I am finishing up an intro to ethics class and finding it fascinating, have decided to bring it to team liquid. This entry will talk about the trolley problem with variations. I will refrain from my opinions for now.
Now we all know the classic trolley problem. There is a trolley rolling uncontrollably down a track. It is headed straight for five individuals and will kill them if the trolley continues its course. Now you are right next to a lever. If you pull the lever, you will divert the track to another single person and will kill him instead. What do you do?
Of course, many people point out it depends on who those people are. If the five people were Hitler, Osama, Stalin, Kim Jong-Il, and Kony, I would probably let them die. But let us assume they are all anonymous people of equal value. it should seem straightforward, but many philosophers bring up the concept of killing vs. letting die. They claim that pulling the lever is actively killing someone while letting the trolley run is simply letting five people die. it is called the case of letting five die vs killing 1.
Poll: What would you do?
Pull the lever to kill the one person (22)
61%
Let the trolley kill the five people (14)
39%
36 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Let the trolley kill the five people (Vote): Pull the lever to kill the one person
Now here is another situation that brings up a better point of killing vs. letting die.
A recent crime has caused rioters to capture a group of five hostages. They will kill the hostages unless the perpetrator is given a trail and found guilty and consequentially, executed. However, no one knows who the perpetrator of the crime is, and as a result, the only way to satisfy the rioters is to put an innocent man on trial, ind him guilty, and kill him. What then?
Poll: What should the Judge do?
Let the rioters kill the five hostages (22)
76%
Frame and innocent person for the crime and have him executed (7)
24%
29 total votes
Your vote: What should the Judge do?
(Vote): Let the rioters kill the five hostages (Vote): Frame and innocent person for the crime and have him executed
This problem is a bit more questionable, at least to me. Another example of killing vs. letting die just to further emphasize the point.
You are on a footbridge over a track with an extremely large and fat man. there is a trolley coming down the track that will kill five unsuspecting people. If you push the man onto the track, he will due but will stop the trolley due to his mass.
Poll: What would you do?
Do nothing (20)
71%
Push the man onto the track (8)
29%
28 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Do nothing (Vote): Push the man onto the track
Now this one is a bit different. It involves what many consider killing five vs. killing one.
You are driving a runaway train. You can continue down the course and kill five or turn and kill one. What would you do?
Now I am actually going to bring up a third option, just to see if it changes anyone's reaction.
There is a trolley rolling uncontrollably down a track. It is headed straight for five individuals and will kill them if the trolley continues its course. Now you are right next to a lever. If you pull the lever, you will divert the track to another single person and will kill him instead. There is another lever though, that when pulled, will divert the trolley to you, and because of its speed, you cannot dodge and will die. What do you do?
Poll: What would you do?
Pull the lever to kill the one person (10)
43%
Do nothing (7)
30%
Pull the lever to kill you (6)
26%
23 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Do nothing (Vote): Pull the lever to kill the one person (Vote): Pull the lever to kill you
You are driving a runaway train. You can continue down the course and kill five or turn and kill one. Another option is you can turn another way and kill yourself What would you do?
Poll: What would you do?
Kill yourself (10)
48%
Kill one (8)
38%
Kill five (3)
14%
21 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Kill five (Vote): Kill one (Vote): Kill yourself
Now let us remove the second option
There is a trolley rolling uncontrollably down a track. It is headed straight for five individuals and will kill them if the trolley continues its course. Now you are right next to a lever. There is a lever though, that when pulled, will divert the trolley to you, and because of its speed, you cannot dodge and will die. What do you do?
Poll: What would you do?
Kill five (11)
58%
Kill yourself (6)
32%
Kill self (2)
11%
19 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Kill five (Vote): Kill self (Vote): Kill yourself
You are driving a runaway train. You can continue down the course and kill five or turn and kill yourself What would you do?
Poll: What would you do?
Kill five (8)
50%
Kill yourself (7)
44%
Kill self (1)
6%
16 total votes
Your vote: What would you do?
(Vote): Kill five (Vote): Kill self (Vote): Kill yourself
All of these are puzzling situations. The questions I bring are:
1. Is letting die better than killing? 2. Is killing yourself better than killing others or letting others die?
Below are a bunch of principles some philosophers came up with that are debatable.
Letting five Die Vs. Killing One Principle: One must let five die if saving them requires killing B.
Killing Five Vs. Killing One Principle: One must not kill five if he can instead kill one.
Third Principle: One must not kill someone to save five if he/she can instead kill themself to save the five.
Fourth Principle: One may let five die if the only permissible means he has of saving them is killing himself.
These are interesting moral questions. What would you do? Is there really a difference in the scenarios? Remember that all of the anonymous people are equal.
The way that I see it is: Self preservation > preservation of as many people as possible > preservation of the individual. Assuming that I do not know any of the people that are in danger and I face no consequences for my action.
On May 02 2012 06:37 Jinsho wrote: The only correct thing in all those questions is to never willingly kill another person including yourself.
Let the 5 people die. The trolley killed them. Whoever put them there killed them. Inaction can by definition never be a cause.
That's nonsense. It's not the moral course of action for a surgeon to refuse to do any surgery that has any chance of negatively impacting the patient. Whether inaction can never be a "cause" is something different, but inaction doesn't always imply moral correctness.
This is the sort of stuff I first did when starting ethics, this debate pretty much revolves around the idea of passivity vs activity. If people want a more realistic application to this question, euthanasia can often generate interesting discussion.
On May 02 2012 06:37 Jinsho wrote: The only correct thing in all those questions is to never willingly kill another person including yourself.
Let the 5 people die. The trolley killed them. Whoever put them there killed them. Inaction can by definition never be a cause.
I confess to almighty God and to you, my brothers and sisters, that I have greatly sinned, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my own fault, through my own most grievous fault;
I think many people will agree that failure to act is a choice, and therefore (paradoxically) a conscientious action.
I would choose killing one over letting one die.. Even if it wasn't my fault that the trolley was there I would feel obligated to choose the ''best'' way to handle the situation. Needs of the many outweigh the need of the few... However I wouldn't let myself die if there was no need.
These hypothetical scenarios seem unrealistic because of course I would push the one fat person in front of the track to save 5 people in theory, but if something like that was really happening how could I know that pushing someone else in front of the track won't just kill 6 people? I don't like unrealistic hypothetical scenarios like this.
But regardless, sitting by and watching 5 people die seems like it would cause more pain for me later than killing the one person.
I find the first three poll results very interesting. They all concern with them on the general level killing one person perhaps personally, or allowing five people to die. In the trolley question, many more people would be willing to allow the five people to die. However, for the judge question and the fat man question are much more in favor of allowing the five others to die. Perhaps there is something where the personal killing of the one person instead of pulling a lever that kills the one person changes opinions? I would love it if someone could tell my their reasonings on their choices.
These aren't "interesting moral questions" at all.
They're highly contrived and unrealistic situations, in which your decision would be based on factors not present in the information provided.
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
I feel that letting something bad happen is only slightly more moral then doing it yourself, and both take precedence to doing the least harm. Therefore, I would choose to kill 1 to save 5 in the first scenario. However, I'll straight come out and admit that I put self preservation and the preservation of those close to me at a much higher priority then those I don't know. So I would try to do the least harm in the following scenarios and kill only 1, but I would not kill myself.
On May 02 2012 10:00 omgimonfire15 wrote: I find the first three poll results very interesting. They all concern with them on the general level killing one person perhaps personally, or allowing five people to die. In the trolley question, many more people would be willing to allow the five people to die. However, for the judge question and the fat man question are much more in favor of allowing the five others to die. Perhaps there is something where the personal killing of the one person instead of pulling a lever that kills the one person changes opinions? I would love it if someone could tell my their reasonings on their choices.
These aren't "interesting moral questions" at all.
They're highly contrived and unrealistic situations, in which your decision would be based on factors not present in the information provided.
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
In one sense I agree. The "brain in a vat" philosophical dispute is not fueled by scores of philosophers who genuinely believe that you are a brain in a vat. It is fueled because the brain in a vat "problem" is a useful model for determining and drawing implications for what we mean by "proof". Likewise with the trolley example. That is, if we are going to say that one action in the trolley example is "right" then the example has served the purpose of clarifying, via a unrealistic example, what ethical rules lie at the heart of our decision making process. So, omgimonfire, I think that you are right to object to the argument that the trolley problem is worthless because it's unrealistic.
However, I also don't think that ethics proper can get you a solution to this problem. To me, the first question I ask in any discussion on ethics is not, "what action is the right action?" or "which moral code should I accept". The first question, to me, is "Why should I adopt any moral code?"
well, i would let the 5 people on the track die instead of killing the bystander.
basically my reasoning is that if 5 people are on a track, they put themselves at risk & are about to pay the price. the bystander has not put himself in danger, i see it as straight up evil if you kill him.
of course if i could prevent the whole situation, i would do so.
On May 02 2012 10:00 omgimonfire15 wrote: I find the first three poll results very interesting. They all concern with them on the general level killing one person perhaps personally, or allowing five people to die. In the trolley question, many more people would be willing to allow the five people to die. However, for the judge question and the fat man question are much more in favor of allowing the five others to die. Perhaps there is something where the personal killing of the one person instead of pulling a lever that kills the one person changes opinions? I would love it if someone could tell my their reasonings on their choices.
These aren't "interesting moral questions" at all.
They're highly contrived and unrealistic situations, in which your decision would be based on factors not present in the information provided.
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
In one sense I agree. The "brain in a vat" philosophical dispute is not fueled by scores of philosophers who genuinely believe that you are a brain in a vat. It is fueled because the brain in a vat "problem" is a useful model for determining and drawing implications for what we mean by "proof". Likewise with the trolley example. That is, if we are going to say that one action in the trolley example is "right" then the example has served the purpose of clarifying, via a unrealistic example, what ethical rules lie at the heart of our decision making process. So, omgimonfire, I think that you are right to object to the argument that the trolley problem is worthless because it's unrealistic.
However, I also don't think that ethics proper can get you a solution to this problem. To me, the first question I ask in any discussion on ethics is not, "what action is the right action?" or "which moral code should I accept". The first question, to me, is "Why should I adopt any moral code?"
Ayn Rand foolishly believed that she had overcome the is ought problem, but she didn't even come close. So much for that. At least Hegel's philosophy doesn't make that mistake.
On May 02 2012 10:00 omgimonfire15 wrote: I find the first three poll results very interesting. They all concern with them on the general level killing one person perhaps personally, or allowing five people to die. In the trolley question, many more people would be willing to allow the five people to die. However, for the judge question and the fat man question are much more in favor of allowing the five others to die. Perhaps there is something where the personal killing of the one person instead of pulling a lever that kills the one person changes opinions? I would love it if someone could tell my their reasonings on their choices.
These aren't "interesting moral questions" at all.
They're highly contrived and unrealistic situations, in which your decision would be based on factors not present in the information provided.
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
In one sense I agree. The "brain in a vat" philosophical dispute is not fueled by scores of philosophers who genuinely believe that you are a brain in a vat. It is fueled because the brain in a vat "problem" is a useful model for determining and drawing implications for what we mean by "proof". Likewise with the trolley example. That is, if we are going to say that one action in the trolley example is "right" then the example has served the purpose of clarifying, via a unrealistic example, what ethical rules lie at the heart of our decision making process. So, omgimonfire, I think that you are right to object to the argument that the trolley problem is worthless because it's unrealistic.
However, I also don't think that ethics proper can get you a solution to this problem. To me, the first question I ask in any discussion on ethics is not, "what action is the right action?" or "which moral code should I accept". The first question, to me, is "Why should I adopt any moral code?"
Ayn Rand foolishly believed that she had overcome the is ought problem, but she didn't even come close. So much for that. At least Hegel's philosophy doesn't make that mistake.
You should adopt a moral code if you want to.
Maybe she didn't. But could you present your argument for 1) what the is/ought argument is and 2) why the objectivist ethics doesn't "overcome" the obstacle and 3) why, even if it's true that the objectivist ethics doesn't "overcome" the is/ought distinction, why that should "matter"?
On May 02 2012 12:53 Kh0rne wrote: well, i would let the 5 people on the track die instead of killing the bystander.
basically my reasoning is that if 5 people are on a track, they put themselves at risk & are about to pay the price. the bystander has not put himself in danger, i see it as straight up evil if you kill him.
of course if i could prevent the whole situation, i would do so.
I don't think you can rationalise it like that, what happens if the 5 people were forced there but the 1 bystander simply walked onto the track?
It would be better to think of all things equal, either they all put themselves at risk or they were all forced into their current situation. Or just ignore that whole thought process and just take it for what it is, killing 5 vs killing 1.
These problems are given not to test rationalization, but to test consistency in the application of your moral philosophy of choice. The elephant in the room being that the layman will be highly inconsistent in his choices and the philosopher will stick to his guns regardless of the outcome.
This is one of the main reasons why philosophers were accused of practicing armchair philosophy and losing contact with reality, because they don't relate to normal people's responses that well.
Personally, I just wouldn't try assigning value to human lives in any of these scenarios and would just let things happen because I'm a disinterested mofo who does not want to get involved. If you try to argue the utilitarian way, there's too many variables you have to take into account, like the one individual (as opposed to the 5) being a scientist who will cure cancer or something preposterous like that. Yeah I would do nothing even if the fat guy were the one who tied the 5 people on the tracks.
While these exercises are interesting to get you thinking about different approaches to ethics and their consistency, the entire project is just full of silly highly constrained arguments in which real human courses of action are not included i.e. trying to stop the train to the fullest extent of your ability (after all you can't know for sure that it won't stop).
EPT
