanCochran)
    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
    Ah thanks and you too!

    It does make you think. Wow, what he said is very true. That's actually very deep. I have more things to contemplate now!
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    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.
    How is it not your fault? Your inaction is just as much as a choice you make, it does not change that fact that your decision changes the outcome of events.
    There is little legitimate philosophical distinction between your inaction and your action (I could frame this in other possible worlds, but I won't).

    Clearly, option b, probably I would justify on Utilitarian grounds, though there would be some form of virtue ethics based justification as well (it being virtuous to demonstrate compassion, by doing what you can to save life).
    Offline

    19
    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


    call me selfish but surely itd be manslaughter if not murder for killing the one person regardless of saving the others..dodge territory

    hence id have to leave it...saving myself and that wee boy..the rest were dying anyways p

    unfortunately the criminal still lives.wouldnt take the risk or my life could be in major jeopardy.

    again the only time id switch is if they were a close relative/friend
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by phil.stud)
    I'd appeal to the theory of moral obligations by proximity. Surely there's such thing?
    Singer would argue no, I would argue yes, Singer would argue I am justifying my laziness and that proximity shouldn't factor into the decision making process of a truly moral person, I would at that point shut up and cry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Ah thanks and you too!

    It does make you think. Wow, what he said is very true. That's actually very deep. I have more things to contemplate now!
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    #perksofbeinganethicsstudent
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    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.
    for me its more the fact its likely youll be heading to jail

    im usually the decent type..but I dont even know this people..not my palce to discriminate regardless if hes a well known criminal or not
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    call me selfish but surely itd be manslaughter if not murder for killing the one person regardless of saving the others..dodge territory

    hence id have to leave it...saving myself and that wee boy..the rest were dying anyways p

    unfortunately the criminal still lives.wouldnt take the risk or my life could be in major jeopardy.

    again the only time id switch is if they were a close relative/friend
    It's still manslaughter either way though. :/
    (Original post by DeclanCochran)
    #perksofbeinganethicsstudent
    I was wondering!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    for me its more the fact its likely youll be heading to jail

    im usually the decent type..but I dont even know this people..not my palce to discriminate regardless if hes a well known criminal or not
    I highly doubt you'll go to jail. No judge or jury will actually convict you for that.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Would a trolley really kill 5 people?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)


    I was wondering!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's funny because our ethics teacher was the most stereotypical, bearded, hippyish kinda guy who would always go "ethics is real, man", and we'd take the p!ss out of him for it, and now.. Ethics has become real
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joker12345)
    I highly doubt you'll go to jail. No judge or jury will actually convict you for that.
    youd be surprised....

    and yeh very well may

    details can get missed..especially if yeh killed the child

    jaysus thered be questions asked...jail sentence very very possible!

    even with the criminal thered be pressure to not treat the case differently as he wasnt a good person...a life is a life.

    in a car accident if you swerve out of a family car of 5 people and still kill one person yee still get in deep ****.

    so youre saving 6 lives not 5..and lets be honest yours truly is no.1

    not people I dont even know
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    It's still manslaughter either way though. :/


    I was wondering!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    its not

    if yeh did nothing its not your fault....

    if someone is dying on the street and you dont give cpr you dont get done for manslaughter

    prob get away with not ringing the ambulance too
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by That Bearded Man)
    Would a trolley really kill 5 people?
    Trolley= Train
    (Original post by DeclanCochran)
    It's funny because our ethics teacher was the most stereotypical, bearded, hippyish kinda guy who would always go "ethics is real, man", and we'd take the p!ss out of him for it, and now.. Ethics has become real
    Haha! Coincidental? :laugh:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by karmacrunch)
    Trolley= Train


    Haha! Coincidental? :laugh:

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Maybe XD then again, he'd probably argue that nothing in ethics is coincidental
    • Study Helper
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by trustmeimlying1)
    its not

    if yeh did nothing its not your fault....

    if someone is dying on the street and you dont give cpr you dont get done for manslaughter

    prob get away with not ringing the ambulance too
    But in a way you are allowing people to be killed. But that's not manslaughter agreed. :/

    Oh okay that makes sense.

    Really? So if you just walked away from it you wouldn't get into any trouble at all? (Not that I would, this is hypothetical anyway)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Makaveli_The_Don)
    If I would divert it, and one dies of it - I would be criminally liable. If I do nothing, I do not go to prison. I want to live my life so let the five day. Us humans are selfish.
    How would your decision change if you didn't have to consider the legal implications?
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.